Disciplinary Literacies and Learning to Read for Understanding: A Conceptual Framework for Disciplinary Literacy

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 219-246

  Goldman, Susan R ^a   Britt, M Anne ^b   Brown, Willard ^c   Cribb, Gayle ^c   George, MariAnne ^a   Greenleaf, Cynthia ^c   Lee, Carol D ^d   Shanahan, Cynthia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WestEd   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965081963     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741     Document Type: Article

References (249)

1. N.M.Alozie,, E.B.Moje, & J.S.Krajcik, (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94, 395–427. doi:10.1002/sce.20365.
2. D.E.Alvermann,, & D.W.Moore, (1991). Secondary schools. In R.Barr, M.L.Kamil, P.B.Mosenthal, & P.D.Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951–983). New York, NY: Longman.
3. American College Testing. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author.
4. K.Ananiadou,, & M.Claro, (2009). 21st Century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.
5. C.Anderson,, K.Day,, R.Michie,, & D.Rollason, (2006). Engaging with historical source work: Practices, pedagogy, dialogue. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 5, 243–263.
6. T.Andrews,, & F.Burke, (2007). What does it mean to think historically? Perspectives, 45(1). Washington, DC: American Historical Association. Retrieved from http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2007/what-does-it-mean-to-think-historically
7. A.N.Applebee,, J.A.Langer,, M.Nystrand,, & A.Gamoran, (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730.
8. D.Appleman, (2000). Critical encounters in high school English: Teaching literary theory to adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9. R.Ashby,, P.J.Lee,, & D.Shemilt, (2005). Putting principles into practice: Teaching and planning. In M.S.Donovan & J.D.Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 79–178). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
10. R.B.Bain, (2005). They thought the world was flat? Applying the principles of how people learn in teaching high school history. In M.S.Donovan & J.D.Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 179–213). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
11. S.A.Barab, (2006). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for the learning sciences. In R.K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153–172). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12. C.Bazerman, (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific discourse. In E.J.Martin & R.Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 15–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
13. P.Bell,, & M.C.Linn, (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.
14. L.K.Berland,, & D.Hammer, (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 68–94. doi:10.1002/tea.20446
15. L.K.Berland,, & K.L.McNeill, (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765–793.
16. L.K.Berland,, & B.J.Reiser, (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55.
17. W.Booth, (1974). A rhetoric of irony. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. W.Booth, (1983). A rhetoric of fiction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19. J.L.G.Braasch,, J.F.Rouet,, N.Vibert,, & M.A.Britt, (2012). Readers' use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465.
20. M.Braaten,, & M.Windschitl, (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669.
21. I.Bråten,, M.A.Britt,, H.I.Strømsø,, & J.-F.Rouet, (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70.
22. I.Bråten,, H.I.Strømsø,, & M.A.Britt, (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6–28.
23. L.A.Bricker,, & P.Bell, (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498.
24. M.A.Britt,, & C.Aglinskas, (2002). Improving students' ability to use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.
25. M.A.Britt,, & J.-F.Rouet, (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M.J.Lawson & J.R.Kirby (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. R.Bromme,, & S.R.Goldman, (2014). The public's bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69.
27. A.Bryk,, L.Gomez,, P.LeMahieu,, & A.Grunow,, (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
28. E.H.Carr, (1987). What is history? (2nd ed.). London, UK: Penguin.
29. A.R.Cavagnetto, (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K −12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371.
30. G.N.Cervetti,, & J.Barber, (2008). Text in hands-on science. In E.H.Hiebert & M.Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 89–108). New York, NY: Guilford.
31. G.N.Cervetti,, J.Barber,, R.Dorph,, P.D.Pearson,, & P.Goldschmidt, (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 631–658.
32. L.G.Charap, (2015). Assessing historical thinking in the redesigned advanced placement United States history course and exam. In K.Ercikan & P.Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing historical thinking (pp. 159–170). New York, NY: Routledge.
33. E.L.Chiappetta,, & D.A.Fillman, (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1847–1868.
34. C.Chin,, & J.Osborne, (2012). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.
35. C.A.Chinn,, L.A.Buckland,, & A.Samarapungavan, (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167.
36. C.A.Chinn,, & B.A.Malhotra, (2002). Epistemologically authentic reasoning in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
37. P.Cobb,, J.Confrey,, A.diSessa,, R.Lehrer,, & L.Schauble, (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.
38. D.Cohen,, & H.C.Hill, (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39. College Board. (2009). Science college board standards for college success. New York, NY: The College Board.
40. R.G.Collingwoord, (1994). The idea of history. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1946)
41. T.Corcoran,, F.A.Mosher,, & A.Rogat, (2009, May). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (CPRE Research Report #RR-63). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
42. N.C.Coté,, & S.R.Goldman, (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In H.van Oostendorp & S.R.Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. N.C.Coté,, S.R.Goldman,, & E.U.Saul, (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.
44. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
45. G.Cribb,, C.Maglio,, S.Marple,, F.Reade,, & C.Greenleaf, (2015, April). Sharing the work: A teacher-researcher collaboration to develop resources and practices that promote historical reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
46. J.G.Cromley,, L.E.Snyder-Hogan,, & U.A.Luciw-Dubas, (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59–74.
47. S.De La Paz,. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139–156.
48. K.Dijkstra,, R.A.Zwaan,, A.C.Graesser,, & J.P.Magliano, (1995). Character and reader emotions in literary texts. Poetics, 23, 139–157.
49. P.Dixon,, & M.Bortolussi, (2009). Readers' knowledge of popular genres. Discourse Processes, 46, 541–571.
50. R.Driver,, P.Newton,, & J.Osborne, (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
51. R.A.Duschl, (2008). Quality of argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S.Erduran & M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
52. R.A.Duschl,, & J.Osborne, (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
53. S.Erduran,, S.Simon,, & J.Osborne, (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
54. N.Fabb, (1997). Linguistics and literature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
55. Z.Fang,, & M.J.Schleppegrell, (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 587–597.
56. M.J.Ford, (2012). Argumentation and learning. In N.Seel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 305–308). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
57. M.J.Ford,, & B.M.Wargo, (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96, 369–391. doi:10.1002/sce.20482
58. J.P.Gee,, (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. NY, NY: Bergin and Garvey.
59. C.Geisler, (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. R.J.Gerrig,, & G.McKoon, (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67–86.
61. S.Gevinson, (1990). The shape of literary understanding: A study of four expert readers reading three short stories (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
62. E.T.Goetz,, M.Sadoski,, A.OlivarezJr,, A.Calero-Breckheimer,, P.Garner,, & Z.Fatemi, (1992, October). The structure of emotional response in reading a literary text: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Reading Research Quarterly, October, 361–372.
63. S.R.Goldman, (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N.Shuart-Faris & D.Bloome (Eds), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313–47). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
64. S.R.Goldman, (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. Future of Children, 22, 89–116.
65. S.R.Goldman, (2015). Reading and the Web: Broadening the need for complex comprehension. In R.J.Spirom, M.DeSchryver, M.S.Hagerman, P.Morsink, & P.Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices (pp, 89–103). New York, NY: Routledge.
66. S.R.Goldman,, & G.L.Bisanz, (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. S.R.Goldman,, J.L.G.Braasch,, J.Wiley,, A.C.Graesser,, & K.Brodowinska, (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381.
68. S.R.Goldman,, K.A.Lawless,, J.W.Pellegrino,, J.L.G.Braasch,, F.H.Manning,, & K.Gomez, (2012). A technology for assessing multiple source comprehension: An Essential Skill of the 21st Century. In M.Mayrath, J.Clarke-Midura, & D.H.Robinson (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp. 171–207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
69. S.R.Goldman,, & C.D.Lee, (2014). Text complexity: State of the art and the conundrums it raises. Elementary School Journal, 115, 290–300.
70. S.R.Goldman,, R.Reyes,, & C.K.Varnhagen, (1984). Understanding fables in first and second languages. Journal of National Association for Bilingual Education, 3, 35–66.
71. S.R.Goldman,, & S.Scardamalia, (2013): Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities, Cognition & Instruction, 31, 255–269.
72. S.R.Goldman,, S.Varma,, & N.Coté, (1996). Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward “smarter” and flexible models of text comprehension. In B.K.Britton & A.C.Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 73–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. A.W.Gotwals,, N.B.Songer,, & L.Bullard, (2012). Assessing students' progressing abilities to construct scientific explanations. In A.C.Alonzo & A.W.Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 183–210). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
74. A.C.Graesser,, & D.S.McNamara, (2010). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1–27.
75. A.C.Graesser,, D.S.McNamara,, M.M.Louwerse,, & Z.Cai, (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.
76. B.Graves,, & C.H.Frederiksen, (1996). A cognitive study of literary expertise. In R.J.Kruez & M.S.MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 397–418). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
77. S.Greene, (1994). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29, 89–96.
78. C.Greenleaf,, W.Brown,, S.R.Goldman,, & M.L.Ko, (2013, December). READI for science: Promoting scientific literacy practices through text-based investigations for middle and high school science teachers and students. Paper presented at the Workshop on Literacy for Science, Washington, DC.
79. C.Greenleaf,, C.Litman,, T.Hanson,, R.Rosen,, C.K.Boscardin,, J.Herman,, S.Schneider,, & S.Madden,, & B.Jones, (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of Reading Apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 647–717.
80. C.Greenleaf,, & S.Valencia, (in press). Missing in action: Learning from texts in subject-matter classrooms. To appear in D.Appleman & K.Hinchman (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: A handbook of practice-based research. New York, NY: Guilford.
81. P.Griffin,, B.McGaw,, & E.Care, (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
82. P.Grossman, (2001). Research on the teaching of literature: Finding a place (4th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
83. P.Grossman,, P.Smagorinsky,, & S.Valencia, (1999) Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1–29.
84. P.Grossman,, S.Wineburg,, & S.Woolworth, (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. The Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.
85. L.R.Herrenkohl,, & L.Cornelius, (2013). Investigating elementary students' scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 413–461.
86. J.H.Hexler, (1971). The history primer. New York, NY: Basic Books
87. G.J.Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
88. G.Hillocks, (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York NY: Teachers College Press.
89. G.Hillocks, (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. NY, NY: Heinemann.
90. G.Hillocks, (2016). The territory of literature. English Education, 48, 109–126.
91. G.Hillocks,, & L.Ludlow, (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 7–24.
92. N.N.Holland, (1975). 5 readers reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
93. C.Hynd,, J.P.Holschuh,, & B.P.Hubbard, (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students' reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 141–176.
94. S.Hynds, (1989). Bringing life to literature and literature to life: Social constructs and contexts of four adolescent readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 30–61.
95. R.Jakobson, (1987). Language in literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. T.Janssen,, M.Braaksma,, & G.Rijlaarsdam, (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 35–52.
97. M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre, (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S.Erduran & M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
98. M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre,, A.Bugallo Rodríguez,, & R.A.Duschl, (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing the science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
99. G.J.Kelly,, S.Druker,, & C.Chen, (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849—-871.
100. S.C.Kerlin,, S.P.McDonald,, G.J.Kelly, (2010). Complexity of secondary scientific data sources and students' argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1207–1225.
101. W.Kintsch, (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
102. M.Ko,, S.R.Goldman,, J.R.Radinsky,, K.James,, A.Hall,, J.Popp,, M.Bolz,, M.George, (2016). Looking under the hood: Productive messiness in design for argumentation in science, literature and history. In V.Svhila & R.Reeve (Eds.), Design as scholarship: Case studies in the learning sciences (pp. 71–85). New York, NY: Routledge.
103. J.Krajcik,, B.Reiser,, L.Sutherland,, & D.Fortus, (2011). IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (middle school science curriculum materials). Greenwich, CT: Sangari Active Science.
104. G.Kress,, & T.Van Leeuwen, (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
105. D.Kuhn,, N.Zillmer,, A.Crowell,, & J.Zavala, (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 456–496.
106. J.A.Langer, (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
107. B.Latour,, & S.Woolgar, (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
108. J.Lave,, & E.Wenger, (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
109. C.D.Lee, (1995a). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students' skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–631.
110. C.D.Lee, (1995b). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 357–381.
111. C.D.Lee, (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 97–141.
112. C.D.Lee, (2007). Culture, literacy and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
113. C.D.Lee, (2011). Education and the study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, 49–58.
114. C.D.Lee,, & S.R.Goldman, (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: Text and task complexities. Theory into Practice, 54, 213–227.
115. C.D.Lee,, S.R.Goldman,, S.Levine,, & J.P.Magliano, (2016). Epistemic cognition in literary reasoning. In J.Green, W.Sandoval, & I.Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 165–183). New York, NY: Routledge.
116. C.D.Lee,, & A.Spratley, (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
117. P.J.Lee, (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In M.S.Donovan & J.D.Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 31–77). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
118. R.Lehrer, (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. American Psychologist, 64, 759–71.
119. G.Leinhardt, (1993). Weaving instructional explanations in history. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 46–74.
120. G.Leinhardt, (1997). Instructional explanations in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 221–232.
121. G.Leinhardt,, & A.Ravi, (2012). Changing historical conceptions of history. In S.Vosniadou (Eds.), Revised international handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 328–343). London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
122. G.Leinhardt,, C.Stainton,, & S.M.Virji, (1994). A sense of history. Educational Psychologist, 29, 79–88.
123. G.Leinhardt,, C.Stainton,, S.M.Virji,, & E.Odoroff, (1994). Learning to reason in history: Mindlessness to mindfulness. In M.Carretaro & J.Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 131–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
124. G.Leinhardt,, & K.M.Young (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 441–486.
125. J.L.Lemke, (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
126. J.L.Lemke, (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.
127. S.Levine,, & W.S.Horton, (2013). Using affective appraisal to help readers construct literary interpretations. Scientific Study of Literature, 3, 105–136.
128. L.S.Levstik,, & K.C.Barton, (2005). Doing History: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
129. M.C.Linn,, & B.-S.Eylon, (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
130. J.W.Loewen, (2013). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the tyranny of textbooks and get students excited about doing history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
131. S.J.Magnusson,, & A.S.Palincsar, (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand 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: Erlbaum.
132. E.Manz, (2012). Understanding the co-development of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96, 1071–1105.
133. R.A.Mar,, J.Peskin,, & K.Fong, (2011). Literary arts and the development of the life story. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 131, 73–84.
134. K.L.McNeill, (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268.
135. K.L.McNeill,, & J.Krajcik, (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
136. A.Megill, (1989). Recounting the past: “description,” explanation, and narrative in historiography. The American Historical Review, 94, 627–653.
137. D.S.Miall,, & D.Kuiken, (1994a). Beyond text theory: Understanding literary response. Discourse Processes, 17, 337–352.
138. D.S.Miall,, & D.Kuiken, (1994b). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407.
139. L.O.Mink, (1980). The theory of practice: Hexter's historiography. In B.Malament (Eds.), After the Reformation: Essays in honour of J.H. Hexter (pp. 3–23). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
140. R.J.Mislevy,, L.Steinberg,, & R.Almond, (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 1, 3–67.
141. E.B.Moje, (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
142. E.B.Moje, (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 254–278.
143. E.B.Moje,, & D.G.O'Brien, (2001). Constructions of literacy: Studies of teaching and learning in and out of secondary schools. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
144. C.Monte-Sano, (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers' practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1045–1079.
145. C.Monte-Sano,, & S.De La Paz,, (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents' historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273–299.
146. A.Munslow, (1997). Review of What Is History? [Review of the book What Is History? By E. H. Carr]. Theory and Practice (Review no. 41a). Retrieved from http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review41a
147. G.A.Myers, (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 3–17.
148. G.A.Myers, (1997). Words and pictures in a biology textbook. In T.Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 93–104). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.
149. J.L.Myers,, & E.J.O'Brien, (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.
150. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress (NCES 2009–479; Prepared by B. D. Rampey, G. S. Dion, & P. L. Donahue). Washington, DC: The National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
151. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Nation's Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences.
152. National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
153. D.J.Neumann, (2010). “What is the text doing?” Preparing pre-service teachers to teach primary sources effectively. History Teacher, 43, 489–511.
154. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
155. N.L.GroupNew London. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
156. J.D.Nokes,, J.A.Dole,, & D.J.Hacker, (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492–504.
157. S.P.Norris,, & L.M.Phillips, (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
158. S.P.Norris,, N.Stelnicki,, & G.de Vries, (2012). Teaching mathematical biology in high school using adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 42, 633–649.
159. J.Ogborn,, & P.Buckroyd, (2001). Satire. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
160. G.M.Olson,, S.A.Duffy,, & R.L.Mack, (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In D.E.Kieras & M.A.Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
161. Organization of Economic and Cultural Development. (2013a). PISA 2012: Results in focus. Paris, France: OECD.
162. Organization of Economic and Cultural Development. (2013b) PISA 2015 draft frameworks. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
163. J.F.Osborne, (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203–215.
164. C.M.Passmore,, & J.Svoboda, (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modeling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1535–1554.
165. R.J.Paxton, (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69, 315–339.
166. P.D.Pearson,, E.Moje,, & C.Greenleaf, (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
167. W.V.Peer, (1991). But what is literature? Toward a descriptive definition of literary texts. In R.D.Sell (Ed.), Literary pragmatics (pp. 127–141). London, UK: Routledge.
168. W.V.Peer,, J.Hakemulder,, & S.Zyngier, (2007). Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16, 197–213.
169. J.W.Pellegrino,, & M.L.Hilton, (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
170. C.A.Perfetti,, & M.A.Britt, (1995). Where do propositions come from? In C.A.WeaverIII, S.Mannes, & C.R.Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 11–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
171. C.A.Perfetti,, J.-F.Rouet,, & M.A.Britt, (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H.van Oostendorp & S.R.Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
172. J.Peskin, (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 235–263.
173. J.Peskin, (2010). The development of poetic literacy during the school years. Discoure Processes, 47, 77–103.
174. J.Peskin,, G.Allen,, & R.Wells-Jopling, (2010). The educated imagination: Applying instructional research to the teaching of symbolic interpretation of poetry. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 498–507.
175. A.R.Petrosky, (1976). The effects of reality perception and fantasy on response to literature: Two case studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 10, 239–258.
176. L.M.Phillips,, & S.P.Norris, (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39, 313–319.
177. W.J.Pluta,, C.A.Chinn,, & R.G.Duncan, (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486–511.
178. A.C.Purves,, & R.Beach, (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
179. P.J.Rabinowitz, (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
180. J.Radinsky,, K.Alamar,, & S.Oliva, (2010). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 619–642.
181. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
182. K.Rayner,, B.R.Foorman,, C.A.Perfetti,, D.Pesetsky,, & M.S.Seidenberg, (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286, 70–77.
183. A.Reisman, (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition & Instruction, 30, 86–112.
184. J.-F.Rouet, (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
185. J.-F.Rouet,, & M.A.Britt, (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M.T.McCrudden, J.P.Magliano, & G.Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
186. J.F.Rouet,, M.Favart,, M.A.Britt,, & C.A.Perfetti, (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.
187. F.Rutherford,, & A.Ahlgren, (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
188. S.Ryu,, & W.A.Sandoval, (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488–526.
189. T.D.Sadler,, & L.A.Donnelly, (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.
190. V.Sampson,, & D.Clark, (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.
191. W.A.Sandoval,, & K.A.Millwood, (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S.Erduran & M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 68–85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
192. M.J.Schleppegrell,, M.Achugar,, & T.Oteíza, (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67–93.
193. R.Schoenbach,, & C.Greenleaf, (2009). Fostering adolescents' engaged academic literacy. In L.Christenbury, R.Bomer, & P.Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 98–112). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
194. R.Scholes, (1985). Textual power, literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
195. T.Schreiner, (2014). Using historical knowledge to reason about contemporary political issues: An expert novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 314–352.
196. C.V.Schwarz,, B.J.Reiser,, A.Acher,, L.Kenyon,, & D.Fortus,, (2012). MoDeLS: Challenges in defining a learning progression for scientific modeling. In A.C.Alonzo & A.W.Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 101–137). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
197. P.Seixas, (1994). Students' understanding of historical significance. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22, 281–304.
198. P.Seixas, (2010). A modest proposal for change in Canadian history education. International Review of History Education, 6, 11–26.
199. P.Seixas,, L.Gibson,, & K.Ercikan, (2015). A design process for assessing historical thinking: The case of a one-hour test. In K.Ercikan & P.Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing historical thinking (pp. 102–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
200. C.Shanahan,, J.Heppler,, M.Manderino,, M.Bolz,, G.Cribb,, & S.R.Goldman, (2016). Deepening what it means to read (and write) like a historian: Progressions of instruction across a school year in an eleventh grade U.S. history class. The History Teacher, 49, 241–270.
201. C.Shanahan,, T.Shanahan,, & C.Misischia, (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.
202. T.Shanahan,, & C.Shanahan, (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.
203. L.Shepard,, J.Hannaway,, & E.E.Baker, E. Editors (2009). Standards, assessments, and accountability (Education Policy White Paper). Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
204. P.Smagorinsky,, & S.Gevinson, (1989). Fostering the reader's response: Rethinking the literature curriculum, grades 7–12. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.
205. P.Smagorinsky,, & M.W.Smith, (1992). The nature of knowledge in composition and literary understanding: The question of specificity. Review of Educational Research, 62, 279–305.
206. M.Smith, (1989). Teaching the interpretation of irony in poetry. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 254–272.
207. M.Smith, (1991). Understanding unreliable narrators: Reading between the lines in the literature classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
208. M.W.Smith,, & G.Hillocks, (1988). Sensible sequencing: Developing knowledge about literature text by text. The English Journal, 77, 44–49.
209. T.Sosa,, A.H.Hall,, S.R.Goldman,, & C.D.Lee, (2016). Developing symbolic interpretation through literary argumentation. Journal of Learning Sciences, 25, 93–113.
210. J.Squire, (1964). The responses of adolescents while reading four short stories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
211. M.Stadtler,, & R.Bromme, (2014). The content-source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D.N.Rapp & J.L.G.Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
212. S.A.Stahl,, C.R.Hynd,, B.K.Britton,, M.M.McNish,, & D.Bosquet, (1996). What happens when students read multiple documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430–456.
213. G.Steen, (1999). Genres of discourse and the definition of literature. Discourse Processes, 28, 109–120.
214. N.L.Stein,, & C.G.Glenn, (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R.O.Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
215. M.Stieff,, M.Hegarty,, & G.Deslongchamps, (2011). Coordinating multiple representations in scientific problem solving: Evidence from concurrent verbal and eye-tracking protocols. Cognition & Instruction, 29, 123–145.
216. R.Strang,, & C.Rogers, (1965). How do students read a short story? English Journal, 54, 819–829.
217. H.I.Strømsø,, I.Bråten,, & M.A.Britt, (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 192–204.
218. D.Suthers,, A.Weiner,, J.Connelly,, & M.Paolucci, (1995, August). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of AI-ED 95-7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (pp. 266–273). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
219. S.E.Toulmin, (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
220. E.E.Toth,, D.D.Suthers,, & A.M.Lesgold, (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286.
221. T.Trabasso,, & P.van den Broek, (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.
222. L.Unsworth, (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25, 62–77.
223. S.W.Valencia,, K.Wixson,, & P.D.Pearson, (2014). Putting text complexity in context: Refocusing on comprehension of complex text. Elementary School Journal, 115, 270–289.
224. B.VanSledright, (2002). Confronting history's interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Education Research Journal, 39, 1089–1115.
225. B.VanSledright, (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policies. New York, NY: Routledge.
226. B.VanSledright, (2012). Learning with history texts: Protocols for reading and practical strategies. In T.Jetton & C.Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy within disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 199–226). New York, NY: Guilford.
227. C.van Boxtel,, & J.van Drie, (2012). “That's in the time of the Romans?” Knowledge and strategies students use to contextualize historical images and documents. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 113–145.
228. P.van den Broek,. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.
229. P.van den Broek,, M.Young,, Y.Tzeng,, & T.Linderholm, (1999). The Landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H.van Oostendorp & S.R.Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
230. T.A.van Dijk,, & W.Kintsch, (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
231. C.von Aufschnaiter,, S.Erduran,, J.Osborne,, & S.Simon, (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131.
232. J.Voogt,, & N.Pareja Roblin, (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competencies: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 299–321.
233. J.F.Voss,, & J.Wiley, (2006). Expertise in history. In K.A.Ericsson (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 569–584). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
234. B.Waldrip,, V.Prain,, & J.Carolan, (2010). Using multimodal representations to improve learning in junior secondary acience. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80.
235. I.R.Weiss,, J.D.Pasley,, P.S.Smith,, E.R.Banilower,, D.J.Heck, (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
236. J.E.Wideman, (1998). damballah. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published 1981)
237. J.Wiley,, S.R.Goldman,, A.C.Graesser,, C.A.Sanchez,, I.K.Ash,, & J.A.Hemmerich, (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.
238. J.Wiley,, & J.F.Voss, (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.
239. M.Windschitl,, J.Thompson,, M.Braaten,, & D.Stroupe, (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903.
240. S.S.Wineburg, (1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.
241. S.S.Wineburg, (1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495–519.
242. S.S.Wineburg, (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319–346.
243. S.S.Wineburg, (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the Future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
244. M.B.Wolfe,, & S.R.Goldman, (2005). Relationships between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 467–502.
245. L.D.Yore,, G.L.Bisanz,, & B.M.Hand, (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.
246. K.M.Young,, & G.Leinhardt, (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15, 25–68.
247. R.B.Zajonc,, & H.Marcus, (1984). Affect and cognition. In C.E.Izard, J.Kagan, & R.B.Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition and behavior (pp. 73–102). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
248. C.M.Zeitz, (1994). Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 277–312.
249. R.A.Zwaan,, J.P.Magliano,, & A.C.Graesser, (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386–397.