Reading science: How a naive view of reading hinders so much else

Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education

Volumn 40, Issue , 2012, Pages 37-56

  Norris, Stephen P ^a   Phillips, Linda M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

High School Student; Prior Belief; Reading Comprehension; Reading Difficulty; Simple View

Indexed keywords

EID: 85101167980     PISSN: 18780482     EISSN: 18780784     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Applebee, A., Langer, J., & Mullis, E. (1987). The nation’s report card: Learning to be literate in America. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
2. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
3. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 403–428.
4. Beal, C. (1990). Development of knowledge about the role of inference in text comprehension. Child Development, 61, 1011–1023.
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17, 9–30.
6. Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: The development of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 501–526). Newark: International Reading Association.
7. Came, B. (1997). Mysterious moon. Maclean’s, 42–43.
8. Collins Block, C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford.
9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. (1980). Inference in text understanding. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 385–407). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
10. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education.
11. de Castell, S., Luke, A., & MacLennan, D. (1986). On defining literacy. In S. de Castell, A. Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 3–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Gaskins, I. W., Guthrie, J. T., Satlow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., & Connor, B. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1039–1056.
13. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057–1073.
14. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge: MIT Press.
15. Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reader-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877–893.
16. Israel, S. E., Collins Block, C., Bauserman, K. L., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
17. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
18. McDowell, J. (1992). Breakfast of champions. Equinox, 11(3), 17.
19. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future (The report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation). London: King’s College London.
20. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
21. New animal species found in Vietnam. (1992). The Evening Telegram, 12.
22. Norris, S. P. (1990). Effect of eliciting verbal reports of thinking on critical thinking test performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 41–58.
23. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teachers College Record, 89, 281–306.
24. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947–967.
25. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
26. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2008). Reading as inquiry. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 233–262). Rotterdam: Sense.
27. Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Park, J., & Pak, S. (1997). Students’ responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 57–67.
29. Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3, 415–436.
30. Phillips, L. M. (1988). Young readers’ inference strategies in reading comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 193–222.
31. Phillips, L. M. (2002). Making new and making do: Epistemological, normative and pragmatic bases of literacy. In D. R. Olson, D. Kamawar, & J. Brockmeier (Eds.), Literacy and conceptions of language and mind (pp. 283–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317–327.
33. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (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.
34. Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., & Norris, S. P. (2005). Commercial reading programs: What’s replacing narrative? In B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, & J. Worthy (Eds.), 54th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 286–300). Oak Creek: National Reading Conference.
35. Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 448–467.
36. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P. F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge: Harvard University.
37. Taylor, P. (1992). Researchers take theory on cow’s milk-diabetes link a step farther. Globe and Mail, A1, A5.
38. Torrance, N., & Olson, D. (1987). Development of the metalanguage and the acquisition of literacy: A progress report. Interchange, 18(1 & 2), 136–146.
39. Weinhouse, B. (1992). Weather can make you sick. Redbook, 24.