Preview

Content Area Reading
and Learning:
Instructional Strategies
Third Edition
Edited by
Diane Lapp
San Diego State University
James Flood
Nancy Farnan
Routledgexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group Taylor & Francis Group
711 Third Avenue, dd 2 Park Square,
Nww York, NY 10017 fvvvvvvvMilton Park, Abingdon,
Oxfordshire OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business

First issued in hardback 2015
© 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Cover Design: Tomai Maridou
No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
Trademark Notice:
Product
identification and explanation or corporate
without intent tonames may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
infringe.
ISBN 978-0-8058-5205-9 (pbk)

ISBN 978-1-138-16913-5 (hbk)
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the LEA Web site at

http://www.erlbaum.com
Contents
Preface vii
PART I CONTENT AREA READING: AN OVERVIEW
Chapter 1 Content Area Reading: The Current State of the Art 3

Thomas W. Bean and Helen Harper
PART II THE TEACHER AND THE TEXT
Chapter 2 The Role of Textbooks and Tradebooks in Content Area Reading 19

Colleen M. Fairbanks, Nancy L. Roser, and Diane Lemonnier Schallert
Chapter 3 Matching Readers and Texts: The Continuing Quest 35

Bonnie B. Armbruster
PART III THE STUDENTS
Chapter 4 Why Content Area Literacy?: Focus on Students 55

Kerry McArthur, Terry Penland, Frank Spencer, and Patricia Anders
Chapter 5 The Students: Engaging Them All, Including Those Who Are Struggling
Toward Success as Content Area Readers 91
Thomas Gunning
Chapter 6 Engaging Students’ Interest and Participation in Learning 115

Brenda A. Shearer and Martha Rapp Ruddell
Chapter 7 Drawing on Youth Cultures in Content Learning and Literacy 133

LeeAnn M. Sutherland, Stergios Botzakis, Elizabeth Birr Moje,
and Donna E. Alvermann
Chapter 8 Making Content Area Instruction Comprehensible for English Language Learners 157
Georgia Earnest García and Mary V. Montavon
iii
PART IV THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
Chapter 9 The Content Area Teacher’s Instructional Role:

Moving Students Toward Strategic Independent Reading 175
Gay Ivey
Chapter 10 Literacy Demands for Employment: How Jobs Have Changed and What Teachers Can Do 187
Larry Mikulecky
Chapter 11 Facts that Matter: Teaching Students to Read Informational Text 209
Barbara Moss
Chapters 12 Teaching Secondary Science through Reading, Writing, Studying, and Problem Solving 237
Carol Santa, Lynn Havens, and Shirley Harrison
Chapter 13 Reading, Writing, and Mathematics: A Problem-solving Connection 257

Frances R. Curcio and Alice F. Artzt
Chapters 14 Empowering Readers of Social Studies 271

Emily M. Schell
Chapter 15 Understanding Literature: Reading in the English/Language Arts Classroom 303

Carol Jago
Chapter 16 The Arts and Literacy Across the Curriculum 327

Carole Cox
Chapter 17 Authentic Contexts for Developing Language Tools in Vocational Education 349
William G. Brozo
Chapter 18 Reading and Writing in Sports, Physical and Health Education 363
Lance Gentile and Verna McMillan
Chapter 19 Literacy and Technology Integration in the Content Areas 381

Dana L. Grisham and Thomas D. Wolsey
Chapter 20 Writing in the Disciplines: More Than Writing Across the Curriculum 403
Nancy Farnan and Leif Fearn
Chapter 21 Vocabulary Instruction in the Content Areas 425

Michael F. Graves and Wayne H. Slater
Chapter 22 Study Techniques that Ensure Content Area Reading Success 449
Donna M. Ogle
iv CONTENTS
Chapter 23 Using Concept Mapping as an Effective Strategy in Content Area Instruction 471
Robert Hoffman, Diane Lapp, and James Flood
Chapter 24 Using Questioning Strategies to Promote Students’ Active Discussion

and Comprehension of Content Area Material 487
Janice F. Almasi
Chapter 25 Multigenre Reading and Writing in the Content Areas 515

Linda Kucan
Chapters 26 Inquiry With and Through Literacies: Rethinking Our Destination and Journey 537
John F. O’Flahavan and Robert Tierney
Chapter 27 Reading Assessmment in the Content Areas 553

Robert Pritchard and Susan O’Hara
PART V SCHOOL CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
Chapters 28 It’s Hard to Learn When . . . Student Engagement in Middle

and High-School Classrooms 579
Nancy Frey and Douglas Fisher
Chapter 29 Creating Response-Centered Learning Environments: Using Authentic Texts

to Extend and Enrich the Curriculum 599
Maryann Mraz, Richard T. Vacca, and JoAnne L. Vacca
Chapter 30 Lesson Planning for Best Practices in the Content Areas 617
James Barton and Karen Wood
Author Index 635

Subject Index 645
CONTENTS v
Preface
Why a book about content area reading and literacy? We know that many teachers, regardless of
their grade level, see their instruction through the lens of their favorite content area. We believe
that content teachers should be highly qualified in a content area and committed to teaching stu-
dents that content, whether it be chemistry, government, physical education, music, mathematics,
art, or any other content area. We recognize that the various disciplines contain knowledge and
skills central to being an educated individual; we know they are critical to students’ future careers
and lives of meaningful work; and we know that teachers’ expertise provides a foundation for stu-
dent learning.
If content is central to a teachers’ work, and we believe it is, why are we talking about literacy
instruction? The answer is simple, and at the same time very complex. It’s simple because it can
be stated in a simple sentence: Literacy skills are necessary in order to be proficient at reading,
writing, or speaking about a particular area of content. The implementation is a bit more com-
plex. The complex mission of teachers is to ensure that their students learn content. It would be
difficult to mount an argument to the contrary. It’s what the students, parents, administrators,
and the general public expect. In order to ensure that students learn, teachers must do more than
present content. They must (a) engage students in the learning, (b) make the information com-
prehensible and accessible to their students, and (c) assess learning outcomes in order to know
what students learned—and what they have not yet learned. This information informs the next
steps in an instructional plan.
That is called teaching. Teaching and learning are not synonymous. In the absence of student
learning, teaching is just a series of activities, perhaps even adroitly executed, but a series of
decontextualized activities, nonetheless. Teachers ensure that their students learn. Teaching is not
learning; teaching is the vehicle. The focus is on student outcomes, student learning. That’s what
good teachers do, and that’s the answer to the why question posed in the first sentence of this
preface. In order to ensure student learning, teachers must be able to make their often complex
content comprehensible and accessible for all students, not just a few, not just those who already
have a strong interest or background in the content, not just those who are already motivated to
learn, not just those whose families because of their expertise can support the learning, but all
students. It is this premise that answers the why question.
In 2002, the RAND Reading Study Group (2002) published a report that stated, “one of
the nation’s highest priorities should be to define the instructional practices that generate long-
term improvements in learners’ comprehension capacities and thus promote learning across con-
tent areas” (p. xviii.). They based this conclusion on well-researched evidence, such as the fact
that literacy demands on high-school students and graduates are increasing in our fast-changing,
technological world. They based it on the fact that there exists an unacceptable achievement gap
vii
among various demographic groups, particularly minority and second-language children and ado-
lescents. In addition, they based it on the fact that rather than increasing, high-school students’ lit-
eracy skills actually decrease from elementary school, especially in high-poverty, urban settings.
This report lends its voice to answering the why question. In order to be literate and success-
ful in a content area, adolescents must be able to understand increasingly complex information in
often-complex texts. They must have literacy skills that extend beyond those they developed as
emerging readers and writers in elementary school, and it is the task of every content area teacher
to support development of these literacy skills. In the previous sentence, we have italicized the
word every for a reason. Our experience is that among content teachers there is a tendency to
think the English/language arts teacher is responsible for addressing students’ literacy needs.
That is a misconception. English/language arts teachers have content to teach, just as do mathe-
matics, music, and foreign language teachers. English teachers are no more equipped, by virtue
of being experts in their content areas than are other teachers in the area of content literacy.
Therefore, it is important to emphasize that this is the task of every teacher.
Each content teacher faces the challenge of making sure students learn. Unfortunately, in
addition to thinking that teaching literacy skills is not their job, content teachers often believe that
their students are not interested in their subject area, are not learning enough about it, and are
not reading the assigned material. Reasons for these concerns were studied in 1977, in “How
Content Teachers Telegraph Messages Against Readers” in The Journal of Reading, by B. J.
Rieck who reported the findings of a study in which English, science, social studies, mathemat-
ics, physical education, art, and home economics teachers participated. Although published
three decades ago, insights from this survey are reflective of concerns in many content area class-
rooms today. In his survey, Rieck asked teachers the following questions:
1. Do you require reading in your course?
97% responded yes, 3% responded no.
2. Do most of your students read their assignments?
58% responded yes, 42% responded no.
Rieck, in attempting to understand the why of these responses, further asked approximately
three hundred students from the 42% of teachers who responded no:
1. Do you like to read?
52% yes, 38% no, 4% no response.
2. Do you read your assignments in this class?
Isn’t this perplexing? Why do students who like to read not feel the need to read these assign-
ments?
3. Do your tests cover mainly lecture and discussion or reading assignments?
98% lecture and discussion, 2% reading.
Perhaps teacher behaviors are suggesting that there is no real need to learn from the textbook.
viii PREFACE
4. Are you required to discuss your reading assignments in this class?
If completion of the textbook assignments is not needed for success on tests or for classroom
discussion, students may not be motivated to read.
5. Does your teacher give you purpose for reading or are you only given the number of pages
to read?
95% pages, 5% purpose.
It appears that although teachers may want students to read textbooks, they do not know how
to integrate lecture, discussion, and textbook reading.
6. Does your teacher bring in outside material for you to read and recommend books of inter-
est for you to read?
5% yes, 95% no.
It seems that relationships between topics presented in content areas and real-world situa-
tions were not being modeled through experience that says, “Lifelong reading of expository
materials is important.”
7. Does your teacher like to read?
20% yes, 33% no, 47% don’t know.
Isn’t it interesting that although 52% of the students responded that they like to read, 80%
of them do not credit their teacher with being readers? And isn’t it interesting that after spending
approximately two hundred classroom hours together, it isn’t obvious to them that books are
important to their teachers?
Rieck (1977) concluded:
Out loud, teachers are saying: “I require reading in this course. All students are to read the assign-
ments. Students are to read X number or pages from the textbook.” However, their nonverbal atti-
tude says to students: “You really don’t have to read the assignments because you aren’t tested on
them and probably won’t have to discuss them. You should read X number of pages but there is no
real reason to do so. Reading really isn’t important. Outside reading is of little value in this class.
My students will have no way to tell whether or not I like to read.” (p. 647)
Although published three decades ago, we believe that insights from this survey are relevant
today. We propose that this attitude still prevails because the majority of content teachers receive
little if any instruction in how to integrate reading into their teaching plans. Many teachers
believe they must “cover their material,” and that covering the material is unrelated to good
instruction or to reading. Content teachers often feel that they are specialists and that heavy
reliance on the text somehow reduces their knowledge of the content area, or they assume that
their students automatically should know how to access information in content materials.
We agree that these teachers must be content area authorities, but they must be more than
that. They also must be able to use instructional strategies to ensure that all students learn content
PREFACE ix
area concepts and learn to apply these concepts to real-life situations. Where written materials
are involved, we believe that teachers, as instructional specialists, must know how to help stu-
dents use reading, speaking, and writing strategies to help them comprehend and learn.
ABOUT THIS BOOK

As were the previous editions of this book, this is a working textbook. It is designed to provide
readers with maximum interaction with the information and strategies presented in each chapter.
Each chapter begins with a graphic organizer because giving readers an overview of what to
expect in each chapter models the kind of instruction we expect from expert content teachers. We
can do no less than what authors of these chapters describe as central to effective teaching. Read-
ers can use the graphic organizers as a framework around which to begin construction of knowl-
edge on topics of literacy and learning across content areas.
In order to engage readers throughout, each chapter begins with a “Think Before Reading
Activity,” includes one or two “Think While Reading Activities,” and ends with a “Think
After Reading Activity.” Each type of activity is designed to assist readers to use these as cata-
lysts for thinking and discussion. The activities present questions and scenarios designed to inte-
grate students’ previous knowledge and experiences with their new learnings about issues related
to content area reading, literacy, and learning.
This text has been designed to provide content area teachers with strategies that will help
them teach their chosen fields of expertise. Part One, “Content Area Reading: An Overview,”
contains a chapter that provides a broad view of content area literacy, including a look into the
history of content area reading and insights into today’s state-of-the-art perspectives.
Part Two, “The Teacher and the Text,” contains two chapters that explain the need for con-
tent teachers to understand text-related strategies that will make their roles as teachers of a partic-
ular discipline more effective. Also explained in this section is the complexity of the structure of
content area textbooks and how to match readers with texts.
Part Three, “The Students,” contains five chapters that illustrate the emotional, cognitive,
and psychological development of the adolescent. Also emphasized are the ways in which adoles-
cents learn and the culture in which they live.
Part Four, “The Instructional Program,” contains nineteen chapters that provide instruc-
tional examples and strategies for teaching all of the content areas. Also included in this section
are chapters that explain how to use literature to introduce and expand content area reading; how
to integrate reading, writing, and thinking strategies throughout content area subjects; and how
to use computers effectively in content are classes.
Finally, Part Five, “School Culture and Environment,” contains three chapters that address
curricular issues as they relate to classroom management, cooperative grouping, motivation and
engagement, and assessment. Also included are examples of exemplary content classrooms and
programs.
NEW IN THIRD EDITION

This edition of Content Area Reading and Learning: Instructional Strategies provides classroom
practices that will enable all content teachers to do an even better job of bringing the joy and
x PREFACE
importance of their subject to students. It offers specific ideas to help teachers ensure that their
students develop both content concepts and strategies for independent learning. In addition, this
edition differs from previous editions in noteworthy ways, providing explicit focus on the following:
I The latest information on literacy strategies in every content area.
I Research-based strategies for teaching students to read informational texts.
I The latest information for differentiating instruction for English speaking and non-English-
speaking students.
I An examination of youth culture and the role it plays in student learning.
I A look at authentic learning in contexts related to the world of work.
I Ways of using technology and media literacy to support content learning.
I Ways of using writing in every content area to enhance student learning.
I
Ideas for using multiple texts for learning content.
I
A focus on the assessment-instruction connection.
I Strategies for engaging and motivating students.
The overarching goal of this text is to help content area specialists model, through excellent
instruction, the importance of lifelong content area learning which is the bases of knowledge they
will draw on throughout their daily lives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The editors would like to acknowledge the excellent contributions made to this text by all the
authors. In addition, we would like to thank Dr. Linda Lungren, San Diego Unified School Dis-
trict who helped in many ways with the development of this text. A special thanks to Naomi Silver-
man, our editor and to all of you and to every other teacher or professor who has attempted to
address content area reading and language arts issues—we applaud you! As you read this edition,
we’d love to hear your suggestions about how to make the 4th edition even more helpful to you.
Sincerely,
D. Lapp, J. Flood and N. Farnan
REFERENCES
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading compre-
hension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education, Science Technology Policy Institute.
Rieck, B.J. (1977). How content teachers telegraph messages against readers. The Journal of Reading, 2,
646–648.
PREFACE xi
PART
One
Content Area Reading:
An Overview
I I I I I
CHAPTER
1
Content Area Reading:
Current State of the Art
Thomas W. Bean & Helen J. Harper
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Content Area
Reading: Current
State of the
Art
Historical Adolescent
Perspective Literacy
Guiding Content Future

Area Learning Directions
3
T h i n k b a c k t o y o u r h i g h s c h o o l c l a s s e s . W e r e t e x t b o o k s u s e d e x t e n-
sively in your classes? What strategies or activities, if any, did
your teachers use to help you read and understand your textbooks?
If your college professors taught you additional studying and reading strate-
gies or activities, jot down what they were.
CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART

Content area reading, the process of guiding students’ comprehension of
challenging texts and supplemental materials in history, English, science,
and other subject areas, continues to evolve. Initially, educators were con-
cerned with improving students’ reading of print material, with determining
and improving the readability of textbooks, and with developing effective
strategies for content area subjects. These three concerns remain important,
but contemporary times have brought greater diversity and complexity to our
notions of reading, text, and student. For example, while traditional texts
may continue to play a prominent role in students’ concept learning, elec-
tronic texts and other forms of media support and, in some cases, supplant
traditional textbooks. Moreover, students may be more fluid and sophisti-
cated users of these new forms than their teachers. At the same time, we
know that many students continue to struggle with their reading of print
material (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 2004). Indeed, statistics show that
more than half of the students entering high school in the largest 35 cities in
the United States read at the sixth-grade level (Vacca, 2002). Content area
reading has responded to both these conditions and to ongoing educational
research and scholarship. In this chapter, as a means of more fully under-
standing the current state of the field, we will (a) briefly trace the historical
development of content area reading; (b) address a number of key issues and
4 BEAN AND HARPER

developments that have emerged concerning, in particular, adolescent litera-
cies; (c) outline current approaches to guiding students’ reading; and, (d)
consider the future of content area reading in these “new and newer times.”
CONTENT AREA READING: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Challenging expository books are certainly not a recent phenomenon, as any-
one reading ancient or antiquated texts will attest. Throughout time, there
have been important and challenging texts, but at least historically, the avail-
ability of such books, and more particularly textbooks of any kind, has been
limited. For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, textbooks in science and his-
tory were available only to the aristocracy (Manguel, 1996). Evidently, in
medieval times, books were chained to library shelves (Boorstin, 1983).
Until the Reformation, religious texts were not available to common folk.
Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1454 greatly increased public
access to a wide and increasing range of affordable books. Books, bookstores,
and public libraries are now common in many parts of the world. In the 21st
century, open access to a vast repository of knowledge via the Internet has the
potential to increase public access to a wide range of material across the
globe (Willinsky, 2000). But access to books and the material now available
by way of emerging technologies still requires literacy and, with complex
material, sophisticated reading skills and study strategies.
Until the last century, those individuals who could read and access chal-
lenging books and textbooks struggled alone or without formal pedagogical
support. In 19th- and early 20th-century America, reading in content areas
consisted mostly of memorizing and reciting important text passages (Moore,
Readence, & Rickleman, 1983). Little attention was paid to improving
comprehension or to supporting the reader, but change was underway. With
increasing numbers of students attending high school and increasing evi-
dence that many students were poor readers, educational leaders in the
1920s and 1930s began to attend to reading and to reading in the content
areas. The Twenty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education provides an early glimpse into what would become content area
reading. In this yearbook, William S. Gray noted
As a means of gaining information and pleasure, it [reading] is essential in
every content subject, such as history, geography, arithmetic, science, and
literature. In fact, rapid progress in these subjects depends in a large
degree on the ability of pupils to read independently and intelligently. It
follows that good teaching must provide for the improvement and refine-
ment of the reading attitudes, habits, and skills that are needed in all school
activities involving reading. (Whipple, 1925, p. 1-2)
Despite this acknowledgement of the importance of subject area reading
skill, the preparation of teachers for such responsibility was slow in coming.
CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 5

Initially, teachers had very little university education, let alone reading cre-
dentials. In 1920, for example, not one state demanded an undergraduate
degree of elementary school teachers, and only 10 states required secondary
teachers to hold undergraduate degrees. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1974 that all
states required bachelor’s degrees of their teachers (Olson & Dishner,
1996). The movement that provided the greatest impetus for teacher prepa-
ration in content area reading began, in earnest, in the late 1950s and early
1960s with the launch of Sputnik and the ensuing fears of Russian educa-
tional and scientific superiority. By the 1970s, Harold Herber’s (1970)
landmark text, Teaching reading in the content areas, became required read-
ing in many education faculties. This book ultimately spawned a wide array
of available texts for content area reading courses, now numbering well over
20 major texts including expanded views of content area reading at the ele-
mentary level (Alvermann, Swafford, & Montero, 2004).
Certification requirements for content-area teachers have increased
steadily since the 1960s. In the mid 1980s, 32 states required a course in
reading for prospective secondary teachers (Farrell & Cirrincione, 1986).
However, by 1990, only 29 states retained this requirement. In some cases,
reading courses have been subsumed by other courses or modified by pro-
gram innovations, such as online courses. In some programs, preservice
teachers explore content area reading strategies in modules in field-based
professional development school sites. Nonetheless, importance is still
attached to content area reading. The No Child Left Behind Act mandates
performance certification standards for secondary teachers that require evi-
dence of content area preparation in the chosen teaching field (Baldwin,
Jot down the associations you have when you hear the words
teenager and adolescent. List literacy events that you think might
engage teenagers in and out of school. When you are done reading
this section, return to your notes on this page and see if these
impressions hold true.
6 BEAN AND HARPER

Readence, & Bean, 2004). Granted, these policy and program changes and
related high stakes assessments are controversial, but the need for subject
area teachers’ understanding of content area reading continues to be crucial.
Reading-to-learn remains an important aspect of school success. Coupled
with recent developments in adolescent literacy and multiple literacies taken
up in the next section, we see a continuing need for content-area teachers to
acquire a well-developed understanding of how to guide students’ reading of
complex texts in the content areas.
ADOLESCENT LITERACY AND CONTENT AREA READING

Content area learning is now informed by a broad array of research that
looks beyond the classroom to adolescents’ out-of-school identities and litera-
cies. It has become evident that many teens have richer, more complex literate
lives than is apparent in school settings (Bean & Harper, 2004; Flores-Gon-
zalez, 2002; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). Moreover, we know that a host of
sociocultural dimensions influence content area learning, including the role
of second language learning for many of our students. Certainly we know
today that in every respect, adolescents are a highly diverse group. For exam-
ple, we know that visible minority students are growing in number. In the
United States, for example, it is estimated that one child in every four will be
Hispanic by the year 2020 (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 2004). Children
and teenagers are now forming an increasing number of the homeless, and in
America, the wealthiest country in the world, as many as 13.3 million chil-
dren are living in poverty (Giroux, 2003). We know that gender continues to
determine and limit life opportunities. We are learning that teens’ sexual ori-
entation cannot be assumed. We know that many of our students speak Eng-
lish as a second language and that many of these students will not finish high
school. According to Garcia and Godina (2004), 44% of the students who
did not complete high school were English language learners with limited
English proficiency.
Developmental stage theories of adolescence do not capture the diversity
of adolescence or adolescent life. A growing number of researchers argue
that youth are complex, enacting multiple identities in varying social con-
texts, including school. “Youth are simultaneously young and old, learning
and learned, working and in school” (Lesko, 2001, p. 197). Adolescents
often have wide-ranging interests that involve content learning in and out of
school. But more often than not, there is a deep disconnect between students
out-of-school literacy lives and the tasks they are asked to perform in school
(Alvermann, 2002; Flores-Gonzalez, 2002; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). For
example, a student who has a profound interest in surfing may keep an elab-
orate daily diary, accounting for weather and surf conditions, as well as com-
petitive strategies for surf contests. This same student may be marginalized
as a “surfer dude” in school where writing tasks are sometimes isolated and

unrelated to real or authentic purposes. This disparity between in-school and
out-of-school literate identities has now been well documented (Hinchman,
Alvermann, Boyd, Brozo, & Vacca, 2004; Moje, 2002). In many ways,
adolescents are shape-shifting and evolving while the infrastructure of the
high school and content area classroom has remained comparatively static.
More and more it appears that adolescents function in a world of rapid idea
transmission where former space and time constraints are compressed (Luke
& Elkins, 1998). On the Internet, students can converse in real time with
others across the globe. But the instantaneous information channels typical
of Internet and television co-exist with more static and traditional forms of
discourse including textbooks, magazines, newspapers, and other print-based
texts. Thus, contemporary adolescents need both text reading strategies and
selective, critical literacy to function as astute global citizens and informed
consumers of information and goods.
In addition, the nature of work and labor is changing or will be changing
rapidly for teens. Elkins and Luke (1999) noted, “The capacity to handle,
manipulate, control, and work with text and discourses—in print, verbal, visual,
and multimedia forms—is increasingly replacing the capacity to work with our
hands as our primary mode of production” (p. 213). This new text world often
consists of sites on the Internet that are in a constant state of flux or continually
under construction. More staid and static classroom texts, once familiar to baby-
boom students, must appear as curious historical artifacts to today’s adolescents.
Youth, at least financially privileged youth, are now adroitly manipulating a
wide range of communication tools including cell phones, instant messaging,
pagers, Internet Web sites, wireless communication, vast music storage devices,
and so on. In that sense, their out-of-school communication skills are well honed,
making them highly competent. Indeed, their out-of-school competence often
contrasts markedly with feelings of incompetence when confronted with more
traditional forms of text (Hinchman et al., 2004).
Whether a teen is a sophisticated user of technology or not, teachers who
take an obvious interest in students’ out-of-school lives, including hobbies
and athletic pursuits, when designing lessons invite personal connections to
concepts that can strengthen content area learning (Hinchman, et al.,
2004). It is an astute teacher who can bridge adolescents’ in-school and out-
of-school literacies with an eye to increasing content area learning.
With this in mind, the International Reading Association’s Commission
on Adolescent Literacy developed a position paper highlighting seven key
principles (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999). This widely circu-
lated document argues, among other things, that adolescents deserve
I Access to a wide variety of reading material that they can and want to
read
I Instruction that builds both the skill and the desire to read increasingly
complex materials
8 BEAN AND HARPER

I Expert teachers who model and provide explicit instruction in reading
comprehension and study strategies across the curriculum
I Teachers who understand the complexities of individual adolescent
readers, respect their differences, and respond to their characteristics
Clearly, conventional notions of text, teens, and teaching must change to
meet the challenges of 21st century and 21st-century content area reading. At
the very least, it has become evident that the more traditional emphases on
content area reading strategies, decontextualized and text-centered as they
have been, are simply not enough.
In the section that follows, we consider some of the issues surrounding
strategy instruction aimed at guiding students’ content area learning. In par-
ticular, we consider work aimed at engaging students in the reading, critique,
and synthesis of multiple texts spanning in- and out-of-school reading.
T h i n k o f t h e a d o l e s c e n t s y o u k n o w a n d t h e v a r i o u s f o r m s o f m u l t i-
media texts they work with in and out of school. List some of these
contemporary, electronic forms of text, and list some ways you
m i g h t h e l p s t u d e n t s c r i t i q u e t h i s v a s t a r r a y o f a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a-
tion. See if your ideas link with those offered in the section that
follows.
GUIDING CONTENT AREA LEARNING

One of the implications of a more nuanced view of content area literacy
residing under the broader umbrella of adolescent literacy is its challenge to
simple, prescriptive lists of reading strategies (Stevens, 2002). The center of
attention has now shifted from text to adolescent reader. While we agree with
this more contextualized and sociological approach to thinking about content

area teaching, we also recognize that we cannot lose sight of the text. That is,
there remains a need to guide content area learning and to develop students’
independent use of metacognitive strategies, along with, we would add, a
predisposition to critique all forms of discourse. Thus, there remains a need
to engage students in productive, content area reading strategies. The ques-
tion is, given the vast array of print and media discourse students now must
address, and in light of the complex and diverse lives of adolescents, what are
some of the more productive strategies content teachers might use?
Hinchman et al. (2004) see a need for efficient search and selection
strategies along with more traditional metacognitive mainstays like the
graphic organizer at the beginning of this chapter and self-questioning. They
suggest teaching question generation in conjunction with learning activities
like WebQuests and project-based inquiry. Indeed, any model whereby
teachers gradually release responsibility to the students, where content teach-
ers model, think aloud, and ultimately provide scaffolding and guided prac-
tice will help students move toward independent reading and evaluation of
various texts used in and out of school.
More generally, innovative, influential content area teaching is character-
ized by student-centered, problem-based classrooms and student inquiry
(Sturtevant & Linek, 2003). Interdisciplinary learning and the power of
technology are key elements tapped by good content-area teachers. For exam-
ple, one astute technology teacher working with seventh graders engaged
them in designing toys on computers and then creating the toys in woodshop.
Through an interdisciplinary unit with social studies and art, these students
recreated a 19th-century sweatshop to create the toys and understand condi-
tions of the industrial revolution. Explicit and implicit reading lessons were
an inherent part of this project (Sturtevant & Linek, 2003).
Some recent research aimed at exploring how content teachers and stu-
dents can bridge in- and out-of-school reading using multiple texts shows the
promise of this approach versus more traditional, single-text teaching (e.g.
Behrman, 2003; Walker & Bean, 2004). In one study, Behrman explored a
school-to-workplace application of biology knowledge with a diverse group of
18 high school students in a six-week biology course in southern California.
Students were given a scenario describing a murder and the crime scene
investigation using the techniques of DNA analysis. Students were linked to
workplace mentors including an attorney and a forensic biologist with signif-
icant knowledge of DNA evidence. The project relied on student-selected
texts as opposed to a single biology text. Behrman carried out a case study
aimed at evaluating the impact of this multiple text curricular design. Taking
a sociocultural stance toward content learning and adolescent literacy,
Behrman sought to explore the relationship between in- and out-of-school lit-
eracies. He noted, “The task challenging literacy theorists, researchers, and
10 BEAN AND HARPER

policy makers is to find the nexus between adolescents’ multiple literacies in
and out of school with advanced content learning in secondary-school class-
rooms” (Behrman, 2003, p. 5). One way to meet this challenge is to engage
students in project-based learning in real-world community problems.
In this particular community-based biology course, students met initially
in their biology classroom to prepare for their workplace visit and on-the-job
problem solving (Behrman, 2003). Problems such as the DNA investiga-
tion of a murder formed the core curriculum to be explored through multiple
texts. Other biology-related problems included water quality, ecology, and
plant parasites. With no required textbook for the course, students were free
to self-select from an array of texts, including the Internet. Data collection
included classroom and workplace observations, student and teacher inter-
views, and artifacts including student work products and survey data. Texts
used in the project included PowerPoint presentations, videos, CD-ROMs,
lectures, and interviews in the workplace sites. In addition, reading sources
included workplace documents, Web sites, school library books, books at
workplace libraries, references, and online encyclopedias. Initially, the
teacher structured early experiences but gradually converted the class struc-
ture to a more student-controlled, inquiry-based environment. “Students began
to recognize that expertise could be found in a number of places, such as the
workplace and work-related websites” (Behrman, 2003, p. 13). As a result,
they became less dependent on their teacher as the source of all knowledge.
Case studies of various students in this project showed that they valued
problem-based, workplace-centered learning over using a single text in a tra-
ditional biology classroom. They noted that texts are typically shallow sur-
veys of topics and that human and electronic resources were up-to-date and
comprehensive. Nevertheless, some students had difficulty moving out of the
“look up the answer in the text” mode of learning they were accustomed to.
A text offered a comfort zone for these students—a convenient place to
locate information. In summary, from this study emerged three major themes
that suggest the value of linking in- and out-of-school reading. First, oral
communication with experts in DNA and in other biology topics offered a rich
source of problem-based discourse. Second, students preferred the wider array
of information on the Internet over more limited print sources. And, third,
these students queried their classroom biology teacher regularly about project-
specific information, suggesting that more traditional classroom participation
structures that are often overly teacher-centered were expanded in this model.
Walker and Bean (2004) have been conducting a series of studies aimed
at understanding content-area teachers’ use of multiple texts in science, Eng-
lish, economics, history, and other content areas. For example, Maria, an
innovative eighth-grade physics teacher engages students in creating their
own roller coasters. To design their roller coasters, students consult a variety

of texts including the Internet, Web-site articles, and newspapers. The sce-
nario for this project involves resurrecting a financially troubled theme park
by adding a thrilling roller coaster designed to attract people back to the
park. In order to design their roller coasters, students must learn key physics
principles related to gravitational energy, momentum, and potential energy.
Student small group problem-solving roles include a researcher, an engineer,
a public relations director, and an architect. Maria’s rationale for this project
is based on a need to make physics interesting, as well as a need to help stu-
dents learn to read multiple expository texts effectively.
Each of these classroom descriptions depict powerful, exciting problem-
based teaching where the narrow concept of what constitutes texts in the con-
tent areas has been challenged. Nevertheless, we do not believe that these
cases represent the norm at this point in time. It is still possible to find many
content area classrooms where resistance to using multiple texts and content
area strategies reigns (Bean, 2000; O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R., & Moje,
E. B., 1995). This is indeed unfortunate as an increasing number of adoles-
cents are opting out of high school to seek work or complete their diploma
requirements elsewhere (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Flores-Gonzalez,
2002). Thus, in the last section of this chapter we want to take up what we
think are some critical future directions for content area literacy in a global
context where texts of all kinds may take on greater influence in our lives.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN CONTENT AREA LITERACY

We believe three important themes emerge from any analysis of adolescent
learners in contemporary social contexts and in the related functions and future
of literacy, in this case, content area literacy. First, older work introducing pre-
service and in-service teachers to content area reading strategies as the vehicle
for learning concepts in science, math, history, English, and other subject area
domains has shifted in recognition of sociocultural accounts of adolescents and
their multiple literacies. This is not to say that powerful vocabulary and com-
prehension strategies are no longer useful, but they must be applied to a
broader constellation of texts that includes in- and out-of-school discourse. Sec-
ondly, multiple texts from the Internet, media sources, pop culture, teen maga-
zines, young adult novels, graphic novels, music, and newer, yet-to-emerge
forms of text should be part and parcel of content area literacy. Third, given the
increasing access and availability of huge volumes of information on the Inter-
net and in other print-based sources including textbooks, there is a concomitant
need to help adolescents develop their critical literacies. Elkins and Luke
(1999) argued that “Adolescents need to be taught how to second-guess,
analyse and weigh, critique and rewrite texts, not just of literary culture, but of
popular culture, online culture, corporate life, and citizenship” (p. 215).
12 BEAN AND HARPER

In our view, this means approaching all text forms as non-neutral, politi-
cized territory where authors have tacit or overt ideological positions that
should be critiqued and reflected upon. Thus, the strategies we advocate
include traditional text processing devices, like graphic organizers, as a foun-
dational bridge to careful critique and deconstruction of the ideas, ideologi-
cal position, and truth-value evident in text.
I The nature of questions teachers and students pose serves as a spring-
board for critical literacy. For example, in a social studies class where
international issues related to military coups are taken up, a young
adult novel like The Other Side of Truth (Naidoo, 2000) offers a
contemporary look at issues of freedom and democracy in action.
Indeed, the text troubles simplistic notions of freedom. The adolescent
protagonist, Sade, flees to London, England, freeing herself from a
Nigerian military coup that killed her mother. She is tormented by
racist attitudes outside of Nigeria and by the imprisonment of her jour-
nalist dad for protesting Nigeria’s military rule. Critical questions can
explore power relations and notions of freedom and democracy in this
novel.
I What is the difference between democracy and military dictatorship
according to this novel? What is the difference according to your text-
book? To what extent was Sade free in Britain? What needs to be done
to secure freedom in Nigeria, and greater freedom in Britain? If Sade
escaped to America instead of Britain, how would the story be differ-
ent? What freedoms exist in America? What needs to be done to
secure greater freedom here?
I How would the Nigerian press write up the story of Sade’s father?
How would the British press? How would Sade? Who wrote this
novel? Who wrote your textbook?
Critical literacy creates a space to critique mainstream ideological and politi-
cal practices that impact adolescents and others daily by considering domi-
nant social practices, power, and oppression related to race, class, and gen-
der (Rogers, 2002). As we have suggested earlier, making intertextual
connections between multiple text forms, as well as connections to students’
out-of-school literacies, will go a long way toward reducing the disjuncture
between adolescents’ in- and out-of-school lives. But for this critical space to
work, it means moving beyond older discipline subcultures and traditional
single-text approaches. In our opinion, such a move is long overdue and, if
not undertaken, adolescents will continue to opt out of school actually and
metaphysically for other life pathways. Thus, in summary, we see the future
of content area literacy shifting its shape to center attention on the adoles-
cent, the text, and the world rather than just the text.

If you could speak to one of your former content-area teachers,
what would you relate to her or him about the ideas you read in
this chapter? What ideas do you now have for content area reading
in your area of specialization?
REFERENCES
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34, 189–208.
Alvermann, D. E., Swafford, J., & Montero, M. K. (2004). Content area literacy instruc-
tion for the elementary grades. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on student
motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–46.
Baldwin, R. S., Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W. (2004). Targeted reading: Improving
achievement in middle and secondary grades. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bean, T. W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In M.
L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research: Volume III (pp. 629–644). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bean, T.W., & Harper, H. J. (2004). Teacher education and adolescent literacy. In T. L.
Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 392–411).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Bean, T. W., & Harper, H. J. (2004, March). Notions of freedom in young adult multicul-
tural novels. Paper presented at the Comparative and International Society conference,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Behrman, E. H. (2003). Reconciling content literacy with adolescent literacy: Expand-
ingliteracy opportunities in a community-focused biology class. Reading Researchand
Instruction, 43(1), 1–30.
Boorstin, D. J. (1983). The discoverers. New York: Random House.
Elkins, J., & Luke, A. (1999). Redefining adolescent literacies. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 43(3), 212–215.
Farrell, R. J., & Cirrincione, J. M. (1986). State certification requirements in reading for
content-area teachers. Journal of Reading, 28, 152–158.
Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in Latinostudents.
New York: Teachers College Press.
14 BEAN AND HARPER

Garcia, G. E., & Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy needs of adolescent English
Language learners. In T. L. Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research
and practice (pp. 304–320). New York: The Guilford Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy beyond the culture of fear.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Hinchman, K. A., Alvermann, D. E., Boyd, F. B., Brozo, W. G., & Vacca, R. T.
(2004). Supporting older students’ in- and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adoles-
cent & Adult Literacy, 47(4), 304–310.
Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of adolescence. New York: Rout-
ledge Falmer.
Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in “New Times.” Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 42(1), 4–7.
Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking.
Moje, E. B. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research for New Times: Studying
youth as a resource. Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 211–228.
Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickleman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of
content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419–438.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy:
A position statement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 97–112.
Naidoo, B. (2000). The other side of truth. New York: HarperCollins.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to
infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school cul-
ture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442–463.
Olson, M. W., & Dishner, E. K. (1996). Content area reading: A historical perspective.
In D. Lapp, & J. Flood (Eds.) Content area reading and learning: Instructional strate-
gies (pp. 3–14). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (2004). Content area literacy: An inte-
grated approach (8th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Rogers, R. (2002). “That’s what you’re here for, you’re supposed to tell us:” Teaching
and learning critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 772–787.
Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). “Reading don’t fix no Chevy’s:” Literacy in the
lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Stevens, L. P. (2002). Making the road by walking: The transition from content area liter-
acy to adolescent literacy. Reading Research and Instruction, 21, 267–278.
Sturtevant, E. G., & Linek, W. M. (2003). The instructional beliefs and decisions of mid-
dle and secondary teachers who successfully blend literacy and content. Reading
Research and Instruction, 43(1), 74–90.
Vacca, R. T. (2002). From efficient decoders to strategic readers. Educational Leadership,
60(3), 7–11.
Walker, N. T., & Bean, T. W. (2004). Using multiple texts in content area classrooms.
Journal of Content Area Reading, 3(1), 23–36.
Whipple, G. M. (Ed.), (1925). Report of the national committee on reading. Twenty-
Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Bloom-
ington, IL: Public School Publishing.
Willinsky, J. (2000). If only we knew: Increasing the public value of social science research.
New York: Routledge.

References
Preface
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for

understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education, Science
Technology Policy Institute.
Rieck, B.J. (1977). How content teachers telegraph messages

against readers. The Journal of Reading, 2, 646–648.
1 Chapter 1 Content Area Reading: The
Current State of the Art
Garcia, G. E., & Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy

needs of adolescent English Language learners. In T. L.
Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research
and practice (pp. 304–320). New York: The Guilford Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy

beyond the culture of fear. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content

areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hinchman, K. A., Alvermann, D. E., Boyd, F. B., Brozo, W.

G., & Vacca, R. T. (2004). Supporting older students’ in-
and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 47(4), 304–310.
Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of

adolescence. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in “New

Times.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(1), 4–7.
Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking.
Moje, E. B. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research

for New Times: Studying youth as a resource. Reading
Research and Instruction, 41, 211–228.
Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickleman, R. J. (1983).

An historical exploration of content area reading
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419–438.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A.

(1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 97–112.
Naidoo, B. (2000). The other side of truth. New York:

HarperCollins.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R., & 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(3), 442–463.
Olson, M. W., & Dishner, E. K. (1996). Content area

reading: A historical perspective. In D. Lapp, & J. Flood
(Eds.) Content area reading and learning: Instructional
strategies (pp. 3–14). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (2004).

Content area literacy: An integrated approach (8 th ed.).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Rogers, R. (2002). “That’s what you’re here for, you’re

supposed to tell us:” Teaching and learning critical
literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45,
772–787.
Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). “Reading don’t fix

no Chevy’s:” Literacy in the lives of young men.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Stevens, L. P. (2002). Making the road by walking: The

transition from content area literacy to adolescent
literacy. Reading Research and Instruction, 21, 267–278.
Sturtevant, E. G., & Linek, W. M. (2003). The instructional

beliefs and decisions of middle and secondary teachers who
successfully blend literacy and content. Reading Research
and Instruction, 43(1), 74–90.
Vacca, R. T. (2002). From efficient decoders to strategic

readers. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 7–11.
Walker, N. T., & Bean, T. W. (2004). Using multiple texts

in content area classrooms. Journal of Content Area
Reading, 3(1), 23–36.
Whipple, G. M. (Ed.), (1925). Report of the national

committee on reading. TwentyFourth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Bloomington,
IL: Public School Publishing.
Willinsky, J. (2000). If only we knew: Increasing the

public value of social science research. New York:
Routledge.
2 Chapter 2 The Role of Textbooks and
Tradebooks in Content Area Reading
Alvermann, D. A., & Eakle, A. J. (2003). Comprehension

instruction: Adolescents and their multiple worlds. In A.
P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading
comprehension (pp. 12–29). New York: The Guilford Press.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Inviting students

into the pursuit of meaning. Educational Psychology Review,
13, 225–241.
Budiansky, S. (2001). The trouble with textbooks. Prism.

Retrieved September 28, 2005, from
Chambliss, M. (2001). Analyzing science textbook materials

to determine how “persuasive” they are. Theory into
Practice, 40, 255–264.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class: The

authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Garfield, E. (1984). Science books for children. Current

Contents: Life Science. December 24, 3–11.
Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989).

Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and
microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and
Instruction, 6, 41–57. Goetz, E. T., & Sadoski, M. (1995).
Commentary: The perils of seduction: Distracting details or
incomprehensible abstractions? Reading Research Quarterly,
30, 500–511. Guzzetti, B. J., Kowalinski, B. J., & McGowan,
T. (1992). Using a literature-based approach to teaching
social studies. Journal of Reading, 36, 114–122. Hopkinson,
D. (2003). Sweet Clara and the freedom quilt. New York:
Knopf. Huck, C., & Kiefer, B. Z. (Eds.). (2003). Children’s
literature in the elementary school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McDaniel, M. A., Waddill, P. J., Finstad, K., & Bourg, T.
(2000). The effects of textbased interest on attention and
recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 492–502.
Moss, B. (1991). Children’s nonfiction trade books: A
complement to content area texts. The Reading Teacher, 45,
26–32. Neal, J. C., & Moore, K. (1991–1992). “The very
hungry caterpillar” meets “Beowulf” in secondary
classrooms. Journal of Reading, 35, 290–296. Newton, L. D.,
Newton, D. P., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary
school science books for children show a concern for
explanatory understanding? Research in Science &
Technological Education, 20, 227–240. Polacco, P. (1988).
Rechenka’s eggs. New York: Philomel. Reshenka’s Eggs.
Reading Rainbow. (1992). Great Plains National/Nebraska ETV
Network and WNED TV, WNED, Lincoln, NE. Schallert, D. L., &
Tierney, R. J. (1982). Learning from expository text: The
interaction of text structure with reader characteristics.
Final report to the National Institute of Education, Grant
No. NIE-G-79-0167. Simon, S. (1999). Lightning. New York:
Harper Trophy. Simon, S. (2003). Hurricanes. New York:
HarperCollins. Tiedt, I. M. (2000). Teaching with picture
books in the middle school. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association. Underwood, T., & Pearson, P. D.
(2004). Teaching struggling adolescent readers to
comprehend what they read. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole
(Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp.
135–161). New York: The Guilford Press. Wade, S. E., &
Adams, B. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on
recall of biographical text. JRB: A Journal of Literacy,
22, 331–353. Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W., & Hayes,
M. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of
interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research
Quarterly, 28, 93–114. Winter, J. (1988). Follow the
drinking gourd. New York: Knopf.
3 Chapter 3 Matching Readers and Texts:
The Continuing Quest
Advantage Learning Systems (2000). New breakthrough in

measuring readability: The ATOS readability formula for
books. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest,

learning, and the psychological processes that mediate
their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(3), 545–561.
Alvermann, D. E., Swafford, J., & Montero, M. K. (2004).

Content area literacy instruction for the elementary
grades. Boston: Pearson Education.
Anderson, R. C., Shirey, L. L., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding,

L. G. (1987). Interestingness of children’s reading
materials. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude,
learning, and instruction: Cognitive and affective process
analysis (p. 287–299). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Content area

textbooks. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney
(Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers
and content texts (pp. 193–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Armbruster, B. B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate

text.” In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions
(pp. 202–217). New York: Longman.
Armbruster, B. B. (1996). Considerate text. In D. Lapp, J.

Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and
learning: Instructional strategies (2nd ed., pp. 47–57).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic

assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique.
Language & Communication, 21(3), 285–301.
Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving

Comprehension with Questioning the Author. New York:
Scholastic.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Gromoll, E. W. (1989).

Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and
Instruction, 6(2), 99–158.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman,
J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a
text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved
comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3),
251–276.
Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conrad, S. S., &

Harris-Sharples, S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text
difficulty. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Manual for the new

Dale-Chall readability formulas. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Books.
Collins, J. W. & O’Brien, N. P. (Eds.) (2003). The

Greenwood Dictionary of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Matching books to

readers: Using leveled books for guided reading, K–3.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers

and writers: Grades 3–6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. The Reading

Teacher, 56(3), 286–291.
Gunning, T. (1998). Best books for beginning readers.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. (2003a). Creating literacy instruction for all

children (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (2003b). The role of readability in today’s

classrooms. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3), 175–189.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.), (1995). The literacy

dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental

resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60,
549–571.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing

text-based interest and students’ recall of expository
texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483.
Hiebert, E. H. (2002). Standards, assessments, and text

difficulty. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.p.
337–369). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2001). The texts of
beginning reading instruction (pp. 361–376). In S. B.
Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy
Research. New York: The Guilford Press. Illinois State
Board of Education (1997). Illinois learning standards.
Springfield, IL. International Reading Association (2003).
Standards for reading professionals. Newark: DE:
International Reading Association. Kotula, A. W. (2003).
Matching readers to instructional materials: The use of
classic readability measures for students with language
learning disabilities and dyslexia. Topics in Language
Disorders, 23(3), 190–203. Kristo, J. V., & Bamford, R. A.
(2004). Nonfiction in focus. New York: Scholastic.
McCarthey, S. J., Hoffman, J. V., Christian, C., Corman,
L., Elliott, B., Matherne, D., & Stahle, D. (1994).
Engaging the new basal readers. Reading Research and
Instruction, 33(3), 233–256. Peterson, B. (1991). Selecting
books for beginning readers: children’s literature suitable
for young readers. In D. E. DeFord, C. A. Lyons, & G. S.
Pinnell (Eds.), Bridges to literacy: Learning from Reading
Recovery (pp. 119–147). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rog, L.
J., & Burton, W. (2001/2002). Matching texts and readers:
Leveling early reading materials for assessment and
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55(4), 348–356.
Touchstone Applied Science Associates. (1999). DRP program:
The readability standard. Brewster, NY: Author. Wade, S.
E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom
learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &
R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III.
(pp. 609–627) Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wade, S. E.,
Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M. (1994). Using think-alouds to
examine readertext interest. Reading Research Quarterly,
34(2), 194–216. Weaver, B. (2000). Leveling books K-6:
Matching readers to text. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association. Worthy, J., & Sailors, M. (2001). “That book
isn’t on my level:” Moving beyond text difficulty in
personalizing reading choices. New Advocate, 14(3),
229–239. Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (eds.) (1995).
The Lexile framework for reading. Durham, NC: Metametrics.
APPENDIX A TEXTBOOK EVALUATION RESPONSE FORM Textbook Title
Publisher Grade Level Copyright Data Step 1: Title or
heading of passage Page number Step 2: Is this passage a
text unit , or a text frame ?
Questions related to the unit or frame: 1. 2. 3. 4. Step 3:
After reading the passae carefully, is it primarily a text
unit or a text frame ? Questions related to the
unit or frame: 1. 2. 3. 4. Step 4: Does the passage have
adequate answers to relevant questions? Yes Maybe
No (circle one) Comments: If YES or MAYBE, continue on
to Step 5. If NO, return to Step 1 with another passage.
Step 5: Write the name of the structure used in each
paragraph and then rate that paragraph using the
appropriate questions (pp. 426–428). Rating Scale Paragraph
Paragraph Question Number Structure Number Low High 1 1 1
2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5
2 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3
4 5 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 4 1
2 3 4 5 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 3 4
5 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2
3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 Step 6: Determine how coherent the
passage is. Low High a. To what extent are the connectives
made 1 2 3 4 5 explicit? b. How effectively does the
author use NA 1 2 3 4 5 connectives? (How many were
used? ) c. How clearly are the pronouns referenced?
NA 1 2 3 4 5 d. How clearly referenced are certain
nouns, NA 1 2 3 4 5 noun phases, and other phrases that
require referents? e. In those cases where it applies, how
NA 1 2 3 4 5 consistent is the temporal ordering of
events? Step 7: Determine to what extent the passage
addresses 1 2 3 4 5 a single purpose. The computed
proportion is . Step 8: Determine how appropriate the text
is to the audience. a. To what extent are the words in the
passage 1 2 3 4 5 likely to be understood by the
readers? b. To what extent are the analogies, NA 1 2 3
4 5 metaphors, and other figurative language made clear
by the author? Step 9: Refer back to Step 2 and decide how
difficult it 1 2 3 4 5 was to formulate questions based
on the title. Step 10: Refer back to Steps 2 and 3 and
determine how 1 2 3 4 5 consistent your decisions were
on the two steps. If you had to formulate an entirely new
set of questions after reading the passage carefully, rate
this step low.
4 Chapter 4 Why Content Area Literacy?:
Focus on Students
Estes, T., & Vaughn, J. (1978). Reading and learning in the

content classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Finders, M. J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and

life in junior high. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fry, E. B. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications,

validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading,
21, 242–252.
Garcia, E. E. (1992). The education of linguistically and

culturally diverse students: Effective instructional
practices. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on
Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K.

Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the
discourse of the other (pp. 3–11). New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology and

social practice. New York: Bergin and Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies:

Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor and Francis.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy

perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43,
412–420.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about

learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Goodman, K. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing

game. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models
and processes of reading (pp. 497–518). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence (Vol. 1&2). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Way with words: Language, life and

work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Herber, H. L. (1978). Teaching reading in content areas
(2nd ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Herber, H. L., & Herber, J. N. (1993). Teaching in content

areas with reading, writing, and reasoning. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Hinchman, K. A., Payne-Bourcy, L., Thomas, H., & Kelly, C.

(2002). Representing adolescent literacies: Case studies of
three white males. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(3),
229–246.
Huntley-Johnson, L., & Ervin, E. (1999). A change of

course: Creating a context for reforming literacy
education. In R. A. Sudol & A. S. Horning (Eds.), The
Literacy Connection (pp. 97–119). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and

readability in educational Practice and psychological
theory. In L. G. Nilssen (Ed.), Perspectives of
MemoryResearch (pp. 363–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies:

Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Philadelphia,
PA: Open University Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.

Chicago: University of Chicago.
Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology: Postwar

literacy instruction and the mythology of Dick and Jane.
London and New York: Flamer Press.
Luke, A., & Elkins. J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in “New

Times.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 4–7.
Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (n.d.) Introduction to content

area literacy. Retrieved September 11, 2004 from
literacyleaders.com/Study_Reading/CAL_LRD/body_
cal/lrd.html
Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1997). Content area literacy:

Interactive teaching for active learning (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Estes, T. H. (2001). Content

area literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning
(3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Matlin, M. L., &
Short, K. G. (1996). Study groups: Inviting teachers to
learn together. In K. F. Whitmore & Y. M. Goodman (Eds.),
Whole language voices in teacher education (pp. 85–92).
York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. McDermott, R. P. (1974).
Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to
Illiteracy and social stratification. In G. D. Spindler
(Ed.), Education and social process (pp. 82–118). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston. McNeil, L. (1988).
Contradictions of control: School structure and school
knowledge. New York: Routledge. Mercer, N. (2000). Words
and minds: How we use language to think together. London
and New York: Routledge. Moje, E. B. (2000). To be part of
the story: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents.
Teacher College Record, 102, 652–690. Moje, E. B. (2002).
Re-framing adolescent literacy research for new times:
Studying youth as resources. Reading Research and
Instruction, 41(3), 211–228. 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(5),
400–410. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N.
(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Moore, D. W., Bean,
T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent
literacy: A position statement. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 43, 97–112. Moore, D. W., Readance, J. E.,
& Rickelman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of
content area reading instruction. Reading Research
Quarterly, 28, 419–438. National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). (1982). Reading and comprehension of
American youth: Do they understand what they read? (Report
No. 11-R-02). National Assessment Governing Board. (2002).
Reading Framework for the 2003 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Washington, DC. Neilsen, L. (1998).
Playing for real: Performative texts and adolescent
identities. In D. E. Alverman, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore,
S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.) Reconceptualizing the
literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Brien, D., Stewart, R., &
Moje, E. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to
infuse into the secondary curriculum: Strategies, goals and
classroom realities. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
442–463. Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that
develops active reading of expository text. The Reading
Teacher, 39, 564–570. Patterson, L., Baldwin, S., Gonzales,
R., Guadarrama, I., Keith, L., & McArthur, K. (1998).
Claiming our ignorance and making new friends: Case studies
in collaborative family inquiry. A paper presented at the
48th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference,
Austin, TX. Patterson, L, Santa, C. M., Short, K. G., &
Smith, K. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers are researchers:
Reflection and action. Newark, DE: The International
Reading Association. Phelps, S. F. (1998). Adolescents and
their multiple literacies. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A.
Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.),
Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp.
1–2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Piaget, J.
(1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York:
Norton. Pressley, M. (1994). Transactional instruction of
reading comprehension strategies. In J. N. Magieri & C. C.
Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and
students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 113–139). New York:
Harcourt Brace. Ruddell, M. R. (1993). Teaching content
reading and writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rural Roots
Newsletter (2002, September), Retrieved August 7, 2004,
from www.seer.org. Rural School and Community Trust (2003),
Retrieved August 7, 2004 from www.ruraledu.org.
Ryder, R. J., & Graves, M. F. (2003). Reading and learning

in content areas (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of

the American high school today. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting

classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, ME: The Orion
Society.
Spillich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J.

F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information
for individuals with high- and low-domain knowledge.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18,
275–290.
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches

to literacy development, ethnography and education. London
& New York: Longman.
Townsend, M. A. R., & Clarihew, A. (1989). Facilitating

children’s comprehension through the use of advance
organizers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 15–35.
Vélez-Ibáñez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and

transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S. Mexican
households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23,
313–335.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of

higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:

The MIT Press.
5 Chapter 5 The Students: Engaging Them
All, Including Those Who Are Struggling
Toward Success as Content Area Readers
Guthrie, J. (2004, May 1). Classroom practices promoting

engagement and achievement in comprehension. Paper
presented at the International Reading Association
Convention, Reno, State.
Hyman, R. T. (1978). Strategic questioning. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lake, J. H. (1973). The influence of wait time on the

verbal dimensions of student inquiry behavior.
Dissertations Abstracts International, 34, 6476A
(University Microfilms NO. 74-08866).
Lovitt, T. C., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., &

Benedetti, D. (1986). Adapting science materials for
general and learning disabled seventh graders. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 31–39.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Albee, J. J. (2004). Reading

assessment for diagnosticprescriptive teaching. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/ Thompson.
McEwan, E. K. (2001). Raising reading achievement in middle

and high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Sandora, C. A. (1996).

Questioning the author: An approach to developing
meaningful classroom discourse. In M. F. Graves, P. Van den
Broek, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.) The first R, every child’s
right to read (pp. 97–119). New York: Teachers College
Press & International Reading Association.
Ogle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy.

In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of text (pp.
Ogle, D., & and Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond

literature circles, Helping students comprehend
informational texts. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction, Research-based best practices
(pp. 259–274). New York: Guilford.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive

teaching to promote independent learning from text. The
Reading Teacher, 39, 771–777.
Resnick, L. B. (2001). Making America smarter: The real
goal of school reform. In. A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing
minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd) Ed.)
(pp. 3–6). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Resnick, L. B., & Hall. M. W. (2001). The principles of

learning: Study tools for educators. (CD-ROM version 2.0)
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research
and Development Center. Institute for Learning.
Rowe, M. B. (1969). Science, silence, and sanctions.

Science for Children, 6(6), 11–13.
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L.

(1999). Reading for understanding. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stewart, R. A., & Cross, T. L. (1991). The effect of

marginal glosses on reading comprehension and retention.
Journal of Reading, 35, 4–12.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004, May). Adolescent literacy, reading

comprehension, & the FCAT. Paper presented at the CLAS
Conference, Naples, FL. Retrieved 3/17/07 from
http://www.fcrr.org/science/pptpresentations.htm
Valadez, J. D., & Freve, Y. (2002). A preliminary summary

of findings from a study of the effects of
hands-on/inquiry-based instruction on SAT 9 reading scores.
Fresno, CA: Fresno Unified School District. Retreived
3/17/07 from http://sustainability2002.
terc.edu/invoke.cfm/page/143
6 Chapter 6 Engaging Students’ Interest
and Participation in Learning
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual

prerequisites for understanding: Some investigators of
comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
Burke, J. (2004). School smarts: The 4 C’s of academic

success. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth

NH: Heinemann.
Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). K-W-L Plus: A strategy for

comprehension and summarization. Journal of Reading, 30,
626–631.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology

of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Davidson, J. L. (1982). The group mapping activity for

instruction in reading and thinking. Journal of Reading,
26, 52–56.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.
Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved

from http://webquest .sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html.
Goodman, K. (1985). Unity in reading. In H. Singer & R. B.

Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading
(3 rd ed., pp. 813–840). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). In M. L. Kamil, P. B.

Mosenthal, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research
(Vol 3. pp. 406–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haggard (now Ruddell), M.R. (1982). The vocabulary

self-collection strategy: An active approach to word
learning. Journal of Reading, 26, 203–207.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning:

Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational
Psychology Review, 13, (3) 191–209.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought:

Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Krapp, A. (1989). Interest, learning, and academic
achievement. In P. Nenniger (Chair), Task Motivation by
Interest.Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Third
European Conference on Learning and Instruction (Earli),
Madrid, Spain.
Lewis, C. (2001). Literacy practices as social acts: Power,

status, and cultural norms in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible

practices: further notes on the four resources model.
Primary Practices 4(2) 5–8.
Maranzo, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001).

Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies
for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mathewson, G. C. (1994). Model of attitude influence upon

reading and learning and learning to read. In R. B.
Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1131–1161).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Moje, E. B. (2000). Critical Issues: Circles of kinship,

friendship, position and power: Examining the community in
community-based literacy research. Journal of Literacy
Research, 32 (1), 77–112.
Newkirk, T. (2003). “Quiet crisis in boys’ literacy.”

Education Week, 23, 2–34.
Newmann, F. M. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic

student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 458–463.
Pittelman, S. D., Heimlich, J. E., Bergland, R. L., &

French, M. P. (1991). Semantic feature analysis: Classroom
applications. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Renniger, K. A. (1989). Individual patterns in children’s

play interest. In L. T. Winegar, (Ed, Social Interaction
and Development of Children’s Understanding, (pp. 147–172).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional model of reading.

In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.
Ruddell, M.R. (2004). ruok2dA? (Are you okay to day?):

Literacy and literate contexts in the new millennium, WSRA
Journal, 45(1), 3–12). Ruddell, M.R. (2005). Ruddell &
Shearer, (2002). Teaching content reading and writing (4th
ed.). New York: Wiley. Ruddell, M. R., & Shearer, B. A.
(2002). ‘Extraordinary’, ‘tremendous’, ‘exhilarating’,
‘magnificent’: Middle school at-risk students become avid
word learners with the vocabulary self-collection strategy
(VSS). Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45 (5),
352–363. Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Understanding
understanding. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading
comprehension (pp. 1–20). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association. Russell, D. H. (1956). Children’s thinking.
Boston: Ginn. Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1988). The impact
of interest on qualitative and structural indicators of
knowledge. In U. Schiefele, (Chair), Content and Interest
as Motivational Factors in Learning. Symposium conducted at
the annual meeting of the American Research in Education
Association, New Orleans. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., &
Lehman, S. (2001). Promoting situational interest in the
classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 211–224.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1986). Small-group teaching.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Shearer, B. A.,
Ruddell, M. R. , & Vogt, M. E. (2001). Successful middle
school intervention: Negotiated strategies and individual
choice. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 50,Chicago:
National Reading Conference. Sinatra, R., Beaudry, J. S.,
Stahl-Gemake, J., & Guastello, E. F. (1990). Combining
visual literacy, text understanding, and writing for
culturally diverse students. Journal of Reading, 33,
612–617. Slavin. R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning:
Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. Smith, M. & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading
don’t fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smith, M. & Wilhelm, J. (2005).
Boys and reading: Its more complicated than you think. The
California Reader, (38) 4, 5–11. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson,
P. D. (1992). Learning to learn from text: A framework for
improving classroom practice. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean,
J. E. Readence, & D.W. Moore (Eds.), Reading in the content
areas: Improving classroom instruction (pp. 87–103).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Vogt & Shearer (2003). Reading
specialists in the real world: A sociocultural view.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Zwiers, J .(2004). Building reading
comprehension habits in grades 6–12: A toolkit of classroom
activities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
7 Chapter 7 Drawing on Youth Cultures in
Content Learning and Literacy
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Fandom and

critical media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 43, 436–446.
Alvermann, D. E., Huddleston, A., & Hagood, M. C. (2004).

What could professional wrestling and school literacy
practices possibly have in common? Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 47, 532–540. Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J. S.,
& Hagood, M. C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom:
Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association. Barton, A. C.
(2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new
ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899–917. Besley, A. C.
(2003). Hybridized and globalized: Youth cultures in the
postmodern era. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and
Cultural Studies, 25, 153–177. Buchmann, M. (1989). The
script of life in modern society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Checkley, K. (2001). Algebra and activism:
Removing the shackles of low expectations— A conversation
with Robert P. Moses. Educational Leadership 59(2),
Cintron, R. (1991). Reading and writing graffiti: A
reading. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of
Comparative Human Cognition, 13, 21–24. Dolby, N. (2003).
Popular culture and democratic practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 73(3), 258–284. Eckert, P. (1989).
Jocks and Burnouts: Social categories and identity in the
high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Elkins, J.,
& Luke, A. (1999). Redefining adolescent literacies.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(3), 212–215.
Elmesky, R. (2001). Struggles of agency and structure as
cultural worlds collide as urban African American youth
learn physics. Unpublished Dissertation, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL. Epstein, J. S. (1998).
Introduction: Generation X, youth culture, and identity. In
J. S. Epstein (Ed.), Youth culture: Identity is a
postmodern world (pp. 1–23). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers. Finders, M. J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden
literacies and life in junior high. New York: Teachers
College Press. Finders, M. J. (1998/1999). Raging hormones:
Stories of adolescence and implications for teacher
preparation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42,
252–263. Flake, S. (2000). The skin I’m in. New York: Jump
at the Sun, Hyperion Books for Children. Frey, J. T.,
Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., Lappan, G., & Phillips, E.
D. (2002). Connected mathematics project. New York:
Prentice Hall. Gee, J. P. (2001, December). Reading in “new
times”. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference,
San Antonio, TX. Gee, J. P. (2004). What videogames have to
teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan. Guerra, J. C., & Farr, M. (2002). Writing on the
margins: The spiritual and autobiographical discourse of
two Mexicanas in Chicago. In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.),
School’s out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with
classroom practice (pp. 96–123). New York: Teachers College
Press. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C.
(2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented
reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Hagood, M. C., Stevens, L. P., & Reinking, D.
(2002). What do THEY have to teach US? Talkin’ ‘cross
generations! In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and
literacies in a digital world (pp. 68–83). New York: Peter
Lang. Hall, S. & Jefferson, T. (Eds.). (1975). Resistance
through rituals: Youth subcultures in post-war Britain.
London: Hutchinson. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words:
Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hinchman, K. A.,
& Lalik, R. (2002). Imagining literacy teacher education in
changing times: Considering the views of adult and
adolescent collaborations. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.),
Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 84–100).
New York: Peter Lang.
Hinchman, K. A., Alvermann, D. E., Boyd, F. B., Brozo, W.

G., & Vacca, R. T. (2003). Supporting older students’ in-
and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 47(4), 304–310.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (Eds.). (2002). School’s out!

Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Kirkland, E. (2002, March). Do the math. Teacher Magazine,

13(6), 14–17.
Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive

apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school
students skills in literary interpretation. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 608–630.
Lee, C. D. (1997). Bridging home and school literacies:

Models for culturally responsive teaching, a case for
African American English. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D.
Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy
through the communicative and visual arts (p. 334–345). New
York: Macmillan.
Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural
modeling activity system for underachieving students.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 97–141.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning,

and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of

adolescence. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Lewis, C. (1998). Rock ’n’ roll and horror stories:

Students, teachers, and popular culture. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42, 116–120.
Males, M. A. (1996). The scapegoat generation. Monroe, ME:

Common Courage Press.
Meese, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988).

Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in
classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80, 514–523.
Moje, E. B. (2000). To be part of the story: The literacy

practices of gangsta adolescents. Teachers College Record,
102, 652–690.
Moje, E. B., & van Helden, C. J. L. (in press). Doing

popular culture: Troubling discourses about adolescence. In
J. Vadeboncoeur & L. P. Stevens (Eds.), Re/Constructing
‘the adolescent’: Sign, symbol and body. New York: Peter
Lang.
Moje, E. B., & Hinchman, K. A. (2004). Developing

culturally sensitive pedagogy for adolescents. In J. Dole &
T. Jetton (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice
(pp. 331–350). New York: Guilford Press.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K. E., Ellis, L.

M., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004b). Working toward
third space in content area literacy: An examination of
everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39(1), 38–71.
Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R.

W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004a). Explaining
explanations: Developing scientific literacy in
middleschool project-based science reforms. In D.
Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap:
Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and
adolescent learners in grades 4–12 (pp. 227–251). New York:
Carnegie Corporation.
Moje, E. B., Willes, D. J., & Fassio, K. (2001).

Constructing and negotiating literacy in the writer’s
workshop: Literacy teaching and learning in seventh grade.
In E. B. Moje & D. G. O’Brien (Eds.), Constructions of
literacy: Studies of teaching and learning literacy in and
out of secondary classrooms (pp. 193–212). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W.

(2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times:
Perrenial and millenial issues. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 43(5), 400–410.
Morrison, T. (1994). The bluest eye. New York:

Plume/Penguin Books.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in

scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.
O’Brien, D. (2001, June). “At-risk” adolescents: Redefining

competence through the multiliteracies of intermediality,
visual arts, and representation. Reading Online, 4(11),
Retrieved August 27, 2004, from
http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/obrien/
index.html Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard”
direction: Science emerging from the lives of African
American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(9), 1000–1014. Souljah, S. (1999). The coldest winter
ever. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Sutherland, L. M.
(2002). African American girls reading African American
women: A study of literacy, identity, and multicultural
education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
2002). ProQuest Information and Learning. Tapscott, D.
(1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
8 Chapter 8 Making Content Area
Instruction Comprehensible for English
Language Learners
Adamson, H. D. (1993). Academic competence: Theory and

classroom competence: Preparing ESL students for content
courses. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing

words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York:
Guilford Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996). The Cognitive

Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): A model for
linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School
Journal, 96(3): 259–274.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can

immigrants become proficient in school English? The Journal
of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5,
26–38.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language

development in promoting educational success for language
minority students. In California State Department of
Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students:
A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles:
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California
State University.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students.

Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
DevTech Systems (1996). A descriptive study of the ESEA

Title VII educational services provided for secondary
school limited English proficient students. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education, OBEMLA.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New

York: Oxford University Press.
Echevarria, J. & Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered content

instruction: Teaching students with diverse abilities.
Falbo, T. (1996). Latino youth and high school graduation.

Invited address at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED401353).
Faltís, C. J. (1999). Introduction: Creating a new history.
In C. J. Faltís & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say:
Adolescents, bilingualism and ESL in the secondary school
(pp. 1–9). New York: Teachers College Press. García, G. E.
(2003). The reading comprehension development and
instruction of English language learners. In A. P. Sweet &
C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.
30–50). New York: Guilford Press. García, G. E. & Bauer, E.
B. (2003). The selection and use of English texts with
young English language learners. In J. V. Hoffman & D. L.
Schallert (Eds.), The texts in elementary classrooms (pp.
177–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. García, G. E., &
Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy needs of
adolescent English language learners. In T. L. Jetton & J.
A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice
(pp. 304–320). New York: Guilford Press. Genesee, F.
(1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from
immersion. (Educational Practice Report 11). National
Center for Research in Cultural Diversity and Second
Language Learning. Godina, H. (2004). Contradictory
literacy practices of Mexican-background students: An
ethnography from the rural Midwest. Bilingual Research
Journal, 28(2),153–180. Harklau, L. (1999). The ESL
learning environment in secondary school. In C. J. Faltís &
P. M. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents,
bilingualism and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 42–60).
New York: Teachers College Press. Kindler, A. L. (2002).
Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students
and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001
summary report. Washington, DC: George Washington
University and National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquiries. Hayward, CA:
Alemany Press. Long, M. H. (1983). Native
speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2),
126–141. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic
environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic
Press. Meyer, D., Madden, D., & McGrath, D.J. (n.d.).
English language learners in US public schools: 1994 and
2000. Education Statistics Quarterly, 6(3). Retrieved March
5, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/6_3/3_4.asp).
Moll, L. C., Sáez, R., & Dworin, J. E. (2001). Exploring
biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as social
practice. Elementary School Journal, 101, 435–449. Ovando,
C. J., Collier, V. P., & Combs, M. C. (2003). Bilingual and
ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (3rd
ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Padrón, Y. N. (1994). Comparing
reading instruction in Hispanic/limited English-proficient
schools and other inner-city schools. Bilingual Research
Journal, 18(1& 2), 49–66. Saville-Troilke, M. (1984). What
really matters in second language learning for academic
achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199–219. Short, D.
(1991). How to integrate language and content instruction:
A training manual. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A
conceptual framework for the integration of language and
content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL
Quarterly, 23, 201–217. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1996).
Language-minority student achievement program
effectiveness. NABE News, 19(6), 33–35. Ulanoff, S. H., &
Pucci S. L. (1999). Learning words from books: The effects
of read aloud on second language vocabulary acquisition.
Bilingual Research Journal, 23(4), 319–332. Valdés, G.
(1999). Incipient bilingualism and the development of
English language writing abilities in the secondary school.
In C. J. Faltís, & P. M. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say:
Adolescents, bilingualism and ESL in the secondary school
(pp. 138–175). New York: Teachers College Press. Waggoner,
D. (1999). Who are secondary newcomer and linguistically
different youth? In C. J. Faltís & P. M. Wolfe (Eds.), So
much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism and ESL in the
secondary school (pp. 13–42). New York: Teachers College
Press.
9 Chapter 9 The Content Area Teacher’s
Instructional Role: Moving Students
Toward Strategic Independent Reading
Allington, R. (2002). You can’t learn much from books you

can’t read. Educational Leadership, 60, 16–19.
Balkwill, F. (1994). DNA is here to stay. Minneapolis:

Carolrhoda Books. Bean, T. W. (2000). Reading in the
content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research,Vol. 3 (pp. 629–644). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bean, T. W., Bean, S. K., & Bean, K.
F. (1999). Intergenerational conversations and two
adolescents’ multiple literacies: Implications for
redefining content area literacy. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 42, 438–448. Betts, E. A. (1954).
Foundations of reading instruction. New York: American Book
Company. Bintz, W. P. (1997). Exploring the reading
nightmares of middle and secondary school teachers. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(1), 12–24. Cruz, B. C.
(1996). Frida Kahlo: Portrait of a Mexican painter.
Springfield, NJ: Enslow. Duffy, G. G. (2003). Explaining
reading. New York: The Guilford Press. Erdrich, L. (2003).
Sacagawea. Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books. Fisher, D., &
Ivey, G. (2005). Learning is based in language, not just
reading. Action in Teacher Education, 27, 3–11. Fleischman,
J. (2002). Phineas Gage: A gruesome but true story about
brain science. New York: Scholastic. Frith, M. (2003).
Frida Kahlo: The artist who painted herself. New York:
Grosset & Dunlap. Garza, H. (1994). Frida Kahlo. New York:
Chelsea House. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G.
R., McCann, A., Anderson, E., & Alao, S. (1998). Does
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction increase strategy-use
and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 261–278. Herber, H. (1978). Teaching
reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
PrenticeHall. Ivey, G. (2002). Making reading time count
for middle school students. California Reader, 36, 31–35.
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A
survey of what makes students want to read in middle school
classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377. Krull,
K. (1999). A kid’s guide to America’s Bill of Rights. New
York: Avon. Leedy, L. (1993). Postcards from Pluto: A tour
of the solar system. New York: Holiday House. Maruki, T.
(1980). Hiroshima no pika. New York: Lothrop, Lee &
Shepard. Nagda, A. W. (2000). Tiger math: Learning to graph
from a baby tiger. New York: Henry Holt. 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. Pilgreen, J., &
Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained silent reading with English
as a second language high school students: Impact on
comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment.
School Library Media Quarterly, 22, 21–23. Pressley, M.,
El-Dinary, P. B., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Brown, R. (1998).
Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies in
the elementary grades. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
selfreflective practice (pp. 42–56). New York: The Guilford
Press. Prestel. (2003). Frida Kahlo: The artist in the blue
house. New York: Prestel. Rogoff, M. (2004). How I live
now. New York: Random House. Stamaty, M. (2004). Alia’s
mission: Saving the books of Iraq. New York: Knopf. Warren,
A. (2004). Escape from Saigon: How a Vietnam War orphan
became an American boy. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux. Worthy, J., Broaddus, K., & Ivey, G. (2001).
Pathways to independence: Reading, writing, and learning in
Grades 3–8. New York: The Guilford Press. Worthy, J.,
Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read
is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34,
12–27.
10 Chapter 10 Literacy Demands for
Employment: How Jobs Have Changed and
What Teachers Can Do
Eugene, O. R. (1998). National educational technology

standards for students. Retrieved from
http://cnets.iste.org/pdf/nets_brochure.pdf
Hecker, D. (2004). Occupational employment projections to

2012. Monthly Labor Review, 80–105.
Horigan, M. (2003). Introduction to the projections.

Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 2–5.
Ilg, R. (1996) The nature of employment growth. The Monthly

Labor Review, 29–36.
March, T. (2004). Best WebQuests:Celebrating the best in

WebQuests. Retrieved September 8, 2004 from
http://bestwebquests.com/ and
http://webquest.org/matrix3.php
Mikulecky, L. (1982). Job literacy: The relationship

between school preparation and job literacy demands.
Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 400–419.
Mikulecky, L. (2001) Education for the workplace. In

Kaestle, C., Campbell, A., Finn, J. Johnson, S. &
Mikulecky, L. Adult literacy and education in America: Four
studies based on the national adult literacy survey.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Mikulecky, L. & Kirkley, J. (1998). Literacy instruction

for the 21st-century workplace. Peabody Journal of
Education, 73 (3/4), 290–317.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

(2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their
use of the Internet. Retrieved from http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html
Rush, R. T., Moe, A. J. & Storlie, R. L. (1986).

Occupational literacy education. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Sticht, T. (1982). Basic skills in defense. Alexandria, VA:

Human Resources Research Organization, Professional Paper
3–82.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1992). Learning a living: a

blueprint for high performance. Washington, DC: The
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, U.S.
Department of Labor.
11 Chapter 11 Facts that Matter: Teaching
Students to Read Informational Text
Allington, R. (2002). You can’t learn much from books you

can’t read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16–19.
Anderson, T. H., Armbruster, B. B., & Kantor, R. (1980).

How clearly written are children’s textbooks? Or of
bladderworts and alfafa. Champaign, IL: Center for the
Study of Reading.
Armbruster, B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M.

A., Janisch, C., & Meyer, L. A. (1991). Reading and
questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 23, 35–59.
Ballard, R. D. (1988). Exploring the Titanic. New York:

Scholastic.
Baumann, J. F. (2000). The First R yesterday and today:

U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by
teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly,
35, 338–377.
Bromley, K. (1998). Language arts (3rd ed.). Needham

Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, H., & Cambourne, B. (1990). Read and retell: A

strategy for the wholelanguage/natural learning classroom.
Calabro, M. (1999). The perilous journey of the Donner

Party. New York: Clarion Books.
Chambliss, M. (1994). Evaluating the quality of textbooks

for diverse learners. Remedial and Special Education, 15,
348–362.
Conley, M., & Hinchman, K. A. (2004). No Child Left Behind:

What it means for U.S. adolescents and what we can do about
it. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 42–50.
Daniels, H. (2002). Expository text in literature circles.

Voices from the Middle, 9, 7–14.
de León, A. G. (2002). Moving beyond storybooks: Teaching

our children to read to learn. Retrieved March1, 2004, from
http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/05/learning/ index4.html
Dunn, M. A. (2000). Closing the book on social studies:

Four classroom teachers go beyond the text. Social Studies,
91, 132–136.
Fisher, D. (2004). Setting the “opportunity to read”

standard: Resuscitating the SSR program in an urban high
school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48,
138–149.
Fisher, D., Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2004).

Interactive read alouds: Is there a common set of
implementation practices? Reading Teacher, 58(1), 8–17.
Friend, R. (2000). Teaching summarization as a content area

reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
44(4), 320–330.
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural

aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research Vol. III (pp. 311–336). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gonick, L. (1991). Cartoon history of the United States.

New York: Harper Collins.
Green, P. (1992). A matter of fact: Using factual texts in

the classroom. Armadale, Victoria: Eleanor Curtain
Publishing. Grigg, W. S., Daane, M. C., Jin, Y., &
Campbell, J. R. (2003). National Assessment of Educational
Progress: The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Guthrie, J.
T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of
opportunity to read and balanced instruction in the NAEP.
Journal of Educational Research, 94, 145–162. Hakim, J.
(1999). A history of US. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, N. (2001). Castle. New York: Barrons. Hesse, K.
(1997). Out of the dust. New York: Scholastic. Irwin, P.
A., & Mitchell, J. N. (1983). A procedure for assessing the
richness of retellings. Journal of Reading, 26, 391–396.
Ivey, G. (2002). Getting started: Manageable literacy
practices. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 20–23. Ivey, G.,
& Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of
what makes students want to read in middle school
classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377.
Joftus, S. (2002). Every child a graduate: A framework for
an excellent education for all middle and high school
students. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Kamil, M., & Lane, D. (1998). Researching the relation
between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st
century. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo & R. D.
Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology:
Transformations in a posttypographic world (pp. 743–770).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knight, M. G.
(1992). Talking walls. Gardiner, ME: Tilbury House.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the
research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Kristo, J.
V., & Bamford, R. A. (2004). Nonfiction in focus. New York:
Scholastic. Krull, K. (2000). Lives of the presidents:
Fame, shame, and what the neighbors thought. New York:
Scholastic. Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis:
Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J.
B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Moss, B.
(1995). Using nonfiction tradebooks as read-alouds.
Language Arts, 72, 122–126. Moss, B. (2003). Exploring the
literature of fact. New York: Guilford. Moss, B. (2004).
Teaching expository text structures through information
trade book retellings. Reading Teacher, 57(8), 710–718.
Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for content area
literacy in the elementary classroom. Reading Teacher,
59(1), 46–55. Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination
of information literature in recent basal readers. Reading
Psychology, 23, 1–13. National Center for Education
Statistics. (2001). The condition of education. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Oczkus, L. (2003).
Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving
reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association. Pilgreen, J. (2000). The SSR handbook: How to
organize and manage a sustained silent reading program.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, R. B.,
Gaskins, I., Schinder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J. F.,
et al. (1992). Beyond direct exploration: Transactional
instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary
School Journal, 92, 513–535. Simon, S. (1992). Snakes. New
York: HarperCollins. Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A.
(2003). Supporting comprehension acquisition for emerging
and struggling readers: The interactive information book
read aloud. Exceptionality, 11 (1), 25–38. Snow, C. (2002).
Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Reading
Study Group. Snow, C. (2004). Reading next. New York:
Carnegie Corporation. Stanley, J. (1992). Children of the
dust bowl: The true story of the school at Weedpatch Camp.
New York: Clarion.
Tanaka, S. (1996). On board the Titanic : What it was like

when the great liner sank. New York: Hyperion Books for
Children.
Tompkins, G. (2002). Language arts: Content and teaching

strategies. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (2005). Content area reading (8th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Venezky, R. L. (1982). The origins of the present-day chasm

between adult literacy needs and school literacy
instruction. Visible Language, 16, 113–136.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in

classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
Volume III (pp. 609–629). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Webb, S. (2000). My season with penguins: An Antarctic

journal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Chapters 12 Teaching Secondary Science
through Reading, Writing, Studying, and
Problem Solving
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading Next: A vision

for action and research in middle school and high school
literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Duffy, G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of

strategies. In C. Block & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices

(pp. 28–41). New York: Guilford Press. Goldman, S., &
Rakestraw, J. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing
meaning from text. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research:
Vol. III (pp. 311–335). New York: Longman. Santa, C.,
Havens, L., & Valdes, B. (2004). Project CRISS: Creating
independence through student-owned strategies. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall-Hunt.
13 Chapter 13 Reading, Writing, and
Mathematics: A Problem-solving Connection
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000).

Principles and standards for schoolmathematics. Reston, VA:
The Council.
Olivares, R. A. (1993). Using the newspaper to teach ESL

Learners. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading

comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Phillips, E. D., Lappan, G., Winter, M. J., & Fitzgerald,

W. (1986). Middle grades mathematics project: Probability.
Menlo, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Polyá, G. (1945). How tosolve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.
Richbart, C., & Richbart, L. (2001). “Achieving the

standards: Reading mathematics.” New York State Mathematics
Teachers’ Journal, 51, 63–68.
Rose, B. (1989). “Writing and mathematics: Theory and

practice.” In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to
learn mathematics and science. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Siegel, M., Borasi, R., Fonzi, J. M., Sanridge, L. G., &

Smith, C. (1996). “Using reading to construct mathematical
meaning.” In P.C. Elliott & M. J. Kenney (Eds.),
Communication in mathematics, K-12 and beyond (1996
Yearbook) (pp. 66–75). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Stockton, F. R. (1987) “The lady, or the tiger?” In G. A.

Dristle & L. W. Glick (Eds.), McDougal, littell literature,
green level, revised edition (pp. 158–163). Evanston, IL:
McDougal, Little & Co.
Tolstoi, L. (1928). “Much land.” In The works of Leo

Tolstoi (pp. 26–37). Roslyn, NY: Walter J. Black, Inc.
Thompson, D. R., & Rubenstein, R. N. (2001). “Learning

mathematical symbolism: Challenges and instructional
strategies.” Mathematics Teacher, 94, 265–271.
Wainer, H. (1992). “Understanding graphs and tables.”

Educational Researcher, 21, 14–23.
Whitin, D. J., & Wilde, S. (1992). Read any good math
lately? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. APPENDIX: AN EXAMPLE OF
INTEGRATING LITERATURE IN MATHEMATICS
“The Lady, or the Tiger?” by Frank R. Stockton (1987)
Brief Summary: Annoyed that his daughter, the princess, is

in love with a
commoner, a semibarbaric king, for entertainment and to

mete out justice,
orders the commoner into a public arena to choose between

two doors, from
behind which the commoner knows not what will emerge—a

beautiful
woman to be his wife, or a tiger to maul him to death. With

the exception of
her lover who looks to the princess for her guidance, no

one notices her ges
ture to him to select the door on the right. The princess

knows what is behind
each door, but it is left to the reader to infer the fate

of her lover. Human
nature and probability factor into the discussion.

Mathematical Ideas: Probability, equally likely events,
unequally likely
events, using an area model to represent probability,

designing a maze to
maximize the probability of an outcome of compound

(unequally likely
events), and discussing intuitive notions of conditional

probability. Instructional Suggestions: The story is
appropriate for students in Grades 7–9. After reading the
story as a launch for a lesson on probability, students
discuss their thoughts and feelings about the plot and what
they think happens after the commoner selects the door on
the right. A diagram of the arena could be created and
posted, and a discussion of the number of outcomes, and
whether or not the outcomes are equally likely may be
encouraged. Mazes from the Middle School Mathematics
Project: Probability (Phillips, Lappan, Winter, &
Fitzgerald, 1986, pp. 109–110) or Connected Mathematics:
What Do You Expect? (Lappan, Fey, Fitzgerald, Friel, &
Phillips, 1998, p.62) may be used to illustrate an area
model of probability with compound events that are equally
or unequally likely. Intuitive notions of conditional
probability may be discussed and students may be challenged
to design their own mazes to maximize the probability of a
desirable outcome.
Chapters 14 Empowering Readers of Social
Studies
Appleby, J., Brinkley, A., Broussard, A., McPherson, J., &

Ritchie, D. (2006). The American journey. New York: McGraw
Hill Glencoe.
Armento, B. (2000). Teaching content area reading. Social

Studies Leadership Conference. San Diego, CA.
Banks, J., Colleary, K., Cuhna, S., Echevarria, J., Parker,

W., Rawls, J., et al. (2007). Making a new nation. New
York: Macmillan McGraw Hill.
Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M. (1998). Teaching reading in the

content areas: If not me, then who? Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Bowen, G. (1994). Stranded at plimoth plantation 1626. New

York: HarperCollins Children’s Books.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Improving adolescent

literacy: Strategies that work. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Schell, E. (2005). “In your mind
and on the paper”: Teaching students to transform (and own)
texts. Social Studies Review: Journal of the California
Council for the Social Studies, 44(1), 26–31.
Grady, K. (2002). Adolescent literacy and content area

reading. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading
English and Communication. ED469930.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. (2001). Classroom

instruction that works: Research-based strategies for
increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

(1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving
reading in middle and high school classrooms. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schell, E. (2003). Exploring teachers’ experiences with the

Colonial Williamsburg Teacher Institute. San Diego, CA:
University of San Diego.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other

unnatural acts: Charting the future if teaching the past.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
15 Chapter 15 Understanding Literature:
Reading in the English/Language Arts
Classroom
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words

to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The
Guildford Press.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1986). Vocabulary building.

Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.
D’Souza, Dinesh. (2003). Letters to a young conservative.

(pp. 56–57). New York: Basic Books.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987).

Learning word meanings from context during normal reading.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of

reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2004). It’s time to tell the kids: If you

don’t do well in high school, you won’t do well in college
(or on the job). American Educator, 28(1), 10–11.
Shelley, M. (1988). Frankenstein. New York: Perma-Bound

Classics.
Stahl, S. A. & Shiel, T. G. (1992). Teaching meaning

vocabulary: Productive approaches for poor readers. Reading
and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 8,
223–241.
Smith, J. B., Smith, B., & Bryk, A. S. (1998). Setting the

pace: Opportunities to learn in Chicago’s elementary
schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press. E. Hanfmann and G. Vakar, eds. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. Translator Carol Jago teaches English at
Santa Monica High School and directs the California Reading
and Literature Project at UCLA. She is the author of
Classics in the Classroom: Designing Accessible Literature
Lessons (Heinemann, 2004).
16 Chapter 16 The Arts and Literacy
Across the Curriculum
Bial, R. (1995). The underground railroad. New York:

Houghton Mifflin.
Chute, M. (1976). Stories from Shakespeare. New York:

Dutton.
Cox, C. (2008). Teaching language arts: A student-centered

classroom (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Davis, O. (1982). Langston. New York: Delacorte.
Dunning, S. (1966). Reflections on a gift of watermelon

pickle and other modern verse. New York: Scott Foresman.
Fleishman, P. (1985). I am phoenix: Poems for two voices.

New York: Harper and Row.
Fleishman, P. (1988). Joyful noise: Poems for two voices.

New York: Harper and Row.
Flood, J., Lapp, D., Flood, S., & Nagel, G. (1992). Am I

allowed to group? Using flexible patterns for effective
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45, 608–616.
Garfield, L. (1985). Shakespeare stories. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.
Garfield, L. (1994). Shakespeare stories II. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.
Hoyt, L. (1992). Many ways of knowing: Using drama, oral

interactions, and the visual arts to enhance reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 45, 580–584.
International Reading Association (IRA) & National Council

of Teachers of English (NCTE). (1996). Standards for the
English language arts. Urbana, IL: NCTE; Newark, DE: IRA.
Kamerman, S. (Ed.). (1994). Plays of Black Americans: The

Black experience in America, dramatized for young people.
Boston: Plays.
Kelly, E. F. (1981). Curriculum drama. In N. McCaslin

(Ed.), Children and drama (2nd ed., pp. 91–104). New York:
Longman.
Lamb, C., & Lamb, M. (1979). Tales from Shakespeare. New

York: Dutton.
Lester, J. (Ed.) (1968). To be a slave. New York: Dial.
Levine, E. (1993). Freedom’s children: Young civil rights

activists tell their own stories. New York: Putnam.
McCaughrean, G. (1995). Stories from Shakespeare. New York:

Margaret K. McElderry Books.
Mason, S. (1986). Johnny’s song: Poetry of a Vietnam

veteran. New York: Bantam.
Meltzer, M. (1984). The Black Americans: A history in their

own words, 1619–1983. New York: Crowell.
Meltzer, M. (1995). Frederick Douglass: In his own words.

New York: Harcourt Brace.
Miles, B. (1985). Favorite tales from Shakespeare. New

York: Macmillan.
Nesbit, E. (1997). The best of Shakespeare. New York:

Oxford University Press.
Parks, R. (with J. Haskins). (1994). Rosa Parks: My story.

New York: Dial.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in

childhood. New York: Norton.
Plotz, H. (Ed.) (1955). Imagination’s other place: Poems of

science and mathematics. New York: Crowell.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1938). Literature as exploration. New

York: Appleton-Century.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978, 1994). The reader, the text, the

poem: The transactional theory of the literary work
(Revised paperback edition). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction.

Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122–128.
Ross, S. (1994). Shakespeare and Macbeth: The story behind

the play. New York: Viking.
Shakespeare. (1994). The Tempest. Retold by Bruce Coville.

New York: Doubleday.
Shakespeare. (1996). A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Retold by
Bruce Coville. New York: Dial Books.
Shakespeare. (1997) Macbeth. Retold by Bruce Coville. New

York: Dial Books.
Shakespeare. (1998). Romeo and Juliet. Retold by Margaret

Early. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Turner, G. (1989). Take a walk in their shoes. New York:

Cobblehill.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental

development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 12, 62–67.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. Wagner, B. (2003). Imaginative expression.
In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(2nd ed., pp. 1008–1021). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Young, T., & Vardell, S. (1993). Weaving
Reader’s Theater and nonfiction into the curriculum. The
17 Chapter 17 Authentic Contexts for
Developing Language Tools in Vocational
Education
Brozo, W. G. (2004). Bringing all students into the

conversation. Thinking Classroom, 5, 42–43.
Brozo, W. G., & Simpson, M. L. (2003). Readers, teachers,

learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Center for Workforce Preparation. (2004). A chamber guide

to improving workplace literacy. Washington, DC: U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
Chalupa, M. R. (1992). Critical thinking—Getting minds to

work. Business Education Forum, 47, 21–24.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in

service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Forgione, P. (1999). Achievement in the United States: Are

students performing better? Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Furco, A. (2001). Is service-learning really better than

community service? A study of high school service program
outcomes. In A. Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds.),
Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishers.
Graubard, A. (2004). Could vocational education be

progressive? Radical Teacher, 69, 10–17.
Hofstetter, C. R., Sticht, T., & Hofstetter, C. H. (1999).

Knowledge, literacy and power. Communication Research, 26,
58–80.
Kember, D. (1995). Open learning courses for adults: A

model of student progress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Melchior, A., & Ballis, L. N. (2001). Impact of

service-learning on civic attitudes and behaviors of middle
and high school youth: Findings from three national
evaluations. In A. Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds.),
Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishers.
Miller, C. (1990). Higher-order thinking: An integrated

approach for your classroom. Vocational Education Journal,
65, 26–27.
Redding, R. E. (1995). Cognitive task analysis for

instructional design. Distance Education, 16, 88–106.
Sangster, A., Maclaran, P., & Marshall, S. (2000).

Translating theory into practice: facilitating work-based
learning through IT. Innovations in Education and Training
International, 37, 50–58.
Skinner, R., & Chapman, C. (1999). Service-learning and

community service in K-12 public schools. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Smith, P. J. (2003). Workplace learning and flexible

delivery. Review of Educational Research, 73, 53–88.
Sticht, T. G. (1998). The functional context approach to

adult literacy development. Youth Policy, 16, 23.
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and

political identity development in adolescence. Journal of
Social Issues, 54, 95–512.
18 Chapter 18 Reading and Writing in
Sports, Physical and Health Education
Arendt, H. (1966). The great philosophers. Vol. II:

Spinoza. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.
Anonymous. (March 13, 1972). To Santa Claus and little

sisters. Time/Society. (99), 11.
Blanton,W. E., Black, K., & Moorman, G. (1990). The role of

purpose in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 443,
486–493.
Bradbury, R. (2007). www.brainyquote.com. Google.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Hermann, B. A. (1988). Modeling

mental processes helps poor readers become more strategic
readers. The Reading Teacher, 42, 762–767.
Gentile, L. M., & McMillan, M. M. (1992). Literacy for

students at risk: Developing critical dialogues. Journal of
Reading, 35, 636–641.
Gentile, L. M., & McMillan, M. M. (1994). Critical

dialogue: The road to literacy for students at risk in
middle schools. Middle School Journal, 25(4), 50–54.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at

work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Joyce, B. R., & Clift, R. (1984). The Phoenix agenda:

Essential reform in teacher education. Educational
Researcher, 13(4), 5–18.
Langer, J. A. (1984). Examining background knowledge and

text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,
468–481.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). A teaching model that helps develop

active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39,
564–570.
Palinscar, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal

teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Palincsar, A. M. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing

scaffolding instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21,
73–98.
Ross, C. P., & Lee, A. R. (1983). Suicide in youth and what
you can do about it. Burlingame, CA: Suicide and Prevention
Crisis Center of San Mateo County.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). Basketball’s John

Wooden: What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today,
9(8), 74–78.
Tompkins, G. (1994). Teaching writing: Balancing process

and product. New York: Macmillan.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.
Woolf, A. (March 16, 1992). Blue angel: Duke’s divine

spirit and working class ethics forge an exemplary program.
Sports Illustrated, 67.
19 Chapter 19 Literacy and Technology
Integration in the Content Areas
19_Ch19_8156 6/13/07 10:08 PM Page 400 Grisham, D. L., &

Wolsey, T. D. (2006). Recentering the middle school
classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students,
literacy and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, 49, 648–660. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer,
C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory
of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other
information and communication technologies. In R. B.
Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association. Retrieved March 22,
2007: http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/
lit_index.asp?HREF =leu/ Leu, D. J., Leu, D. D., & Coiro,
J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet K-12: New literacies
for new times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon,
Publishers, Inc. MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of
new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. A.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
writing research (pp. 248–262). New York: Guilford Press.
Manzo, A.V., Manzo, U. C. & Thomas, M. M. (2005). Content
area literacy: Strategic teaching for strategic learning
(4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Marzano, R. J.
(1995). Building background knowledge for academic
achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. (2001).
Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies
for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McEneaney, J. E. (2000, November). Ink to link: A hypertext
history in 36 nodes. Reading Online, 4(5). Retrieved March
22, 2007: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/
art_index.asp? HREF=/articles/mceneaney2/index.html
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Rates of
computer and Internet use by children in nursery school and
students in kindergarten through twelfth grade: 2003.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved
March 22, 2007: http://nces.ed .gov/pubs2005/2005111.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants
[Electronic version]. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Retrieved
March 22, 2007 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/
20 Chapter 20 Writing in the Disciplines:
More Than Writing Across the Curriculum
Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T. (Eds.). (1989). Writing to

learn mathematics and science. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2001). Interactions: Teaching

writing and the language arts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Grandgenett, N. F., Hill, J. W., & Lloyd, C. V. (1995).

Connecting reasoning and writing in student “how to”
manuals. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Connecting
mathematics across the curriculum (pp. 142–146). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing

science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press
Hargrove, T. Y. and Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks:

Tools for increasing achievement across the curriculum.
ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearinghouse. ED 482720.
House, P. (1996). Try a little of the write stuff. In P. C.

Elliot & M. J. Kenney (Eds.). Communication in mathematics,
K-12 and beyond (pp. 89–94). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hynd-Shanahan, C., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P.

(2004). Thinking like an historian: College students’
reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of
Literacy Research, 36, 141–176.
Kashatus, W. C. (2002). Past, present and personal:

Teaching writing in U.S. history. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinneman.
Kenyon, R. W. (2000). Using writing in mathematics. New

York: Teachers and Writers Collaborative.
Levy, L. (2004). Most pressing issue in higher education:

Drawing out the voices. P h i Kappa Phi Forum, 84, pp.
56–57.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and

automatic human information Processing: II. Perceptual
learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Stonewater, J. K. (2002). The mathematics writer’s
checklist: The development of a preliminary assessment tool
for writing in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics,
102, 324–334.
Worsley, D. & Mayer, B. (2000). The art of science writing.

New York: Teachers and Writers Collaborative. APPENDIX
The appendix offers an additional list of writing prompts

in the content
areas. They won’t stand alone as content area prompts any

more than will
any other prompt stand alone. We must teach the prompts to

students and
model for them how to think in them, just as we teach

anything else. The
chapter suggests ways you can use the prompts effectively.

Some of these
prompts can serve thinking and writing needs in five

minutes, and others can
demand far more extensive time. They are all about the
larger curriculum in
which students participate every day. Your role as the

teacher is to think
about how you can adapt the following prompts, as well as

invent new ones,
to your teaching.
■ Make a list of words or phrases that mean something like

“hungry. ” Write a paragraph of not more than three
sentences that makes readers feel hungry.
■ Write at least four alternative ways to write the main

idea in the following sentence: The old man and woman were
alone in the large house.
CHAPTER 20 WRITING IN THE DISCIPLINES 4 2 1 ■ Read Robert

Frost’s “Swinger of Birches.” Listen as someone else reads
the poem. In one sentence of between nine and twelve words,
describe an image you get when you read and hear the poem.
■ If the color of fear happened to be blue, what color do
you think “concern” might be? Write about “concern” and its
color in two sentences. ■ Write three different sentences,
each of which tells about the idea of “solar system.” ■ In
one three-sentence paragraph, one sentence of which is
complex , write what you think is the editorial philosophy
of your local newspaper. ■ Write a two-sentence paragraph
in which the main idea is the sixth amendment to the United
States Constitution. ■ Write a simple sentence in which you
explain the term “crocodile tears” in the sentence “She sat
alone crying crocodile tears.” ■ Select one of the
following terms to explain in a compound sentence: eating
crow, a pig in a poke, a white elephant, a Simon Legree. ■
Learn enough about the Hittites to write a 200-word paper
regarding their relationship with the Egyptians. ■ In not
more than 60 nor fewer than 50 words, write what was
happening in England when Abraham Lincoln was President of
the United States. ■ Pretend that the first non-Indian
settlers in what became the United States were Asian, not
Europeans, and landed at what is now San Francisco. In one
page, or 250 words, whichever is shorter, suggest how the
United States might be different today. ■ Find out the
percentage of the annual budget in your town or city spent
on police protection. Make an argument on half a page, or
125 words, whichever is shorter, for reducing the cost of
police protection by 10%. ■ In one three-sentence
paragraph, explain who Nat Turner was. ■ Place the
following people into three categories, any three. You
decide. Isaac Newton Charles Lindberg Socrates Louis
Armstrong Aristotle Albert Einstein Copernicus Glenn Miller
Leonardo DaVinci In one paragraph, name and explain your
categories. ■ If the period of United States history
between 1850 and 2000 were placed on a 12-hour clock, what
time would it be when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon
for the first time, and when women achieved the right to
vote in the United States? Write a way to explain how you
calculated the time. ■ Find the name of a person who lived
between 1000 BC and 1000 AD. Write a half-page biography of
that person.
4 2 2 FARNAN AND FEARN
■ L e a rn enough about one of the following people to

write a half-page b i o g r a p h y: Crazy Horse,
Manulito, Billy Oseola, Looking Glass, Spotted Owl.
■ In one two-sentence paragraph, explain what a geyser is.
■ In two paragraphs, write how geysers and fumaroles are

similar and different.
■ In one sentence, explain why a raindrop becomes
pear-shaped.
■ What does gallinaceous mean? What are ungulates? Learn

enough about one or the other to write a two-sentence
explanation that someone three years younger than you could
understand.
■ Explain the relationship between the simple machines

known as inclined plane and screw. In one sentence, define
the first; in the next, define the second. In the third
sentence show how they are related.
■ In meteorological terms explain the difference between

high and low pressure.
■ In one four-sentence paragraph, describe the conditions

that produce stratus, cumulous, and cirrus clouds.
■ Identify three ways to get energy without burning or

heating anything, and write a four-sentence paragraph
designed to persuade a reader of the merits of your three
ways.
■ October 1958, and I was there! Write the history of

October 1958, for any one or more of the following
locations: Havana, Cuba; London, England; Saigon, South
Vietnam; Rome, Italy; or the city of 200,000 or more
closest to your home.
■ “There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of

unequals.” In one two-sentence paragraph, explain what the
Thomas Jefferson epigram means. In the second two-sentence
paragraph, write why you can agree with the epigram. In the
third two-sentence paragraph, write why you can disagree
with the epigram.
■ Write an argument of between 50 and 60 words for

requiring restitution to the victim as part of all
sentencing procedures.
■ Summarize a chapter in your science textbook in two

sentences that, together, may not exceed 30 words.
CHAPTER 20 WRITING IN THE DISCIPLINES 4 2 3

21 Chapter 21 Vocabulary Instruction in
the Content Areas
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland E., Olejnik, S., &

Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks. Effects of
instruction in morphology and context on fifth grade
students’ ability to derive and infer word meaning.
Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003).

Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J.
Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),
Handbook on research on teaching the English language arts
(2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumann, J. F., Font, G., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. (in

press). Strategies for teaching middle-grade students to
use word-part and context clues to expand reading
vocabulary. In E. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Bringing
scientific research to practice: Vocabulary. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1983). Learning words well:

A program to teach vocabulary and comprehension. The
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of

vocabulary acquisition. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), The
handbook of reading research, Vol. 2. New York: Longman.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing

words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York:
Guilford.
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the

disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research.
Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2004, March). Vocabulary

lessons. Educational Leadership, 61 (4), 66–69.
Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1982).

Lexical variations in intensity, immediacy, and diversity:
An axiomatic theory and causal model. In R. N. St. Clair &
H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of
language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buikema, J. A., & Graves, M. F. (1993). Teaching students

to use context cues to infer word meanings. Journal of
Reading. Note: need issue number, and pages used in this
Journal.
Calfee, R. C., & Drum, P. A. (1986). Research on teaching

reading. In M. D. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed., pp. 804–849). New York: Macmillan.
Carroll, J. B. (1956). Introduction. In J. B. Carroll

(Ed.), Language, thought, and reality (pp. 1–34).
Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The

reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading

does for the mind. American Educator, 22 (1–2), 8–15.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word

vocabulary. Chicago: World Book— Childcraft International.
De Temple, J., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from

books. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, and E. B. Bauer
(Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 16–36). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Duin, A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1987). The effects of

intensive vocabulary instruction on expository writing.
Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 311–330.
Duin, A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1988). Teaching vocabulary as

a writing prompt. Journal of Reading, 22, 204–212.
Frayer, D. A., Frederick, W. D., & Klausmeier, H. J.

(1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery
(Working Paper No. 16). Madison: Wisconsin Research and
Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Effects of

instruction in deriving word meanings from context: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68, 450–469.
Graves, M. F. (1985). A word is a word. New York:

Scholastic.
Graves, M. F. (1992). The elementary vocabulary curriculum:

What should it be? In M. J. Dreher & W. H. Slater (Eds.),
Elementary school literacy: Critical issues (pp. 101–131).
Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Graves, M. F. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement

and bolster a middle-grade comprehension program. In B. M.
Taylor, P. van den Broek, & M. F. Graves (Eds.), Reading
for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades.
New York: Teachers College Press. Graves, M. F. (2006). The
vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York:
Teachers College Press. Graves, M. F., & Gebhart, D. V.
(1982). Content teachers’ predictions of students’
knowledge of specific words. Reading Psychology, 3,
211–220. Graves, M. F., & Hammond, H. K. (1980). A
validated procedure for teaching prefixes and its effect on
students’ ability to assign meaning to novel words. In M.
L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on reading
research and instruction. Washington, D.C.: National
Reading Conference. Graves, M. F., & Watts, S. M. (2002).
The place of word consciousness in a researchbased
vocabulary program. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup
(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction
(3 rd ed., pp. 140–165). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early
catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator, 27
(1), 4–9. Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K.
(1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American
Educational Research Journal, 21, 767–787. Johnson, D. D, &
Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading comprehension (2nd
ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Johnson, D. D.,
Johnson, B. V. H., & Schlichting, K. (2004). Logology: Word
and language play. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame’enui,
(Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp.
179–200). New York: The Guilford Press. Klare, G. R.
(1984). Readability. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of
reading research (pp. 681–744). New York: Longman. Miller,
G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Commentary on Anglin’s
analysis of vocabulary growth. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 59 (10), 167–175, Moore,
D. W., & Moore, S. A. (1986). Possible sentences. In E. K.
Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore (Eds.),
Reading in the content areas (pp. 174–178). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall-Hunt. Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How
many words are there in printed school English? Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330. Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P.
A. (1987). Depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge:
Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G.
McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary
acquisition (pp. 119–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Neilsen,
L., & Piché, G. L. (1981). The influence of headed nominal
complexity and lexical choice on teacher’s evaluation of
writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 65–73.
Nist, S. L., & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and
dictionary definitions on various levels of word knowledge.
Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 172–193. Petty, W. T.,
Harold, C. P., & Stoll, E. (1968). The state of knowledge
about the teaching of vocabulary. Champaign, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English. Ryder, R. J., & Graves, M.
F. (1994). Vocabulary instruction presented prior to
reading in two basal readers. Elementary School Journal,
95, 139–153. Ryder, R. J., & Graves, M. F. (2003). Reading
and learning in content areas (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Scott, J. A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003).
Vocabulary instruction throughout the school day in 23
Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. The Elementary School
Journal, 103, 269–286. Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2004).
Developing word consciousness. In J. F. Baumann & E. J.
Kame’enui, (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to
practice (pp. 201–217). New York: The Guilford Press.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World. Stahl, S. A., & Kapinus, B. A. (1991). Possible
sentences: Predicting word meanings to teach content area
vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 45, 36–43.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from

context. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature
of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Terman, L. M. (1918). Vocabulary test as a measure of

intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9,
452–466.
Watts, S. M. (1995). Vocabulary instruction during reading

lessons in six classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27,
399–424.
White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990).

Development of recognition and reading vocabularies in
diverse sociolinguistic and educational settings. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 281–290.
White, T. G., Slater, W. H., & Graves, M. F. (1989). Yes/No

method of vocabulary assessment: Valid for whom and useful
for what? Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy
research and instruction (pp. 391–398). Chicago: National
Reading Conference.
White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching

elementary students to use word-part clues. The Reading
Teacher, 42, 302–308.
Whorf, B. L. (1956/1940). Science and linguistics. In J. B.

Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality (pp 207–219).
Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R.
(1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY:
Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
22 Chapter 22 Study Techniques that
Ensure Content Area Reading Success
22_Ch22_8156 6/13/07 10:09 PM Page 468 Beane, J. (1990).

Middle school curriculum: Rhetoric to reality. Columbus,
OH: National Middle School Association. Blachowicz, C., &
Fisher, P. (2005). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms.
Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall. Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987).
KWL-Plus: A strategy for comprehension and summarization,
Journal of Reading, 30, 626–631. Caverly, D. C.,
Mandeville, T. F., & Nicholson, S. A. (1995). PLAN: A study
reading strategy for informational text. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 190–199. Devine, T. G.
(1981). Teaching study skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Doty,
J., Cameron, G., & Barton, M. L. (2003). Teaching reading
in social studies. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional
Education Laboratory. Estes, T. H. & Richards, H. C.
(1985). Habits of study and test performance. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 17, 1–13. Estes, T. H. & Vaughan, J. L.
(1986). Reading and learning in the content classroom:
Diagnostic and instructional strategies. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon. Guthrie, J. T. & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating
students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that
increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle
& V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading
research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Guthrie, J. T. & Kirsch, I. S. (1987). Literacy as
multidimensional: Locating information in text and reading
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79,
220–228. Hayes, J. A. (1989). Helping students GRASP the
knack of writing summaries. Journal of Reading, 20, 96–101.
Hoffman, J. V. (1992). Critical reading/thinking across the
curriculum: Using I-Charts to support learning. Language
Arts, 69, 121–127. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999).
Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(3), 349–366. Langer, J. A. (1981) From
theory into practice: A pre-reading plan. Journal of
Reading, 25, 152–156. Larson, C. D. & Dansereau, D. F.
(1986). Cooperative learning in dyads. Journal of Reading,
29, 516–520. Margulies, N. (2002) Mapping inner space:
learning and teaching mind mapping. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr
Press. Moore, P. (1995). Information problem-solving: A
wider view of library skills. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 20, 1–31. National Reading Panel. (2000).
Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to
read. Jessup, MD: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to
care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Ogle, D.
(1986). KWL: A teaching model that develops active reading
of expository text. The Reading Teacher. 39, 364–370. Ogle,
D. (2002). Coming together as readers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press. Ogle, D. M. (2005). K-W-L + in action. In H.
Daniels & M. Bizar (Eds.), Teaching the best practices
way: Methods that matter, K–12 (pp. 63–71). Portland, ME:
Stenhouse. Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. (2002). Beyond
literature circles: Helping students comprehend
informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices (pp.
275–288). New York: Guilford Press. Pailliotet, A., Semali,
L., & Rodenburg, R. (2000). Intermediality: Bridge to
critical media literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2),
208–219. Palincsar, A. M. S., Ogle, D. S., Jones, B. F. &
Carr, E. (1986). Teaching reading as thinking: Trainer’s
manual. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development 22_Ch22_8156 6/13/07 10:09 PM
Page 469 Piagey, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology.
New York: Grossman. PIRLS. (2003). PIRL’s 2001
international report: IEA’s study of reading literacy
achievement in primary schools. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston
College. RAND Reading Study Group. (2003). Reading for
understanding: Toward a R & D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Readance, J., Bean,
T. & Baldwin, S. (1989). Content area reading: An
integrated approach (pp. 132–133). Dubuque, IA: Kendall
Hunt. Renard, L. (2005). Teaching the DIG generation.
Educational Leadership, 62 (7), 45–47. Robinson, F. (1970).
Effective study (Rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Roth,
K. J. (1990) Developing meaningful conceptual understanding
in science. In B. J. Jones & L. Idol (Eds) Dimensions of
thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 138– 176). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Short, K. G., Harstee, J.
C. & Burke, C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and
inquirers (pp. 528–535). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Snow,
C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing
reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. Starks, G. A. (1980). New
approaches to teaching study habits in high school and
college. Journal of Reading, 23, 401–403. Tomlinson, T.
(1992). Hard work and high expectations: Motivating
students to learn. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
22_Ch22_8156 6/13/07 10:09 PM Page 470

23 Chapter 23 Using Concept Mapping as an
Effective Strategy in Content Area
Instruction
Faletti, J., Fisher, K., Lipson, J., Patterson, P. &

Thornton, R. (1986). SemNet® (Version) [Computer software].
San Diego, CA: SemNet® Research Group.
Fisher, K. M. & Faletti, J. (1993, April). Promoting

metacognition about knowledge organization skills in
biology. In (Chair), Metacognition & conceptual change.
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Fisher, K. M. & Faletti, J. (April 1993). Metacognition is

not enough: Promoting metacognition about knowledge
organization skills in biology. Presented in a Symposium on
Metacognition and Conceptual Change. Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. Atlanta,
Georgia.
Inspiration Software (2005). Inspiration® (Version)

[Computer software]. Portland, OR: Inspiration Software,
Inc.
Semantic Research (2001). Semantica® (Version)[Computer

software]. San Diego, CA: Semantic Research, Inc.
form of concept mapping. Introduce concept mapping in

small, easy stages
and give students plenty of time to refine their ability to

ask appropriate ques
tions about different topics. The payoff can be thinking

habits that will serve
students in all areas of study for the rest of their lives.
Imagine that you and your students are deve loping a

concept map
on the cha lk board as your pr inc ipa l wa lks in

to the room. After
c lass , she asks you why you were do ing that (concept
mapping).
You respond by say ing you want to he lp students be

more effect ive
learners . “Good,” she responds, “but why are you us
ing that par
t icu lar st rategy?” Write your answer to her quest

ion.
24 Chapter 24 Using Questioning
Strategies to Promote Students’ Active
Discussion and Comprehension of Content
Area Material
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’

sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led
discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly,
30(3), 314–351.
Almasi, J. F. (1996). A new view of discussion. In L. B.

Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions:
Fostering engaged reading (pp. 2–24). Newark, DE:
Almasi, J. F. (2002). Peer discussion. In B. Guzzetti

(Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp.
420–424). New York: ABC.
Almasi, J. F., Palmer, B. M., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W.,
Shanahan, L., et al. (April, 2004). A longitudinal
investigation of peer discussion of text on reading
development in grades K-3. Final Report submitted to the
Institute of Education Sciences.
Almasi, J. F., O’Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). A

comparative analysis of student and teacher development in
more proficient and less proficient peer discussions of
literature. Reading Research Quarterly,36(2), 96–120.
Almasi, J. F., & Russell, W. (1998, December). Scaffold to

nowhere? Appropriated voice, metatalk, and personal
narrative in third graders’ peer discussions of information
text. Paper presented at the 48 th Annual Meeting of the
National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Alpert, B. R. (1987). Active, silent, and controlled

discussions: Explaining variations in classroom
conversation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(1), 29–40.
Alvermann, D. E., O’Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D. R. (1990).

What teachers do when they say they’re having discussions
of content area reading assignments. Reading Research
Quarterly, 25, 296–322. Th ink about how you might a l
te r your content a rea c lassroom to promote act ive
d iscuss ion. What changes could you make to your c lass
before , dur ing, and after reading to Befo re Whi l e
Af te r Read ing Read ing Read ing In i t ia te d iscuss
ions Susta in d iscuss ions Manage d iscuss ions
Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985).
Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of
compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20, 420–435. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D.
(1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L.
Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Research (vol. 1, pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., & Shirey, L. L. (1983).
Effects of the reader’s schema at different points in time.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 271–279.
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., &
Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending
discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4),
367–381. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive
skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
and P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(vol. 1, pp. 353–394). New York: Longman. Beck, I. L.,
McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R., & Kucan, L. L. (1997).
Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student
engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association. Blanton, W. E., Wood, K. D., & Moorman, G. B.
(1990). The role of purpose in reading instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 43(7), 486–493. Bransford, J. D., &
Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for
understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and
recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11,
717–726. Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy, and
discussion. Windsor, England: National Foundation for
Educational Research. Brown, D. (1970). Bury my heart at
Wounded Knee: An Indian history of the American west. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Brown, D., & Ehrlich, A.
(1993). Wounded Knee: An Indian history of the American
west. New York: Henry Holt & Company. Cazden, C. B. (1986).
Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432–463). New York:
Macmillan. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The
language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann. Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil
discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 109–121.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of
the intellect. New York: Pergamon Press. Flavell, J. H.
(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area
of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist,
34, 906–911. Freedman, R. (1983). Children of the wild
west. New York: Clarion Books. Garner, R., & Reis, R.
(1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles:
An investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among
upper-grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research
Quarterly, 16, 569–582. Good, T. L., Slavings, R. L.,
Harel, K. H., & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passivity: A
study of question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociology of
Education, 60, 181–199. Hartman, D., & Allison, J. (1996).
Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple
texts. In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively
discussions: Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106–133).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Jahoda, G.
(1975). The trail of tears. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston. King, D. C. (2003). Westward expansion. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley. Langer, J. A. (1992). Rethinking literature
instruction. In J. A. Langer (Ed.), Literature instruction:
A focus on student response (pp. 35–53). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English. Lipson, M. Y.
(1983). The influence of religious affiliation on
children’s memory for text information. Reading Research
Quarterly, 18, 448–457. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mishler, E. G. (1978). Studies in dialogue and discourse:

III. Utterance structure and utterance function in
interrogative sequences. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 7(4), 279–305.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Worthy, J. (1993). Grappling

with text ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading
Teacher, 46(7), 560–566.
O’Flahavan, J. F. (1989). An exploration of the effects of

participant structure upon literacy development in reading
group discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois-Champaign.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect

of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension
of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 11(3), 201–209.
Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior

knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16–20.
Schlissel, L. (1992). Women’s diaries of the westward

journey. New York: Schocken Books.
Schlissel, L., Gibbens, B., & Hampsten, E. (1989). Far from

home: Families of the westward journey. New York: Schocken
Books.
Taft, M. L., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior

knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and
comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(2), 163–179.
Taylor, M. D. (1976). Roll of thunder, hear my cry. New
York: Penguin Books.
Taylor, M. D. (1987). The friendship. New York: Dial Books.
Taylor, M. D. (1987). The gold cadillac. New York: Penguin

Books.
Taylor, M. D. (1990). Mississippi bridge. New York: Dial

Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.
25 Chapter 25 Multigenre Reading and
Writing in the Content Areas
Cobblestone (March 1995). Emily Dickinson: American poet.

Peterborough, NH: Cobblestone Publishing. Retrieved
m/d,/y, from http://www.cobblestone.pub.com
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: The

Free Press.
Gambrell, L. B., & Marinak, A. B. (1995). Incentives and

intrinsic motivation to read. In J. T. Guthrie & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers
through integrated instruction (pp. 205–217). Newark DE:
Glenn, M. (1996). Who killed Mr. Chippendale? A mystery in

poems. New York: Dutton.
Grierson, S. T. (2002). Exploring the past through

multigenre writing. Language Arts, 80(1), 51–59.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and

motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P.
D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research:
Vol. III (pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hartman, D. K., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting

inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. In L. B.
Gambrel & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions:
Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106–133). Newark, DE:
Hynd, C. R. (1999). Teaching students to think critically

using multiple texts in history. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 42(6): 428–436.
Kucan, L. (2002). Multitext reading/Multigenre writing:

Inviting students to engage critically and creatively with
text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
Kucan, L., & Simpson, H. (2004). Multitext/multigenre

projects: Invitations to transform information. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International
Reading Association, Reno, NV.
LeNoir, W. D. (2002). The multigenre warning label. English

Journal, 92(2), 99–101.
Levstik, L., & Barton, K. C. (1997). Doing history:
Investigating with children in elementary and middle
schools. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mack, N. (2002). The ins, outs, and in-betweens of

multigenre writing. English Journal, 92(2), 91–98.
Medina, T., Christie, R. G., & Christie, G. (2002). Love to

Langston. New York: Lee & Low.
Monseau, V. R. (2002). Multigenre teaching [Special issue].

English Journal, 92(2).
Moulton, M. R. (1999). The multigenre paper: Increasing

interest, motivation and functionality in research. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(7), 528–538.
Myers, W. D. (1999). Monster. New York: HarperCollins.
Ondaatje, M. (1970). The collected works of Billy the Kid.

New York: Vintage.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension

instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. II, pp.
815–860
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995).

Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history, pp.
189. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing

technological transformations of literacy in a
post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.
D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and
technology (pp. xi–xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rodin, J., Rennert, K., & Solomon, S. (1980). Intrinsic

motivation for control: Fact or fiction. In A. Baum, J. E.
Singer, & S. Valios (Eds.), Advances in environmental
psychology II. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Romano, T. (1995). Writing with passion: Life stories,

multiple genres. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Romano, T. (2000). Blending genre, altering style.

Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Sis, P. (2003). The tree of life: A book depicting the life

of Charles Darwin, naturalist, geologist & thinker. New
York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in

Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research:
Vol. III (pp. 609–627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other

essays. New York: Free Press.
Chapters 26 Inquiry With and Through
Literacies: Rethinking Our Destination
and Journey
Education Queensland (2000a) Literate Futures: Report of

the Literacy Review for Queensland State Schools. Brisbane;
Education Queensland.
Education Queensland (2000b), New Basics—Curriculum

organizers. Brisbane; Education Queensland.
Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs;

debates and demands in cultural contexts, Prospect, 5, pp.
7–15.
Luke, A. (1999) Education 2010 and new times: why equity

and social justice still matter, but differently. Education
Queensland online conference, October 20, 1999.
McGinley, W., & Tierney, R. J. (1989). Traversing the

topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing.
Written Communication, 6, 243–269.
The New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies:

Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66,
(1).
O’Flahavan, J. & Tierney, R. J. (1996) Developing inquiry

oriented literacy in secondary classrooms. In D. Lapp, J.
Flood, and N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and
learning: Instructional strategies. (Second edition).
Norwood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Short, K., Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1996.) Creating

classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Sizer, T. (1996). Horace’s hope: What works for the

American High School. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Tierney, R. J., Soter, A., O’Flahavan, J. F., & McGinley,

W. (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking
critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 134–173.
27 Chapter 27 Reading Assessmment in the
Content Areas
Beers, K. (2003). When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can

Do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Caldwell, J. & Leslie, L. (2004). Does proficiency in

middle school reading assure profcicency in high school
reading? The possible role of think-alouds. Journal of
adolescent & adult literacy, 47(4), 324–335. Chamot, A. U.
& O’Malley, J. M. (1992). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing
the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: Reading.
MA: Addison-Wesley. Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language
learning, transformative pedagogy, and information
technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly,
34(3), 537–547. Dutro, S. & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking
English language instruction: An architectural approach. In
G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest
level of English literacy (pp. 227–258). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association. Ehlinger, J. &
Pritchard, R. (1994). Using think-alongs in secondary
content areas. Reading, Research, and Instruction. 33(3),
187–206. Hemingway, E. (1952). The old man and the sea. New
York: Scribner’s Sons. Jacobs, R. (1988). HBJ introductory
algebra 2. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Manzo, A.
& Manzo, U. (2004). ‘bdp’ syndrome: Problem & solution for
a nagging academic language learning dilemma in literacy
and content area teaching. California Reader, 38(2), 14–23.
McQuillan, J. (1998). The literacy crisis: False claims,
real solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Montes, F.
(2002). Enhancing content areas through a cognitive
academic language learning based collaborative in South
Texas. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3), 697–716.
Pritchard & Breneman. (2000). Strategic Teaching and
Learning: Standards-Based Instruction to Promote Content
Literacy in Grades Four Through Twelve. Sacramento:
California Department of Education. Schmitt, M. C. (1990,
March). A Questionnaire to Measure Children’s Awareness of
Strategic Reading Processes. The Reading Teacher, 454–461.
Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2005). Content Area Reading:
Literacy and Learning across the Curriculum. Pearson
Education Inc. Valdez-Pierce, L. & O’Malley, J. (1992).
Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority
students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 9.
www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig9.htm. Wilhelm, J.
(2001). Think-alouds: Boost reading comprehension.
Instructor v111 n4, 26–28. Wilhelm, J. (2002). Improving
comprehension with think-aloud strategies. Jefferson City,
MO: Scholastic.
Chapters 28 It’s Hard to Learn When . . .
Student Engagement in Middle and
High-School Classrooms
Rinne, C. H. (1998). Motivating students is a percentage

game. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(8), 620–627.
Rosenthal, R. (1974). On the social psychology of the

self-fulfilling prophecy: Further evidence of the Pygmalion
effects and their medicating mechanisms. New York: MSS
Modular.
Rouse, K. A. G. (2001). Resilient students’ goals and

motivation. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 461–472.
Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the

development of young adolescent motivation and achievement.
Child Development, 72, 1135–1150.
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Elbow, P. (Eds). (1997). Writing to

learn: Strategies for assigning and responding to writing
across the disciplines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wlodkowski, R., & Jaynes, J. H. (1990). Eager to learn:

Helping children become motivated and love learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2001). The first days of

school. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Educational psychology (4th ed.).

29 Chapter 29 Creating Response-Centered
Learning Environments: Using Authentic
Texts to Extend and Enrich the Curriculum
Hancock, M. R. (2000). A celebration of literature and

response: Children, books, and teachers in K–8 classrooms.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Knickerbocker, J. L., & Rycik, J. (2002). Growing into

literature: Adolescents’ literary interpretation and
appreciation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
46(3), 196–208.
Lenihan, G. (2003). Reading with adolescents: Constructing

meaning together. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
47(1), 8–12.
Lester, J. (1969). To be a slave. NY: Puffin Books.
Levine, K. (2003). Hanna’s suitcase: A true story. Chicago:

Albert Whitman.
Morrison, T. (1987). Beloved. NY: Vintage.
Neal, J., & Moore, K. (1991). The Very Hungry Caterpillar

meets Beowulf in secondary classrooms. Journal of Reading,
35, 290–296.
Pringle, L. (1982). Water: The next great resource battle.

New York: Macmillan.

(1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving
reading in middle and high school classrooms. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spiegel, D. L.(1998). Reader response approaches and the

growth of readers. Language Arts, 76, 41–48.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (1993). Content area reading. New

York: Harper Collins.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (2005). Content area reading:

Literacy and learning across the curriculum. Boston:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2001). The new American middle

school: Educating preadolescents in an era of change. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. APPENDIX
In addition to the before, during, and after activities
incorporated
within the context of the chapter, the appendix offers the

following sug
gestions for before, during, and after activities that can

be used with
content area students to extend and clarify the chapter’s

content.
Before Reading Pair students who plan to teach the same

content area. Have the pairs select a topic that will be
part of the content area they will teach. Ask students to
search the Internet and library resources to find
appropriate, authentic materials that could be used to
supplement textbook reading in their content area. Have
student share their findings with one another and discuss
ways in which they might incorporate these supplemental
materials into their content area classes.
During Reading Groups students in small groups of four or

five so that at least two content areas are represented in
each group. Working in their small groups, have students
select a topic of study or semantic unit that is used in a
grade level that they plan to teach. Have students
collaborate to create a semantic map or other graphic
organizer that illustrates how a thematic unit could be
developed to span two or more content areas. Primary
topics as well as subtopics should be included on the
organizer. Based on the graphic organizer they create, have
students brainstorm different types of authentic texts that
could be used to enhance their interdisciplinary study.
After Reading Based on a text or piece of literature that
the whole class has read, have students work in small
groups to develop a tableau for a chosen or assigned
portion of the text. Once the tableaus are complete, have
each group perform their tableau for the others. Ask the
students to discuss their responses to the tableaus they
have seen performed, including the process through which
they developed these performances in response to their
reading. Have students discuss ways in which they could
facilitate their own students’ understanding of content
area concepts through the use of this strategy.
30 Chapter 30 Lesson Planning for Best
Practices in the Content Areas
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The

case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension be the

instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, A. R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Volume III (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (2004).

Content area literacy: An integrated approach (8th ed).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Sadler, C. R. (2001). Comprehension strategies for middle

grade learners: A handbook for content area teachers.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of

assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 758–765.
Stiggins, R., Griswold, M., & Wikelund, K. (1989).

Measuring thinking skills through classroom assessment.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 233–246.
Wade, S. E. & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in

Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Vol. 3 (pp. 609–627). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wood, K. D. (1987). Fostering cooperative learning in

middle and secondary level classrooms. Journal of Reading,
31, 10–18.
Wood, K. D. (2001). Literacy strategies across the subject

areas. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wood, K. D., & Harmon, J. M. (2002). Strategies for

integrating reading and writing in middle and secondary
classrooms. Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.
Wood, K. D., Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1992). Guiding readers

through print: A review of study guides. Newark, DE:
Wood, K. D., & Muth, K. (1991). The case for improved

instruction in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 35,
84–90.

Preview

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Preview

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Content Area Reading

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business

© 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISBN 978-0-8058-5205-9 (pbk)

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

and the LEA Web site at

PART I CONTENT AREA READING: AN OVERVIEW

Chapter 1 Content Area Reading: The Current State of the Art 3

PART II THE TEACHER AND THE TEXT

Chapter 2 The Role of Textbooks and Tradebooks in Content Area Reading 19

Chapter 3 Matching Readers and Texts: The Continuing Quest 35

PART III THE STUDENTS

Chapter 4 Why Content Area Literacy?: Focus on Students 55

Chapter 6 Engaging Students’ Interest and Participation in Learning 115

Chapter 7 Drawing on Youth Cultures in Content Learning and Literacy 133

Chapter 9 The Content Area Teacher’s Instructional Role:

Chapter 13 Reading, Writing, and Mathematics: A Problem-solving Connection 257

Chapters 14 Empowering Readers of Social Studies 271

Chapter 15 Understanding Literature: Reading in the English/Language Arts Classroom 303

Chapter 16 The Arts and Literacy Across the Curriculum 327

Chapter 19 Literacy and Technology Integration in the Content Areas 381

Chapter 21 Vocabulary Instruction in the Content Areas 425

Chapter 24 Using Questioning Strategies to Promote Students’ Active Discussion

Chapter 25 Multigenre Reading and Writing in the Content Areas 515

Chapter 27 Reading Assessmment in the Content Areas 553

PART V SCHOOL CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT

Chapters 28 It’s Hard to Learn When . . . Student Engagement in Middle

Chapter 29 Creating Response-Centered Learning Environments: Using Authentic Texts

Author Index 635

ABOUT THIS BOOK

NEW IN THIRD EDITION

Guiding Content Future

CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART

4 BEAN AND HARPER

CONTENT AREA READING: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 5

6 BEAN AND HARPER

ADOLESCENT LITERACY AND CONTENT AREA READING

CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 7

8 BEAN AND HARPER

GUIDING CONTENT AREA LEARNING

CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 9

10 BEAN AND HARPER

CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 11

FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN CONTENT AREA LITERACY

12 BEAN AND HARPER

CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 13

14 BEAN AND HARPER

CHAPTER 1 CONTENT AREA READING: CURRENT STATE OF THE ART 15

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for

Rieck, B.J. (1977). How content teachers telegraph messages

Garcia, G. E., & Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy

Giroux, H. A. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy

Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content

Hinchman, K. A., Alvermann, D. E., Boyd, F. B., Brozo, W.

Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of

Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in “New

Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking.

Moje, E. B. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research

Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickleman, R. J. (1983).

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A.

Naidoo, B. (2000). The other side of truth. New York:

O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why