Improving Adolescent
Comprehension: Developing Learning Strategies in Content Areas
The field of adolescent literacy is
engaged in a continual struggle with what it means to promote
comprehension. Starting out as content area reading, the field was
preoccupied with developing teaching activities for learning from texts. For nearly 20 years, from the early 1960’s
until the early 1990’s, proponents of content area reading, and then content area literacy, recognizing the
integrated roles of reading, writing, speaking and listening (McKenna
& Robinson, 1990),
churned out one teaching activity after another for fostering
comprehension. The names of these
activities are ubiquitous – semantic maps and graphic organizers, anticipation
guides, three-level guides, journaling, I-searches and the list goes on and on. A compendium of these activities is in its sixth
edition (Tierney
& Readance, 2004).
In the 1990’s, the field turned its
attention to adolescents. In an article
documenting the shift, Lisa Patel Stevens argues for a reconceptualization of
the field to include out of school literacies (Stevens,
2002). Critical of school-based approaches to
comprehension, which, according to Stevens, focus on factual comprehension of
texts, she promotes adolescent multiple literacies. This reframing poses a fundamental shift in
views of comprehension to include the interaction of the learner, texts,
contexts and culture. In short,
comprehension is no longer the oversimplified application of a teaching activity
or task to a text, it is an ecological event characterized by the complexities
of an “enactment of self” and the “interplay of multiple texts.” (Moje et al., 2000).
Despite these huge ideological and
empirical swings – at one time for teaching activity and task and then toward a
celebration of the adolescent – an important point is repeatedly ignored:
comprehension, especially in the content areas, is about learning and, often, doing (Conley,
2007). Thorndike long ago recognized a very active
and strategic role for readers and comprehension, including sorting and
sifting, regarding some ideas as tentative and others as important, and
organizing comprehension for some greater purpose, such as problem solving or
communicating (Thorndike,
1917). Pressley and his colleagues have reinforced
and elaborated this view with comprehension
strategies as the engine that drives comprehension (Block et al., 2002; Pressley, 2000, 2006;
Pressley & Hilden, 2006). Comprehension strategies are goal oriented
processes that readers and writers use to construct meaning. What we know about comprehension strategies
and comprehension comes mostly from studies of skilled reading (Pressley,
2006; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Wyatt
et al., 1993) and
from studies of children who experience difficulties with reading (Cain
& Oakhill, 2004). The
message from this research is unequivocal: skilled readers know how to select
and apply comprehension strategies where and when they need them to comprehend;
struggling readers experience difficulties with comprehension because they know
little about comprehension strategies or how to use them.
Research in content arealiteracy/adolescent literacy has rarely, if ever, addressed comprehension
strategies, despite our growing understanding of their importance. Some critics of content area literacy have
suggested that the research is overly restricted in its focus solely on
teaching activities, tasks and text meanings, leaving the role of the reader out
entirely (Moje
et al., 2000). Adolescent literacy celebrates the uniqueness
of adolescence combined with the potential of multiple literacies, yet leaves
out any mention of comprehension strategies as a possible approach toward
empowering adolescents (Conley,
2007). These omissions are
important since both research perspectives – content area literacy and
adolescent literacy – could benefit by considering the link between learning
strategies and comprehension. For content
area literacy, comprehension strategies provide a purpose for instruction – to
teach students, for example, how to activate prior knowledge, summarize and
question, and organize information for recall and/or writing. For adolescent literacy, comprehension
strategies provide yet another form of literacy for constructing meaning within
in-school and out-of-school contexts.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore
comprehension strategies as a powerful foundation for adolescent comprehension
in the content areas. Previous research on comprehension strategies has been
limited by its focus on younger readers and writers with only very simple
tasks, such as memory and recall (Pressley& Hilden, 2006). Much less is known about the potential for
comprehension strategies that adolescents can employ to engage complex texts
and tasks in the content areas. This chapter explores the potential for
developing adolescents’ understanding of comprehension strategies in the
content areas.
The Failure to Connect Teaching, Learning and
Adolescents
Historically, content area reading
was designed to “develop students’ reading-to-learn strategies,” including
locating, comprehending, remembering and retrieving information (Moore et al., 1983). A second stated purpose was
to assist students in developing “reading-to-do” strategies, which include all
of the tasks that accompany content area-specific work, such as “completing labexperiments, assembling mechanical devices and following recipes.” The original notions of content area reading
placed students at the center of instruction, with the goal of helping students
develop understandings of reading strategies highly correlated with achievement
in the content areas (Moore
et al., 1983).
Moore, Readance and Rickelman’s historical review pointed to methods textbooks
devoted to content area reading as evidence of these views (Moore
et al., 1983).
However, if we examine past or even
current content area literacy textbooks, there is actually little, if any,
evidence that content area literacy develops students’ reading-to-learn
strategies or that students are necessarily at the center of instruction. Table 1 represents a recent analysis of
topics held in common among 8 popular methods textbooks in content area
literacy (Alvermann
& Phelps, 2002; Brozo & Simpson, 2006; McKenna & Robinson, 2001;
Readance et al., 2001; Ruddell, 2007;
Ryder & Graves, 1999; Unrau, 2003; Vacca & Vacca, 2004). To be sure, there are variations among the texts; some emphasize
multiculturalism, English as a second language, technology or No Child Left
Behind policy more or less than others and in different ways. Table 1 represents the topics found most
often among the texts.
------ Insert Table 1 about here --------
As the table illustrates, these textbooks
mostly depict instructional activities, often referred to as teaching or
instructional strategies, such as graphic organizers, directed reading thinking
activities, questioning (as instruction), K-W-L, Guided Reading Procedure, and
text structure and other kinds of reading guides. While some activities reference comprehension
strategies that students might use, such as summarizing or questioning, the
dominant representation within these textbooks is of teaching activities. Moreover, few methods texts deliberately
connect teaching activities with the development of adolescents’ comprehension
strategies, particularly with different kinds of students (more versus less
able readers, for instance). Rather than making connections between teaching
activities, learning strategies and different students, methods texts promote
general teaching activities as serving the need only to develop knowledge in a
content area. The texts do not
demonstrate how teachers could use a graphic organizer or reading guide, for
example, to help different students gain an understanding of how to activate
prior knowledge or organize knowledge for later recall independently.
The research reviews for content
area literacy and then adolescent literacy do not improve upon this picture,
preferring to treat teaching activity and the development of comprehension
strategies as distinct activities. Alvermann and Moore’s (1991) review draws a
distinction between “teaching strategies” which are content focused and
teacher-initiated and “comprehension strategies” which are student directed and
intended for building independence in reading and studying (Alvermann
& Moore, 1991).
Teaching strategies identified and reviewed include study guides, adjunct
questions, graphic organizers, advance organizers, using text structure and
comprehending main ideas. Comprehension
strategies include rehearsal (underlining, taking verbatim notes), elaborating
(taking notes through paraphrasing), organizing (mapping) and comprehension
monitoring (think-alouds, self-questioning).
In Moore
and Alvermann’s review, teaching strategies and comprehension strategies are
evaluated separately with regard to their efficacy with varying abilities of
students and their comprehension. The review found that students who benefit
the most from teaching strategies tend to be more able readers. An intriguing but untested hypothesis within
this research is that more able readers are able to take greater advantage of
teaching strategies compared with less able readers because more able readers
already understand and know how to apply comprehension strategies. To the
extent that teaching is recognized as a factor in developing comprehension
strategies, Moore and Alvermann do acknowledge that comprehension strategies
are best taught through direct instruction, explanation and modeling. Yet, none of the familiar content area
reading teaching activities (maps, guides etc.) is implicated for their
effectiveness in promoting comprehension strategies. Again, as with Moore, Readance and Rickelman’s (1983)
historical review, no connections are made between teachers’ specific use of
teaching strategies and students’ development of comprehension strategies.
Bean’s (2000) review reminds the field that students are at the
center of literacy instruction, focusing on developing “reading and writing skill
necessary to read, comprehend and react to appropriate instructional materials
in a given subject area.” (Bean,
2000). Coming 17 years after Moore, Readance andRickelman’s (1983) historical review, Bean reasserts that the students are
central to the process of engaging with texts.
Bean adds yet another twist by claiming that social contexts shape
comprehension, including the content areas and out of school contexts. An implication of Bean’s critique is that all
of the previous work on teaching strategies and comprehension strategies needs
to be reconsidered with regard to features of different social contexts,
including the complexity of beliefs and practices within different disciplines
and among teachers, variations in genre and task within and across content
areas and differences in students’ cultures, capabilities language, aspirations
and knowledge.
As expansive as this conceptualization is in comparison with
previous research and reviews focusing on teaching activities and comprehension
strategies, Bean’s contextual perspective does not provide explicit connections
between teaching and learning. While students are placed definitively at the
center of socially constructed meaning making, Bean does not explain how
learning could or should happen. As a
result, just as much as the more cognitive-oriented views of the past do not
connect teaching strategies and comprehension strategies, the social
constructivist approach highlights adolescents’ social milieu without providing
insight about what teachers could or should do to help them (teaching strategies)
or what students could or should do to help themselves (comprehension
strategies). This ongoing omission –
connecting teaching, learning and adolescents - is responsible for severely
limiting what the fields of content area literacy/adolescent literacy can
recommend with regard to improving adolescent comprehension.
Seeking Balance with Third Space
Moje et al.’s (2004) work with third space represents a
groundbreaking attempt to return students to the center of comprehension, as
envisioned by Bean, while connecting with the more cognitive point of view of
strategies, promoted by Alvermann and Moore.
One could argue that Moje’s work finally delivers on Moore, Readance and Rickelman’s promise of
placing adolescents at the center while teaching them how to comprehend.
Moje’s notion of third space
involves finding ways to build bridges between everyday knowledge and
discourses (ways of reading, writing and talking) and conventional academic
knowledge and discourses. In comparison with
earlier accounts, Moje acknowledges a much richer view of students’ knowledge
and discourse based on students’ experiences with parents’ work outside the
home, work in the home, travel across countries and engagement with
environmental and health issues. Her assumption is that classroom teaching and
learning often ignores the students’ funds of knowledge and perspectives from
home, peer groups and other networks of relationships.
Given the history of content area
literacy and adolescent literacy research, it is relatively easy to see how
students’ knowledge, discourses and learning needs might be overlooked. If texts and text-driven teaching activities
are the critical variables, dominating teachers’ and their students’ attention,
as Alvermann and Moore claim, students’ knowledge and literacies are often left
out. If adolescents’ multiple literacies
are most important, the need for new literacy learning can be overlooked. Moje avoids both of these pitfalls by arguing
that it is not enough just to celebrate what adolescents know and can currently
do. They also need to become connected
to conventional academic texts and discourses as a way of entry into
disciplinary communities (such as mathematics and science) and the workplace.
But the story does not end here. It
is not just about texts and tasks. Mojeargues that teachers must find ways to help adolescents use their sometimes
marginalized knowledge and ways of reading, writing and talking to engage
themselves in conventional academic comprehension and learning. Moje documents how a science teacher teaching
about the water quality fails to build on students’ experiences with their
families, including water pollution in the local community and community
activism to address the problem. She also notes how students rarely volunteer
what they know from home and family, because they do not see how the concepts
under study are important to their lives, nor do they feel that the teacher
will acknowledge what they know.
Adopting Moje’s view means
recognizing a much more complex picture of comprehension than depicted in the
past research. In fact, it is not
entirely clear what comprehension instruction might look like from a
perspective balanced delicately between students’ knowledge and literacies and
academic texts and discourse. Mojeoffers several principles that might characterize comprehension instruction
that bridges the home and the academic.
For example, it is clear that teachers need to welcome different kinds
of knowledge and discourses in the classroom.
And comprehending academic texts and engaging in discourses about them
requires knowing the structure, concepts, principles and discourses of a
content area. What is less clear is how
peer experiences, knowledge and discourses can be brought in alongside academic
knowledge and discourses to develop students’ capacity in the content
areas. For instance, peer activities
around music and popular culture equip students for critical analyses of texts. But how can teachers rally adolescents’
critical discourses to critique classroom texts?
The view of teaching activities and
strategies o prevalent in the research and reviews within content area literacy
and adolescent literacy may not be adequate for the kind of bridging Moje
describes. As Moje correctly notes, many
teaching activities and comprehension strategies can be practiced in ways that
are disconnected from the students or the disciplines in which they are
used. There is often the assumption that
infusing generic teaching and/or learning strategies into the disciplines is
the key for developing content area or adolescent literacy. When the infusion doesn’t “take” and teachers
and students complain, the teachers are labeled “resistors” (Stewart
& O'Brien, 1989). An alternative view might be that the
teaching activities or comprehension strategies have not been carefully
considered with regard to the disciplinary context – the structure, concepts and
principles of the content area or the knowledge and discourses that students
bring with them. In a complicated
disciplinary context where, as Moje suggests, students have significant
knowledge and discourses to apply yet fail to speak up about it, the teachers
fail to invite and recognize students’ knowledge, and the disciplines present
their own unique challenges with respect to knowledge, genre and structure, the
response from the field has been astonishingly simple, bordering on irrelevant. The prevailing wisdom has been to give
teachers and students graphic organizers and comprehension guides. As Moje’s research amply demonstrates, this
prevailing wisdom is nowhere nearly enough and may even confuse an already
complicated set of challenges for teachers and adolescents in the content
areas.
Disciplinary Views of Comprehension Strategy
Instruction
Yet another approach for adolescent
comprehension is to consider disciplinary contexts –the content areas - and how
learning strategies can be developed and applied appropriately. To a large extent, the content areas,
including mathematics, science, social studies and English, have been
considered by content area literacy and adolescent literacy as monolithic. That is to say, the notion that there are multiple
educational traditions, sub-disciplines, multiple kinds of texts and tasks
within sub-disciplines, and multiple views of students and classroom discourse
has rarely if ever been acknowledged.
For instance, there is little recognition that mathematics consists of
the sub-disciplines of algebra, geometry, or trigonometry or that science
consists of biology, chemistry and physics.
There is no acknowledgement that disciplines like English are comprised
of different educational traditions or perspectives, often in tension with one
another (Applebee,
1997b). And there is little awareness that teaching
social studies or history involve different assumptions about knowledge or
pedagogy (Evans,
2006).
Treating the various disciplines as
monolithic has made it easier for proponents of content area and adolescent
literacy to promote generic comprehension strategies as a cure-all. As evidence, open up virtually any methods
text for teachers and the same formats and templates for different
comprehension activities are replicated from one content area to the next with
little regard for the particular challenges of concepts, structure, genre or
task within a content area or sub-discipline.
In many teacher preparation courses, teachers are expected to make the
necessary connections between content goals and teaching activities, often with
very little guidance from a disciplinary point of view (Star et al., in press).
From the disciplinary side, there
are numerous perspectives on what it means to learn. In the following sections, I review many of
the predominant perspectives on learning within the disciplines of science,
social studies, English and mathematics.
This review is not meant to be exhaustive nor completely representative. Most, if not all of the perspectives on
learning within the disciplines overlap as well as sometimes complement or
conflict with one another. After each
disciplinary review, I explore the implications of disciplinary, sub-topic and
philosophical perspectives within each of the disciplines for comprehension
strategies and strategy instruction. A
key question for this review is: Given the multifaceted nature of disciplinary
views of learning, what could our understanding of comprehension strategies
have to offer?
Disciplinary Perspectives
on Science Learning
There are several
common goals in science teaching and learning (Anderson,
2007). These include including
helping students develop social agency,
defined as skills and discourses that will enable them to access science
related jobs, and agency in the materialworld, defined as successful interaction (observing, measuring, predicting,
explaining) with the world in ways that lead to responsible stewardship and
action. Many researchers in science
education also agree that most institutions of formal education do not help
students learn science with understanding and that there is a persistent
achievement gap in science learning that separates students by race, ethnicity
and social class (Lee
& Luykx, 2007).
Beyond these common goals and
beliefs, there are at least three distinct traditions within science teaching
and learning (Anderson,
2007). Conceptual change research is the most
prevalent of the research traditions. The conceptual change tradition
characterizes learning problems as stemming from interactions between students’
existing knowledge and scientific concepts.
In some versions of this perspective, problems emerge from conflicts
between what students have observed and come to know about the natural world
and scientific discourse and understandings.
One recent study that illustrates
conceptual change research is Scherz and Oren’s (2006) intervention to change
middle school students’ images of science and technology (Scherz
& Oren, 2006). The researchers are concerned about ways in
which students’ preconceptions and stereotypes of scientists and scientific
work inhibit their choices about science careers. This problem is not helped and it is even
exacerbated by the fact that school science takes place in classrooms far
removed from the actual work of scientists in laboratories. The research intervention involves placing
students in the role of journalists who explore a scientific subject that
interests them. Students read up on background material on the subject and then
go out into the field in laboratories or factories to observe and
interview. Next, students process,
analyze and communicate the information they have gathered to other
students. As a result of this intervention,
the researchers found that students changed their preconceptions and
stereotypes of science in the workplace to reflect more informed
conceptions. Moreover, students reported
greater awareness for the different types of science oriented occupations
available to them, as a result of their experiences in the study.
The sociocultural tradition is a
second perspective within science education (Anderson,
2007). Whereas conceptual change researchers focus
on developing understandings of scientific knowledge and practices,
sociocultural researchers are interested in the culture and language of
scientific communities. Put another way,
conceptual change researchers investigate interactions with concepts about
nature, while sociocultural researchers emphasize interactions among people
about science. Sociocultural researchers
confront the problem of conflicts among discourses, such as students’ ways of
knowing, doing, talking, reading and writing and scientific discourses. On the one hand, based on their experiences
in their family and in the community, students can enter study of a topic
already familiar with some of the discourses that communities of scientists employ
to interact with nature. Challenging assumptions around issues of pollution is
one example of the discourse students acquire through experiences in their
community (Moje et al., 2004). On the other hand, students can enter a topic with little, if any,
experience with the values, social norms and ways of using language used by
scientific communities. How to
acknowledge and transform students’ discourses into scientists’ language and
practices, thus providing students agency in both the social and material
worlds of science, is the learning problem undertaken by sociocultural science
researchers.
A recent example from the
sociocultural tradition involves an investigation of authoritative and dialogic
discourse for making meaning in high school science lessons (Scott et al., 2006). Within a unit on heat, cold
and temperature, the researchers explore the tension between authoritarian
discourse, in which teachers focus on the school science point of view, and
dialogic discourse, in which students make sense of what the teacher is saying
and interact with one another to entertain different points of view. The
researchers document the complex interplay of authoritarian discourse, which is
important for socializing students into scientific discourse, and dialogic
discourse, which is important for students to practice and internalize the
tools of scientific discourse. The
researchers argue that a purposeful shifting from authoritative to dialogic
discourse is necessary in order to introduce scientific discourse, problematize
the content, uncover students’ knowledge and discourses, and guide students’ engagement.
A third tradition within science
teaching and learning concerns critical research (Anderson,
2007). Critical researchers in science education
assume that there is far too much emphasis placed on establishing and
maintaining control over students, including their knowledge and discourse
development. They emphasize that science
knowledge and discourse are privileged and the product of dominant classes.
Students who are not among the privileged – the economically disadvantaged, for
example – are often marginalized. That
many urban-based schools lack even the most basic materials or consistent
curricula is evidence for this view (Ruby,
2006), though the exercise of
power and privilege combined with the
marginalization of others appears in many other forms as well.
An recent example of critical
research in science education is Kenneth Tobin’s study about teaching chemistry
to migrant 10th graders (Tobin,
2005). Tobin notes that science, like other
curricular areas, is guilty of engaging in social reproduction, producing “haves”
and “have-nots” with regard to achievement.
He indicts the existing social system in which teachers and students
work as well as a lack of responsiveness to culture as reasons for the
achievement gap in science education. Tobin’s remedy for these problems
involves teachers creating social capital and productive social networks with
students. One teacher in Tobin’s study
became successful because she established a routine of meeting and informally
interacting with students at the door, usually about family and social
interests, guided students and encouraged them to participate and engaged in
informal conversations as she monitored their progress. The teacher continually
demonstrated hope for her students and worked toward their success. Rather than focusing on a purely
university-oriented view of science education, Tobin’s teacher concentrated on
helping her students develop a cultural toolkit containing “science facts and
concepts, the ability to read and make sense of science-related texts, and a
capacity to use science to make sense of experiences in critical events in the
world.” (p. 588) Tobin concludes that
only by adopting these practices – inviting participation, engaging in
responsive instruction and enjoyment of learning – issues of control are
replaced by a focus on science learning and expanding possibilities in science
for all students and not just a few.
Comprehension Strategies in Science
Literacy researchers have sometimes
acknowledged variations in perspective about science teaching and learning,
differences are noted more often among teachers than within the discipline
itself (Jetton
& Anderson, 1997). The differences documented here between
conceptual change, sociocultural and critical research pose the question: What
are comprehension strategies that might be usefully applied from within each of
these perspectives? What follows is an attempt to answer this question.
From a conceptual change point of
view, comprehension centers on interactions between existing knowledge and new
scientific knowledge. From a literacy
perspective, this places a priority on at least four comprehension strategies:
activating prior knowledge, predicting, questioning and summarizing. The
conceptual change research concentrates on ways teachers, specialized
curriculum materials and tasks can scaffold changes from naive conceptions to
scientific understanding. There has been
relatively little exploration in and outside the discipline about the benefit
of empowering students for conceptual change through the use of comprehension
strategies.. Future research might
productively explore the added value but also the added challenges of
conceptual change that is not only teacher-directed but also supported by
students’ use of comprehension strategies.
An important emphasis within this work must be finding ways for students
to connect their use of these learning strategies with effective conceptual
change as opposed to just encouraging students to lead themselves further into
misconception.
From a sociocultural view of
teaching and learning science, helping students connect their existing
discourses with the discourses of the scientific community is important. Literacy researchers have only begun to
understand the complexity of discourse within disciplinary contexts such as
science. Moje’s (2004) study is a good
example of looking at discourse from a literacy perspective where it becomes
clear that students’ discourses from home and community are both essential and
often ignored (Moje
et al., 2004). The
implication here is that comprehension strategies in science need to be
considered with regard to discipline-specific conceptual goals, the discourse
resources of students and the desired scientific discourses, in order to be
successful. While it has been popular to
recommend generic discussion activities for comprehension in content areas for
a very long time (Alvermann,
1987), the sociocultural perspective
in science illustrates that generic approaches run the risk of ignoring
conceptual goals while failing to capitalize on and transform students’
discourse into scientific discourse and understanding.
From a critical research point of
view within science, acknowledging students’ cultural capital, encouraging
participation, and responsiveness to students are all important. And so, comprehension needs to be considered
with regard to building rapport with students, inviting what they know and have
experienced, and guiding them toward a greater potential for understanding and
interacting with the material world.
This perspective is grounded more in dispositions needed for effective
comprehension than in concept or pedagogy.
While literacy researchers have engaged themselves in critical research
around comprehension, most often this research is concerned with identity
formation or generic discussion practices, sometimes to the exclusion of
disciplinary learning (Sutherland,
2005). As the critical research in science education
traditions suggests, however, acknowledging students’ identity and providing
them with tools for understanding science can be the keys to empowering
students in the classroom and beyond. As Pressley has noted, building
motivation and positive dispositions toward learning are the best ways for
creating conditions for learning strategy instruction (Pressley,
2006). The critical research view in science could
provide a rich context for literacy researchers to connect adolescent identity
and critical discourse with comprehension in the particular context of science
teaching and learning.
Disciplinary Perspectives on Learning in Social
Studies
Disciplinary perspectives in social
studies and history are as diverse as they are in science and have equally
diverse implications for comprehension instruction. Evans (2006) documents the multiple
traditions within social studies education as well as the swings in emphasis
over the past century. There are the
traditional historians who see the purpose of social studies as the acquisition
of content knowledge about history, including mastery of chronologies and
textbook-based learning (Leming et al., 2003). There are the social
scientists who see social studies as teaching the social science disciplines,
including sociology, economics, education, geography and the law. Social efficiency educators focus on the
world of tomorrow with an emphasis on business and industry. There are the social meliorists who seek to
develop students’ thinking about how to improve society. And finally, there are the social
reconstructivists who teach students to critique the status quo and create a
more just society.
More recently, there have been calls
to bring all of these perspectives together to create more shared
understandings (Wineburg et al., 2007). However, these efforts have opened up even more complexity among
these multiple perspectives with regard to teaching and learning. Rather than reducing this complexity and
thereby selling short the potential of teaching and learning social studies,
social studies educators are attempting to build productively on the tensions
among the perspectives. So, for example,
social studies educators embrace the insights from more student-centered
perspectives that adolescents’ experiences, ideas and understandings matter
when it comes to historical thinking, while, at the same time, considering the
thinking processes of working historians as well.
VanSledright (2004) compares the
historical thinking of novices with the thinking of historians (VanSledright,
2004). The result is the
identification of learning strategies unique to historical thinking. VanSledright proposes that one of the jobs of
social studies education should be to close the gap between adolescent novices
and expert historians. Doing this involves teaching novices the learning
strategies practiced by historians.
VanSledright focuses his efforts on the source work of historians as a
form of critical literacy. Sources –
documents, maps historical accounts – all represent remnants of the past
selected and organized from someone’s perspective. Historians create their understanding of
history based on sources and their own questions. Four strategies useful in learning from
sources include: identification, or figuring out what a source is in the
context of type, appearance and timeframe; attribution, or recognizing that a
source is constructed by a particular author for particular purposes in
particular times and contexts; judging perspective, or judging an author’s
social, cultural and political position; and judging reliability, or comparing
one account with other accounts from a historical period.
Comprehension Strategies in Social Studies
In the rare cases where
comprehension in considered in the context of social studies, the approach is
almost universally from the outside-in.
Put another way, literacy researchers create their own assumptions about
the kinds of comprehension that should be taught and learned and then examine
social studies classrooms, teacher and student interactions and textbooks to
determine whether desirable comprehension practices are occurring. In some cases, this approach leads to
conclusions that little or no comprehension instruction is happening (Armbruster
& Gudbrandsen, 1986). In other cases, a model for comprehension
instruction is posited accompanied by claims that the model can be used “across
the social studies genres – textbooks, primary sources, fictional texts or a
combination (Massey
& Heafner, 2004). In
either case, the multifaceted nature of social studies as a discipline and as a
context for learning is overlooked.
And so, what are comprehension
strategies from a social studies perspective?
Answering this question requires acknowledging the multiple perspectives
within social studies. If social studies
is treated as a cognitive act of acquiring more knowledge, then the most
important learning strategies might involve forming connections among various
kinds of knowledge. If social studies is
multidisciplinary, then there are probably different learning strategies
appropriate to learning in sociology, economics, education, geography and the
law. As the social studies research
suggests, each sub-discipline reflects different kinds of challenges and
opportunities for learning. If social
studies is about building worlds of tomorrow, then prediction might be most
important for comprehension. If social
studies is about improving or uprooting society, then comprehension strategies
that represent a more critical edge, such as questioning, might be more
effective.
The more compelling view, however,
may be that, as social studies educators themselves have discovered, all of
these views are collectively important. This translates into the challenging
notion for literacy researchers that social studies represents a considerably
more complex world for comprehension, in which comprehension strategies are not generalizable across all texts,
tasks and contexts. Selling generalized
strategies in social studies poses two problems, (1) forcing social studies
teachers to make their own specific instructional adaptations appropriate to
already complicated contexts and (2) raising the possibility that retrofitting
comprehension strategies to the discipline might neglect or gloss over some
very important disciplinary dimensions. Contrary to the long-held assumption
that teachers’ abandonment of comprehension strategies implies their resistance
(Stewart
& O'Brien, 1989), for
social studies teachers, it could just mean that they are confronting the
complexity of the discipline while realizing that over-generalized approaches
to comprehension in the social studies just won’t work.
A possible way to proceed to connect
literacy and social studies would be for literacy researchers to carefully
examine the implications of multiple views of social studies and multiple views
of historical thinking as a starting point for considering comprehension
strategies. This means abandoning the
assumption that comprehension is the same across all texts and contexts but
also wading into the messy world of social studies teaching and learning.
Disciplinary Perspectives
on Learning in English
There has been an
ongoing tension in English education between those who want English to be about
acquiring knowledge versus those who consider English education as acquiring
ways of knowing. Put simply, the tension
is between advocates of content and advocates of process (Applebee,
1997a). There is a third position which attempts to
balance concerns for content and concerns for process by considering
significant content in the context of engaging activity both from a teaching
and a learning perspective (Applebee,
1996).
Some of the most ardent proponents
of content acquisition come from outside English education, such as E.D.
Hirsh. Hirsch contends that there is a
definite body of literacy knowledge that underlies what it means to be educated
in American culture and society (Hirsch,
2006). There are also proponents of content
acquisition from inside the profession when it comes to cognitive views of
writing instruction, with research-based claims about what adolescents need to
know and know how to do to write well (Graham
& Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 2005). At the other end of spectrum are those who question the cannon
– privileged knowledge about literature
and writing – in favor of, respectively, world literature (Power,
2003; Reese, 2002),
literature reflecting diversity in human condition and experience (Blackburn,
2003; Goebel, 2004; Ressler, 2005), or literature produced for and by adolescents (Morrell,
2004; Schwarz, 2006).
The process perspective on English
education offers up equally diverse points of view. There are those who advocate for English as a
pathway toward more effective communication (Berger,
2005); those who see English
as a way to promote active citizenship, democracy and social justice (Mantle-Bromley
& Foster, 2005);
those who view English as a transaction between native language and culture and
second language and culture (Cruz,
2004; Gutierrez & Orellana, 2006); and there are those who see English as the nexus for engaging in
new literacies (Street,
2005). Attempts to balance content and process are
evidenced by approaches which connect, for example, various kinds of literature
with process goals (Whiten,
2005).
English education, like the other
disciplines, also represents sociocultural and discourse perspectives. From the sociocultural side, there are
studies of gender identity (Fairbanks
& Ariail, 2006) and
racial and cultural identity combined with concerns about marginalization in
school and the need to acknowledge the intellectual and social capital that
adolescents bring to the learning of English (Trainor,
2005). Starting out with concerns about literary
interpretation, the discourse perspective explores tensions and conflicts among
classroom participants as they struggle to shape understandings of literature
and writing (Nystrand,
2006; Smagorinsky et al., 1994). Bridging the cognitive and
the sociocultural, the discourse research has reported positive gains in
achievement in discussion based classrooms with desirable features, including
open exchange among students, authentic, open-ended questions, and follow-up
questions (Applebee et al., 2003).
Comprehension Strategies in English
The diversity of theory, research
and praxis within English education defies the application of any one or even a
set of comprehension strategies.
However, the content acquisition perspective might benefit from a focus
on any one of a number of comprehension strategies, such as those identified by
Deshler and his colleagues for students with learning disabilities (Bulgren,
2006; Bulgren & Scanlon, 1998; Deshler
et al., 2001). Content enhancement and concept comparison
strategies have been validated with students with learning disabilities and
among students in inclusive classrooms in a range of content area disciplines.
There are also proven strategies for improving adolescents’ knowledge and
performance with writing (Graham,
2006; Troia & Graham, 2002).
Comprehension strategies to enhance
the various process perspectives within English are more difficult to identify,
in part, because there can be little agreement about what it means for
adolescents to learn how to “do” English differently or more effectively. Comprehension strategies that engage
adolescents in asking and answering their own questions could prove useful when
the mission is to encourage tools for democratic action and social
justice. Activating prior knowledge
might be important for helping adolescents connect their language and culture
to understandings of new languages and cultures. The generic ways in which these comprehension
strategies have been researched and promoted limits their utility without
substantial extrapolation and adaptation to specific contexts and needs.
Identity, gender, social capital,
power and marginalization issues raised from a sociocultural perspective are
not so easily addressed with a focus on comprehension strategies. The issues here are about who is asking the
questions and for what purposes.
Comprehension strategies within the sociocultural mix become very
quickly enmeshed in concerns for who is teaching the students how to comprehend
and for what agenda(s)? The ultimate, desirable goal, from this point of view
might be that all adolescents learn comprehension strategies in ways that help
them in their quest for identity, aiding them in resisting marginalization,
while promoting their assets among peers and adults
The discourse perspective is already
accompanied by a set of strategies, including question asking, following up on
responses and engaging in conversation. Research on comprehension strategies
adds a concern that adolescents require specific kinds of explanation, modeling
and feedback to productively engage in these strategies for discourse and
comprehension (Pressley
& Hilden, 2006).
Disciplinary Perspectives
on Learning in Mathematics
Mathematics bears
some resemblance to science in that there are cognitive perspectives,
sociocultural perspectives and critical discourse perspectives. All three perspectives in mathematics share a
concern for students’ ideas, experiences and interests, yet all three
perspectives portray a different view of the nature and role of what student
bring to mathematics learning.
From a cognitive point of view, the
concern is for the types of mathematical knowledge children understand before
and throughout their years of schooling (Siegler,
2003). Many children come to school already
knowledgeable about numbers and mathematical concepts and principles. But many other children fail to understand
concepts and principles that are basic to understanding more abstract ideas,
and many confront problems when they are unable to make important connections
among mathematical concepts. Even more
problematic are ways in which children can generate flawed conceptions or
mathematical procedures that can be very difficult to correct or unlearn. For
instance, in a study of proportional reasoning, adolescents are provided with
basic details of the amount of paint required to paint an irregular figure, a
representation of Santa Claus. Next,
they were asked to estimate the amount of paint required to paint the irregular
figure, only now it is three times the size of an original figure. Most adolescents guessed the proportional
answer, that it required three times the amount of paint, when, in reality, the
answer is non-proportional, requiring just twice the amount of paint. In
addition, students who engaged in the inappropriate reasoning indicated
substantial certainty about the correctness of their answers.
The problems tackled within a
sociocultural perspective on mathematics include creating classroom contexts
for students to develop multiple mathematical literacies and connect
mathematics to their developing identity (Cobb,
2004). This perspective is fueled in part by the
realization that while many adolescents can be succeeding in mathematics, they
choose not to continue their study because of conflicts between who they want
to become and the expectations within the mathematics classroom. In one version of this work, adolescents were
asked to make judgments about mathematical problems taken from in-school and
out-of-school contexts (Jurdak,
2006). Adolescents addressed problems situated in
school contexts by using in school mathematical tools, rules and norms while
adolescents applied social and personal rules to problems situated in
out-of-school contexts. This raises a
dilemma about how to relate adolescents’ problem solving models that are
developed and applied in school to real world mathematical problems. Given the modern curriculum demands for more
cognitively oriented mathematical achievement, the solution to this dilemma may
not be as easy as inserting more real world mathematical problems into the
curriculum. On the other hand, ignoring real world problems runs the risk
of promoting a disconnect between
in-school mathematics and adolescent identity and aspirations.
A third perspective within
mathematics education concerns discourse.
Like the concerns in science and literacy over discourse, this
perspective focuses on engaging adolescents’ existing discourses with
mathematical discourses (Sfard,
2001). Sfard and others argue that discourse is the
key to adolescent thinking, particularly with regard to building and using
models of mathematical concepts and principles. Like the socioculturalists in
mathematics, the discourse perspective advances the notion that the separation
between school mathematics and real world mathematics is problematic. Where
they differ is in the focus on context, as with the sociocultural view, versus
communicative discourse, from the discourse view. And so the problem from the discourse
perspective in mathematics concerns how to develop mathematical understandings
and discourse through language. Sfard
carefully documents adolescents’ use of language to develop increasingly
complex ways of thinking about mathematics, first with respect to labels and
then onto abstract representations. It
is often more comfortable for adolescents to use their everyday language to
resolve conflicts. However, their use of everyday language can also become a
pathway toward incomplete or flawed understandings.
Comprehension Strategies in Mathematics
In a recent review of content area
literacy from a mathematics perspective, Star and his colleagues warn about the
danger of literacy instruction in mathematics being devoid of mathematics
learning (Star et al., in press). Star notes that many of the
content area literacy textbooks prescribe activities for reading the
mathematics textbook, something that “reflects a very limited understanding of
mathematics texts as a unique genre.”
Mathematics texts are often referred to as containing worked examples
with sentences sprinkled in. Mathematics educators all have something different
to say about the problems posed by mathematics texts from a cognitive,
sociocultural or discourse perspective.
However, it has never been clear how the teaching activities within
content area or adolescent literacy would be in any way helpful with the
problems in mathematical learning identified from within each of these
perspectives. This leads us back to the
question: What are comprehension strategies that might potentially be
productive in mathematics?
Some mathematics education researchers go so far as to argue that
comprehension is not a problem in mathematics learning (Mayer,
2004). Word problems, for
example, require specific learning strategies, including translating, or
converting individual sentences into internal mental representations;
integrating, or building a model (selecting important information, making
interpretations) of the problem situation represented by the problem; solution
planning or monitoring, or devising a step by step plan for solving a word
problem; and solution execution, or carrying out a plan for solving the
problem. Many students are able to
translate and integrate word problems, in effect, comprehending the
problems. Yet many students are unable
to plan or carry out solutions to the problems either because they have little
experience with the mathematics concepts or the word problems, or they haven’t
yet learned productive strategies for planning and executing solutions.
From a literacy point of view, two
comprehension strategies would appear to be helpful with these mathematics
strategies, summarizing and predicting.
It might be productive for adolescents to ask periodically What do I
know now?, or What will happen if I try this solution? The history of content area literacy or
adolescent literacy has not considered ways to relate comprehension strategies
to the unique demands of mathematical problem solving. So we know very little
about what would happen by marrying concerns for mathematical learning with
what we know about comprehension. On the other hand, the potential exists for
finding a way to promote content area learning in mathematics and literacy
together, rather than trading off one goal (disciplinary knowledge) for another
(literacy).
The same kinds of concerns surround
literacy and sociocultural and discourse perspectives in mathematics. While the content literacy/adolescent
literacy perspectives promote the importance of context, multiple literacies
and discourse, the research has neglected the particular challenges of
mathematics contexts and discourses. The
literacy research recognizes that activating prior knowledge is generally
important, but says little, if anything, about the role of prior knowledge in
mathematical model building, making connections between school and out of
school mathematics, or using discourse to build mathematical understandings and
confront misconceptions.
Implications for Research and Practice
As this review demonstrates, content
area literacy and adolescent literacy started out with good intentions - to
place adolescents at the center of instruction and to build their capacity to
study and learn in the content areas.
However, as this review also demonstrates, the original mission very
quickly went awry by generating compendia after cornucopia of general teaching
activities, most of which are connected to gaining knowledge and only a very
few of which have anything to do with comprehension strategy learning. The shift to adolescent literacy engaged the
literacy profession in exploration and celebration of adolescence, but did
little to address the problem of the ongoing disconnect between adolescents,
literacy learning and the disciplines.
Moje’s research is the notable departure from tradition, at once
bringing together insights about adolescents, multiple literacies and
discourses in a content area context (Moje
et al., 2004). Still, her work leaves us with many questions
for how the literacy profession can deliberately proceed to strengthen our
understanding of these connections.
Important clues for how adolescents
might develop comprehension strategies productive in the content areas can be
found in the diverse perspectives coming from within the content area
disciplines. The history within content
area literacy and adolescent literacy of offering up generic teaching
activities for monolithic views of the disciplines has hindered our view of
what might be possible. As this chapter
illustrates, there are a number of potential connections but only if literacy
researchers recognize the multifaceted nature of the content areas, including the
subtopics and perspectives on learning.
When it comes to content area
literacy and adolescent literacy, the research traditions are very familiar –
do the comprehension research and then apply it to content area practice. This prevailing paradigm supports the flawed
practice of researching comprehension and then infusing the findings into the
content areas without considering what makes learning in content area contexts
both diverse and often challenging. To
understand comprehension strategies and how they might work in the content
areas, researchers need to reverse this pattern and do what Herber called for
many years ago - study disciplinary practice and research comprehension within
disciplinary contexts (Herber
& Nelson-Herber, 1981). Literacy
researchers need to go from practice into research, rather than fitting
isolated and decontexualized comprehension research into disciplinary practice,
if we are ever to understand comprehension strategies in the disciplines.
For practice, this discussion raises
a whole set of new possibilities for considering the contribution of
comprehension strategies for learning in the content areas. The content areas pose many learning problems
that literacy researchers have never envisioned or explored. Nuances of
scientific understanding, purposes for and pitfalls in learning various science
and mathematics concepts, issues of bias and point of view in source materials
in social studies, and the multiple and sometimes conflicting goals of
literature learning and writing instruction in English present a complex but
fertile landscape for better understanding comprehension strategy instruction
and learning.
In some cases, the existing milieu
of teaching activities within content area literacy and adolescent literacy
might be usefully applied in these contexts. In some cases, research and
practice will need to be more inventive, developing new forms of comprehension
teaching and learning. We need to
consider the potential of any practice for teaching comprehension strategies at
all. The all-too-typical pattern of
rehearsing adolescents through questioning, summarization and predicting
activities offers the illusion of comprehension instruction but does not build
an understanding of comprehension strategies. Teaching comprehension strategies
requires explanation, modeling, feedback and practice (Pressley,
2006). The future for improving adolescent
comprehension requires a much better understanding for how teachers can help
adolescents and adolescent can help themselves understand and apply comprehension
strategies to learn successfully in the content areas.
References
Alvermann, D.
(1987). Using discussion to promote
reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Alvermann, D., & Moore, D. (1991). Secondary school
reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume ii
(pp. 951-983). New York: Longman.
Alvermann, D., & Phelps, S. (2002). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in
today's diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on science learning.
In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook
of research on science education (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Applebee, A. (1996). Curriculum
as conversation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Applebee, A. (1997). Rethinking curriculum in the
english language arts. English Journal,
86(5), 25-31.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran,
A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom
instruction and student performance in middle and high school. American Educational Research Journal, 40,
685-730.
Armbruster, B., & Gudbrandsen, B. (1986). Reading
comprehension instruction in the social studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 36-48.
Bean, T. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social
constructivist dimensions. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R.
Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research, volume iii (pp. 629-644). New York: Longman.
Berger, J. (2005). Transforming writers through grammar
study. English Journal, 95(5), 53-60.
Blackburn, M. (2003). Exploring literacy performances
and power dynamics at the loft: Queer youth reading the world and the word. Research in the Teaching of English, 37(4),
467-490.
Block, C., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction:
Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brozo, W., & Simpson, M. (2006). Content literacy for today's adolescents.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Bulgren, J. (2006). Integrated content enhancement
routines: Responding to the needs of adolescents with disabilities in rigorous
inclusive secondary content classes. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 38(6), 54-58.
Bulgren, J., & Scanlon, D. (1998). Instructional
routines and learning strategies that promote understanding of content area
concepts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 41(4), 292-302.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Reading
comprehension difficulties. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children's literacy (pp.
313-338). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Cobb, P. (2004). Mathematics, literacies and identity. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3),
333-337.
Conley, M. (2007). Reconsidering adolescent literacy:
From competing agendas to shared commitment. In M. Pressley (Ed.), Research we have, research we need. New
York: Guilford.
Cruz, M. (2004). Can english language learners acquire
academic english? English Journal, 93(4),
14-19.
Deshler, D., Schumaker, B., Lenz, K., Bulgren, J., Hock,
M., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary
students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 96-108.
Evans, R. (2006). The social studies wars: Now and then.
Social Education, 70(5), 317-322.
Fairbanks, C., & Ariail, M. (2006). The role of
social and cultural resources in literacy: Three contrasting cases. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(3),
310-354.
Goebel, B. (2004). An
ethical approach to teaching native american literature. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching
of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
187-207). New York: Guilford.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in
middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Gutierrez, K., & Orellana, M. (2006). The 'problem'
of english learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 502-507.
Herber, H., & Nelson-Herber, J. (1981). Practice into research: The other half of
the formula. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Reading
Research, New Orleans.
Hillocks, G. (2005). The focus of form vs. Content in
teaching writing. Research in the
Teaching of English, 40(2), 238-248.
Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Jetton, T., & Anderson, P. (1997). Instructional importance:
What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 290-308.
Jurdak, M. (2006). Contrasting perspectives and
performance of high school students on problem solving in real world, situated
and school contexts. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 63(3), 238-301.
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and
student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status.
In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook
of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leming, J., Ellington, L., & Porter, K. (2003). Where did social studies go wrong?
Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
Mantle-Bromley, C., & Foster, A. (2005). Educating
for democracy: The vital role of the language arts teacher. English Journal, 94(5), 70-75.
Massey, D., & Heafner, T. (2004). Promoting reading
comprehension in social studies. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26-41.
Mayer, R. (2004). Teaching of subject matter. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
715-744.
McKenna, M., & Robinson, R. (1990). Content
literacy: A definition and implications. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 34(3), 184-186.
McKenna, M., & Robinson, R. (2001). Teaching through text: Reading and writing
in the content areas. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L.,
Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content
area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1),
38-70.
Moje, E., Dillon, D., & O'Brien, D. (2000).
Reexamining roles of learner, text, and context in secondary literacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3),
165-180.
Moore, D., Readance, J., & Rickelman, R. (1983). An
historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4),
419-438.
Morrell, E. (2004). Linking
literacy and popular culture. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Nystrand, M. (2006). Classroom discourse and reading
comprehension. Research in the Teaching
of English, 40(4), 392-412.
Power, C. (2003). Challenging the pluralism of our past:
Presentism and the selective tradition in historical fiction written for young
people. Research in the Teaching of
English, 37(4), 425-466.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction
be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. III, pp. 545-561.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading
instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York:
Guildford.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocals of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2006). Cognitive
strategies: Production deficiencies and successful strategy instruction
everywhere. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 2). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.
Readance, J., Bean, T., & Baldwin, S. (2001). Content area literacy: An integrated
approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Reese, J. (2002). Learning for understanding: The role
of world literature. English Journal, 91(5),
63-69.
Ressler, P. (2005). Challenging normative sexual and
gender identity beliefs through romeo and juliet. English Journal, 95(1), 52-58.
Ruby, A. (2006). Improving science achievement at
high-poverty urban middle schools. Science,
90(6), 1005-1027.
Ruddell, M. (2007). Teaching
content area reading and writing. New York: Wiley.
Ryder, R., & Graves, M. (1999). Reading and learning in content areas. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change
students' images of science and technology. Science,
90(6), 965-985.
Schwarz, G. (2006). Expanding literacies through graphic
novels. English Journal, 95(6),
58-65.
Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The
tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental
characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science, 90(4), 605-631.
Sfard, A. (2001). Learning mathematics as developing a
discourse. In R. Speiser & W. Maher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of pme-na. Columbus, Ohio:
Clearinghouse for science, mathematics and environmental education.
Siegler, R. (2003). Implications of cognitive science
research for mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin & D.
Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to
principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 219-233). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Smagorinsky, P., Smith, M., & Marshall, J. (1994). The language of interpretation: Patterns of
discourse in discussions of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Star, J., Strickland, S., & Hawkins, A. (in press).
What is mathematical literacy?
Exploring the relationship between literacy and content learning in
middle and high school mathematics. In M. Conley, J. Freidhoff, M. Sherry &
S. Tuckey (Eds.), Adolescent literacy
policy and instruction: The research we have and the research we need. New
York: Guilford.
Stevens, L. (2002). Making the road by walking: The
transition from content area literacy to adolescent literacy. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(3),
267-278.
Stewart, R., & O'Brien, D. (1989). Resistance to
content area reading: A focus on
preservice teachers. Journal of Reading,
32(5), 396-401.
Street, B. (2005). Recent applications to new literacy
studies in educational contexts. Research
in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 417-423.
Sutherland, L. (2005). Black adolescent girls' use of
literacy practices to negotiate boundaries of ascribed identity. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(3),
365-406.
Thorndike, E. (1917). Reading as reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(6),
323-330.
Tierney, R., & Readance, J. (2004). Reading strategies and practices: A
compendium. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Tobin, K. (2005). Building enacted science on the
capital of learners. Science, 89(4),
577-594.
Trainor, J. (2005). 'my ancestors didn't own slaves':
Understanding white talk about race. Research
in the Teaching of English, 40(2), 140-167.
Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of
a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the
writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4),
290-305.
Unrau, N. (2003). Content
area reading and writing: Fostering literacies in middle and high school
cultures. New York: Prentice Hall.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (2004). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum.
New York: Allyn and Bacon.
VanSledright, B. (2004). What does it mean to think
historically and how do you teach it? Social
Education, 68, 220-233.
Whiten, P. (2005). The interplay of text, talk and
visual representation in expanding literary conversation. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 365-397.
Wineburg, S., Stearns, P., & Seixas, P. (2007). Knowing, teaching and learning history.
New York: New York University Press.
Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P., Stein, S.,
Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and
credibility monitoring and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when experts
read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 49-72.
0 Response to "CONTOH SKRIPSI BAHASA INGGRIS IMPROVING ADOLESCENT COMPREHENSION: DEVELOPING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES IN THE CONTENT AREAS"
Posting Komentar