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

REFERENCES

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