AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AndersonR. C., HiebertE. H., ScottJ. A., & WilkinsonI. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading.Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, National Institute of Education, & Center for the Study of Reading.
3.
AndersonR. C., & PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In PearsonP. D., BarrR., KamilM. L., & MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 255–291). New York, NY: Longman.
4.
ArmbrusterB. B., & AndersonT. H. (1982). Structures for explanations in history textbooks, or so what if Governor Stanford missed the spike and hit the rail? (Tech. Rep. No. 252). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
5.
BeckI. L., OmansonR. C., & McKeownM. G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly,17, 462–481.
6.
BeckI. L., PerfettiC. A., & McKeownM. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,74(4), 506–521.
7.
BrownA. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In SpiroR. J., BruceB. C., & BrewerW. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
BruceB. (1984). A new point of view on children's stories. In AndersonR. C., OsbornJ., & TierneyR. (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 153–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
ChallJ. S. (1977). An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores.Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.
10.
CumminsJ. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment.Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 132–149.
11.
DavidsonJ. L. (1988). Counterpoint and beyond: A response to Becoming a Nation of Readers.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
12.
DavisonA., & KantorR. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations.Reading Research Quarterly,18, 187–209.
13.
DurkinD. (1978–79). What classroom observations reveal about reading-comprehension instruction.Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.
14.
FisherC. W., TikunoffW. J., GeeE. W., & PhillipsM. L. (1981). Bilingual instructional perspectives: Allocation of time in the classrooms of the SBIF study.San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory.
15.
FitzgeraldJ., ElmoreJ., RelyeaJ. E., HiebertE. H., & StennerA. J. (2016). Has first-grade core reading program text complexity changed across six decades?Reading Research Quarterly, 51(1), 7–28.
16.
HansenJ., & PearsonP. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of fourth-grade good and poor readers.Journal of Educational Psychology,71, 821–829.
17.
HiebertE. H., & FisherC. W. (2007). Critical word factor in texts for beginning readers.The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 3–11.
18.
MeyerB. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory.Amsterdam, NL: North Holland Publishing.
19.
NagyW. E., & AndersonR. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?Reading Research Quarterly,19(3), 304–330.
20.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department ofEducation. Washington, DC: The Commission.
21.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGACBP] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects with appendices A–C. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
22.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGACBP] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2012). Supplemental information for Appendix A of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
23.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction,1, 117–175.
24.
PanyD., & JenkinsJ. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures.Learning Disability Quarterly,1(2), 21–32.
25.
RaphaelT. E., & PearsonP. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions.American Educational Research Journal,22(2), 217–235.
26.
RumelhartD. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In SpiroR. J., BruceB. C., & BrewerW. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
SteinN. L., & GlennC. G. (1977). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In FreedleR. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing: Vol. 2 Advances in discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
28.
ZorinskyE. (1986). Amendment #2202 to the Human Services Reauthorization Act (Public Law 99–425).Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.