BainRobert B.LanderAnnemarieHinesMarlene, and MercadoGabriela. “Working Toward a Problem-Centered History Classroom: Using Historical Inquiry and Literacy to Teach American History.” Paper presented at the National Council of History Education Annual Conference, Louisville, Ky., April 2008.
2.
BeckIsabel L., and McKeownMargaret G.. “Questioning the Author: Making Sense of Social Studies.”Educational Leadership60, no. 3 (2002): 44–47.
3.
BlackRebecca W.“Language, Culture, and Identity in Online Fanfiction.”E-Learning3, no. 2 (2006): 170–184.
4.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy.Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Literacy for College and Career Success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2010.
5.
GuthrieJohn T., and DavisMarcia. “Motivating Struggling Readers in Middle School Through an Engagement Model of Classroom Practice.”Reading and Writing Quarterly19, no. 1 (2003): 59–85.
6.
GuthrieJohn T., and WigfieldAlan. “Engagement and Motivation in Reading.” In Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. III, ed. KamilMichael, David PearsonP., and BarrRebecca, 403–419. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
7.
IveyGay. “A Multicase Study in the Middle School: Complexities Among Young Adolescent Readers.”Reading Research Quarterly34, no. 2 (1999): 172–193.
8.
KempleJamesCorrinWilliamNelsonElizabethSalingerTerryHerrmannSuzannah, and DrummondKathryn. Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Early Impacts and Implementation Findings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2008.
9.
LamWan S.E.“L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the Internet.”Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages34, no. 3 (2000): 457–482.
10.
LawrenceJoshua, and SnowCatherine E.. “Oral Discourse and Reading.” In Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 4, ed. David PearsonP., KamilMichael, MojeElizabeth, and AfflerbachPeter, in press.
11.
LeanderKevin M., and LovvornJ.F.. “Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies, and Objects in the Schooling and Online Gaming of One Youth.”Cognition and Instruction24, no. 3 (2006): 291–340.
12.
McKeownMargaret G.BeckIsabel L., and BlakeRonette G.K.. “Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A Comparison of Instruction for Strategies and Content Approaches.”Reading Research Quarterly44, no. 3 (2009): 218–253.
13.
MojeElizabeth B.“Comprehending in the Content Areas: The Challenges of Comprehension, Grades 7-12, and What to Do About Them.” In A Comprehensive Look at Reading Comprehension, K-12, ed. GanskeKathy and FisherDoug, 46–72. New York: Guilford, 2010.
14.
MojeElizabeth B., and BainRobert B.. Teacher Education for Disciplinary Literacy Learning. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 2009.
15.
MojeElizabeth B.OverbyMelanieTysvaerNicole, and MorrisKaren. “The Complex World of Adolescent Literacy: Myths, Motivations, and Mysteries.”Harvard Educational Review78, no. 1 (2008): 107–154.
16.
MojeElizabeth B., and SpeyerJennifer. “The Reality of Challenging Texts in High School Science and Social Studies: How Teachers Can Mediate Comprehension.” In Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Instruction, ed. HinchmanKathleen and ThomasHeather, 185–211. New York: Guilford Press, 2008.
National Reading Panel.Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. NIH Pub. No. 00-4769. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000.
19.
PalincsarAnnemarie S., and BrownAnn L.. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities.”Cognition and Instruction1, no. 2 (1984): 117–175.
20.
PearsonP. David. “Comprehension Matters.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 2007.
21.
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow. Paris: OECD, 2003.
22.
Rand Reading Study Group.Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Model Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 2002.
23.
ShultzSteven. “Legitimizing and Marginalizing: How the Internet Has Shaped Responses to Online Fan Communities and Practices.” Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Francisco, Cailf., March 2009.
24.
SnowCatherine E.LawrenceJoshua, and WhiteClaire. “Generating Knowledge of Academic Language Among Urban Middle School Students.”Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness2, no. 4 (2009): 325–344.
25.
SnowCatherine E., and UccelliPaola. “The Challenge of Academic Language.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, ed. OlsonDavid and TorranceNancy, 112–132. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
26.
StanovichKeith E.“Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Reading.”Reading Research Quarterly21, no. 4 (1986): 360–407.
27.
StoopsNicole. Current Population Reports. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004.