AaronP. C.BakerC. (1991). Reading disabilities in college and high school: Diagnosis and treatment. Parkton, MD: York.
2.
BerkelyS.LindstronJ. (2011). Technology for the struggling reader: Free and easily accessible resources. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(4), 48–55.
3.
CarnineL.CarnineD. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560490264134.
4.
CattsH.HoganT.AdlofS. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH.KamhiA. (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ConleyM. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don't know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84–106.
7.
CraigM. T.YoreL. D. (1995). Middle school students' metacognitive knowledge about science reading and science text: An interview study. Reading Psychology, 16, 169–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0270271950160203.
ElkindJ. (1998). Computer reading machines for poor readers. Portola Valley, CA: Lexia Institute.
10.
EngstromE. (2005). Reading, writing, and assistive technology: An integrated developmental curriculum for college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(1), 30–39.
11.
FangZ.LammeL.PringleR.PatrickJ.SandersJ.ZmachC.HenkelM. (2008). Integrating reading into middle school science: What we did, found and learned. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 2067–2089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701644266.
12.
FangZ.WeiY. (2010). Improving middle school students' science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383051.
13.
HigginsE. L.RaskindM. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 8, 75–87.
14.
KamilM. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
15.
KinniburghL. H.ShawE. L. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build: Reading comprehension in science. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 45(4), 19–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SATS.45.4.19-28.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010–458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf.
21.
NextUp Technologies LLC (2010). TextAloud (Version 3) [Computer Software]. Clemmens, NC: NextUp Technologies LLC. Available from http://www.nextup.com/TextAloud/.
22.
NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066.
23.
OliverK. (2009). An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 402–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9157-3.
SnowC.SweetA. P. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford.
30.
SnowC. E.BiancarosaG. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we know and where do we go from here?. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.