The essays below were prepared following the LRA session organized by Janice Almasi entitled, “Examining the relative contributions of content knowledge and strategic processing to comprehension.” What unites these essays are the personal and historical stances that each writer has taken; in addition, the essays are rich with constructive critique of tensions in the conduct of comprehension instruction (e.g., acknowledging and building on readers’ sensemaking efforts, while encouraging the development of reading expertise and flexibility). There are redeployments of classic theories (e.g., schema theory) and heuristics (e.g., the interactive model of reading) and the call for new lenses with which to inform scholarship on comprehension. Finally, there are invitations to consider new horizons for comprehension research that take into account contemporary contexts and uses for interpreting and learning from text.
AlexanderP. A.JettonT. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
AndersonR.PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In PearsonP. D.BarrR.KamilM.MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 255–291). New York, NY: Longman.
3.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A.NystrandM.GamoranA. (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.
4.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority youth and children. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
AukermanM. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among “struggling” fifth grade readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 56–103.
6.
AukermanM. (2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 1, A1–A31. doi:10.5195/dpj.2013.9
7.
BakerL.BrownA. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In PearsonP. D.BarrR.KamilM.MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353–394). New York, NY: Longman.
8.
BarronB.SchwartzD. L.VyeN. L.MooreA.PetrosinoA.ZechL.BransfordJ. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of Learning Sciences7, 271–311.
9.
BeckI.McKeownM. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10–20.
10.
BernhardtE. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next- A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
12.
BillmanA. K.PearsonP. D. (2013). Literacy in the disciplines. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 21, 25–33.
13.
BrownR. (2008). The road not yet taken: A transactional strategies approach to comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 6, 538–547.
14.
BrownR.DewitzP. (2013). Building comprehension in every classroom: Instruction with literature, informational texts, and basal programs. New York, NY: Guilford.
15.
BrownR.PressleyM.Van MeterP.SchuderT. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37.
16.
CainK. (2010). Reading development and difficulties. West Sussex, England: British Psychological Society.
17.
CainK.OakhillJ. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In CainK.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41–75). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ChristT.WangX. C. (2011). Closing the vocabulary gap?: A review of research on early childhood vocabulary practices. Reading Psychology, 32, 426–458. doi:10.1080/02702711.2010.495638
20.
CoiroJ. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392.
21.
DavisD. S. (2009, 12). Comprehension strategies instruction for upper elementary and middle grades students: A systematic review and critique. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
22.
DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.MelothM. S.VavrusL. G.BookC.PutnamJ.WesselmanR. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237–252.
23.
DukeN.PearsonP. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In FarstrupA.SamuelsS. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
24.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D.StrachanS. L.BillmanA. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 51–94). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25.
DurkinD. (1978–79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.
26.
DysonA.SmithermanG. (2009). The right (write) start: African American language and the discourse of sounding right. Teachers College Record, 111, 973–998.
27.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2000). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
28.
Faggella-LubyM. N.GranerP. S.DeshlerD. D.DrewS. V. (2012). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 69–84.
29.
GoldmanS. R.RakestrawJ. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
30.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
HellerR. (2010). In praise of amateurism: A friendly critique of Moje’s “call for change” in secondary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 267–273.
32.
HirschE. D. (2006). The case of bringing content into the language arts block and for a knowledge-rich curriculum core for all children. American Educator, 30, 8–17.
33.
HirschE. D. (2007). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
34.
HullG.RoseM. (1990). “This wooden shack place”: The logic of an unconventional reading. College Composition and Communication, 41, 287–298.
35.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
37.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.
38.
KressG. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London, England: Routledge.
39.
KucanL.PalincsarA. S. (2013). Comprehension instruction through text-based discussion. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
40.
LeeC. D.SpratleyA. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
41.
LewisC. (1993). “ Give people a chance”: Acknowledging social differences in reading. Language Arts, 70, 454–461.
42.
LiG. (2011). The role of culture in literacy, learning, and teaching. In KamilM. L.PearsonD.MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 515–538). New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
LipsonM. Y.WixsonK. K. (2013). Assessment of reading and writing difficulty (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
44.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.BlakeR. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253.
45.
McNamaraD. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
46.
McNamaraD. S.FloydR. G.BestR.LouwerseM. (2004). World knowledge driving young readers’ comprehension difficulties. In KafaiY. B.SandovalW. A.EnyedyN.NixonA. S.HerreraF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Embracing diversity in the learning sciences (pp. 326–333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47.
MeyerB. F.BrandtD. M.BluthG. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
48.
MokhtariK.ReichardC. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259.
49.
MokhtariK.ReichardC. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 32, 379–394.
50.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
51.
MojeE. B.SpeyerJ. (2008). The reality of challenging texts in high school science and social studies. In HinchmanK.SheridanH. K. (Eds.). Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (pp. 185–211). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
52.
MojeE. B.StockdillD.KimK.KimH. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning. In KamilM. L.PearsonD.MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 453–486). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
MurphyP. K.WilkinsonI. A. G.SoterA. O.HennesseyM. N.AlexanderJ. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764. doi:10.1037/a0015576
54.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
55.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
56.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
57.
OzuruY.DempseyK.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.
58.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
59.
ParkerW.LoJ.YeoA. J.ValenciaS. W.NguyenD.AbbottR. D.…VyeN. J. (2013). Beyond breadth-speed-test: Toward deeper knowing and engagement in an Advanced Placement course. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1424–1459.
60.
PearsonP. D.DoleJ. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 123–134.
61.
PearsonP. D.GallagherM. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
62.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331–337.
63.
PerfettiC. (2011). Reading processes and reading problems: Progress toward a universal reading science. In McCardleP.MillerB.LeeJ. R.TzengO. J. L. (Eds.), Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link (pp. 18–32). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
64.
PressleyM. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
65.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66.
PressleyM.El-DinaryP.GaskinsI.SchuderT.BergmanJ.AlmasiJ.BrownR. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 513–555.
67.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
68.
RolstadK.MahoneyK.GlassG. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572–594. doi:10.1177/0895904805278067
69.
RumelhartD. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In GuthrieJ. T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 3–26). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
70.
SantoriD. (2008). “Sense-making—the heart of the matter”: Exploring reading comprehension in various participation structures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
71.
SchankR. C.AbelsonR. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
SchickedanzJ. A.CollinsM. F. (2012). For young children, pictures in storybooks are rarely worth a thousand words. The Reading Teacher, 65, 539–549. doi:10.1002/trtr.01080
73.
SchmittM. C. (1988). The effects of an elaborated directed reading activity on the metacomprehension skills of third graders. In ReadenceJ.BaldwinR. (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research: Thirty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 167–181.). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
74.
SchoenbachR.GreenleafC. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
78.
TaylorB. (1992). Text structure, comprehension, and recall. In SamuelsS.FarstrupA. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 220–235). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
79.
TaylorB. M.BeachR. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.
80.
VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K.BryantD. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 66–74.
81.
ValenciaS. W.WixsonK. K.PearsonP. D. (2014). Putting text complexity in context: Refocusing on comprehension of complex text. Elementary School Journal,115, 270–289.
82.
WhiteS. (2011). Understanding adult functional literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.
83.
WillisA. (2008). Reading comprehension research and testing in the U.S.: Undercurrents of race, class, and power in the struggle for meaning. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
