Skip to main content

A Disciplinary Literacy Bibliography


Disciplinary literacy refers to the specialized or somewhat unique texts or text features in those texts that are the province of a particular field of study and the specialized approaches to reading and writing texts used by experts in a field of study.

Blast from the Past: Since this entry was originally published research on disciplinary literacy has burgeoned. This update increases the bibliography greatly and this big increase in emphasis should encourage and support those who are trying to bring disciplinary literacy to adolescents around the world.

These days I hear a lot of reading authorities talking (and writing) about disciplinary literacy, but they really mean adolescent literacy or content area reading and writing. They don’t understand the distinction that is being made.

Disciplinary literacy refers to the specialized or somewhat unique texts or text features in those texts that are the province of a particular field of study and the specialized approaches to reading and writing texts used by experts in a field of study. Thus, historians, because they create, communicate, and evaluate a different kind of knowledge than scientists, use different kinds of text and have different ways of reading such text than scientists. 

There are various ways that one can study the information in text to remember it for a test or something, and that probably doesn’t vary much across contents. But disciplinary literacy refers not to those student or learning concerns, but to the ways of reading/writing that are specialized to the actual fields of study. There is nothing wrong with addressing how to teach reading better in a social studies class or how to teach students to learn better from a social studies textbook … that just isn’t what we mean by disciplinary studies.

Thus, if someone is talking about how to read like a scientist, they are dealing with disciplinary literacy. But if they are talking about how to do story problems in math, how to memorize terminology in a science class, or the most pedagogically sound textbook to use in social studies, they are really talking about something else. If it is about being a better student or learning to read more effectively, it is not about disciplinary literacy (though I suspect if teachers focused more on apprenticing the students into the disciplines they would become better students).  

The Common Core State Standards and the Indiana and Texas standards all attempt to address disciplinary literacy. They want their students to read literature the way that a literary critic would, or to read a history book the way a historian would.

I hear often from graduate students seeking information about disciplinary literacy. Towards that end I am providing the following partial bibliography. I think this could be helpful both to researchers and teachers.

Disciplinary literacy bibliography

Abel, K. L., and Exley, B. E. (2008). Using Halliday’s functional grammar to examine early years worded mathematics texts. Australia Journal of Language and Literacy, 31,227–241.

Akkus, R., Gunel, M., and Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices:  Are there differences. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745-1765.

Amos, L. B. (2014). Disciplinary literacy in action:  Epistemological resources for reasoning with domain-specific texts in history and the social sciences disciplines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anthony, R. J., Tippett, C. D., and Yore, L. D. (2010). Pacific Crystal project: Explicit literacy instruction embedded in middle school science classrooms. Research In Science Education, 40, 45-64.

Ashby, R. (1993). Pilot study on students’ use of evidence. Unpublished study, Essex, England.

Ashby, R., and Lee, P.J. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers. London, England: Falmer Press.

Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A. Ericsson and J. Smith (Eds.) Toward a General Theory of Expertise — Prospects and Limits (pp. 64-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ashby, R. (1993). Pilot study on students’ use of evidence. Unpublished study, Essex, England.

Ashby, R., and Lee, P.J. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers. London, England: Falmer Press.

Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3–23.

Bazerman, C. (1998). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T.N., and Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-44.

Berland, L. K., and Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education93(1), 26- 55.

Brill, G., Falk, H., and Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high?school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education26(4), 497-512.

Brozo, W.G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C.,  and Stewart, T. (2013).  Content area reading and disciplinary literacy:  A case for the radical center.  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(5) 353-357.

Burke, K.A., Greenbowe, T.J., and Hand, B.M. (2006).  Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032-1038.

Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336-371.

Chapman, S. C. (2015). Disciplinary literacy: A study of the cognitive, social, and semiotic practices of disciplinary experts. Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida.

Cherner, T., Kelley, A., and Norris, M. (2015). Disciplinary literacy: Teaching students to read as historians chapter. In T. N. Turner, J. Clabough, and W. Cole (Eds.), Getting at the core of the Common Core with social studies (pp. 153-166). Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing.

Chi, M. R. H., Feltovich, P. J., and Glaser, R. (1980). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.

Christiansen, L.M. (2007).  Legal reading and success in law school:  An empirical study.  Seattle University Law Review, 30, 603-649.

Christiansen, L.M. (2008). The paradox of legal expertise:  A study of experts and novices reading the law.  Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 53, 53-87.

Deegan, D.H. (1995).  Exploring individual differences among novices reading in a specific domain:  The case of law.  Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 154-70.

de La Paz, S. (2005). Historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139-156.

de La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., and MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29, 412-454.

de La Paz, S., and Wissinger, D.R. (2015). Effects of genre and content knowledge on historical thinking with academically diverse high school students. Journal of Experimental Education, 83, 110-129.

Donovan, M. S., and Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Drew, S. V., Olinghouse, N. G., Faggella-Luby, M. W., and Megan, E. (2017). Framework for disciplinary writing in science Grades 6–12: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 935-955.

Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.

Duhaylongsod, L., Snow, C., E., Selman, R., l., and Donovan, M.S. (2015). Toward disciplinary literacy: dilemmas and challenges in designing history curriculum to support middle school students. Harvard Educational Review, 85, (4), 587-608.

Dunkerly-Bean, J., and Bean, T. W. (2016). Missing the “Savoir” for the “Connaissance”: Disciplinary and content area literacy as regimes of truth. Journal of Literacy Research, 48, 448-475.

Faggela-Luby, M.N., Graner, P.S., Deshler, D.D., and Drew, S.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.

Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 19-34.

Fang, Z. and Schleppegrell, M. (2008). Reading in second content areas: A language-based pedagogy. University of Michigan Press.

Fang, Z., and Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 586-597.

Felton, M., and Kuhn, D. (2001).  The development of argumentative discourse skill.  Discourse Processes, 32(2 & 3), 135-153. 

Fitzgerald, J.C. (2011). Comprehending historical narratives: Exploring the relationship between causal language and students’ mental representations of history. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Flury-Kashmanian, C. (2016). Engineers reading disciplinary texts: Skimming for “shiny objects” and tapping into knowledge and experience. Unpublished State University of New York at Buffalo. 

Ford, M.J., and Wargo, B. M.  (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding.  Science Education, 96(3) 369-391.

Foster, T. C. (2003). How to read literature like a professor. New York: Harper.

Fulda, J. S. (1989). Material implication revisited. American Mathematical Monthly, 96, 247-250.

Fulda, J. S. (1992). Material implications. American Mathematical Monthly, 99, 48.

Fulda, J. S. (2009a). Rendering conditionals in mathematical discourse with conditional elements. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1435-1439.

Fulda, J. S. (2009b). Towards a unified theory of “ifs”—the theory of conditional elements: Further evidence from conditionally self-falsifying utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1440-1448

Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C.D., Shanahan, C., and Project READI (Submitted). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding:  A conceptual framework of core concepts and processes.

Goldman, S.R., Lawless, K., Yukhymenko, M., Britt, M.A., Wallace, P., George, M., \ Pellegrino, J.W., Litman, C., Emig, J. Fortune, A., James, K., Burkett, C., and Project READI. (2016).  Efficacy Study of 9th Grade READI Biology:  Design, Assessment Strategy, and Findings.  Presented at the American Educational Research Association.

Grant, M.C., and Fisher, D. (201). Reading and writing in science: Tools to develop disciplinary literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Greene, S. (1994). The problem of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Pscyhologist, 29(2), 89-96.

Greenleaf, C., Hanson, T, Herman, J., Litman, C., Madden, Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. Schneider, S., and Silver, D.  (2009).  Integrating literacy and science instruction in high school biology: Impact on teacher practice, student engagement, and student achievement (Final report to NSF, Grant #0440379). 

Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., and Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 117-159.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). The Language of Science. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K., and Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Hand, B. (1999). A writing-in-science framework designed to enhance science literacy.International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1021–1035.

Hand, B., Wallace, C., and Yang, E.M. (2004).  Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh?grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects, International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.

Hillman, A.M. (2017). Disciplinary literacy: A case study on how secondary teachers engage students in disciplinary discourses. Unpublished dissertation University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Hillocks, G., and Ludlow, L.H. (1984).  A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal21(1), 7-24.

Hynd, C. R., and Alvermann, D. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions in science: An on-line study of prior knowledge activation. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 12-26.

Hynd, C. McWhorter, Y., Phares, G., and Suttles, C. W. (1994).  The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 933-946.

Hynd, C. R., Stahl, S. A., Carr, M., Glynn, Shawn, M. (1998). Learning from text across conceptual domains. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hynd-Shanahan, C., Holschuh, J.P., and Hubbard, B.P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students’ reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research36, 141-176.

Hynd-Shanahan, C., and Shanahan, T. (2008). Content-area reading/learning: Flexibility in knowledge acquistion. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching (pp. 208-233). New York: Guilford Press.

Inglis, M., and Alcock, L. (2012). Expert and novice approaches to reading mathematical proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 358-390.

Jacobson, R.  (1987).  Language in literature, Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Jetton, T. L, and Shanahan, C. ((Eds.). 2012). Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York: Guilford Press.

Kerlin, S.C., McDonald, S.P., Kelly, G.J. (2010). Complexity of secondary scientific data sources and students’ argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education32, 1207-1225.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 6, 155-179.

Kuhn, D., and Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260.

Larkin, J.H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner, and A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lee, C. D.(1995).  A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship:  Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation.  Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608-630.

Lee, P. (2005).  Putting principles into practice:  Understanding history.  In M. S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford (Eds.). How Students Learn.  Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Lee, P.J., and Ashby, R. (2001). Empathy, perspective taking and rational understanding. In O.L. Davis Jr., S. Foster, and E. Yaeger (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.

Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C., and Virji, S. M. (1994). A sense of history. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 79–88.

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.

Lemke, J. L. (2002). Intertextuality and the project of text linguistics, TEXT 20 (2), 221-225. 

Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice, 33-47. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Levstik, L. (2002). Two kinds of empathy: Reasoned analysis and emotional response in historical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., and Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle, Science Education, 90, 202-226.

Martin, J.R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221-267). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

McCarty, R. (2016).  Heuristics as warrants:  Leveraging sourcing and corroboration heuristics as warrants in the historical argumentative writing of 11th grade students. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.

McNeil, K.L., and Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M.C. Lovett and P. Shah (Ed.), Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McQuaid, K. K. (2017). Can you read me now? Disciplinary literacy reading strategies in the 7th grade science classroom. Unpublished dissertation, Grand Canyon University.

Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy. In L. Parker (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (vol. 31, pp. 1-44). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Moje, E. (2008).  Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.

Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 254-278.

Moje, E. B., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., and Kim, H. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning.  In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, P. A. Afflerbach, and E. B. Moje (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 453–486). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Moje, E. B., Sutherland, L. M., Solomon, T. E., and Vanderkerkof, M. (2010). Integrating literacy instruction into secondary school science inquiry: The challenge of disciplinary literacy teaching and professional development. Unpublished paper.

Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary:  Learning to read and write by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41, 212-249.

Monte-Sano, C., and De La Paz, S. (2012). Writing tasks to elicit students’ historical reasoning.  Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273-299.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly,46,  273-304.

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., and Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492–504.

Norris, S. P., and Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.

Nurnberg, D. (2017). Writing-to-learn in high-school chemistry: The effects of using the science writing heuristic to increase scientific literacy. Unpublished dissertation, University of San Francisco.

O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., and Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly30(3), 442–463. h

O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Inter-semiotic expansion of experiential meaning: hierarchical scales and metaphor in mathematics discourse. In E. Ventola and Jones, C. (Eds). From language to multimodality: New developments in the study of ideational meaning (pp. 231-254). London: Equinox.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.F., and Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp and S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction16(3), 235–263.

Peskin, J., Allen, G., and Wells-Jopling, R. (2010).  “The educated imagination”:  Applying instructional research to the teaching of symbolic interpretation of poetry, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 497-508.

Peskin, J. and Wells-Joplin, R. 2012). Fostering symbolic interpretation during adolescence.  Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 13-23.

Petcovic, H. L., and Libarkin, J. C. (2007). Research in science education: The expert-novice continuum. Journal of Geoscience Education55(4), 333-339.

Rabinowitz, P. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Rainey, E.C. (2016). What does it mean to read literary works? The literacy practices, epistemologies, and instructional approaches of literary scholars and high school English language arts teachers. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan.

Rainey, E.C. (2017). Disciplinary literacy in English language arts: Exploring the social and problem?based nature of literary reading and reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 53-71.

Reed, D.K., Whalon, K., Lynn, D., Miller, N., and Smith, K. (2017). A comparison of general and content-specific literacy strategies for learning science content. Exceptionality, 25(2), 77-96.

Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools, Cognition and Instruction, 30, 86-112.

Reynolds, T., and Rush, L.S. (2017). Experts and novices reading literature: An analysis of disciplinary literacy in English Language Arts. Literacy Research and Instruction, 56, 199-216.

Riazzi, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A social-cognitive analysis of text production and learning among Iranian graduate students of education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 105-137.

Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M.A. and Perfetti, C.A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.

Rudd, J., Greenbowe, T., Hand, B. M., and Legg, M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemistry Education78, 1680.

Salmeron, L.,  Canas, J. J., and Fajardo, I. (2005). Are expert users always better searchers? Interaction of expertise and semantic grouping in hypertext search tasks.  Behaviour & Information Technology, 24, 471–475.

Schneider, J., and Zakai, S. (2016). A rigorous dialectic: Writing and thinking in history. Teachers College Record, 118, 11-36.

Schreiner, T. (2014). Using historical knowledge to reason about contemporary political issues:  An expert novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 314-352.

Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification-the case of function. The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy25, 59-84.

Shanahan, C. (2015). Disciplinary literacy strategies in content area classrooms. ILA E-ssentials. Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. 

Shanahan, C., Bolz, M.A., Cribb, G., Goldman, S.R., Heppeler, J., and Manderino, M. (In Press). Deepening what it means to read (and write) history. The History Teacher.

Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., and Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines:  History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393-429.

Shanahan, C., and Shanahan, T. (2015). The what and why of disciplinary literacy. In M.C. Hougen (Ed.), Fundamentals of literacy instruction & assessment, 6-12. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Shanahan, C., and Shanahan, T. (2018). Disciplinary literacy. In D. Lapp and D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts (4th ed., pp. 281-308). New York: Routledge.

Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C.R. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.

Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 1-12.

Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2014). Teaching history and literacy. In K.A. Hinchman and H.K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy (pp. 232-248). New York: Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2015). Disciplinary literacy comes to middle school. Voices from the Middle, 22(3), 10-13.

Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2017). Disciplinary literacy: Just the FAQs. Educational Leadership, 74(5), 18-22.

Shanahan, Shanahan, and Misichia (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393-429.

Shemilt, D. (1987). Adolescent ideas about evidence and methodology in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers. London, England: Falmer Press.

Smith, M.W. (1989). Teaching the interpretation of irony in poetry. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 252-272.

Smith, M. W. (1992). Effects of direct instruction on ninth graders’ understanding of unreliable narrators. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 339-347.

Snow, C. E. (1987). The development of definitional skill. Journal of Child Language17, 697-710.

Spoer, K.T., and Spoer, L.W. (1994).  Learning to think historically.  Educational Psychologist, 29, 71-77.

Sriraman, B. (2005). Demystifying the mathematicians craft: Chasing the elusive or a researchable commodity? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 171-180.

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., and Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430–456.

Stewart, R. A., and O’Brien, D. G. (1989). Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice teachers. Journal of Reading, 32, 396-401.

Tall, D. (Ed.). (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In, D. Tall, (Ed.) Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3-24). NY:  Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Textual Tools Study Group (2006). Developing scientific literacy through the use of literacy teaching strategies. In R. Douglas et al., (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom (pp. 261-285). Washington D.C: National Science Teachers Association.

Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K. A., O’Brien, E. J., and Kendeou, P. (2017). Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Memory & Cognition, 45, 168-181.

VanSledright, B. (2002a). Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Education Research Journal39, 1089-1115.

VanSledright, B. (2002b). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom:  Results from a researcher practitioner design experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 131-160.

VanSeldright, B. (2002c). In search of America’s past: Learning to read history in elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean — scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp161-195). London, UK: Cassell.

Waldrip, B., Prain, V., and Carolan, J. (2010). Using multimodal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80.

Walker, C. Y. (2016).  The effects of disciplinary literacy instruction on reading comprehension and historical knowledge. Unpublished dissertation, University of Maryland.

Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is valid. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 431-439.

Weber, K., and Mejia-Ramos, J.P. (2011). Why and how mathematicians read proofs:  An exploratory study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 329-344.

Weber, K., and Mejia-Ramos, J.P. (2013). The influences of sources in the reading of mathematical text:  A reply to Shanahan, Shanahan, and Misischia. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 87-96.

Wignell, P. (1994). Genre across the curriculum. Linguistics and Education6, 355-372.

Wiley, J., and Voss, J.F. (1996). The effects of “playing historian” on learning in history.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 563-572. 

Wiley, J., and Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology91(2), 301.

Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.

Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln:  An expert/expert study in the reading of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.

Wineburg, S. (2002). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wineburg, S. (2011). Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high school classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wineburg, S., and Resiman, A. (2015). Disciplinary literacy in history: A toolkit for digital citizenship. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58, 636-639.

Wissinger, D. R., and De La Paz, S. (2015). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ historical arguments, Educational Psychology, Advance online publication.

Wolf, M.B.E., and Goldman, S.R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.

Zeitz, C.M. (1994). Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and Instruction12, 277-312.

Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Mathematical literacy in the middle years. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 9(2), 21–28.