1
Stiggins, R. (1982). An analysis of the dimensions of job-related reading. Reading World, 21(3), 237–247.
2
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1995). Literacy, economy and society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey. Paris, France: Author.
3
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with Statistics Canada. (2005). Learning a living: First results of the adult literacy and life skills survey. Paris, France and Ottawa, Canada: Author/Statistics Canada.
4
Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
5
Coulombe, S., Tremblay, J.-F., & Marchand, S. (2004). Literacy scores, human capital and growth across fourteen OECD countries. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.
6
Smith, M.C., Mikulecky, L. Kibby, M.W., & Dreher, M.J. (2000). What will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 378–383.
7
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Goh, S., & Prendergast, C. (Eds.). (2017). PIRLS 2016 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in reading. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/
8
Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy. The Hague, Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
9
Elley, W.B. (Ed.). (1994). The IEA study of reading literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems. Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
10
Wolf, R. (Ed.). (1995). The IEA reading literacy study: Technical report. The Hague, Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
11
Campbell, J.R., Kelly, D.L., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., & Sainsbury, M. (2001). Framework and specifications for PIRLS assessment 2001, second edition. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
12
Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O., & Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 assessment framework and specifications, second edition. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
13
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., Trong, K.L., & Sainsbury, M. (2009). PIRLS 2011 assessment framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
14
Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2015). PIRLS 2016 assessment framework (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
15
Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy. The Hague, Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
16
Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). White Plains, NY: Longman.
17
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
18
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19
Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J.P. Sabatini, E.R. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp. 21–37). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
20
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21
Ruddell, R. & Unrau, N.J. (Eds.). (2004). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1462–1521). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
22
Rumelhart, D. (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 722–750). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
23
Britt, M.A., Goldman, S.R., & Rouet, J.-F. (Eds.). (2012). Reading—From words to multiple texts. New York, NY: Routledge.
24
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
25
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
26
Langer, J. (2011). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
27
Baker, L., & Beall, L.C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S.E Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373–388). New York, NY: Routledge.
28
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34(2), 133–154.
29
Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J.P. Sabatini, E.R. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp. 21–37). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
30
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
31
Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I.W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 99–113.
32
Rapp, D.N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 276–279.
33
Christianson, K., & Luke, S.G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 136–166.
34
Lorch, R., Lemarié, J., & Grant, R. (2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization in expository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(3), 267–284.
35
Miller, S.D., & Faircloth, B.S. (2009). Motivation and reading comprehension. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 307–322). New York, NY: Routledge
36
Taboada, A., Tonks, S.M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 85–106.
37
Miller, C.R. (1994). Genre as social action. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.)., Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23–42). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
38
Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.L., & Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
39
Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
40
Rowsell, J., & Pahl, K. (2011). The material and the situated: What multimodality and new literacy studies do for literacy research. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 175–181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
41
Rueda, R. (2013). 21st-century skills: Cultural, linguistic, and motivational perspectives. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1241–1268). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
42
Leu, D.J., O’Byrne, W.I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J.G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264–269.
43
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., Chen, C., & Zickuhr, K. (2012). How teens do research in the digital world. Washington, DC: Author.
44
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 197–206.
45
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
46
Alexander, P.A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.
47
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
48
Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2011). The Online Reading Comprehension Assessment (ORCA) project: Preparing students for Common Core standards and 21st century literacies. Unpublished manuscript. Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island. Retrieved from http://www.orca.uconn.edu/orca/assets/File/Research%20Reports/PROJECT%20REPORT%20%231.pdf
49
Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
50
Goldman, S.R. (2014). Reading and the web: Broadening the need for complex comprehension. In R.J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, P. Morsink, M.S. Hagerman, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
51
Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M.A. Britt, S.R. Goldman, and J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading—From words to multiple texts (pp. 180–199). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
52
Singer, L.M., & Alexander, P.A. (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1007–1041.
53
Strømsø, H.I. (2017). Multiple models of multiple-text comprehension: A commentary. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 216–224.
54
Goldman, S.R. (2014). Reading and the web: Broadening the need for complex comprehension. In R.J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, P. Morsink, M.S. Hagerman, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
55
Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
56
Almasi, J.F., & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and discussion of text. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 470–493). New York, NY: Routledge.
57
Murphy, P.K., Wilkinson, I.A.G., Soter, A.O., Hennessey, M.N., & Alexander, J.F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.
58
Galda, L., & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 64–73.
59
Kucer, S.B. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings, second edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60
Alvermann, D., & Moje, E. (2013). Adolescent literacy instruction and the discourse of “every teacher a teacher of reading.” In D. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1072–1103). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
61
Guthrie, J. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in literacy. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 432–445.
62
Duke, N.K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40–44.
63
Duke. N., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 199–228). New York, NY: Routledge.
64
Palincsar, A.S., & Duke, N.K. (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 183–197.
65
Wharton-McDonald, R., & Swiger, S. (2009). Developing higher order comprehension in the middle grades. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 510–530). New York, NY: Routledge.
66
Goldman, S.R., & Rakestraw, J.A. Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: Text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19(2), 193–220.
68
Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69
Alexander, P.A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.
70
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34(2), 133–154.
71
Graesser, A., Golding, J.M., & Long, D.L. (1996). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 171–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
72
Lorch, R., Lemarié, J., & Grant, R. (2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization in expository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(3), 267–284.
73
Weaver, C.A., III, & Kintsch, W. (1996). Expository text. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230–245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
74
Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Introduction. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
75
Moss, G. (2003). Putting the text back into practice: Junior-age non-fiction as objects of design. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 72-87). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
76
Strømsø, H.I. (2017). Multiple models of multiple-text comprehension: A commentary. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 216–224.
77
Britt, M.A. & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J.R. Kirby & M.J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
78
Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M.A. Britt, S.R. Goldman, and J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading—From words to multiple texts (pp. 180–199). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
79
Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
80
Baker, L., & Beall, L.C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S.E Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373–388). New York, NY: Routledge.
81
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
82
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1996). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609– 640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
83
Perfitti, C.A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
84
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
85
Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
86
Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87
Beach, R., & Hynds, S. (1996). Research on response to literature. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 453–489). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
88
Galda, L., & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 64–73.
89
Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J.P. Sabatini, E.R. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp. 21–37). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
90
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
91
Wolfe, M.B.W., & Goldman, S.R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502.
92
Flavell, J.H., & Wellman, H.M. (Eds.). (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail, Jr. & J.W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
93
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
94
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
95
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
96
Perfetti, C., & Adlof, S. (2012). Reading comprehension: A conceptual framework from word meaning to text meaning. In J.P Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp. 3–20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
97
West, R.F., & Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three ages. In K.E. Stanovich (Ed.), Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers (pp. 13–20). New York, NY: Guilford.
98
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
99
Alexander, P.A., Kulikowich, J.M., & Jetton, T.L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 201–252.
100
Zwaan, R.A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A.C. Graesser, M.A. Gernsbacher, & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
101
West, R.F., & Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three ages. In K.E. Stanovich (Ed.), Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers (pp. 13–20). New York, NY: Guilford.
102
Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
103
Britt, M.A. & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J.R. Kirby & M.J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
104
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34(2), 133–154.
105
Britt, M.A. & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J.R. Kirby & M.J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
106
Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M.A. Britt, S.R. Goldman, and J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading—From words to multiple texts (pp. 180– 99). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.