Rethinking Reading Comprehension
Definitions, Instructional Practices, and Assessment
By Frank Serafini
Introduction
A
significant amount of research conducted on effective reading comprehension strategies has focused on the cognitive operations readers employ
when constructing meaning in transactions with texts (Dole, Duff y, Roehler, &
Pearson, 1991; Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley,
2000; Pressley, Block, & Gambrell, 2002). This focus on the cognitive operations readers draw upon can certainly be considered an expanded perspective
compared to the behavioral research on comprehension instruction conducted
previously (Fitzgerald, Robinson, Farone, Hittleman, & Unruh, 1990). However,
a primary focus on the cognitive aspects of reading comprehension does
not adequately address the social and cultural aspects of reading (Gee, 1996;
Smagorinsky, 2001).
Research on reading comprehension and comprehension instruction has produced a menu of cognitive strategies, including, but not limited to: a) visualizing,
b) predicting, c) summarizing, d) asking questions, e) monitoring comprehension, and f) determining important information. These strategies have been referred to as “goal-directed cognitive operations” taught through teacher-directed
instruction that typically includes two components; direct explanation and scaffolding (Sinatra, Brown, & Reynolds, 2002). These reading strategies have been
conceptualized as cognitive operations that can be employed across a variety of
texts and contexts. In other words, the cognitive operation of visualizing is touted
as an effective reading strategy regardless of whether you are reading a poem, a
newspaper article or a job application.
Expanding current perspectives on reading comprehension is essential if
educators are going to move beyond cognitively-based strategy instruction to
consider socio-cultural aspects of reading comprehension. In order to do so,
educators need to expand their definitions of reading comprehension to include
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 189
190 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
socio-cultural, historical, political, and pragmatic aspects of reading. Cognitivebased reading comprehension strategies need to be reconceptualized as contextually grounded reading comprehension strategies that take into account the
immediate, socio-cultural, and historical contexts of reading text.
In this chapter, I will begin by discussing various ways of defining reading
comprehension with the intention of expanding the perspectives considered.
Next, I will discuss how an expanded definition of reading comprehension might
effect the instructional approaches one employs in classrooms. Finally, I will
consider how these changes in definition and instructional practices effect how
we assess readers’ abilities to understand what they have read. It is my contention,
as one’s definition of reading comprehension is expanded to include perspectives
beyond decoding and cognitive strategies, instructional approaches, and the assessments used to determine whether a reader has comprehended what was read,
will expand as well.
Rethinking Definitions of Reading Comprehension
It was once assumed that reading comprehension was simply a combination of
decoding and oral comprehension skills (Hoover & Gough, 1990). That is, if
readers could decode the words on a page, they would be able to monitor what
was being read to themselves orally and understand what they were reading.
However, contemporary research in reading comprehension has suggested that
understanding what one reads involves more than decoding plus oral language
comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 2000). Just because readers can
decode words does not mean that they have understood what they have read. In
fact, as readers progress into more complex texts, their ability to decode becomes
less and less an indicator of their ability to comprehend. Hammerberg (2004)
iterates, “… the construction of meaning is an interactive process, more so than
merely decoding the words, saying them aloud in your head, and assuming comprehension ‘happens’ when the words are heard” (p. 650).
Research on reading comprehension and the cognitively-based comprehension strategies used by proficient readers conducted by Pressley (Pressley, 1999;
Pressley et al., 2002) and P. David Pearson (Pearson & Anderson, 1984; Pearson
& Fielding, 1991), among others, has shown that readers who comprehend:
•
•
•
•
are active processors of text
connect texts to their experiences and prior knowledge
set expectations or goals for their reading
attend to the elements and structures of literature
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 191
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
monitor their understandings
ask questions of the text as they read
preview or skim texts before reading
attend to vocabulary
are able to articulate and negotiate meaning
construct meaning as they read through texts
read selectively, choosing texts that serve their goals and purposes
From a cognitive or psycholinguistic perspective, comprehension is viewed
as a process of constructing meaning in transaction with texts (Goodman, 1996;
Smith, 2004). However, a focus on individual readers and the cognitive strategies
they employ may conceal the impact and role that immediate and socio-cultural
contexts play in the act of reading. To understand the effects these contexts play in
the act of reading requires a shift from a psycholinguistic perspective to a sociopsycholinguistic perspective (Gee, 1992; John-Steiner, Petoskey, & Smith, 1994).
All four components, the text, the author, the reader, and the immediate and
socio-cultural context play an important role in every reading event in addition
to the cognitive strategies readers employ. The text presents written language,
design and visual components to be considered and interpreted, the reader
constructs meanings based on their knowledge of language, text and the world,
the author constructs the written text, acting as rhetor bringing intentions and
purpose to the act of writing (Kress, 2010), the publisher designs the layout and
typographic elements of the text itself, and the immediate and socio-cultural
context provides the cultural and pragmatic aspects of why one is reading and
how the text is to be comprehended.
Readers should no longer be viewed as solitary explorers trying to uncover the
single main idea hidden in the bowels of a classic novel or as “passive consumers
of authoritative interpretations” (Faust, 1994, p. 25). Readers are active constructors of meanings, transacting with texts in particular times, places and contexts
(Rosenblatt, 1978). Readers come to the act of reading with their prior cultural,
linguistic, literary, and life experiences. They draw upon these experiences as
each reading is, “situated in dialogue with and in extension of other readings”
(Smagorinsky, 2001, p. 141).
In addition to reconsidering the role of the reader, a reconsideration of the
concept of text would help expand our understandings of reading comprehension. Drawing on modernist literary theory (Serafini, 2003), the text has been
conceived as a conduit, a neutral container for the transmission of messages and
knowledge from author to reader (Bogdan & Straw, 1990; Mosenthal, 1987).
From this perspective, a text is encoded by an author to be decoded by a reader.
In describing comprehension strategies, both Keene and Zimmerman (1997)
192 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
and Snow (2002) suggest the text is capable of containing meaning. This text as
conduit metaphor is made apparent by the ways in which texts are described in
writings on reading strategy instruction. For example, Keene and Zimmerman
(1997) state one of the reading strategies readers need to acquire is the ability to
determine the most important ideas and themes in a text. Further, Snow (2002)
suggests that comprehension is the simultaneous construction and extraction of
meaning from a text. If meaning is to be extracted, then it must reside within the
text a priori so readers may be able to efficiently extract it.
Considering the prepositions used in describing reading comprehension, and
how these prepositions construct the concept of text, is vital to understanding the
various theoretical perspectives being drawn upon in reading comprehension.
When theorists and educators write meanings: a) come from the text, b) are found
in the text, or c) are constructed with the text, they are referring to very different
processes and epistemological stances. The first two phrases suggest that meaning
is interred a priori within the text to be found or discovered by the effective reader,
or what has been referred to as the “meaning incarnate” (Bruner, 1986). The text
is conceived as a neutral conduit for the encoding of the author’s message, and
implicates a more passive role for the reader. The third phrase suggests a more
active role for the reader, constructing meaning in transactions with texts. What
the reader brings to the reading event is just as important as what the text brings.
These ways of describing the reading process construct various epistemological
assertions about where meaning is located and how or whether it is constructed,
and must be considered as one expands the definitions that support instructional
and assessment practices.
From a post-structuralist or socio-cultural perspective, there is no meaning
that simply resides in a text until a reader with the requisite knowledge and skills
constructs the meaning with the signs on a page (McCormick, 1995; O’Neill,
1993). The dual focus of the construction and extraction metaphor offered by
Snow (2002) may serve as a balancing mechanism in a field of varying political
allegiances, but it could also be construed as a form of theoretical schizophrenia
trying to accommodate incommensurate views on meaning and comprehension.
Making a shift towards a socio-cultural model of reading comprehension,
Freebody and Luke (1990) proffered an expanded conceptualization of the
resources readers utilize when reading and the roles readers adopt in a postmodern, text-based culture. The four resources model and its associated “four
roles of the reader” expanded the definition of reading from a simple model of
decoding texts to constructing meaning and analyzing texts in socio-cultural
contexts. Their goal was to shift the focus from trying to find the right method for
teaching children to read to determining whether the range of resources available
and the strategies emphasized in a reading program were indeed covering and
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 193
integrating the broad repertoire of practices required in today’s economies and
cultures (Luke & Freebody, 1999).
The model, which includes the following roles: reader as code breaker, reader
as text participant, reader as text user, and readers as text analyst, provided educators, researchers, and literacy theorists with an expanded perspective focusing
on what it means to be a successful reader in new times. Readers were expected
to draw upon the various resources available to develop and sustain the four roles
necessary to be a successful reader.
An expanded definition of reading comprehension should address the process
of generating viable interpretations in transaction with texts, and one’s ability
to construct understandings from multiple perspectives; including the author’s
intentions, textual references, personal experiences, and socio-cultural contexts
in which one reads. In addition, reading comprehension should be viewed as
an orchestration of the following four processes: (1) navigating textual elements, including written language, design features, and visual images and other
multimodal elements, (2) generating meanings in transaction with texts, (3)
articulating one’s ideas and meanings within a community of readers, and (4)
interrogating the meanings constructed in a recursive, socially grounded process.
The following are some assertions based on a socio-cultural perspective on
reading:
1. There is no unmediated access to texts, there are only particular readings
that are privileged over others, no god’s eye view or transcendent authority is
available as an objective reading to compare other readings with.
2. Texts are social artifacts, created by authors and read by readers that are
embedded in particular social contexts and practices.
3. Meaning is always socially constructed.
4. Meaning is always historically embedded in local and particular contexts.
5. Meaning is always political, working towards particular interests.
6. Each reading has particular cultural capital, some readings are more privileged than others in the context of the classroom.
Based on these assertions, meanings constructed during the act of reading are
socially embedded, temporary, partial, and plural (Corcoran, Hayhoe, & Pradl,
1994). There is not an objective truth about a text, but many truths, each with its
own authority and its own warrants for viability aligned with particular literary
theories and perspectives. The meanings constructed by readers at any one point
in time are plural and open for reconsideration at another time when transacting
with the text.
194 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
Research from a socio-cultural perspective focuses on the types of meanings
that readers construct, how these meanings are affected by the social context and
reading practices that readers are located within and the purposes of constructing particular responses (Gee, 1992; John-Steiner et al., 1994; Weaver, 1994).
Readers construct readings (plural), not as originators of meaning, but as human
subjects positioned through social, political, and historical practices that remain
the location of a constant struggle over power. Every classroom is a site for the
production of meaning, and every interpretive community has some alignment
with a particular literary tradition or perspective (Fish, 1980). The shift from a
cognitive to a socio-cultural perspective assumes that cognition is constructed
by the social context, not just embedded within the social context (Lewis, 2000).
In addition, it may be useful to reconsider the term comprehension (as noun),
referring to comprehension as a commodity that is individually acquired, or some
amount of knowledge that is literally taken away from every successful reading
event. Instead, it may be more appropriate to use the term comprehending (as
verb), to suggest reading is a process, a recursive cycle of generating meanings that
changes each time readers transact with a text across particular contexts. This shift
from comprehension as a noun to comprehending as a verb would also require
comprehension assessment to take place during the act of reading and discussing
a text, rather than simply measuring how much of a pre-determined amount of
meanings a reader accumulated and could represent after reading a text.
In summary, students are constructed as readers of particular types by the
reading practices available to them and by the discourses which locate and situate
reading practices and readers. As we expand our definition of comprehension
to include the socio-cultural, political, and historical aspects of reading, we are
better positioned to reconsider the instructional approaches and assessment
frameworks that would best support readers in their development. Teaching
readers to simply employ particular cognitive strategies without consideration of
the social and cultural contexts in which they read is myopic, if not theoretically
antiquated.
Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction
In a classic study on comprehension instruction, Durkin (1978) demonstrated
that classroom teachers rarely, if ever, directly taught reading comprehension
strategies. Unfortunately, her research also demonstrated that classroom teachers
spent a great deal of time assessing comprehension by asking questions at the
end of each reading selection. This focus on assessment pushed the teaching and
demonstration of comprehension strategies used by proficient readers during
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 195
the act of reading to the periphery of the reading curriculum. What was once
considered instruction in reading comprehension, was exposed as assessment of
literal details and events contained within a text.
Since Durkin’s study, research on explicit instruction in reading comprehension has increased dramatically. Pressley and colleagues (2002) conducted
research that confirmed Durkin’s findings, namely that teachers were not offering
explicit instruction in comprehension strategies. This realization was surprising
given the overwhelming evidence gathered by numerous researchers investigating reading comprehension instruction. Research on reading comprehension,
primarily focusing on cognitive aspects of the reading process, has demonstrated
that teaching the reading comprehension strategies used by proficient readers to
novice or less successful readers improves their reading comprehension abilities
(Braunger & Lewis, 1997; Dole et al., 1991; Kucan & Beck, 1997; Pressley, 2000).
Fielding and Pearson (1994) described four primary components of effective
comprehension instruction: a) time to read and engage with texts, b) explicit
instruction in comprehension strategies, c) opportunities for peers to collaborate
while reading, and d) time to respond to and discuss what readers are reading.
Unfortunately, many literacy educators have focused their attention on the role
of explicit instruction on cognitive strategies to the detriment of the other three
components described above. The role of explicit instruction is to provide demonstrations of the strategies proficient readers use, call readers’ attention to various aspects of text, and make reading processes “visible” so that novice readers
can acquire these requisite strategies (Serafini, 2004). Explicit instruction, when
combined with a supportive classroom environment, access to quality reading
materials, attention to students’ motivations to read, and assessment that supports teaching and learning, are the basis of effective literacy instruction (Duke
& Pearson, 2002; Serafini, 2004; Serafini & Youngs, 2008).
The cognitive strategies found to be most effective are not applied by readers outside of the socio-cultural contexts in which their reading takes place
(Hammerberg, 2004; Lewis, 2000). In other words, the cognitive strategies being taught are not universal strategies that readers carry around with them and
simply apply to the various texts they encounter. These strategies are grounded in
the purposes the reader brings to the text, the textual and design elements of the
text, and the socio-cultural context of the reading event. For example, predicting
in the context of a mystery novel being read for enjoyment is very different than
predicting during a read aloud discussion of an expository text. Based on this,
the focus of comprehension strategy instruction should be constructing meaning
during the act of reading in a given socio-cultural context, not becoming more
proficient with simply applying these various cognitive strategies.
196 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
Drawing on the expanded definition of reading comprehension described
earlier, instruction in reading comprehension strategies should always consider
the reading context, both its immediate, pragmatic aspects, and its socio-cultural
embeddedness. In order to support this alternative instructional approach, organizing the reading curriculum around the various cognitively-based reading
comprehension strategies may be problematic. This type of instructional organization focuses attention on the strategy itself and not the purpose of, or context
for, using the strategy. This focus on a context-free set of strategies tends to push
the construction of meanings and the role of textual elements and genres to the
periphery of the instructional framework. Organizing the curriculum into units
of study (Calkins, 2001) based on the texts being read—by genre, author, format,
illustrator, topic—rather than by strategy, provides an intellectual space for instruction to progress. In other words, strategies should be taught in the context
of reading a particular text, given a particular task, in a particular context, not as
an isolated mental strategy to be used across any context. In this way, the strategies become subservient to the texts, purposes, and contexts in which readers
read, not the other way around. The strategies are now used in service of meaning,
rather than as an end in themselves (Serafini, 2004).
Classroom discussion plays an important role in the articulation, negotiation,
and reconsideration of meanings constructed by readers in the classroom context. Comprehension instruction should help readers participate in an, “on-going
cultural conversation about meaning, value and significance” (Faust, 1994, p. 31).
Classroom discussions should balance the meanings constructed by individual
readers in transaction with texts, and the socio-cultural contexts that permeate
the meanings constructed.
Discussion also acknowledges the constructed nature of particular interpretations and interpretive conventions. Reading practices are influenced by social
institutions and some interpretations or readings are more dominant, influential
and appropriate than others (Lewis, 2000). Because of this, reading comprehension instruction should help readers understand texts from a variety of perspectives and learn how each perspective endorses and dismisses particular meanings
and interpretations (Serafini, 2009). Reading comprehension instruction is the
demonstration of various interpretive moves and the subsequent guided practice
and application of these moves by students. These interpretive moves take into
consideration the socio-culturally informed definition of comprehending described earlier in this chapter and the immediate contexts in which the reading
is taking place. If teachers want students to talk and interpret texts in particular
ways, they need to demonstrate possible discourses and allow for students to
appropriate these ways of talking and thinking in their instructional approaches.
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 197
Rethinking Reading Assessment
Until we re-think our notions of assessing reading comprehension, very little
will change in reading instruction. To begin, standardized tests were designed
according to a consumption view of knowledge (Crebbin, 1992). According to this
view, reading comprehension is viewed as a product, a set of discreet facts and
skills to be consumed and carried away from the reading event. Standardized
tests were subsequently developed to measure the amount of consumption taking
place. From this perspective, comprehension is seen as the accumulation of a
value-free body of concepts and understanding that are independent of time,
place, and individuals. This view of reading assessment as measurement is closely
aligned with a modernist philosophy and supports a factory model of education
(Serafini, 2002, 2003).
Too often, comprehension assessments focus on the literal recall of textual
elements to determine whether a reader has understood what they have read
(Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002). The focus is on memory and recall, not
synthesis or the construction of various meanings. In addition, these standardized assessments rely on a literal interpretation of the text and the assumption
that texts have stable, fixed meanings. While it is certainly easier to assess comprehension when meanings are fixed prior to the assessments being conducted,
assessment must take into account the constructive nature of the meaningmaking process and how meanings reside with the reader and the social context
(Bogdan & Straw, 1990).
The primary role of standardized assessments is to simply record whether
readers were able identify the predetermined answers. Passages are read, readers
are required to select responses that subsequently align with the predetermined
main ideas and answers created by the test designers. However, if one rejects the
objectivist epistemological grounds, and the conceptualization of the text as a
neutral container of meaning, on which these tests are constructed, then assessments must change to recognize new definitions and assertions set forth.
All assessments require readers to represent their readings and understandings in particular ways. These modes of representations range from narrow
representations (ie., answering multiple choice questions) to more sensitive and
open representations (writing in response to reading, oral discussion). However,
as we move from controlled responses to more personalized, open responses, our
assessments get messier. Each mode of representation limits as well as supports
a reader’s ability to articulate their understandings. In addition to answering
questions on a standardized test, possible modes for representing comprehension include: (1) thinking aloud during reading, (2) writing in reader response
198 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
notebooks, (3) participating in an oral discussion, and (4) constructing art-based
responses to what has been read (Serafini, 2010).
Each mode of representation is based on certain assumptions for warranting
particular responses. Some possible criteria are: 1) referential adequacy—whether
the response is supported by direct reference to the text itself, 2) resort to authority—whether the reader was able to adequately represent the intended meanings
set forth by the author or testing authority, or 3) consensus—agreement by a
community of readers that a response is adequate or viable.
When assessment becomes a process of inquiry, an interpretive activity rather
than simply the measure of predetermined behaviors and responses, teachers will
be able to use assessment to make informed decisions concerning curriculum
and instruction in their classrooms (Serafini, 2000–2001, p. 392). As educators,
we need to find new ways of warranting the validity or usefulness of students’
constructed meanings in ways that go beyond the alignment of responses to
predetermined interpretations.
To begin, comprehension assessments should be both formative and summative. The assessment windows that teachers draw upon to understand their students’ comprehension processes need to take place before, during, and after the
act of reading (Serafini, 2010). Utilizing observational records, reader response
notebooks, discussion transcripts, think aloud protocols, miscue analysis, retellings, and interviews, classroom teachers are better able to understand how readers make sense of texts and to know the supports readers need to improve their
comprehension abilities. Only through an opening up of the assessment practices
we utilize, the expanded definitions of comprehension we have established and
the instructional approaches we provide will be able to address the social as well
as the cognitive aspects of reading comprehension.
Some Concluding Remarks
Literal recall of textual elements is no longer an adequate definition of reading
comprehension. If we continue to narrow down the definition of reading comprehension we use as a foundation for reading comprehension instruction to readers’
ability to extract a single main idea, we privilege the text and the predetermined,
sanctioned interpretations created by test makers over what the reader brings
to the text and the socio-cultural contexts in which readers read. However, by
expanding the definition of reading comprehension to include the socio-cultural
aspects of reading and the construction of meaning by a reader in a particular
place and time, educators are better positioned to expand the instructional approaches and frameworks that are employed in elementary classrooms.
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 199
In addition, reading comprehension should not be viewed as a centripetal process, a striving for consensus or reduction of meanings to one agreed upon main
idea (a socially sanctioned interpretation by a particular authority). Reading
comprehension should be seen as a centrifugal process (Scholes, 1985), an opening up of possible meanings that are generated and negotiated in light of the
immediate context (physical and social classroom environment) and the more
extensive political, cultural, historical, and social contexts. It is more important
to investigate the various responses readers construct in their transactions with
texts than to determine whether they were able to identify a predetermined interpretation or answer to a teacher’s multiple choice question focused on the literal
elements of the text (Serafini & Ladd, 2008).
Lewis (2000) has argued for teachers to consider not only the reader as an
individual, but also as a culturally, historically, and politically situated reader that
brings not only individual experiences, but socially determined experiences that
affect their responses to literature. It is important to conceptualize the reader, not
simply as an individual responding to a text, but as a historical, socio-cultural
being that brings past experiences, culture, gender, and political history to every
reading event.
Readers don’t read in a vacuum, nor do their interpretations arise in one.
Readers read particular texts in particular contexts, bringing their historically,
culturally, and politically embedded experiences with them to the act of reading. In order to conceptualize readers as historically, politically, and culturally
embedded readers, it is necessary to interrogate how particular interpretations
are naturalized and seen as commonplace. Texts are written to set forth particular
versions of reality, and it is through the interrogation of these realities that readers come to understand the genesis of their interpretations, and how they are
positioned as readers in contemporary society.
References
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required
by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher,
56(2), 174–180.
Bogdan, D., & Straw, S. B. (1990). Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and
criticism. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. P. (1997). Building a knowledge base in reading. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
200 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
Calkins, L. M. (2001). The art of teaching reading. New York: Longman.
Corcoran, B., Hayhoe, M., & Pradl, G. M. (Eds.). (1994). Knowledge in the making:
Challenging the text in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.
Crebbin, W. (1992). Evaluation: A political issue. In C. Bouffler (Ed.), Literacy evaluation:
Issues and practicalities (pp. 7–11). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new:
Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61,
239–264.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481–553.
Faust, M. (1994). Alone but not alone: Situating readers in school contexts. In B. Corcoran,
M. Hayhoe & G. M. Pradl (Eds.), Knowledge in the making: Challenging the text in the
classroom (pp. 25–33). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.
Fielding, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational
Leadership, 51(5), 62–67.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fitzgerald, J., Robinson, H. A., Farone, V., Hittleman, D. R., & Unruh, E. (Eds.). (1990).
Reading comprehension instruction 1783–1987: A review of trends and research.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural
context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7–16.
Gee, J. P. (1992). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 12, 31–48.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the
science of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for socioculturally diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. The Reading Teacher, 57, 648–658.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing:
An interdisciplinary journal, 2, 127–160.
John-Steiner, V., Petoskey, C., & Smith, L. (1994). Sociocultural approaches to language
and literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a
reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 201
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research:
Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3),
271–299.
Lewis, C. (2000). Limits of identification: The personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader
response. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 253–266.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading
Online. Available: http://www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html.
McCormick, K. (1995). Reading lessons and then some: Toward developing dialogues
bewteen critical theory and reading theory. In J. F. Slevin & Y. A (Eds.), Critical theory
and the teaching of literature: Politics, curriculum, pedagogy (pp. 292–315). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Mosenthal, P. (1987). Meaning in the storage-and-conduit metaphor of reading. The
Reading Teacher, 41(3), 340–342.
O'Neill, M. (1993). Teaching literature as cultural criticism. English Quarterly, 25,
19–25.
Pearson, P. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 1,
pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II, pp.
815–860). New York: Longman.
Pressley, M. (1999). Effective reading instruction: The case for balanced teaching. New
York: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In
M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. III, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Block, C. C., & Gambrell, L. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction:
Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Scholes, R. E. (1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Serafini, F. (2002). Dismantling the factory model of assessment. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 18(1), 67–85.
Serafini, F. (2003). Informing our practice: Modernist, transactional, and critical perspectives on children’s literature and reading instruction. Reading Online, 6(6), Available:
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=serafini/index.html.
202 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy
Serafini, F. (2004). Lessons in comprehension: Explicit instruction in the reading workshop.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Serafini, F. (2009). Interactive comprehension strategies: Fostering meaningful talk about
text. New York: Scholastic.
Serafini, F. (2010). Clasroom reading assessments: More efficient ways to view and evaluate
your readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Serafini, F., & Ladd, S. M. (2008). The challenge of moving beyond the literal in literature
discussions. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 4(2), 6–20.
Serafini, F., & Youngs, S. (2008). More (advanced) lessons in comprehension: Expanding
students’ understandings of all types of text. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sinatra, G. M., Brown, K. E., & Reynolds, R. E. (2002). Implications of cognitive resource
allocation for comprehension strategies instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62–76). New
York: Guilford.
Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133–169.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward and R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole
language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.