Journal Articles & Book Chapters

In press

2018

• Blaum, D., Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Britt, M. A. (in press). Thinking about global warming: The effect of policy-related documents and prompts on learning about causes of climate change. Discourse Processes, advance online publication   
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J-F., & Durik, A. M. (in press). Literacy Beyond Text Comprehension. A Theory of Purposeful Reading. NY, NY: Routledge.
• Goldman, S. R., Blair, A., & Burkett, C. (in press). Assessment of multiple resource comprehension and information problem solving. In J. L. G. Braasch & I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use. NY, NY: Routledge.
• Goldman, S. R., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (in press). Learning from multiple sources in a digital society. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.). International handbook of the learning sciences. NY, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
• Goldman, S.R., Greenleaf, C., Yukhymenko-Lescroart with Brown, W., Ko, M-L, Emig, J., George, M., Wallace, P., Blaum, D, Britt, M.A., & Project READI (in press). Explanatory modeling in science through text-based investigation: Testing the efficacy of the Project READI intervention model. American Educational Research Journal..
• Goldman, S. R., Ko, M-L., Greenleaf, C., & Brown, W. B. (in press). Domain-specificity in the practices of explanation, modeling, and argument in the sciences. In F. Fischer, C. Chinn, K. Engelmann, J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Domain-specific and domain-general aspects. NY, NY: Taylor & Francis.
• Litman, C. & Greenleaf, C. (in press). Argumentation tasks in secondary English Language Arts, history, and science: Variations in instructional focus and inquiry space. Reading Research Quarterly, advance online publication.    
• Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., & Griffin, T. D. (in press). Effects of task instructions on comprehension from multiple sources in history and science. To appear in J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.) Handbook of multiple source use. NY, NY: Routledge.

2017

• Litman, C., Marple, S., Greenleaf, C., Charney-Sirrott, I., Richardson, L., Bolz, M., Hall, A., George, M., & Goldman, S. R. (2017). Text-based argumentation with multiple sources: An existential description of opportunity to learn in secondary English language arts, history, and science classrooms. Journal of Learning Sciences, 26:1, 79-130.
• Wiley, J., Hastings, P., Blaum, D., Jaeger, A. J., Hughes, S., Wallace, P., Griffin, T. D., & Britt, M. A. (2017). Different approaches to assessing the quality of explanations following a multiple-document inquiry activity in science. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.  

2016

• Britt, M. A., Kopp, K., Durik, A. M., Blaum, D., & Hastings, P. (2016). Identifying general cognitive abilities involved in argument comprehension and evaluation. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2-3), 79-96..   
• Burkett, C., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). “Getting the point” of literature: Relationships between processing and interpretation. Discourse Processes. 53(5-6), 457-487.  
• Dandotkar, S., Magliano, J. P., & Britt, M. A. (2016). The effect of the logical relatedness and semantic overlap on argument evaluation. Discourse Processes. 53(2), 581-602.  
• Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. D., Shanahan, C., & Project READI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219-246.   
• Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016).  Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 60, 255-264. DOI: 10:1002/jaal.586
• Greenleaf, C., & Valencia, S. (2016). Missing in action: Learning from texts in subject-matter classrooms. To appear in D. Appleman & K. Hinchman (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: A handbook of practice-based research (pp.235-256). NY: Guilford Press.   
• Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Blaum, D., Wallace, P., & Britt, M. A. (2016, June). Stratified Learning for Reducing Training Set Size. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 341-346). Springer International Publishing.
• Ko, M., Goldman, S. R., Radinsky, J. R., James, K., Hall, A., Popp, J., Bolz, M., & George, M. (2016). Looking under the hood: Productive messiness in design for argumentation in science, literature, and history. In V. Svhila & R. Reeve (Eds.) Untold story: Design as scholarship in the learning sciences. (pp.71-82). New York, NY: Routledge.   
• Lee, C. D., Goldman, S. R., Levine, S., & Magliano, J. P. (2016). Epistemic cognition in literary reasoning. In J. Green, W. Sandoval, & J. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of Epistemic Cognition, (pp. 165-183). NY: Routledge.   
• Magliano, J. P., Ray, M., & Millis, K. K. (2016). The reading strategy assessment tool: A computer-based approach for evaluating comprehension processes during reading. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.) Handbook on Educational Technologies for Literacy (pp. 282-287), New York, NY; Taylor and Francis.   
• Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59-81.   
• Shanahan, C., Heppler, J., Manderino, M., Bolz, M., Cribb, G., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). Deepening what it means to read (and write) like a historian: Progressions of instruction across a school year in an eleventh grade U.S. history class. The History Teacher, 49, 241-270.   
• Sosa, T., Hall, A. H., Goldman, S. R., & Lee, C. D. (2016). Developing symbolic interpretation through literary argumentation. Journal of Learning Sciences, 25, 93-132     
• Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., Briner, Magliano, J. P., Lawless, K., Burkett, C., McCarthy, K. M., Lee, C.D., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). Development and initial validation of the literature epistemology scale (LECS). Learning and Individual Differences, 51(2016). 242-248. doi: http://dxdoi.org/10.1016/;Jindif2016.09.014   

2015

• Goldman, S. R. (2015). Reading and the web: broadening the need for complex comprehension In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, M. S. Hagerman, P. Morsink, & P. Thompson (Eds.),  Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices. (pp. 89-103). New York, NY: Routledge.  
• Goldman, S. R., McCarthy, K., & Burkett, C. (2015). Interpretative inferences in literature. In E. O’Brien  A. Cook, & R. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading, (pp. 386-415). Boston, MA: Cambridge Oxford University Press.   
• Goldman, S. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Research on learning and instruction: Implications for curriculum, instruction and assessment. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 33-41. doi:10.1177/2372732215601866   
• Goldman, S. R., & Snow, C. (2015). Adolescent literacy: development and instruction. To appear in A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading, (pp. 463-478). NY: Cambridge Oxford University Press.   
• Higgs, K., Magliano, J.P., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., & McNamara, D.S. (2015). Bridging skill and task oriented reading. Discourse Processes. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1100572  
• Hughes, S., Hastings, P., Britt, M. A., Wallace, P., & Blaum, D. (2015). Machine learning for holistic evaluation of scientific essays. Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education, (pp. 165-175).   
• Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2015). Reading an analogy can cause the illusion of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 52, 376-405. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1026679   
• Lee, C. D. (2015). Influences of the experience of race as a lens for understanding variation in displays of competence in reading comprehension.To appear in P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.    
• Lee, C. D. (2015). The infrastructure and conceptual challenges of the Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts as a case. In J. Supovitz & J. Spillane (Eds.), Challenging standards: Navigating conflict and building capacity in the era of the Common Core, (pp. 15-24). New York, NY: Rowman-Littlefield.   
• Lee, C. D., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: text and task complexities. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 213-227.    
• Levine, S., & Horton, W. (2015). Helping high school students read like experts: Affective evaluation, salience, and literary interpretation. Cognition and Instruction, 33(2), 125-153.   
• McCarthy, K. S. (2015). Reading beyond the lines: A critical review of cognitive approaches to literary interpretation and comprehension. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(1), 99-128. doi:10.1075/ssol.5.1.05mcc   
• McCarthy, K. S., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Comprehension of short stories: Effects of task instructions on literary interpretation. Discourse Processes, 52, 585-608. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.967610   
• Pellegrino, J. W., & Wilson, M. (2015). Assessment of complex cognition: Commentary on the design and validation of assessments. Theory Into Practice, 54(3), 263-273.   
• Radinsky, J., Goldman, S. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Historical thinking: In search of conceptual and practical guidance for the design and use of assessments of student competence. To appear in K. Ercikan & P. Seixas (Eds.), New directions in assessing historical thinking, (pp. 132-141). New York, NY: Informa UK Limited.     
• Shanahan, C. & Shanahan, T. (2015). The what and why of disciplinary literacy. In M. Hougan (Ed.), Fundamentals of literacy instruction and assessment, 6-12 (pp. 127-140). Baltimore, MD: Paul E. Bookes Publishing Company.

2014

• Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122.
• Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Steffens, B., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Sensitivity to inaccurate argumentation in health news articles: Potential contributions of readers’ topic and epistemic beliefs. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 117-137). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Brock, C. H., Goatley, V. J., Raphael, T. E., Trost-Shahata, E., & Weber, K. (2014). Engaging elementary students in disciplinary learning and literacy K-6: Reading, writing, and teaching tools for the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59-69
• Connor, C. M, Goldman, S. R., & Fishman, B. (2014). Technologies that support students’ literacy development. In J. M. Spector, M. D Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 4^th Edition (pp. 591-604). NY: Springer.    
• de Pereyra, G., Britt, M. A., Braasch, J. L. G., & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Reader’s memory for information sources in simple news stories: Effects of text and task features. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 187-204. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.879152
• Goldman, S. R. (2014). Perspectives on learning: Methodologies for exploring learning processes and outcomes. Frontline Learning Research, 2(4), 46-55. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i4.117   
• Goldman, S. R., & Lee, C. D. (2014). Commentary on text complexity: state of the art and the conundrums it raises. Elementary Education Journal, 115, 290-300. Special issue edited by E. Hiebert & P. D. Pearson.    
• Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Britt, A., Blaum, D., & Wallace, P. (2014). Toward automatic inference of causal structure in student essays. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems Proceedings, (pp. 266-271). Springer International Publishing.    
• Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning & Instruction, 34, 58-73. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.002   
• James, K., Goldman, S. R., Ko, M., Greenleaf, C. L., & Brown, W. (2014). Multiple-Text Processing in Text-Based Scientific Inquiry. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, CO.   
• Lee, C. D. (2014). A voyeuristic view of possibilities and threats: Neurosciences and education. Human Development, 57(1), 1-4.   
• Lee, C. D. (2014). Reading gaps and complications of scientific studies of learning. In S. Harper (Ed.), The Elusive Quest for Civil Rights in Education: Evidence-Based Perspectives from Leading Scholars on the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act (pp. 14-16). Philadelphia, PA: Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. The University of Pennsylvania.   
• Lee, C. D. (2014). The multi-dimensional demands of reading in the disciplines. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(1), 9-15.     
• Levine, S. (2014). Making interpretation visible with an affect‐based strategy. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 283-303.    
• Medin, D., Lee, C. D., & Bang, M. (2014). Particular points of View. Scientific American, 311(4), 44-45. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1014-44
• Nasir, N., Roseberry, A., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2014). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd Edition) (pp. 489-504). Cambridge University Press.   
• Raphael, T. E., Vasquez, J. M., Fortune, A. J., Gavelek, J. R., & Au, J. H. (2014). Sociocultural approaches to professional development: Supporting sustainable school change. In L. E. Martin, S. Kragler, D. J. Quatroche, & K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), The handbook of professional development: Successful models and practices, Pre-K-12 (pp. 145–173). New York: Guilford.   
• Rouet, J. F. & Britt, M. A. (2014). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2^nd Edition) (pp. 813-841). NY, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). If it’s hard to read, it changes how long you do it: Reading time as an explanation for perceptual fluency effects on judgement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-6. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0658-6   
• Shanahan, C. (2014). Reading and writing across multiple texts. In K. A. Hinchman & H. K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Instruction (pp.169-190). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Shanahan, C. & Shanahan, T. (2014). The implications of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(8), 628-631. doi:10.1002/jaal.297
• Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2014). Teaching history and literacy. In K. A. Hinchman & H. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (pp. 232-248). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Steffens, B., Britt, M. A., Braasch, J. L., Stromso, H., & Braten, I. (2014). Memory for scientific arguments and their sources: Claim-evidence consistency matters. Discourse Processes, 51, 117-142.
• Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). Individual differences in working memory capacity principles for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 598-619). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Wiley, J., Steffens, B., Britt, M.A., & Griffin, T. D. (2014). Writing to learn from multiple-source inquiry activities in history. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and P. Klein, P. Boscolo, C. Gelati, & L. Kilpatrick (Volume Eds.), Studies in writing, writing as a learning activity (pp. 120-148). England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.      

2013

• Braasch, J., Goldman, S. R. and Wiley, J. (2013). The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 561-568.
• Britt, M. A., Goldman, S. R., & Rouet, J-F.  (2013). Foreword. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, and J. F. Rouet (Eds.). Reading: from words to multiple texts (pp. viii-xiv). NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J.A. (2013). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J. F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 160 – 179). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
• Chan, G., Ray, M., Armstrong S. L., & Magliano, J. P. (2013, November). Do students in developmental reading literacy programs process text differently than traditionally admitted students? Presented at the Society of Computers in Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.    
• 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). NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
• Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition & Instruction, 31(2), 255-269.
• Greenleaf, C., Brown, W., Goldman, S. R., & Ko, M. (2013, December). READI for science: promoting scientific literacy practices through text-based investigations for middle and high school science teachers and students. >Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. Available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_085962 [January 2014].   
• Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (Vol. 28, pp. 19-34). New York, NY: Springer Science.
• Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. (2013). Test expectancy effects on metacomprehension, self-regulation, and learning. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3953). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, Inc.
• Hinze, S. R., Wiley, J., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). The importance of constructive comprehension processes in learning from tests. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 151-164.
• Levine, S., & Horton, W. S. (2013).  Using affective appraisal to help readers construct literary interpretations. Scientific Study of Literature, 3(1), 105-136.     
• Scharrer, L., Britt, M.A., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361-387. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835   
• Shanahan, C. (2013). Research in multiple texts and text support. In J. Ippolito, J. Lawrence, & C. Zeller (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy in the Era of the Common Core: From Research into Practice (pp.143-162). Boston: Harvard Ed Review Press.
• Shanahan, C. (2013). What does it take? The challenge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(2), 93-98. doi:10.1002/JAAL.226
• Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (2013). From decoding to documents: The acquisition and interaction of comprehension skills. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J. F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 200 – 205). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
• Wolfe, M. B., Tanner, S. M., Taylor, A. (2013). Processing and representation of arguments in one-sided texts about disputed topics. Discourse Processes, 50, 457-497. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.828480.

2012

• Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent literacy:  learning and understanding content. Future of Children, 22(2), 89–116.    
• Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., Pellegrino, J. W., Braasch, J. L. G., Manning, F. H., & Gomez, K. (2012). A technology for assessing multiple source comprehension: an essential skill of the 21^st Century. In M. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, & D. H. Robinson (Eds.). Technology-Based Assessments for 21st Century Skills:  Theoretical and Practical Implications from Modern Research, (pp. 171-207). Charlotte, NC:  Information Age Publishing.
• Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381.
• Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The role of CLEAR thinking in learning science from multiple-document inquiry tasks. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5, 63-78.   
• Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Magliano, J. P., Goldman, S. R., & Lawless, K. (2012). Assessing the use of multiple sources in student essays.Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 622-633.   
• Hughes, S., Hastings, P., Magliano, J. P., Goldman, S. R., & Lawless, K. (2012). Automated approaches for detecting integration in student essays. In S. A. Cerri & B. Clancy (Eds.) ITS 2012, (pp. 274-279). Berlin, DE: Springer Verlag.   
• Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Computer-based assessment of student constructed responses. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 608-621.   

2011

• Lee, C. D. (2011). Education and the study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 49-58. doi:10.1075/5501.1.1.051ee

Under Revision

• Greenleaf, C., & Brown, W. (under revision). Tapping teacher’s knowledge to support text-dependent argumentation as a way of learning in science.   
• Holt, J., Magliano, J. P. & Durik. (under revision). Exploring the dynamic nature of inference generation during mental model construction

Submitted for Journal review

• Levine, S. Sentence stems as supports for students’ interpretive thinking and writing. Research in the Teaching of English. Manuscript submitted for publication.   
• Litman, C., Marple, S., & Greenleaf, C. (submitted for journal review). The enduring impact of design based professional development on literacy instruction in secondary subject areas.   
• Yukhymenko, M., Lawless, K., Goldman, S. R., Shanahan, C., & Pellegrino, J. (Under Review). Measuring multiple source comprehension with a rating task: a signal detection theory approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.