Main Article Content
Throughout the United States, many middle and high school students struggle to comprehend
science texts for a variety of reasons. Science texts are frequently boring, focused on isolated facts,
present too many new concepts at once, and lack the clarity and organization known to improve
comprehension. Compounding the problem is that many adolescent readers do not possess effective
comprehension strategies, particularly for difficult expository science texts. Some researchers have
suggested changing the characteristics of science texts to better assist adolescent readers with
understanding, while others have focused on changing the strategies of adolescent readers. In the
current paper, we review the literature on selected strategy instruction programs used to improve
science text comprehension in middle and high school students and suggest avenues for future
comprehension. In D. L. Forrest, G. E., MacKinnnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition,
cognition, and human performance (pp 155-205). New York: Academic Press.
Best, R. M., Flyod, R. G., & McNamara, D. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's
comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137-164.
Best, R., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: the
role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65-83.
Calhoon, M. (2005). Effects of peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program
on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38, 424-433.
Carnine, L., & Carnine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when
teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 20, 203-218.
Caverly, D., Mandeville, T., & Nicholson, S. (1995). PLAN: A study-reading strategy for informational
text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39, 190-199.
Chambliss, M. & Calfee, R. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding.
Educational Psychologist, 24, 307-322.
Cook, L. & Mayer, R. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 448-456.
Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion.
The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262-273.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through
point & query, autotutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225-234.
Graesser, A., Jeon, M., Dufty, D. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive
knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298-322.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kroeger, S., Burton, C., & Preston, C. (2009). Integrating evidence-based practices in Middle science
reading. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41, 6-15.
Magliano, J., Todaro, S., Millis, K., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H., & McNamara, D. (2005). Changes in
reading strategies as a function of reading training: a comparison of live and computerized
training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 185-208.
McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise
and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5-25.
McNamara, D., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading
comprehension with iSTART. Educational Computing
Research, 31, 147-171.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, March 12) The Nation’s Report Card: The NAEP Reading
Achievement Levels by Grade. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002, June 19) The Nation’s Report Card: The NAEP Science
Achievement Levels. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from
Radcliff, R., Caverly, D., Hand, J., & Franke, D. (2008). Improving reading in a middle school science
classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 398-408.
Radcliff, R., Caverly, D., Peterson, C., & Emmons, M. (2004). Improving textbook reading in a middle
school science classroom. Reading Improvement, 41, 145-156.
Rogevich, M., & Perin, D. (2008). Effects on science summarization of a reading comprehension
intervention for adolescents with behavior and attention disorders.
Exceptional Children, 74, 135-154.
Zimmerman, C., Gerson, S., Monroe, A., & Kearney, A. M. (2007). Physics is harder than psychology (or is
it?): Developmental differences in calibration of domain-specific texts. In D. S. McNamara & J.
G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1683 –
1688). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/ csjarchive/