本研究以閱讀科學實徵為基礎，針對中學階段學生的學科學習需求，設計一套融入學科詞彙策略與文章結構策略的素養導向社會科教學（簡稱實驗教學），主要目的在於探討實驗教學對整體中學生以及閱讀困難中學生的學習表現成效。
研究對象為482名大台北地區公立國中七、八年級學生。研究者首先在一所公立國中招募兩位教師參與者，並採教師層級的區段隨機分派控制試驗，將教師任教班級隨機分派至實驗教學組與一般教學對照組，兩組學生分別為182與181人；為增加對照，本研究採準實驗設計法於另一所公立國中招募無教學對照組學生119人。各組學生在一般閱讀理解、一般詞彙與背景知識之基準線一致。實驗教學與一般教學皆為標準化教學，教材腳本、文本以及教學資源皆由研究者設計提供，並透過教師專業發展培訓提供支持。為確保實驗教學的教學忠誠度並確認對照教學未受實驗教學影響，本研究以教學觀察進行處遇精準度的評估，包括教學忠誠度與教學傳遞品質。
研究結果顯示：（一）本研究實驗教學在多數教學成分具有中高度忠誠度，與一般教學具有方案區別度，其教學品質約介於中度至中高度，但整體品質顯著低於一般教學；（二）實驗教學成效受處遇精準度影響，如以處遇精準度作為效度工具之分析顯示實驗教學無效，如以處遇精準度作為中介變項之分析則證實學科詞彙策略、文章結構策略以及書寫活動等實驗教學成分有效；（三）無論有否接受學科教學，一般閱讀能力中學生的學科閱讀理解表現皆隨時間成長，但閱讀困難中學生有接受學科教學者能維持持平，未接受教學者則會顯著退步。本研究基於上述研究結果，對中學階段閱讀困難學生的學科閱讀提出未來研究與教學實務之建議。

A content area reading instruction (treatment) was developed based on empirical scientific reading evidence, using vocabulary and text structure strategies, to address middle school students’ learning needs in social studies. This study aimed to examine the effects of treatment implemented by middle school social studies teachers.
Participants were 482 seventh- and eighth-grade students from two public schools in Taipei. Using a teacher-level randomized control trial, two teachers’ social studies classes were randomly assigned to treatment (n = 182) or general instruction comparison (C1, n = 181) conditions. Using a quasi-experimental design, 119 students were recruited to no instruction comparison (C2) from the other public school. Baseline equivalence between treatment and comparisons was established on general reading comprehension, vocabulary, and background knowledge measures. Both treatment and general instruction were standard instructions developed by the researcher, providing with detailed instructional scripts, texts, and teaching materials. Treatment fidelity check including adherence and quality of delivery was conducted during the entire teaching by observations in order to ensure the treatment fidelity and the differentiation between treatment and general instruction comparison.
The study findings are as follows: First, implementing with medium-high instructional adherence in most instructional components and significant differentiation from general instruction, however, the treatment conditions showed significantly lower delivery quality than the general instruction conditions. Second, the effects of treatment were influenced by treatment fidelity. When treatment fidelity was only reported as the external validity, the analysis results showed no significant treatment effect. On the contrary, when treatment fidelity was integrated as the mediator variable in the analysis, results identified that several treatment components, including academic vocabulary strategies, text structure strategies, and writing, were significantly effective. Third, the content area reading comprehension performance of middle school students with average or above-average reading skills increased significantly over time with or without instructions. However, the content area reading comprehension performance of middle school students with reading difficulties remained with instructions but significantly decreased without instructions. Several suggestions toward future research and practices of content area reading of middle school students with reading difficulties were presented based on the findings.

中文部分
王宣惠、林家楠（2020）。國中地理科教科書文本結構類型與複雜度分析。教科書研究，13（1），35–73。https://doi.org/10.6481/JTR.202004_13(1).02
王瓊珠（2012）。台灣中文字詞教學研究之文獻回顧與展望。教育心理學報，44（2），253–272。
宋曜廷、潘佩妤（2010）。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55（4），97–130。
李雅惠（2006）。概念構圖教學對八年級學生閱讀理解能力與國文學習態度之影響。國立高雄師範大學。
邱皓政（2005）。量化研究法（二）：統計原理與分析技術。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
柯華葳、陳冠銘（2004）。文章結構標示與閱讀理解──以低年級學生為例。教育心理學報，36（2），185-200。
洪碧霞（2019）。臺灣PISA 2018結果報告。 http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download/report/PISA2018%E8%A8%98%E8%80%85%E6%9C%83%E7%B0%A1%E5%A0%B1.pdf
洪麗卿、劉美慧、陳麗華（2020）。國中社會領域教科書「跨科活動」之分析－素養導向設計的觀點。教科書研究，13（3）。https://doi.org/10.6481/JTR.202012_13(3).01
洪儷瑜（2011）。學歷或是學力──談閱讀素養對教育之啟示。教育研究月刊，210，15-26。
洪儷瑜（2021）。教育部委託【臺灣融合教育發展與國際資料庫分析】期中報告。
洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬（2007）。常見字流暢性測驗使用手冊。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
洪儷瑜、陳心怡、陳柏熹、陳秀芬（2014）。詞彙成長測驗。台北：中國行為科學社。
洪儷瑜、曾瓊禛、孫瑜成、李思慧、陳秀芬（2016）。國中語文精進教材處遇精準度研究。特殊教育研究學刊，41(3)，1–34. https://doi.org/10.6172/BSE.201611.4103001
教育部（2002）。國小學童常用字詞調查報告書（No.1009100224）。教育部。http://language.moe.gov.tw/001/Upload/files/SITE_CONTENT/M0001/PRIMARY/SHINDEX.HTM
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校社會領域。https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/41/pta_18535_6408773_60398.pdf
教育部學前及國民教育署（2019）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱宣講（第六版）（國民中小學階段公播版—完整篇）。教育部學前及國民教育署。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/ckfile/files/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99/%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1%E5%85%AC%E6%92%AD%E7%89%88%E7%AC%AC%E5%85%AD%E7%89%88(108_04_12).pdf
連啟舜、曾玉村（2017）。讀懂弦外之音：閱讀中的推論。載於柯華葳編，閱讀理解策略教學（pp. 69–90）。教育部國民及學前教育署。https://doi.org/10.6172/BSE.201311.3803004
陳密桃、黃秀霜、陳新豐、方金雅（2006）。國小學童詞彙覺識能力多媒體教學之實驗研究。教育學刊，27，93–121。
陳麗華（2018）。從中小學的教材教法談課綱的未來想像。教科書研究，11（2），111–119。
曾玉村（2017）。總論：閱讀理解的認知歷程與策略教學。載於柯華葳編，閱讀理解策略教學（pp. 1–22）。教育部國民及學前教育署。
辜玉旻、張菀真（2017）。做筆記策略教學。載於柯華葳編，閱讀理解策略教學（pp. 157–176）。教育部國民及學前教育署。
新北市國民中小學身心障礙資源班實施要點（2016）。
歐用生（2018）。從多元深度素養觀談教材教法改革方向。教科書研究，11（2），131–135。
歐素惠、王瓊珠（2004）。三種詞彙教學法對閱讀障礙兒童的詞彙學習與閱讀理解之成效研究。特殊教育學刊，26，271–292。
課文本位閱讀理解教學研發團隊（2019）。閱讀策略成分與十二年國教課綱對照表－社會領域。http://tbb.nknu.edu.tw
謝進昌（2015）。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊，60（2），33–77.
羅偉宸（2011）。運用心智圖法於國文科教學對國二學生閱讀理解能力的影響。國立臺南大學。
蘇宜芬、洪儷瑜、陳柏熹、陳心怡（2018）。閱讀理解成長測驗之編製研究。教育心理學報，49（4）。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.201806_49(4).0003
英文部分
Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. J. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903217623
Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 300–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100302
Barnes, M. A. (2015). What do models of reading comprehension and its development have to contribute to a science of comprehension instruction and assessment for adolescents? In K. L. Santi & D. K. Reed (Eds.), Improving Reading Comprehension of Middle and High School Students (Vol. 10, pp. 1–18). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14735-2_1
Beck, A. S. (2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(5), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.5.3
Beck, D., & Eno, J. (2012). Signature pedagogy: A literature review of social studies and technology research. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.658347
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (Second Edition:). Guilford Publications. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utxa/detail.action?docID=1115202
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next─A Vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.) (p. 59). Alliance for Excellent Education.
Brasseur-Hock, I. F., Hock, M. F., Kieffer, M. J., Biancarosa, G., & Deshler, D. D. (2011). Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a Latent Class Analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.008
Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329.
Capin, P., & Vaughn, S. (2017). Improving Reading and Social Studies Learning for Secondary Students with Reading Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917691043
Catts, H. W., Hogan, Tiffany P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Ciardiello, A. V. (2002). Helping adolescents understand cause/effect text structure in social studies. The Social Studies, 93(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209599877
Clemens, N., Simmons, D., Simmons, L., Wang, H., & Kwok, O.-M. (2016). The prevalence of reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties among adolescents struggling with reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916662120
Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching Readers About the Structure of Scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448–456.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevenion: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The Impact of Vocabulary Instruction on Passage-Level Comprehension of School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200
Elleman, A. M., Oslund, E. L., Griffin, N. M., & Myers, K. E. (2019). A Review of Middle School Vocabulary Interventions: Five Research-Based Recommendations for Practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0145
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Foorman, B. R., & Wanzek, J. (2016). Classroom reading instruction for all students. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention (pp. 235–252). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_14
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600304
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high School. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 27, 217–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60125-5
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality Indicators for Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Special Education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
Gilmour, A. F., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795830
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1504_4
Guzzetti, B. J. (Ed.). (2002). Literacy in America: An encyclopedia of history, theory, and practice. ABC-CLIO.
Gwet, K.L. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. Gaithersburg, MD: STATAXIS.
Hairrell, A., Rupley, W., & Simmons, D. (2011). The state of vocabulary research. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.514036
Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instructional Approaches to Improving Students’ Writing of Compare-Contrast Essays: An Experimental Study: Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731–756. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3
Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082
Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2020). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches (Fourth Edition). Routledge.
Herber, H. (1978). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hock, M. F., Brasseur, I. F., Deshler, D. D., Catts, H. W., Marquis, J. G., Mark, C. A., & Stribling, J. W. (2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/25474660
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710050084428
Kane, S. (2017). Reading, literacy, and teaching in the content areas. In Literacy and learning in the content areas (pp. 13–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351206914-4
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209-226). Blackwell.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition though collaborative strategic reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 738–747.
Lawrence, J. F., Crosson, A. C., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Word generation randomized trial: Discussion mediates the impact of program treatment on academic word learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 750–786. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485
Lawrence, J. F., Francis, D., Paré-Blagoev, J., & Snow, C. E. (2017). The poor get richer: Heterogeneity in the efficacy of a school-level intervention for academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(4), 767–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237596
Lawrence, J. F., Rolland, R. G., Branum-Martin, L., & Snow, C. E. (2014). Generating vocabulary knowledge for at-risk middle school readers: Contrasting program effects and growth trajectories. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 19(2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.958836
Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 596–632. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of Academic Vocabulary Instruction for Linguistically Diverse Adolescents: Evidence From a Randomized Field Trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165
Macceca, S. (2013). Reading strategies for social studies. Teacher Created Materials.
Massey, D. D., & Heafner, T. L. (2004). Promoting Reading Comprehension in Social Studies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.1.3
McKenna, J. W., Flower, A., & Ciullo, S. (2014). Measuring fidelity to improve intervention effectiveness. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214532348
McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content Literacy: A Definition and Implications. Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184–186.
McKeown, M. G., Crosson, A. C., Moore, D. W., & Beck, I. L. (2018). Word knowledge and comprehension effects of an academic vocabulary intervention for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 572–616. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217744181
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
Medo, M. A., & Ryder, R. J. (1993). The effects of vocabulary instruction on readers’ ability to make causal connections. Reading Research and Instruction, 33(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079309558149
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of Top-Level Structure in Text: Key for Reading Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/747349
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4
Mraz, M., Rickelman, R. J., & Vacca, R. T. (2009). Content-area reading: Past, present, and future. In K. D. Wood & W. E. Blanton (Eds.), Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research-based practice (pp. 77-91). NY: Guilford Press.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
National Council for the Social Studies. (n.d.). About National Council for the Social Studies. National Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from https://www.socialstudies.org/about
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards (English language arts standards: History/social Studies). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/6-8/#CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.9
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching students to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the form has substance: Treatment plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084060320010501
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793
Ogle, D., Klemp, R. M., & McBride, B. (2007). Building literacy in social studies: Strategies for improving comprehension and critical thinking. ASCD, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016a). Global competency for an inclusive world. OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016b). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019a). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019b). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Paquette, K. R., & Kaufman, C. C. (2008). Merging civic and literacy skills. The Social Studies, 99(4), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.99.4.187-192
Perepletchikova, F., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Treatment integrity and therapeutic change: Issues and research recommendations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpi045
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Protopapas, A., Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., & Simos, P. G. (2007). Development of lexical mediation in the relation between reading comprehension and word reading skills in Greek. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701344322
Puzio, K., Colby, G. T., & Algeo-Nichols, D. (2020). Differentiated literacy instruction: Boondoggle or best practice? Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933536
Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30(3), 265–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802411547
Ruddell, M. R. (2005). Teaching content reading and writing (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Russell, S. L. (2005). Challenging task in appropriate text: Designing discourse communities to increase the literacy growth of adolescent struggling readers. University of Maryland.
Ryder, R. J., & Graves, M. F. (2003). Reading and learning in content areas (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2014). Increasing the rigor of procedural fidelity assessment: An empirical comparison of direct observation and permanent product review methods. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(1), 60–88.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Fallon, L. M. (2011). Treatment integrity assessment: How estimates of adherence, quality, and exposure influence interpretation of implementation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21(3), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2011.595163
Sanetti, L. M. H., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2021). Treatment fidelity: What it is and why it matters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12238
Savage, T. V., Armstrong, D. G., & Potthoff, B. J. (2000). Effective teaching in elementary social studies. Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.
Scammacca, N. K., & Stillman, S. J. (2018). The effect of a social studies–based reading intervention on the academic vocabulary knowledge of below-average readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(4), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1446855
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Shelton, A., Wexler, J., Kurz, L. A., & Swanson, E. (2020). Incorporating evidence-based literacy practices into middle school content areas. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 0040059920968582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920968582
Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 108–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.618153
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167042
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014; p. 1042). U.S. Department of Education.
Soares, L. B., & Wood, K. (2010). A critical literacy perspective for teaching and learning social studies. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 486–494. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.6.5
Stanovich, K., West, R., & Harrison, M. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 811–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.811
Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., Haring, C., Ciullo, S., & McCulley, L. (2013). Intervention fidelity in special and general education research journals. The Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419516
Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., McCulley, L., Stillman-Spisak, S., Vaughn, S., Simmons, D., Fogarty, M., & Hairrell, A. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.910718
Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Fall, A.-M., Roberts, G., Hall, C., & Miller, V. L. (2017). Middle school reading comprehension and content learning intervention for below-average readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1072068
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Tzeng, Y. (2007). Memory for narrative texts: How do parts of the landscape model work. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 245–269.
Tzeng, Y., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Lee, C. (2005). The computational implementation of the landscape model: Modeling inferential processes and memory representations of text comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 37(2), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192695
U.S Department of Education. (2019). Report card for the nations, states, and districts (grades 4 and 8). https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading?grade=4
United Nations. (2002). United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for all; International Plan of Action; implementation of General Assembly resolution 56/116 (A/57/218). UN. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/471229
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Literacy as freedom: A UNESCO round-table. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000131823
Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents' school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L., & Mraz, M. E. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (10th Edition). Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/product/Vacca-Content-Area-Reading-Literacy-and-Learning-Across-the-Curriculum-10th-Edition/9780137035113.html
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Erlbaum.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442157
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., & Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200201
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S. S., & Stillman-Spisak, S. J. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410305
Vaughn, S., Martinez, L. R., Linan-Thompson, S., Reutebuch, C. K., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167018
Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Swanson, E. A., Wanzek, J., Fall, A.-M., & Stillman-Spisak, S. J. (2015). Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehension in social studies: A replication. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9274-2
Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., Stillman‐Spisak, S. J., Solis, M., & Simmons, D. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.039
Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1414
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 107.
Wang, H.-H., & Hung, L.-Y. (2015). The relationship between semantic transparency and frequency of Chinese vocabulary. East Asia Symposium on Reading and Spelling (EARAS), Taipei, Taiwan.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). Standards handbook, Version 4.1. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Standards-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1203_2
Wood, K. D., & Blanton, W. E. (Eds.). (2009). Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research-based practice. Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Literacy-Instruction-for-Adolescents/Wood-Blanton/9781606231180/contents
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162