I. Basic Studies

     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.  icon-adn 

     Briner, S. W., Burkett, C., & Goldman, S. R. (in preparation for submission). Developmental trends in situational irony comprehension.  icon-adn 

     Briner, S. W., Goldman, S. R., & Magliano, J. P. (in preparation for submission). Understanding parody: The influence of situation-level and surface-level overlap.  icon-adn 

     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..  icon-adn   

     Burkett, C., & Goldman, S. R. (in press). “Getting the point” of literature: Relationships between processing and interpretation. Discourse Processes.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     Dandotkar, S., Magliano, J. P., & Britt, M. A. (in press). The effect of the logical relatedness and semantic overlap on argument evaluation. Discourse Processes.  icon-adn 

     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. icon-adn  

     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  

     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  icon-adn 

     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  icon-adn     

     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  icon-adn      

     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  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn    icon-Icons 


II. Iterative Design-Based Research

     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 [January 2014].  icon-adn 

     Greenleaf, C., & Brown, W. (under revision). Tapping teacher’s knowledge to support text-dependent argumentation as a way of learning in science.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Levine, S. Sentence stems as supports for students’ interpretive thinking and writing. Research in the Teaching of English. Manuscript submitted for publication.  icon-adn    

     Levine, S. (2014). Making interpretation visible with an affect‐based strategy. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 283-303.  icon-adn  icon-Icons 

     Levine, S., & Horton, W. S. (2013).  Using affective appraisal to help readers construct literary interpretations. Scientific Study of Literature3(1), 105-136.   icon-adn     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.        

     Litman, C., & Greenleaf, C. (under revision). Variations in the instantiation of argumentation tasks: A cautionary tale. Journal of Literacy Research.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Litman, C., Marple, S., Greenleaf, C., Charney-Sirrott, I., Richardson, L., Bolz, M., Hall, A., George, M., & Goldman, S. R. (under revision). Text-based argumentation with multiple sources: An existential description of opportunity to learn in secondary English language arts, history, and science classrooms.   

     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 (2016). The construction of critical literacy in a high school English language arts class. Linguistics and Education. Manuscript submitted for publication.  icon-adn 

     Sosa, T., Hall, A. H., Goldman, S. R., & Lee, C. D. (2016). Developing symbolic interpretation through literary argumentation. Journal of Learning Sciences.  icon-adn  icon-Icons  icon-Icons 


III. Assessment Development

     Griffin, T. D., Salas, C. R., Wiley, J., & Britt, M. A. (in preparation). Development of information-integration epistemology scales in history and science.  icon-adn 

     Lee, C. D., Buell, J., Levine, S., & Smith, Everett. (in preparation). Project READI literature taxonomy assessments study.  icon-adn  icon-Icons 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Project READI (in progress). Developing evidence-based argumentation assessments in science, history, and literary reading.  icon-adn 

     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) Manuscript submitted for publication.  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     Yukhymenko, M., Lawless, K., Goldman, S. R., Shanahan, C., & Pellegrino, J. (2016). Measuring multiple source comprehension with a rating task: a signal detection theory approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.  icon-adn  


IV. Longitudinal Study

     Lee, C. D., Levine, S., & Buell, J. (in progress).  icon-adn icon-Icons 


V. Tools

     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.

     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.  icon-adn  icon-Icons 

     Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Magliano, J. P., Goldman, S. R., & Lawless, K. (2012). Assessing the use of multiple sources in student essays. Behavior Research Methods44(3), 622-633.  icon-adn 

     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).  icon-adn 

     Lee, C.D., Brown, M., Loh, B, Goldman, S., Levine, S., & Buell, J. (In progress).  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Computer-based assessment of student constructed responses. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 608-621. icon-adn icon-Icons 


VI. Efficacy Study

     Goldman, S. R., Greenleaf, C., Brown, W., Ko, M., George, M., Cribb, G., Emig, J., Britt, M. A., Marple, S., James, K., Lawless, K., & Yukhymenko, M. (in preparation). Evaluation of the READI approach in ninth grade biology.  icon-adn 


VII. Theoretical and Integrative

     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.

     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, 4th Edition (pp. 591-604). NY: Springer.  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     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. New York, NY: Routledge.  

     Goldman, S. R. (2014). Perspectives on learning: Methodologies for exploring learning processes and outcomes. Frontline Learning Research, 2(4), 46-55. doi:  icon-adn 

     Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent literacy:  learning and understanding content. Future of Children, 22(2), 89–116.  icon-adn  icon-Icons 

     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.  icon-adn  icon-Icons 

     Goldman, S. R., McCarthy, K., & Burkett, C. (2015). Interpretive inferences in literature. To appear in E. O’Brien  A. Cook, & R. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading, (pp. 386-415). Boston, MA: Cambridge Oxford University Press.  icon-adn 

     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  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016).  Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 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.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Lee, C. D. (2014). A voyeuristic view of possibilities and threats: Neurosciences and education. Human Development, 57(1), 1-4.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     Lee, C. D. (2014). The multi-dimensional demands of reading in the disciplines. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(1), 9-15.  icon-adn   

     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

     Lee, C. D., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: text and task complexities. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 213-227.  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     Medin, D., Lee, C. D., & Bang, M. (2014). Particular points of View. Scientific American, 311(4), 44-45. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1014-44

     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  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn 

     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.  icon-adn  icon-Icons 

     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.  icon-adn 

     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. (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 

     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.

     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.

     Sosa, T., Hall, A. H., Goldman, S. R., & Lee, C. D. (In press). Developing symbolic interpretation through literary argumentation. Journal of Learning Sciences, 25, 93-132.  


VIII. Other

     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.

     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.

     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., 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.

     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.   

     Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59-69.

     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., Lawless, K. A., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessmentIn 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., 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 21st 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.    

     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.  

     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.

     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.  icon-adn icon-Icons 

     Rouet, J. F. & Britt, M. A. (2014). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd Edition) (pp. 813-841). NY, NY: Cambridge University Press.  

     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   

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.