Skip to content
2018
Volume 73, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0010-096X
  • E-ISSN: 1939-9006

Abstract

Recent research on reading in cognitive science disproves the Common Core’s central claim that reading skills are learned most effectively when students exclude their knowledge and experience from the reading process. The discussion here is focused on how this scientific research overlaps with the transaction theory of reading and writing, and the present opportunities for renewing it.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202231877
2022-02-01
2024-02-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achieve the Core http://achievethecore.org/page/45/short-guide-to-creatingtextdependentquestions-detail-pg
  2. Adler-Kassner Linda EstremHeidi “Reading Practices in the Writing Classroom.” WPA Journal 31 1/2 2007 pp. 35 47
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baraka Amiri “The Revolutionary Tradition in Afro-American Literature.” The LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka Reader HarrisWilliam J. Thunder’s Mouth Press 1991 pp. 311 32
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates Clara “Our Divided Education System.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas 50 2018 pp. 66 77
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brennan Timothy “The Digital-Humanities Bust.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 64 8 2017 www. chronicle.com/article/the-digitalhumanities-bust
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brennan Timothy “The Free Impersonality of Bourgeois Spirit.” Biography 37 1 2014 pp. 1 35
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burdick Anne et al.Digital_Humanities The MIT Press 2012
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carillo Ellen C. et al. Securing a Place for Reading in Composition: The Importance of Teaching for Transfer UP of Colorado 2015
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carr Nicholas The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains Norton 2010
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coleman David Susan Pimentel Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3–12 www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Connell Jeanne “The Emergence of Pragmatic Philosophy’s Influence on Literary Theory.” >Educational Theory 58 1 2008 pp. 103 122
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Council of Writing Program Administrators. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition Version 3.0 17 July 2014 http://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/243055/_PARENT/layout_details/false
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, and National Writing Project. Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing 2011 http://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/asset_manager/get_file/350201
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dinsman Melissa “The Digital in the Humanities: An Interview with Marisa Parham.” The Los Angeles Review of Books 19 May 2016 https://lareview ofbooks.org/article/digital humani ties-interview-marisa-parham/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Elbow Peter “The Cultures of Literature and Composition: What Could Each Learn from the Other?” College English 64 5 2002 pp. 533 546
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Emig Janet The Web of Meaning: Essays on Writing, Teaching, Learning, and Thinking Boynton/Cook 1983
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fleck Bethany et al. “Active Reading Questions as a Strategy to Support College Students’ Textbook Reading.” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 3 3 2017 pp. 220 232
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Flower Linda John Hayes “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32 4 1981 pp. 365 387
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hegel G.W.F. The Phenomenology of Spirit MillerA.V. Oxford UP 1977
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hiebert Elfrieda H. Leigh Ann Martin “Changes in the Texts of Reading Instruction During the Past 50 Years.” Research-Based Practices for Teaching Common Core Literacy PearsonP. D. HiebertE. H. Teachers College Press 2015 pp. 215 236
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Holmes Richard The Age of Wonder. Vintage 2010
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackson Janna “Reading/Writing Connections.” Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research Second Edition FlippoRona F. BeanThomas W. Routledge 2009 pp. 145 166
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Klebnikov Sergei “Liberal Arts vs. STEM: The Right Degrees, The Wrong Debate.” Forbes 19 Jun 2015 www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2015/06/19/liberal-arts-vs-stem-the rightdegrees-the-wrong-debate/?sh=48c14edc7bbe
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Knausgaard Karl Inadvertent Yale UP 2018
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Micciche Laura R. “Writing Material.” College English 76 6 2014 pp. 488 505
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Newkirk Thomas “Unbalanced Literacy: Reflections on the Common Core.” Language Arts 93 4 2016 pp. 304 311
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosenblatt Louise M. Making Meaning with Texts: Selected Essays Heinemann 2005
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosenblatt Louise M. Literature as Exploration 1938 Modern Language Association 1995
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosenblatt Louise M. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work 1978 Southern Illinois UP 1994 EdwardSaid Humanism and Democratic Criticism Columbia UP 2004
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schreiner Robert TannerLinda R. “What History Says About Teaching Reading.” The Reading Teacher 29 5 1976 pp. 468 473
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Smith Michael W. et al. Uncommon Core: Where the Authors of the Standards Go Wrong About Instruction and How You Can Get It Right Corwin 2014
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Speer Nicole K. et al. “Reading Stories Activates Neural Representations of Visual and Motor Experiences.” Psychological Science 20 8 2009 pp. 989 999
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Stratford Michael “Broad Education vs. Industry-Specific Skills.” Inside Higher Ed 18 Sept 2013 www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/18/poll-most-americans-and-businessleaders-say-graduates-should-be-wellrounded
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Whitehead Colson The Underground Railroad Doubleday 2016
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202231877
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error