Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Writing in the Secondary-Level Disciplines: a Systematic Review of Context, Cognition, and Content

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Situated within the historical and current state of writing and adolescent literacy research, this systematic literature review screened 3504 articles to determine the prevalent themes in current research on writing tasks in content-area classrooms. Each of the 3504 studies was evaluated and coded using seven methodological quality indicators. The qualitative synthesis of studies is organized by the overarching categories of context, cognition, and content. The studies are further grouped by relevant themes to explore how the incorporation of writing tasks into content-area instruction benefits the secondary students’ content-area learning and knowledge acquisition. Primary themes include the elements of explicit strategy and inquiry-based instruction, the impact of prewriting models, the role of metacognition and journaling, and the writing-related implications for content-area assessment. Recommendations for future research are offered. Additionally, practical implications for secondary content-area teachers are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review.

  • Acosta, S., & Garza, T. (2011). The podcasting playbook: a typology of evidence-based pedagogy for pre-K classrooms with English language learners. Research in the Schools, 18(2), 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765. doi:10.1080/09500690601075629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, M., Laberge, S., & McGuire, W. (2012). Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: the views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 64, 661–676. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9519-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Alev, N. (2010). Perceived values of reading and writing in learning physics in secondary classrooms. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 1333–1345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, C. L. (2012). Examining instructional practices, intellectual challenge, and supports for African-American student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(2), 112–144.

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing? English Journal, 98(5), 18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: new understandings about reading, writing, and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58. doi:10.3102/00346543074001029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2013). Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Medical Education, 47, 252–260. doi:10.1111/medu.12092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Beck, S. W., & Jeffery, J. V. (2009). Genre and thinking in academic writing tasks. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 228–272. doi:10.1080/10862960902908483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Benedek-Wood, E., Mason, L. H., Wood, P. H., Hoffman, K. E., & McGuire, A. (2014). An experimental examination of quick writing in the middle school science classroom. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, C., & 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.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: a practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht-Snider, M., Suriel, R., Kayumova, S., Choi, Y., Bouton, B., & Baker, M. (2013). Using educative assessments to support science teaching for middle school English-language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 347–366. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9329-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing (New ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40, 149–169. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. C., & Hoglund, H. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342–352. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Conner, L. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s11165-004-3952-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Cross, D. I. (2009). Creating optimal mathematics learning environments: combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 905–930. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–192. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29, 412–454. doi:10.1177/0741088312461591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * De La Paz, S., & Wissinger, D. R. (2015). Effects of genre and content knowledge on historical thinking with academically diverse high school students. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 110–129. doi:10.1080/00220973.2013.876228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, S. (2013). Open up the ceiling on the common core state standards: preparing students for 21st-century literacy—now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 321–330. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, D. (2003). Reading across the great divide: English and math teachers apprentice one another as readers and disciplinary insiders. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, L., & Carver, C. (2007). Preservice teacher understandings of adolescent literacy development: naive wonder to dawning realization to intellectual rigor. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 654–665. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.8.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: an introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon..

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Herbert, M. (2014). High school teachers use of writing to support students’ learning: a national survey. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1043–1072. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Glogger, I., Holzäpfel, L., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2009). Activation of learning strategies in writing learning journals: the specificity of prompts matters. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie (German Journal of Educational Psychology), 23, 95–104. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzapfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 452–468. doi:10.1037/a0026683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goatley, V. (2012). Slicing and dicing the ELA Common Core Standards. Principal, 18(20), 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. (2012). Adolescent literacy: learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22(2), 89–116. doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Herbert, M. (2010). Writing to read: evidence for how writing can improve reading—a Carnegie Corporation time to act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). What we know, what we still need to know: teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 313–335. doi:10.1080/10888430701530664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007c). Writing next: effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

  • * Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 503–521. doi:10.1080/09500690701704805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354–367. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004a). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: a study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186–210. doi:10.1002/tea.10128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004b). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannes, K., Claes, L., & Belgian Campbell Group (2007). Learn to read and write systematic reviews: The Belgian Campbell Group. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 748–753. doi:10.1177/1049731507303106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P., & Mortensen, C. (2014). Education journals: two decades of change and implications for the field. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 188–200. doi:10.1002/asi.22947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, D., & Acord, S.K. (2011). Peer review in academic promotion and publishing: its meaning, locus, and future. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xv148c8

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262. doi:10.2307/1511259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Haugwitz, M., Nesbit, J. C., & Sandmann, A. (2010). Cognitive ability and the instructional efficacy of collaborative concept mapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 536–543. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.004

  • Herbert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: a meta-analysis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 111–138. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9386-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261–289. doi:10.1080/09500690500336965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20, 18–29. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Reading Association. (2012). Adolescent literacy. (Position statement, Rev. 2012 ed.). Newark, DE: Author.

  • * Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., Kramer, S., & Patel, V. L. (2007). Fostering conceptual change and critical reasoning about HIV and AIDS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 844–863. doi:10.1002/tea.20173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676–690. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education—EJPE (Instituto Superior De Psicologia Aplicada), 21, 17–34. doi:10.1007/BF03173567.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18, 379–390. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students’ performances of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 428–436. doi:10.1039/C2RP20013A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: a national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160. doi:10.1037/a0013097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1–46. doi:10.17239/jowr-2010.02.01.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Klein, P. D., & Rose, M. A. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 433–461. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.4.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Knaggs, C. M., & Schneider, R. M. (2012). Thinking like a scientist: using Vee maps to understand process and concepts in science. Research in Science Education, 42, 609–632. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9213-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacina, J., & Block, C. C. (2011). What matters most in distinguished literacy teacher education programs? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Lewis, W. E., & Ferretti, R. P. (2011). Topoi and literary interpretation: the effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students’ analytic literary essays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 334–354. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leu Jr., D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leu Jr., D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett Cacopardo, H., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 275–302. doi:10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41, 217–246. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9225-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. M., McTigue, E. M., & Scott, C. E. (2015). The quality of recent studies in content-area writing in secondary classrooms. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 64, 461–477.

  • Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory Into Practice, 47(2), 102–109. doi:10.1080/00405840801992264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2004). Teaching reading is rocket science: what expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do (Research Report No. 39-0372). Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1–6. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: a call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: a comparative case study of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1045–1079. doi:10.3102/0002831208319733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: an exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 539–568. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.481014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41, 212–249. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00547.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273–299. doi:10.1177/1086296X12450445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, E. (2012). 21st-century literacies, critical media pedagogies, and language arts. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 300–302. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01125.

  • * Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111–1133. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “R”: the need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

  • National Council of Teachers of English. (2006). NCTE principles of adolescent literacy reform: a policy brief. Urbana, Illinois: Author.

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards (English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects). National Governors Association Center for Best Practice & Council of Chief State Officers: Washington, D.C.

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: Author.

  • National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.). Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Nelson, T. (2011). Critiquing scholarship as formal review: the role and responsibilities of readers for academic journals. Issues in Teacher Education, 20(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463. doi:10.2307/747625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Economic Impact & Diversity, US Department of Energy (2014). STEM education. Retrieved from http://energy.gov/diversity/services/stem-education

  • Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pring, S. (2000). The ‘false dualism’ of education research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34, 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 236–245. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18026.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Raven, S. (2015). Assessing secondary science students’ knowledge of molecule movement, concentration gradients, and equilibrium through multiple contexts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(3), 269–303. doi:10.1080/02635143.2015.1026319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, A. B., Graham, S., Houston, J. D., & Harris, K. (2016). Teachers use of writing to support students’ learning in middle school: a national survey in the United States. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1039–1068. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9602-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * 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, 265–300. doi:10.1080/02702710802411547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 252–288. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442. doi:10.1002/sce.10114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T. J., & Shambrook, J. (2012). Academic excellence: a commentary and reflections on the inherent value of peer review. Journal of Research Administration, 43(1), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: a critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(4), 595–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruth, L. P. (2003). Who has the power? Policymaking and politics in the English language arts. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 87–113). Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. doi:10.1002/sce.21069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. E. (2013). Every teacher a teacher of reading?: A systematic literature review of content-area literacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Station: Texas A&M University.

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, E. J., & Kobrin, J. L. (2012). The SAT essay and college performance: understanding what essay scores add to the HSGPA and SAT. New York, NY: The College Board.

  • Siebert, D., & Draper, R. J. (2008). Why content-area literacy messages do not speak to mathematics teachers: a critical content analysis. Literacy Research & Instruction, 47, 229–245. doi:10.1080/19388070802300314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: a best- evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290–322. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slocum, T. A., Detrich, R., & Spencer, T. D. (2012). Evaluating the validity of systematic reviews to identify empirically supported treatments. Education & Treatment of Children, 35(2), 201–233. doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeyers, P. (2001). Qualitative versus quantitative research design: a plea for paradigmatic tolerance in educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 477–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, J. R. (2003). The history of the profession. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, L. P. (2002). Making the road by walking: the transition from content area literacy to adolescent literacy. Literacy Research and Instruction, 41, 267–277. doi:10.1080/19388070209558370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2010). The effect of using Vee maps versus standard laboratory reports on achieving student content knowledge. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 12–22. doi:10.5032/jae.2010.03012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, C. J. (2007). The quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness in literacy learning in English: a ‘tertiary’ review. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 287–315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00318.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, C. J., Porthouse, J., & Brooks, G. (2005). A systematic review of controlled trials evaluating interventions in adult literacy and numeracy. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 87–107. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00256.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (1999). Conceptual processes in writing: from problem solving to text production. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.5117/9789053563076.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vacca, R. (2002). From efficient decoders to strategic readers. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. E. (2012). Rhetorical reading as a gateway to disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(5), 391–399. doi :10.10 02 /JA AL .0 0151

  • Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. A. (2011). A social semiotics framework for conceptualizing content area literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 435–444. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Wong, B., Kuperis, S., Jamieson, D., Keller, L., & Cull-Hewitt, R. (2002). Effects of guided journal writing on students’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 179–191. doi:10.1080/00220670209596588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinsser, W. (1988). Writing to learn: how to write—and think—clearly about any subject at all. New York: Harper & Row.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban Education, University of Houston-Downtown, One Main Street, Commerce Building, C-430E, Houston, TX, 77002-1014, USA

    Diane M. Miller

  2. Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Chyllis E. Scott

  3. Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Erin M. McTigue

  4. Norwegian Centre for Reading Education and Research, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, NO, USA

    Erin M. McTigue

Authors
  1. Diane M. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chyllis E. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin M. McTigue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane M. Miller.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Fig. S1

(DOCX 50 kb)

Table S1

(DOCX 91 kb)

Table S2

(DOCX 24 kb)

Table. S3

(DOCX 21 kb)

Table S4

(DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, D.M., Scott, C.E. & McTigue, E.M. Writing in the Secondary-Level Disciplines: a Systematic Review of Context, Cognition, and Content. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 83–120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation