Content Area Reading Instruction: An Annotated Bibliography Review

This annotated bibliography reviews five journal articles focused on content area reading instruction. The articles explore various aspects of teaching methods, disciplinary literacy, and the needs of diverse learners, including those with learning disabilities and intellectually gifted students. The first article discusses the reconciliation of content area reading and disciplinary literacy, advocating for a mixed-method approach. The second article presents a meta-analysis of reading instruction in science for students with learning disabilities, emphasizing explicit instruction and multi-component interventions. The third article examines the need for differentiated reading instruction and content in diverse classrooms, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between instruction and curriculum for intellectually gifted students. The fourth article compares structured content reading instruction versus direct instruction in mathematics, suggesting a combined approach. Finally, the fifth article, which is incomplete, likely continues the exploration of reading instruction in the content area. The review assesses the structure, audience, and communicative effectiveness of each article, providing insights into the application of instructional strategies in different educational contexts.

Running head: CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
Content Area Reading Instruction
Name of Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
Abstract
This paper is an annotated bibliography that reviews and structurally analyzes five journal
articles regarding the scholarly study of content area reading instruction. The choice of
journal articles that are to be the subject of the structural analysis and review shall be any
paper, article or research paper that deals with the issue of content area reading instruction in
any capacity or form, and examines its elements, concepts or applicability of the components
of the subject. The review would cover the brief introduction of the authors of the paper and
the summary of their article, before delving into an analysis of the paper’s structure,
examining its intended audience, the contextual framework of the paper, the author’s ability
to communicate their findings to the reader and the opinions and impressions of the author of
this paper regarding the article under analysis and review. A particular emphasis would be
laid on how the component of instruction has been approached in the reviewed articles and
how deftly have the authors dealt with the issue of instruction within the context of their area
of research on the subject. Hence, through this annotated bibliography, the author of the
present paper desires to review journal articles based on their structural soundness and
communicative ability.

2CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and
disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 56(5), 353-357.
The authors of the paper under review are William G. Brozo, a professor of literacy in
the Graduate School of Education at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia; Gary
Moorman, professor emeritus at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina; Carla
Mayer, an assistant professor at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina; and
Trevor Stewart, an assistant professor at Appalachian State University, North Carolina. The
primary question that the article deals with is the discrepancy existing between content area
reading and disciplinary literacy, and the best method to reconcile the differences between the
two. The paper begins by defining the two concepts in order to contextualize the differences
between them.
While content area reading instruction is one of the aspects of teaching in any
disciplinary framework, there is a shared conceptualization of the teacher as someone who
aids in enhancing the reading skills of students. This particular conceptualization has broadly
seeped into popular language, culture and consciousness. Such a pattern of thinking has
prevented from viewing teachers from being viewed as individuals who are literate in the
disciplines that they specialize in. As a result, students are forced to bear the consequences of
such a conceptualization where the teacher is restricted under an imagined categorization
where their roles are limited to develop a student’s reading and memorizing skills, but not
developing the student’s literacy regarding the discipline that they wish to opt for.
The authors propose this by bridging the gap between content area reading and
disciplinary literacy by advocating for a compromise between the two philosophical trends of
pedagogy, assimilating and mixing the best elements of both approaches so as not just to

3CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
develop a student’s ability to understand a text but to also develop their ability to critically
engage with it. Such a mixed-method of approach in the context of pedagogy would benefit
the students, and this is quite evidently discernible from the fact that the paper in question
addresses research scholars and educators, calling on them to arrive at a reasonable and
philosophical compromise.
The opinion of the present author regarding the approach and structure of the paper is
positive. Briefly and lucidly, the authors of the article under review have made their case and
posit some compelling arguments to fortify their claims. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this
article, and I have come to consider the possible benefits of such a mixed-method approach in
learning and critical readings of any given text.
Kaldenberg, E. R., Watt, S. J., & Therrien, W. J. (2015). Reading instruction in science for
students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly,
38(3), 160-173.
The authors of the article under the present analysis are Erica R. Kaldenberg, a
research scholar in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Iowa, Iowa;
Sarah J. Watt, a research scholar at Miami University, Oxford, Oklahoma; and William J.
Therrien, a research scholar at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. The
primary concern of this journal article pertains to the appropriate mode of instruction that
could be used for instruction for students with learning disabilities within the context of
teaching science and scientific concepts. The paper combines aspects of both quantitative and
qualitative research within its paradigm.
The paper starts by providing a general awareness regarding the research work
conducted dealing with the extent of reading comprehension among students with learning
disabilities in the last three decades. The authors further posit the current trends that are

4CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
extant in this area of research, thereby providing the groundwork for cntextualizing the
methods and findings of their article. The authors note that in the research done in the past, it
was seen that students experiencing a learning disability perform significantly less than their
peers who do not experience any learning disability. Although the shift from textbook-
focussed learning to inquiry based-learning of scientific concepts have tended to alleviate the
performance of students who struggle with learning and reading comprehension, the authors
point out that there is an imperative need to increase the reading comprehensibility of
scientific text that take an expository approach, to allow students with learning disabilities to
have a broader access to the curricula formulated to teach science.
To that end, the authors conduct a meta-analysis of 20 studies sourced from 12
articles involving research into the overall efficacy of expository teaching methods over
textbook-based methods, wherefrom the effect sizes were calculated from each study, and the
mean effect sizes indicate alignment with the findings of past research. The authors thereby
conclude tgat for students with learning disabilities, explicit verbal instruction and
multicomponent interventions are useful for teaching science-related material. The findings
indicate that the intended audience for this paper is scholars and educators who specialize in
teaching students with learning disabilities.
The author of this annotated bibliography learnt many things while reading and
reviewing this paper. I have come to believe that the method and mode of instruction ought to
be dynamic, and it must cater to the interest and capability of students according to time and
material conditions. It is heartening to see that pedagogy and learning are becoming an
inclusive concept.

5CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency
levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading
instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3-14.
The authors of the paper in question are Janine M. Firmender, an assistant professor in
the Teacher Education Department at Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Sally M. Reis, Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs and a Board of Trustees Distinguished
Professor at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and Sheelah M. Sweeny, an
educational consultant who specializes in working with clients hailing from an urban setting.
The paper concerns itself with the nature and extent of reading achievement among students,
including gifted students, and the necessity for teachers and educators to differentiate
between reading instruction and reading content so that every student has the opportunity to
gain progress on reading.
The paper starts by mentioning how the instruction needs of intellectually-gifted
students are vastly different from those students who display no extraordinary intellectual
development, and how such needs are overlooked for the sake of the functioning of
heterogeneous classrooms. For intellectually-gifted students, teachers and educators must
distinguish between instruction – specifically, the method of instruction – from the curricula
of a particular course. This differentiation is significant, as it affects the reading
comprehension of intellectually-gifted students when their instruction needs are not met.
However, the research found through a sample survey consisting of over a thousand students
that reading comprehension in heterogonous classrooms tended to be high and that the
method of instruction did not severely affect the progress of reading comprehension among
intellectually-gifted students who are a part of the heterogeneous classroom environment.

6CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
While the research proves that intellectually-gifted children are not significantly
disadvantaged when they are a part of a heterogeneous classroom framework, the authors still
point out that the different instruction needs of intellectually-gifted students require special
attention from teachers as these needs distinguish them from their peers by virtue of their
intellectual grasp and acumen. It is for this reason that teachers and educators must devise
methods by which they can consciously distinguish between reading instructions and reading
content so that it benefits every student, irrespective of their skill and proficiency when it
comes to assessing reading comprehension.
On reviewing this paper, I liked how the authors have emphasized developing a
different set of approaches and methods to address the instructional needs of intellectually-
gifted students, while also pointing out the benefits of a heterogeneous classroom
environment. By incorporating a mixed-method, the authors can quantitatively show and
qualitatively explain how differences in reading comprehension exist independent of the
environment and how only methods of instruction can help increase student’s reading
comprehension.
Maandig, R. B., Lomibao, L. S., & Luna, C. A. (2016). Structured content reading instruction
vs, direct instruction: their implication on students' achievement, reading
comprehension and critical thinking in mathematics. American Journal of
Educational Research, 5, 574.
The authors of the current article under review are Rizhaly B. Maandig, Laila S.
Lomibao and Charita A. Luna. All of the authors are faculty members at the University of
Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Lapasan Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis
Oriental, Northern Mindanao. The paper concerns itself with the comparison between
structured content reading instruction versus direct instruction, and how each of these

7CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
approaches affects student achievement, reading comprehension and critical thinking
regarding the subject of Mathematics. The paper is, therefore, a comparison between two
methods of instruction that compares its effects on students within the contextual framework
of understanding a subject like Mathematics.
The authors note that although instructional strategies through reading gained
popularity in the context of teaching and learning languages, the use of such instructional
methods has found controversy in the case of applying them to the context of teaching
mathematics to students so that they are able to understand and critically engage with
mathematical texts. To determine the appropriate teaching method conducive for imparting
mathematical knowledge to students, the authors undertook a comparative study of two
instruction methods and compared their techniques, effect on students and their performances
and the consequences of employing either method. Hence, through such a research
methodology, the authors aimed to determine the appropriate instructional method
appropriate for teaching Mathematics.
Based on the comparison, the authors found that while a structured reading instruction
approach has markedly improved the score of students on the parameter of reading
comprehension, as far as rates of achievement and critical thinking are concerned, the
outcomes of critical reading instruction and direct instruction are comparably similar. Hence,
from the research and findings, the authors conclude and recommend that teachers and
educators make use of both methods in a classroom environment, to improve learning
outcomes among students of Mathematics.
I found this article to be quite exciting. I appreciated the authors’ inquisitiveness in
determining an appropriate method of instruction in a subject so distinct from where critical
reading instruction is often utilized. Indeed, critical reading instruction can be successfully

8CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
used in combination with direct instruction as a way to teach students about Mathematics is
an incredible find. The uniqueness of the subject and research area of the article make it stand
out from the rest. Of all the articles I have reviewed, I think it is an essential scholarly
exercise on the reading instruction method and its utilities.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What We Know--and
Don't Yet Know--about Effective Instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4.
The last article under review has been authored by Claude Goldenberg, a professor of
education at Stanford University, Stanford, California. The article is primarily concerned with
finding standard practices, if any, in the realm of standard reading instruction and how the
presence of a standardized set of practices would be instrumental in determining the rate of
positive learning outcomes among students and learners of the English language. Mainly, the
author utilizes three axioms through which they desire to base their article on, viz, effective
practices that would be effective among English learners, the additional instructional
requirements of English learners and the potential of one’s home language to be used as a
tool for promoting academic development.
The author makes use of relevant examples and instances, the author deftly tackles
and elaborates the three principles and shows how these are important for understanding the
significance of having a standard and broad set of practices that are aimed at improving the
reading comprehension of English learners through the determination of practices, concepts
and ideas that help them to grasp the language and help them in their academic development
by allowing access to texts with which they can critically engage and analyze.
On the whole, the paper was an excellent read and I enjoyed the author's structural
technique of making their arguments convincing and logically connected.

9CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION
References
Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and
disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 56(5), 353-357.
Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency
levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading
instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3-14.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What We Know--and
Don't Yet Know--about Effective Instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4.
Kaldenberg, E. R., Watt, S. J., & Therrien, W. J. (2015). Reading instruction in science for
students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly,
38(3), 160-173.
Maandig, R. B., Lomibao, L. S., & Luna, C. A. (2016). Structured content reading instruction
vs, direct instruction: their implication on students' achievement, reading
comprehension and critical thinking in mathematics. American Journal of
Educational Research, 5, 574.

10CONTENT AREA READING INSTRUCTION