1.++Citation+Quality

1. __X__ As a group, choose a quasi-random sample of about 20 citations from the literature review. 2. __X__ Each member will, independently, rate the quality of each citation on scholarliness, timeliness, and relevance. 3. __X__ As a group, identify any ratings that were not consistent and try to resolve the inconsistency. Make note of any that you could not resolve and why. 4. __X__ Calculate the arithmetic mean for each trait. S= 3.4, T= 2.5 , R= 2.8 5. __X__ Rate the overall citation quality of the sample. 6. __X__ Reflect on the quality of the citations.
 * __Analysis 1 Instructions: Citation quality__**
 * __Analysis 1 Instructions: Citation quality__**
 * __Analysis 1 Instructions: Citation quality__**

1-4 ||= Timeliness Currency 1-3 ||= Relevance Appropriateness 1-3 || social studies programs. //Reading Research Quarterly, 23,// 36-48. || 3 ||< 1 || 3 ||  || science material and students with learning disabilities. A comparison of strategies. //The Journal of Special Education, 31,// (3), 300-324. || 3 ||< 3 || 3 ||  || text from a text processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. //Reading Research Quarterly, 26, (3), 251-276.// || 4 ||< 1 || 3 ||  || activities: Politics and pedagogy in the classroom. //Topics in Language Disorders, 11// (3), 14-27. || 2 ||< 2 || 2 ||  || promote understanding of content area concepts. //Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41// (4)//,// 292-302. || 3 ||< 3 || 3 ||  || and practice as readers and teachers of reading. //Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43// (8), 728-739. || 2 ||< 3 || 3 ||  || content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. //Struggling and// //Special Eduation, 21(6), 356-65.// || 3 ||< 3 || 3 ||  || (4), 279-301. || 3 ||< 2 || 2 ||   || good readers: A test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis. //Reading Research Quarterly, 29,// (2), 178-188. || 4 ||< 2 || 3 ||  || heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. //The Elementary School Journal, 99// (1), 3-22. || 3 ||< 2 || 2 ||  || //Reading Disabilities, 33,// 1, 91-106. || 3 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * < Citations: ||= Scholarliness
 * < Armbruster, B. & Gudbrandsen, B. (1986). Reading comprehension instruction in
 * < Bakken, J., Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository
 * < Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sinatra, G. & Loxterman, J. (1991). Revising social studies
 * < Bloome, D., Harris, O., & Ludlum, D. (1991). Reading and writing as sociocultural
 * < Bulgren, J., & Scanlon, D. (1998). Instructional routines and learning strategies that
 * < Donahue, D. (2000). Experimenting with texts: New science teachers' experience
 * < Gee, J. (1996). Social Linguistics and literacies (2nd Ed.). London: Taylor & Francis. || 4 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * Guastello, R. Beasley, M., & Sinatra, R. (2000) Concept mapping effects on science
 * Guastello, R. Beasley, M., & Sinatra, R. (2000) Concept mapping effects on science
 * Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-schience learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. //Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 31,// (9), 877-93. || 4 ||< 2 || 3 ||  ||
 * Johnston, P. & Winograd, P. (1985). Passive failure in reading. //Journal of Reading Behavior, 17,//
 * Kim, Y. & Goetz, E. (1994). Context effects on word recognition and reading comprehension of poor and
 * Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in
 * Lederer, J.M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. //Journal of//
 * McCarthey, S. (2002). //Students identitites and literacy learning.// International Reading Association. || 3 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * Muth, K. (1993). Reading in mathematics: Middle school mathematics teachers' beliefs and practices. //Reading// //Research and Instruction//, 32, (2), 76-83. || 4 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. //Science// //Education//, 87, 2, 224-40. || 3 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * O'Brien, D., Stewart, R. (1990). Preservice teachers' perspectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. //Journal of Reading Behavior//, 22, (2), 101-129. || 4 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson, E., & Degener, S. (2004). //In school and out: A sociocognitive lens on literacy development// (working title). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. || 4 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Editors), //Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading// (pp. 1363-1398). International Reading Association. || 4 ||< 3 || 3 ||  ||
 * Siegal, M. & Fonzi, J. (1995). The practice of reading in an inquiry-oriented mathematics class. //Reading Research Quarterly//, 30, (4), 632-73. || 4 ||< 3 || 2 ||  ||
 * Stahl, S.S., Jacobson, M.G., Davis, C.E., & Davis, R.L. (1989). Prior knowledge and difficult vocabulary in the comprehension of unfamiliar text. //Reading Research Quarterly//, 24 (1), 27-43. || 4 ||< 2 || 3 ||  ||

Citation notes for comment and reflection section:
By averaging the Scholarliness (3.4), Timeliness (2.5), and Relevance (2.8) arithmetic means, the overall quality of the citations in this literature review was a 2.9. Overall, we felt as a group that the citations were helpful and appropriate. We did notice that some primary sources were not noted in the references but were in the body of the piece. This resulted in some confusion on our part and a lack of information being provided by the author. Most of our ratings under timeliness and relevance were the same. The inconsistencies lied in the scholarliness column. Jocelyn is more of an expert in the areas of secondary education and content area reading due to her profession. She knew some of the authors of research that were not familiar to the entire group. This insight helped us to consensus in that particular column. The citation notes below relate to the relevance, in particular, of some the citations used by the author in this literature review. Notes from Hart text (p. 33): most cited work is not necessarily the most important; citation analysis is merely a nominal count for use by others and is not a judgment of quality Gee (1996) p. 11- hard to know if they are a scholar; based out of London but still relevant to US kids; concerns the transactional view of reading and how varying classroom dynamics effect the act of reading int he content area Armbruster (p. 15, 60)- textbook related research; as far as timeliness, I know textbooks have changed a LOT in the last few years Bulgren (p. 15, 60, 105)- use of textbooks is commonplace in middle school setting; much to do with departmental format and block scheduling (less integration) Bakken (p. 16, 59, 60, 107)- applying comp. strategies; relevant and timely Donahue (p 17)- teacher beliefs and their effect on content are reading; r and t Beck (p. 60)- textbook comments again align with Armbruster Bloome 1991- not noted in the first 120 pgs.; other Bloomes but not this one

= =