The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cognitive Strategy Instruction for Adolescents: What We Know about the Promise, What We Don't Know about the Potential
Abstract
"Strategy instruction" is quickly becoming one of the most common — and perhaps the most commonly misunderstood — components of adolescent literacy research and practice. In this essay, veteran teacher educator Mark Conley argues that a particular type of strategy instruction known as cognitive strategy instruction holds great promise for improving adolescents' reading, writing, and thinking across content areas. However, he further suggests that we do not yet have the research needed to adequately understand and maximize the potential of cognitive strategy instruction in secondary content-area classrooms. After situating cognitive strategy instruction in the larger context of research on adolescent literacy and school-to-work transitions, Conley provides classroom examples of cognitive strategy instruction, demonstrates the need for meaningful integration of cognitive strategies in teacher education, and recommends specific directions for future research needed to understand and maximize the benefits of cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Secondary content literacy has focused more on literacy than on the subject areas.
“Although my basic premise is that the reason for a lack of integration is that secondary content literacy has focused more on literacy than on the subject areas (cf.Conley, 2008), I review each of these points brief ly because they each have important connections to what I argue is the key challenge, that of reconceptualizing how we think of disciplinary learning and literacy instruction.”
From Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call for Change (2008) · cites this paper as Conley, 2008
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Conley, M. (2007). Reconsidering adolescent literacy: From competing agendas to shared commitment. In M. Pressley, A. K. Billman, K. H. Perry, K. E. Reffitt, & J. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 77–97). New York: Guilford.
- Conley, M. (in press). Improving adolescent comprehension: Developing comprehension strategies in the content areas. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Erlbaum.
- Olson, C., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 269–303. · DOI
- Raphael, T., & Pearson, P. (1985). Increasing student awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217–237. · DOI
- Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (2006). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D. Deshler & B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 121–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
- Swan, E. (2004). Motivating adolescent readers through concept-oriented reading instruction. In T. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 283–303). New York: Guilford.
- Tuckey, S., & Anderson, C. (in press). Literacy in science: Using agency in the material world to expand the conversation. In M. Conley, J. Freidhoff, M. Sherry, & S. Tuckey (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: The research we have and the research we need. New York: Guilford.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call for Change
Moje, E. B. (2008) · Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · doi:10.1598/jaal.52.2.1 · Cited by 785
Lai, M. K., Wilson, A., McNaughton, S., & Hsiao, S. (2014) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.73 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- CONLEY, M.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- CONLEY, MARK
- Venue
- Harvard Educational Review
- Publisher
- Harvard Education Publishing Group
- Published
- 2008-04-01
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-106
- ISSN
- 0017-8055 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5045
- OpenAlex
- W1941920178
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 22.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Harvard Educational Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
- Keywords
- cognitive strategy instruction, adolescent literacy, reading comprehension strategies, writing instruction, school-to-work transition, teacher professional development, cognitive strategies, research gaps
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review