Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 395–412 | Cite as

Reading Scientifically: Practices Supporting Intertextual Reading Using Science Knowledge



This paper reports on a study of teachers’ actions when reading informational and narrative texts in the context of elementary science learning experiences. Focusing on the development of fundamental and derived senses of science literacy through the integrated science lessons, the research further explores the affordances of different genres of text in science learning. The findings highlight that teacher actions can support students engaging in inquiry provoked during reading events. However, this was not easy to do and required more than providing students with opportunities to discuss and share their questions. Furthermore, the study revealed that purposes for reading and the notion of making predictions were contextualized activities that impact the nature of students’ engagement with texts. Based on these findings it is possible to make inferences that raise questions for future research. The construct of fundamental and derived senses of science literacy revealed that most of the actions of teachers focused on fundamental senses. Yet, there were moments of derived senses of science literacy that offer glimpses of the usefulness of this construct for supporting integrated learning. Thus the outcome is to consider this framework when developing integrated learning experiences in science.


Language and literacy Reading Teacher actions Integration Science literacy Texts 



I would like to thank the Elon University’s Faculty Research and Development program and the Hultquist Award for supporting this work. In addition, I am most grateful to the thoughtful, supportive, and helpful reviews received by the anonymous reviewers and the editor.


  1. Austin, J. L. (1999). How to do things with words. In A. Jaworksi & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, J. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and choatic systems: An examination of students’ argument about density. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 305–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branley, F. M., & Hale, J. G. (1997). Down comes the rain. New York: Harper Collins Children’s Books.Google Scholar
  6. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Alexandria: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry, D., & Saunders-Smith, G. (1999). How things move. North Mankato, MN: Capston Press.Google Scholar
  9. De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implicaitons of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2001). Genre and other factors influencing teachers’ book selections for science instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 412–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edelsky, C. (1993). Who’s got the floor? In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 189–227). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Enfield, M. (2007). Could that really happen? Elementary childrens inquiry around informational and narrative texts Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  14. Ford, D. (2004). HIghly recommended trade books: Can they be used in inquiry science? In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  15. Ford, C., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997). Reforms, visions and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Resarch in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL, March 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Frazee, M. (2003). Roller coaster. New York: Harcourt Children’s Books.Google Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study Review of Research in Education (Vol. 23, pp. 119–169). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  18. Girod, M., & Twyman, T. (2009). Evaluating the science and literacy connection by comparing three curricular units in second grade classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 13–32.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldnine.Google Scholar
  20. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text and experience: A case of young children’s scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hesse, K., & Muth, J. (1999). Come on rain. New York: Scholastic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Connell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemke, J. L. (1989). Making text talk. Theory into Practice, 28(2), 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Learning from text designed to model scientific thinking in inquiry-based instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  28. Mathison, S., & Freeman, M. (2003). Constraining elementary teachers’ work: Dilemmas and paradoxes created by state mandated testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(34). Available at
  29. McCully, E. A. (1997). Mirette on the highwire. New York: Puffin.Google Scholar
  30. McEwan, H., & Egan, K. (Eds.). (1995). Narrative in teaching, learning, and research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–563.Google Scholar
  34. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of common practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of information books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Pappas, C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2004). Promoting dialogic inquiry in information book read-alouds: Young children’s ways of making sense of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  38. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qaulitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Robertson, A. (2007). Development of shared vision: Lessons from a science education community collaborative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 681–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saul, W., Reardon, J., Pearce, C., Dieckman, D., & Neutze, D. (2002). Science workshop: Reading, writing, and thinking like a scientist (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  41. Shannon, D. (2000). The rain came down. New York: Blue Sky Press.Google Scholar
  42. Shultz, J. J., Florio, S., & Erickson, F. (1982). Where’s the floor? Aspects of cultural organization of social relationships in communication at home and school. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 88–123). Washington DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  43. Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The contexts of comprehension: The information book read aloud, comprehension acquisition, and comprehension instruction in a first-grade classroom. Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practice that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban second graders make sense of evaporations, boiling, and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 637–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth: Heinnemann.Google Scholar
  48. Wertsch, J. V., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies: History, action, and mediation. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studis of the mind (pp. 1–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitin, P., & Whitin, D. J. (1997). Inquiry at the window: Pursuing the wonders of learners. Portmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  50. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elon UniversityElonUSA

Personalised recommendations