This study examines student reading engagement with children’s science books in elementary classrooms. Reading engagement in science is conceived in terms of a Transmission—Transaction continuum. When centered on transmission, science reading entails passive reception of a textually encoded scientific message. By contrast, when science reading is transaction-centered, teachers and students actively engage in the negotiation of scientific meanings that transcend the text itself. Examination of reading engagement relied on a discourse-centered method whose analytical goal was to uncover and better understand meaning-making around textual artifacts. More specifically, it took the form of a discourse analysis across three science read-alouds. While meaning-making in one aloud reading was predominantly centered on transmission, the other two read-alouds were characterized by increasing levels of transaction. Further, adoption of transmissive or transactional strategies was consistent with how teachers perceived reading in the context of science instruction. This study underscores the multiplicity of ways that reading can be conceived by science teachers and approached in elementary classroom settings. It is suggested that a more sophisticated understanding of how to systematically engage young students with science texts can help elementary teachers effectively integrate reading with science instruction, meet literacy requirements of current science education policies, and recognize that science reading transcends passive reception of facts.

Alvermann, D., Young, J.P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J.M. (1999). Adolescents’ perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in after-school read and talk clubs. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 221-264.
Ametller, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 285-312.
Aubusson, P.J., & Fogwill, S. (2006). Role play as analogical modeling in science. In P.J. Aubusson, A.G. Harrison, & S.M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 93-104). The Netherlands: Springer.
Bailey, S., & Watson, R. (1998). Establishing basic ecological understanding in younger pupils: A pilot evaluation of a strategy based on drama/role play. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 139-152.
Bauman, R. (1977). Verbal art as performance. Prospective Heights, IL: Waveland.
Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 83-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beacco, J.-C., Claudel, C., Doury, M., Petit, G., & Reboul-Toure, S. (2002). Science in media and social discourse: New channels of communication, new linguistics forms. Discourse Studies, 4, 277-300.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 251-271.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.
Berger, M. (1996). The mystery of magnets. New York, NY: Newbridge.
Berger, M., & Berger, G. (2004). Seed to plant. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bernard, H.R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 443-449.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Branley, F.M., & Kelley, T. (1996). What makes a magnet? New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognitive Learning, 6, 111-130.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M.A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of sources evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6-28.
Braun, P. (2010). Taking the time to read aloud. Science Scope, 34, 45–49.
Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. (1994). On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 295-308). London: Routledge.
Camp, D. (2000). It takes two: Teaching with twin texts of fact and fiction. The Reading Teacher, 53, 400-408.
Catley, K.F., Novick, L.R., & Shade, C.K. (2010). Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 861-882.
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222.
Cherry, L. (1990). The great kapok tree: A tale of the Amazon rain forest. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Colin, P., Chauvet, F., & Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: Students’ difficulties and teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 313-332.
Coulthard, M. (1994). On analyzing and evaluating written text. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 1-11). London: Routledge.
Creech, J., & Hale, G. (2006). Literacy in science: A natural fit. The Science Teacher, 22-27.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Dorion, K.R. (2009). Science through drama: A multiple case exploration of the characteristics of drama activities used in secondary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2247-2270.
Ebbers, M. (2002). Science text sets: Using various genres to promote literacy and inquiry. Language Arts, 80, 40-50.
Ehlert, L. (1987). Growing vegetable soup. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Enfield, M. (2014). Reading scientifically: Practices supporting intertextual reading using science knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 395-412.
Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Farnell, B., & Graham, L.R. (1998). Discourse-centered methods. In H.R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 411-457). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvin.
Gee, J.P., & Green, J.L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
Genette, G. (1992). The architext: An introduction. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Genette, G. (1997a). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Genette, G. (1997b). Paratexts: Thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Graham, A. (2000). Intertextuality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Harste, J.. Short, K. & Burke, C. (1996). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Heisey, N., & Kucan, L. (2010). Introducing science concepts to primary students through read-alouds: Interactions and multiple texts make the difference. The Reading Teacher, 63, 666–676.
Hoey, M. (1994). Signalling in discourse: a functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 26-45). London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (2nd ed). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lawrence, J.F., & Snow, C.E. (2010). Oral discourse and reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. IV) (pp. 320-338). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lincoln, Y.S., & , E.G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Huston & G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mathews, N., & Moody, N. (2007). Judging a book by its cover: Fans, publishers, and the marketing of fiction. England: Ashgate.
McCormick, M. K., & McTigue, E. (2011). Teacher read-alouds make science come alive. Science Scope, 34, 45–49.
Miller, L., Straits, W., Kucan, L., Trathen, W., & Dass, M. (2007). Literature circle roles for science vocabulary. The Science Teacher, 52-56.
Moschkovich, J.N., & Brenner, M.E. (2000). Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into research on mathematics and science cognition and learning. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 457-486). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Myers, G.A. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 3-17.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards. Retrieved on March 13th from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
Nielsen, L. (2006). Playing for real: Text and the performance of identity. In D.E. Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, & D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in adolescents’ lives (2nd ed) (pp. 5-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Orr, M. (2003). Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Oliveira, A.W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422-453.
Oliveira, A.W. (2011). Science communication in teacher personal pronouns. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1805-1833.
Oliveira, A.W., Rivera, S., Glass, R., Mastroianni, M., Wizner, F., & Amodeo, V. (2013). Teaching science through pictorial models during read-alouds. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 367-389.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pappas, C.C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2003). Dialogic inquiry around information texts: The role of intertextuality in constructing scientific understandings in urban primary classrooms, Linguistics and Education, 13, 435-482.
Pappas, C.C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2004). Promoting dialogic inquiry in information book read-alouds: Young urban children’s way of making sense in science. In W. Saul (Ed), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 161-189). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, and the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 337-356.
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schraw, G., & Burning, R. (1999). How implicit models of reading affect motivation to read and reading engagement. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 281-302.
Short, K.G. (2004). Researching intertextuality within collaborative learning environments. In Shuart-Faris, N., & Bloome, D. (2004). Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 373-396). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Sinclair, J. McH. (1986). Fictional worlds. In R.M. Coulthard (ed.), Talking about text (pp. 43-60). University of Birmingham: English Language Research.
Sipe, L.R. (2000). The construction of literary understanding by first and second graders in oral response to picture storybook read-alouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 252-275.
Sipe, L.R. (2001). A palimpsest of stories: Young children’s construction of intertextual links among fairytale variants. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 333-352.
Sipe, L.R. (2002). Talking back and talking over: Young children’s expressive engagement during story book read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 55, 476-483.
Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., & Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ reading of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 257-283.
Straits, W.J., & Nichols, S.E. (2007). Using historical non-fiction and literature circles to develop elementary teachers’ nature of science understandings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 901-912.
Straits, W.J., Zweip, S.G., & Wilke, R.R. (2011). Connecting students to science through structured reading of historical nonfiction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 26-31.
Straw, S. (1990). Challenging communication. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.). Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp.67-90). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sutton, C.R. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 1-18.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 3-18.
Tadros, A. (1994). Predictive categories in expository text. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69-82). London: Routledge.
Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.) Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., Tucker-Raymond, E., Kane, J., Hankes, J., Ortiz, I., & Keblawe-Shamah, N. ( 2010). Drama activities as ideational resources for primary-grade children in urban science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 302-325.
Wertsch, J. V., & Hickman, M. (1987). Problem solving in social interaction: A microgenetic analysis. In M. Hickman (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 251-266). New York: Academic Press.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23, 2594-8.
Wilkinson, I., & Son, E.H. (2010). A dilogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. IV) (pp. 359-387). New York, NY: Routledge.