Designing and Situating Text to Promote Textual Dexterity in the Context of Project-Based Science Instruction

Abstract

In this conceptual paper, we present a discussion of how we have embraced two challenges, posed by Aukerman and Schuldt, in their call for a more socially just science of reading, to which this special issue is responsive. Specifically, we share lessons learned from years of designing texts that (a) advance knowledge-building in the context of project-based science teaching and (b) advance readers’ textual dexterity. Our research is conducted in the context of project-based learning in science, and we approach our inquiry from multiple theoretical perspectives. We argue for the importance of text in science instruction. We present theories, empirical support, and national standards consistent with the integration of text in science. We discuss the role that texts can play in project-based science instruction. We also illustrate the design and optimization of texts and tasks, as well as the role of the teacher in this instruction.

1. Designing and Situating Text to Promote Textual Dexterity in the Context of Project-Based Science Instruction

In their solicitation of manuscripts for this special issue, the editors, Walker-Dalhouse and Risko, cited the article in which Aukerman and Schuldt [1] call for a “robust and socially just science of reading” (p. S86). There are two specific challenges that Aukerman and Schuldt issue in their call that are resonant with the research in which we have been engaged. One is to “wrestle more fully” with “the range of ways of using text that instruction should prioritize” (p. S88), and the other is to promote readers’ “textual dexterity”, which they characterize as “allow[ing] readers to access, understand, use, and scrutinize text for purposes that matter to them” (p. S87). In this conceptual paper, we present a discussion of how we have embraced these two challenges in our work. Our goal has been to advance an understanding of how the design (i.e., writing and incorporating graphics and illustrations), placement (i.e., how the text is situated within a set of instructional activities), and use (i.e., how the teacher and students interact with the text during instruction) of text within a project-based science curriculum can promote the textual dexterity for which Aukerman and Schuldt advocate. Our focus has been on the interplay of the design, placement, and use of text. Specifically, we share lessons learned from years of designing texts that (a) advance knowledge-building in the context of project-based science teaching and (b) advance readers’ textual dexterity. We have experienced these as synergistic goals; that is, the design and use of text can both shape opportunities to advance textual dexterity, and thoughtfulness about the characteristics of textual dexterity can inform the design process.

We begin with an explanation of why we have been committed to the study of selecting, designing, and using text. Our rationale is based in epistemology, theory, empirical evidence, and national (U.S.) standards. We then step back to describe the project-based science learning context in which we have conducted our research and development. This description is followed by a discussion, with illustrations of classroom instruction, of what we have learned in the course of our work.

2. Why Text in Science Instruction

Norris and Phillips [2] made a compelling argument that “nothing resembling what we know as western science would be possible without text” (p. 224); they elaborated that reading and writing are not merely tools for the storage and transmission of science, but instead are constitutive parts of science in the sense that scientific knowledge relies upon the cumulative discourse made possible by text. This cumulative discourse is made possible because the scientific community approaches texts in a critical fashion, using texts to both support and refute claims and arguments about phenomena. Consistent with teaching for textual dexterity, students need similar opportunities to learn to comprehend and critique disciplinary-specific texts [3], and science texts afford that opportunity.

Texts record the meanings we make [4] and include illustrations, diagrams, digital simulations, and words. Consistent with a number of researchers [5,6], we conceive of texts as tools that can support students’ learning of science, and we consider the capacity to read, interpret, make use of, and evaluate text as examples of a scientific practice [7]) and also as consistent with demonstrating textual dexterity.

3. Theories in Support of the Integration of Text and Science

Fitzgerald and Palincsar [8] explained that “sensemaking entails being active, self-conscious, motivated, and purposeful in the world” (p. 227). Across grades and disciplines, students are continually engaged in making sense of the natural and social world around them. Thus, sensemaking is at the heart of “good” science teaching, and the focus of standards-aligned science instruction is on engaging students in making sense of and explaining phenomena. Text is one tool that can support students’ sensemaking in science. Multiple models of text comprehension and use help us understand how text can be used as a tool for sensemaking.

Cognitive psychologist Walter Kintsch [9] has provided one of the most comprehensive and explicit theories of language comprehension in what he refers to as the construction–integration model of text comprehension. As the name suggests, there are two processes that are essential to comprehension: construction and integration. When we read, we use the information that is presented in a text to construct (or build) meaning of the text ideas. In addition, we integrate the newly constructed ideas with existing ideas that we already have regarding the topic. The product of this meaning construction is called a mental representation of the text. The meaning-building process begins with understanding words, phrases, and sentences and then involves integrating information in a paragraph, and across paragraphs and larger sections of text. This integration results in new learning, or new or elaborated knowledge. Readers can then draw on that knowledge in other contexts, whether reading-related or not.

Kintsch [9] further elaborated that there are two possible mental representations of the text: the textbase and the situation model. He referred to the representation that results from the immediate sensemaking of the words and phrases in the text itself as the textbase. He referred to the mental representation that results from the integration of the textbase with prior knowledge as the situation model. Constructing a situation model of text information is key to comprehension; it is, in fact, the mechanism by which new knowledge is built through interaction with that text. Building knowledge, or learning from text, is the foundation for further learning and knowledge-building, which in turn supports the comprehension of new texts. As Duke et al. [10] suggested, “knowledge begets comprehension begets knowledge” (p. 55).

Although Kintsch’s Construction/Integration model speaks to the cognitive processes in which the reader engages, the Four Resources Model of Freebody and Luke [11], which is consistent with sociocultural theory, focuses on the roles that readers must play in the process of text comprehension, roles that vary depending on a wide range of contextual variables, such as the context and purposes for reading. These roles include code- breaker (focusing on mapping spellings to sounds and vice versa), meaning-maker (focusing on the message of the text, including the knowledge required to understand it), text user (focusing on the pragmatics of use—the functions a text serves in a social context), and text analyst (focusing on unpacking social, economic, and political assumptions behind the text and the consequences of using the text; later referred to as text critic). While the first two roles are integral to Kintsch’s model, the last two roles extend our discussion regarding reading science text in significant ways. It is not enough to enable students to decode and interpret text; we must also support students to recognize the purposes for which a text has been written (e.g., Does the text describe the method by which an investigation was conducted? Does the text present evidence? Does the text provide an explanation? Does the information in this text support or contradict my own investigation results? Can I use the information in these texts to further support an argument? How can I investigate questions raised by this text? How does this information in this text help me explain this phenomenon?), but readers must also be taught how to evaluate the reliability of the text (e.g., Is there enough clarity and completeness regarding the investigative procedure? Is the evidence clear and compelling? Is the explanation consistent with—and bolstered by—the evidence? How does the author express certainty or introduce doubt in the text?).

Consistent with the Four Resources Model, sociocultural perspectives reject the view that knowledge is located solely within the individual and, instead, embrace the view that learning and understanding are inherently social, occurring through interaction, negotiation, and collaboration [12]. Additionally, from sociocultural perspectives, cultural activities (such as explaining phenomena or obtaining, evaluating, and communicating scientific information) and tools (such as language and texts) are integral to meaning-making.

In addition to the models already presented, newer models of reading, such as Cartwright and Duke’s [13] DRIVE model of reading, which combines cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, emphasize important roles for motivation and engagement in reading. Project-based learning and reading opportunities within project-based learning are designed to promote students’ motivation and engagement through providing readers with opportunities for choice, collaboration, and meaningful purposes for which to read.

This expansive view, which combines complementary theories from cognitive and sociocultural perspectives of reading helps us make the case that researchers and educators need to be concerned about the nature and use of text in their research and teaching. Having presented the epistemological and theoretical rationale for focusing on text in science learning, we turn to several empirical studies supporting the integration of text and science.

4. Empirical Support for Advancing the Integration of Literacy and Science Instruction

Cooper et al. [14] determined that students with better reading scores were more likely to pursue the study of biology, chemistry, and physics. This finding emerged from a study in Australia that was conducted to determine why the numbers of Australian secondary students choosing to pursue the study of science courses was declining. Although the researchers considered the role of SES, indigeneity, and gender, they found that what distinguished the profiles of secondary students who elected science courses was stronger foundational language literacy. The authors argue that cultural capital, realized in language literacy achievement, translated to science capital in the case of these students.

Similarly, Zhu [15], drawing on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, exploring the relationship between student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science, determined that, while reading and mathematics were both important predictors of science achievement, the effects of reading significantly exceeded those of math.

It has been well documented that teachers prioritize the teaching of the English language arts (ELA) in the elementary grades as measured by the sheer amount of time allocated to ELA instruction [16] to the detriment of science teaching. Although this has often been attributed to the role of high-stakes standardized assessments that feature ELA, a less cynical explanation is that teachers of young students aspire to equip their charges with tools that will support independent learning; these tools clearly include reading, writing, and oral language. If we can identify ways in which students develop these tools in the context of engaging in science practices, we have a “win-win” situation. Furthermore, it is easier to engage students in learning to use literacy tools if there are interesting and meaningful reasons to use them [17,18].

Finally, if we do not begin teaching reading and science in an integrated fashion and in the early grades, it will be very hard, if not impossible, to ensure that our citizens leave school with the capacity to make informed decisions regarding the world they wish to live in and leave for the next generation [19]. Kahler et al. [20] determined that the acquisition of scientific literacy begins in early childhood. Using longitudinal data on the scientific literacy of 2937 children from kindergarten to third grade, the researchers used linear latent growth curve models and determined that, while instruction in science did not close the gap in children’s entering scientific literacy, a scientific focus in kindergarten did have positive effects on the scientific literacy of kindergarten children. At the other end of the continuum, Lennox et al. [21] determined that when undergraduate students are not supported to learn how to interpret and use science text effectively, they are overconfident in their abilities to interpret text and fail to enlist the strategies that would support deep learning with text. Aukerman and Schuldt [1] asked, “How can reading instruction best help students develop and flourish as literate beings in the ways that matter most?” (p. S86). Clearly, promoting both science and literacy learning matters for students. Next, we turn to research on instruction that was designed to integrate literacy and science in the elementary grades.

There is a tradition of studying the integration of science and literacy instruction in the elementary grades. Multiple programs of research have focused on understanding whether and how curriculum designed to support students’ learning of science and literacy in an integrated fashion might improve students’ knowledge and skill in both domains. One approach that has received increased attention in recent years is commonly referred to as knowledge-rich ELA curricula. Illustrative is the research of Kim et al. [22] and Connor et al. [23]. This approach focuses on wide and strategic reading of thematically-related informational texts about science topics. Another approach is focused on integrating instruction in ways that foreground both hands-on or investigation-based science instruction and literacy instruction [17,24,25,26,27].

Examples include Romance and Vitale’s [26] research on Science IDEAS, Guthrie et al.’s [17] research on Concept Oriented Reading Instruction, Cervetti et al.’s [24] research on Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading, Wright and Gotwals’ [27] research on SOLID Start, and Fitzgerald’s [25] research on Multiple Literacies in Project-based Learning (MLPBL). These programs of research point to some essential features of instruction that integrates literacy—including text—in science. In each case, the researchers selected or designed and integrated texts with an eye to supporting both the attainment of important scientific concepts and opportunities to learn with challenging text. Another feature that is characteristic across these programs of research is the thoughtful placement of text. In each, text is paired with investigation in a variety of ways. As an example, in our own work on [Project Name], text is sometimes used in preparation for an investigation, sometimes the text is used following an investigation to support students to revise or refine their explanations, and sometimes the reading of a text is interrupted by a first-hand investigation to explore an idea that has been introduced in the text. Thus, there is no one way to think about the incorporation of text in science instruction; rather, the optimal use of text needs to reflect the role that text plays vis a vis first-hand investigation. Most noteworthy is the fact that in none of these programs of research is text being used independently of students’ first-hand activities or investigations.

5. Text and National Standards

Finally, we turn to two national standards documents specific to the use of text in curricula: the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts [28] and the Next Generation Science Standards [29]. At the heart of the CCSS is the argument that, “Just as students must learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use language effectively in a variety of content areas, so too must the Standards specify the literacy skills and understandings required for college and career readiness in multiple disciplines” [29]. The reference to “multiple disciplines” signals the designers’ awareness that teaching generic literacy skills, such as identifying main ideas, drawing inferences, and using text structure, needs to occur in the context of reading disciplinary-specific texts (e.g., natural science and social science texts, literary texts) for disciplinary-specific purposes. Within the NGSS, Practice 8: Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information represents the most obvious intersection of reading and science.

Furthermore, the framers of the CCSS were concerned that students learn to engage in “close, attentive reading” of challenging text, which they urged must include informational text. Science texts are a good example of the challenging informational text to which the framers of the CCSS refer. These texts often present information that is conceptually rich but also conceptually dense and abstract. An example from one of our third-grade units—Why do I see so many squirrels but I can’t find any stegosauruses?—is a text about the survival of koalas and the disappearance of other species in Australia. The text states, “Many thousands (45,000) of years ago, the koala (koe-wa-la) lived with 23 other species of animals on the continent of Australia. Today, it is the only surviving species in Australia from that time period”. In these few sentences, the students need to take up both the code-breaker and meaning-maker roles to consider extensive time, the concept of “species”, and the location and nature of Australia as a continent.

Science texts often include terminology that is unfamiliar to many students. For example, the same text states, “When they are about six months old, their mother begins to produce a special substance called pap. Pap comes from the mother’s intestines and contains bacteria. These are bacteria that the koala needs to have in its own intestines so that it can eat and digest eucalyptus leaves and get the water from the leaves”. Terminology likely to be unfamiliar to third-grade students include: Produce, substance, intestines, bacteria, digest, and eucalyptus. Encountering unfamiliar terminology places heavy demands on students as they assume code-breaker and meaning-maker roles.

In addition, science texts present explanations using language in ways that students do not encounter in their everyday uses of language, or in their reading of fictional and narrative text [30,31]. For example, the Koala text states, “Scientists know that, 45,000 years ago, Sapiens (the earliest name given to humans) built boats that could be used to travel across the ocean and reach Australia. Is it just by chance that, when Sapiens reached Australia, the huge species of animals disappeared? We cannot know for sure. Some scientists think that the disappearance was caused by changes in the climate. These scientists believe that these large animals could not survive the changes. But other scientists think that there is evidence that Sapiens played a big role in the disappearance of these animals”. In this paragraph, the students are presented with competing explanations; the reader needs to assume the role of meaning-maker to recognize the disparate explanations, and they need to understand the crosscutting concept of cause and effect.

Furthermore, the CCSS framers advocated that students, throughout the grades, learn to engage in argumentation; that is, to prepare arguments in which they present claims supported by clear reasons and relevant evidence. While it is not uncommon for elementary students to read and write persuasive texts, which try to convince someone of a particular position (e.g., persuading the principal that the school needs better playground equipment), children have not typically had experience arguing with the use of evidence gathered from text or from experience (e.g., the experience of doing an investigation) [32]. As students read the text about the koala and the disappearance of other organisms, the teacher is guided to ask students to take on the text-critic role and determine what they think about the scientists’ reasoning as presented in the text and whether and why they agree or disagree with the scientists’ explanations. In this way, the teacher is guided to promote students’ textual dexterity by supporting students to use the text to make sense of the phenomenon they are investigating and to scrutinize the text by bringing their own knowledge to bear in order to critique the explanations and reasoning of scientists.

Finally, although the elementary-grade science standards call for students to obtain and combine information from text to construct explanations and engage in argumentation (aligned with aspects of the text user role), it is noteworthy that the standards begin to call for students to bring a critical stance to their reading of science text as they proceed through the middle and secondary grades (aligned with aspects of the text critic role).

We turn now to the research and development in which we have been engaged, the purpose of which has been to investigate the productive integration of literacy and science in the elementary grades, with a focus on the selection, design and use of text. We have conducted our scholarship in the context of project-based learning in science, which we describe next.

6. Project-Based Learning and Project-Based Science Instruction

Project-based learning (PBL) is an approach to teaching and learning in which students are supported to engage in sustained inquiry focused on exploring and addressing real-world problems through participating in projects [33]. Findings of a recent meta-analysis of PBL research indicated that PBL demonstrated a positive effect on academic achievement when compared with more traditional approaches to instruction [34].

Despite evidence that PBL holds promise for promoting student learning across grade levels and content areas, questions remain about key design principles that contribute to the effectiveness of PBL curricula and learning environments. Based on a synthesis of PBL research projects, Baines et al. [33] identified four design principles as core—or essential—for rigorous PBL instruction. First, Baines et al. [33] proposed that PBL learning experiences should be purposeful and meaningful to students. To achieve this, research indicates that rigorous PBL instructional units are guided by a Driving Question that is connected to real-world issues and students’ lived experiences and communities. This principle is well-aligned with Aukerman and Schuldt’s [1] notion of textual dexterity because when text is integrated in PBL, it can provide opportunities for readers to “access, understand, use, and scrutinize text for purposes that matter to them” (p. S87) through the texts’ connection to real-world issues and students’ lived experiences and communities. Second, PBL should be designed to promote learning in one or more core subject areas and be guided by disciplinary (or interdisciplinary) learning goals to intentionally build students’ academic skills and knowledge. Third, essential to rigorous PBL are meaningful and supportive relationships that promote students’ social-emotional competence, which includes creating and maintaining learning environments and instructional opportunities that promote positive peer relationships and interactions, as well as positive teacher–student relationships in the classroom. Finally, Baines et al. [33] identified teaching practices that are based on research evidence as key to rigorous PBL, such as supporting students to engage in disciplinary practices and content, promoting critical thinking, including multiple and varied opportunities for students to create and revise artifacts throughout a project to demonstrate their learning, providing meaningful opportunities for students to share their learning with others, and providing ongoing feedback from teachers and peers.

The project-based science curriculum on which we focus in this manuscript—MLPBL —is guided by design principles that are consistent with those identified by Baines et al. [33]. MLBL is an upper-elementary grades PBL curriculum that is designed to address the three-dimensional learning goals of the Next Generation Science Standards and to integrate literacy and mathematics (addressing selected CCSS) as tools for meaningfully and successfully engaging in deep science learning.

In the Project Name curriculum, which will be the focus of this article, there are four six-to-nine-week units. Each unit starts with a Driving Question that is meaningful to students and designed to guide and motivate their learning and inquiry throughout the instructional unit (e.g., How can we design fun moving toys that other kids can build?). A second feature of Project Name is that each unit—and the lessons within a unit—focuses on standards-aligned disciplinary learning goals that serve as objectives for students’ skill and knowledge development within and across instructional units. NGSS learning goals are three-dimensional, which means that instruction is not only focused on supporting students to build deep knowledge of core disciplinary ideas (disciplinary core ideas [DCIs] and crosscutting concepts [CCCs]) but is also focused on supporting students to learn and use scientific and engineering practices (SEPs) to make sense of phenomena; in other words, the NGSS is designed to promote students’ development of knowledge in use [35]. To pursue learning goals, students participate in first-hand investigations and create artifacts to demonstrate their learning in pursuit of the unit Driving Question. In

Table 1. Sample features of unit: Why do I see so many squirrels but I can’t find any stegosauruses?

Learning Set Questions	Sample Disciplinary Core Ideas	Samples Science Practices	Sample Crosscutting Concepts	Example Texts (Example Roles)
What do squirrels need to survive?	Evidence of common ancestry and diversity Adaptation	Developing and using models Obtain, evaluate, and communicate info	Cause and effect Systems and system models	Squirrel Survival Texts (Provide information to supplement first-hand evidence)
How are the squirrel’s structures unique and important?	Natural selection Inheritance of traits Variation of traits	Planning and carrying out investigations Constructing explanations	Structure and function Patterns Cause and effect	For Squirrels, It’s Headfirst and Down! (Everyday experiences shown in new way)
What other organisms live around here, and does the squirrel need them to survive?	Biodiversity and humans Ecosystem dynamics, functioning, and resilience	Asking questions and defining problems Engaging in argument from evidence	Systems and system models Structure and function	Organism Texts (Establish connections between investigations and crosscutting concepts)
How do scientists use evidence to find out about prehistoric organisms?	Adaptation Weather and climate Evidence of common ancestry and diversity	Analyzing and interpreting data Constructing explanations	Scale, proportion, and quantity Stability and change Structure and function	Animals from Today and Long Ago (Aspects of natural world unlikely to be familiar)
How do we use fossils to figure out how organisms changed over time?	Evidence of common ancestry and diversity Adaptation Biodiversity and humans	Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data	Stability and change Systems and system models Structure and function	Stone Girl Bone Girl: The Story of Mary Anning [36] (Connect investigations to work of scientists)
Why did some animals die out and some live?	Adaptation Biodiversity and humans Evidence of common ancestry and diversity	Developing and using models Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating info.	Systems and system models Cause and effect	The Koala: A Success Story! (Illustrating scientific practices)

, we provide sample features from one unit—Why do I see so many squirrels but I can’t find any stegosauruses?—including learning set questions, example DCIs, SEPs, CCCS, texts, and roles the texts play in the unit.

Collaboration is also an essential feature of project-based learning, generally, and [Project Name], specifically. In MLPBL students collaborate with one another, their teacher, and others in the community as they pursue the Driving Question. For example, in the unit—Why do I see so many squirrels but I can’t find any stegosauruses?—third-grade students collaborate with one another and the teacher to develop and revise models that describe how squirrels survive in their environments, how stegosauruses survived in prehistoric environments, and interactions among organisms in particular habitats.

Another feature of MLPBL instruction is that students use a variety of tools to scaffold their learning, investigations, and collaboration, such as digital technologies. For example, students use a digital drawing and animation application to develop science models to explain, for example, what causes particular toys to start moving and how different forces (e.g., friction, gravity) affect the motion of toys. A final feature of the MLPBL curriculum is the use of literacy tools of reading, writing, viewing, and representation to build knowledge and use science practices. Within and across MLPBL units, students have multiple opportunities to read and interpret a variety of traditional print, multimodal, and digital texts as they engage in projects and pursue Driving Questions.

In the following sections, we describe our efforts to integrate text in MLPBL. We begin by describing the roles our texts have played. We then turn to principles that have guided our design of text in project-based science instruction. Finally, we discuss the optimal use of text and the role of the teacher in supporting students to use text productively.

7. What Roles Have Texts Played in Investigation- and Project-Based Science Teaching?

In response to Aukerman and Schuldt’s [1] challenge, one way we have attempted to wrestle with the range of ways of using text is through selecting, designing, and placing text within the curriculum to serve particular roles in the context of project-based science learning. In the context of their work on the Seeds of Science, Roots of Reading curriculum, Cervetti and Barber [37] proposed a framework that included five meaningful roles in which texts can serve in investigation-based science instruction. These roles included (1) providing a context for first-hand investigations, (2) illustrating science practices, (3) supporting students’ first-hand investigations, (4) providing opportunities for students to engage in second-hand investigations, and (5) providing science content. Cervetti and Barbar [37] also mapped these roles onto uses of text in science that are authentic to practicing scientists. For example, using text to provide context for students’ first-hand investigations is similar to the ways in which scientists use reading to situate their research. In addition, students using text to support their first-hand investigations is similar to scientists’ use of reference materials to support their research. These examples illustrate a range of ways in which students may engage in the social and cultural language and literacy practices of scientists as they participate in integrated curricula.

There are a number of roles for text that we have explored in our work on the MLPBL project, some of which overlap with those proposed by Cervetti and Barber [37] and some of which extend beyond their proposed roles. In our work, we begin with the notion that texts can be used to invite students to think about their everyday experiences in a new way. For example, in a unit of study for third graders on growing plants for food in their community, we used the trade book How Did that Get in My Lunchbox? [38]. In a study conducted in the U.K. in 2013, 27,500 five-to-sixteen-year-olds were surveyed about the source of the foods we eat. One-third of the students thought that cheese was made from plants, 10% thought that tomatoes grow underground, 19% thought that potatoes grow above ground, with 10% assuming they grew on bushes, and a third of five-to-eight-year-olds thought that pasta and bread were made from meat. The authors of How Did that Get in My Lunchbox? trace the origins of foods that might typically make their way into a lunch box (sandwich bread, peanut butter, jam, apple) from the farm, through the processing plant, and into the grocery store. Before reading and discussing the Lunchbox text, the third graders were asked to identify their favorite food and illustrate where they thought that food might come from. Following the reading of the Lunchbox text, the students studied the ingredients of food packages, connecting the reading to investigating foods and food sources that they encounter daily.

We also use text to share aspects of the natural world that are unlikely to be familiar to elementary students. For example, the authors of A Seed is Sleepy [39] share fascinating information (accompanied by stunning water-color paintings) about various seed types, how they get from place to place, the conditions they need to grow, and what their typical life cycle is. The students participated in an interactive read aloud of this book before they conducted close observations of seeds they planted and watched grow and studied seed packets for the rich information they provide.

We also use text to introduce the natural contexts in which scientific phenomena unfold. For example, to help third graders understand the potential consequences of hazardous weather on plant growth, they read a newsletter that was prepared by a local orchard grower. The grower describes the unfortunate—and costly—consequences of unseasonably warm weather in the winter months on his apple crop.

We make use of text to establish connections between students’ investigations and core ideas and cross-cutting concepts in the units of study. For example, we designed a text entitled The Balloon Rocket Story, which is a hybrid text that combines the use of narrative with exposition and is used in a unit of study on force and motion. The text describes the frustrated efforts of two children to construct an operational balloon rocket toy. One of the characters in the text, an aunt who is an engineer, provides the children with useful ideas regarding mechanical systems and the role of friction in motion to help them troubleshoot this problem scenario.

We try, with each unit, to include biographical texts that connect the students’ investigations with the work of professional scientists and engineers. For example, in a unit on prehistoric and modern animal adaptation, children were engaged in an interactive read aloud with a trade book about Mary Anning [36], a 12-year-old English girl who discovered an Ichthyosaurus skeleton in 1811. Anning pursued a life-long interest in fossils, making a number of contributions to paleontology. In the “force and motion” unit of study, the children read a researcher-crafted biography of Dr. Lonnie Johnson, the NASA engineer who invented the “Super Soaker”. In a unit on the importance of fires to supporting plant and animal life, the students read researcher-designed texts that were constructed after interviewing five fire ecologists. These texts reveal how these ecologists chose and prepared for their career. The interview texts also include insights from the fire ecologists regarding their work and how they use knowledge of the behavior of fire and the specific context in which they are conducting controlled burns to do their work safely.

In each case, we have selected or written texts that reveal information not only about the accomplishments of the scientist/engineer but that also speak to how they went about their work. For example, Dr. Lonnie Johnson’s story features the circumstances under which Dr. Johnson observed the effects of compressed air and used this observation to significantly transform a traditional squirt gun into a dramatic water-blaster. The guides that we prepare for teachers to use while teaching with these texts call attention to how these biographies inform our understanding of scientists/engineers and their practices and dispositions. Furthermore, as the students engage in their own investigations, they are reminded about what they learned about the conduct of science and engineering practice through these biographical texts. In the case of Mary Anning, Dr. Lonnie Johnson, and the fire ecologists, the students also view videos that share more information about these important and fascinating individuals.

We use text to illustrate the diversity of citizens, scientists, and engineers who have contributed to the advancement of science and have used science to address social justice issues. For example, we share the story of Ron Finley, also known as the “Gangsta Gardener”, who is known for cultivating community gardens to redress food deserts in urban areas, such as Los Angeles. We share the story of George Washington Carver, who traveled across poor rural communities teaching productive growing practices and teaching the farmers how their peanut crops could be used for a variety of purposes. Mary Anning, whose story we include, discovered some of the most significant fossils, despite having little formal education, since females were denied advanced education during her lifetime. As we have mentioned, we also include the biography of Dr. Lonnie Johnson, a Black NASA scientist who, in addition to contributing to the space program, invented the popular “Super Soaker” toy.

We also include informational texts that are principally for the purpose of illustrating scientific practices, such as asking questions, developing and using models, planning and conducting investigations, and designing solutions. In the plant unit, for example, the students read about the work of Jim Flore, a plant physiologist who is investigating ways to reduce crop damage caused by unseasonably warm weather. As another example, in a unit about the inheritance and variation of traits that allow birds to survive differently in the same environment, the students read about three investigations scientists have conducted to systematically explore hypotheses about how birds navigate their migratory paths.

Texts, in our work, play an important role in providing information designed to supplement evidence that students collect first-hand. For example, in a fourth-grade unit of study on water-energy, the students read about the process of erosion and how mudslides change the shape of the land. These readings are designed to extend the investigations the students have conducted with stream tables in which they explore, on a very small scale, the role of water energy in the erosion process. These texts are embedded in a digital device, and the students are prompted to enter text in which they write about the connections between their own investigations and the ideas in the text.

A number of our texts are designed to provide information that simply cannot be observed in a classroom context. Examples include an article about prehistoric life or aspects of animals’ traits and/or behaviors that cannot be observed first-hand in the classroom, and a brief explanation about how the parts of the ear (external and internal) collect and transfer sound energy.

Text is used to introduce academic language and ideas with which to build and communicate knowledge. For example, students read a brief text that introduced them to the term energy and how scientists use this term. They consulted field guides, such as The Young Birder’s Guide [40] which provides information about the bird they have selected for in-depth study, and they explore websites (i.e., the Cornell Ornithology Lab and the Audubon sites) to gather additional information. The information-gathering is in the service of a multimedia report that students will share.

As we construct texts, we also include opportunities for students to interpret data that are presented with the use of graphs and data tables. In some cases, the data are simply presented to the students. For example, in the unit about prehistoric and modern animal adaptations, students were presented with a table documenting the measurements of animals from the Jurassic Period and from contemporary times. They also investigate data that report on the migration patterns of different birds. In other cases, students construct data tables themselves to display information they have secured through their own observations and investigations. For example, they graph the height of plants grown under varying light conditions, and they graph the distance a toy car travels as a function of the material it is traveling on. The conversations regarding these texts focus on interpreting the information and generating claims from the data.

Finally, we include an array of graphic representations in our texts; these include models, images, illustrations, and diagrams. While these graphic representations enhance the appearance of the texts, they also provide opportunities for students to learn how to engage in close observations of graphic displays, a skill that cannot be assumed (even among adults) [41].

8. How Should Texts Be Designed to Optimize Their Use?

In order to address Aukerman and Schuldt’s [1] question, “How can reading instruction best help students develop and flourish as literate beings in the ways that matter most?”, (p. S86) and their challenge to wrestle with ways of using text in instruction that prioritize and promote readers’ textual dexterity, our work has focused both on the design of text and its use in elementary-grade classrooms. As the reader has inferred by now, the texts that we include in our units are derived from a range of sources, including high-quality trade books (when they are not too costly and are still in print); we include links to digital texts (including websites) that we consider to be accessible in terms of content and presentation, and we write a number of our texts when there are not grade-appropriate or content-appropriate text sources. About 75% of the text we use is researcher-constructed. This is not surprising since one of the challenges of broadly available texts is that they are not typically up to the task of supporting either disciplinary habits of mind or comprehension. For these reasons, there have been calls for the development of multimodal, interactive, and disciplinary texts [42,43]. The research in which we are engaged is designed to be responsive to these calls. Over the course of time, a set of design principles, guiding the writing of the texts, has begun to emerge from our development efforts.

Consistent with the tenets of project-based learning—one feature of which is the strong presence of a driving question—we generally make explicit connections to the unit driving question. At times, this connection serves to introduce the text (e.g., “You have been learning about how water energy has shaped our earth…”), as well as conclude a text (e.g., “You will be investigating how water energy can be used to power our communities”). We often make direct reference to students’ classroom experiences as the unit has been enacted. This is one of the ways in which we strive to promote readers’ textual dexterity through providing reading opportunities that are connected to their classroom experiences and background knowledge. For example, in the text about the koala and the disappearance of other organisms, the students read the following:

Think about all that you have learned about how organisms survive in their environment. Look closely at the pictures of the koala and its habitat. What do you think could explain how the koala survives? Why would it be the only species to survive from that time period? What happened to the rest of the species?

In addition to making connections to unit investigations or experiences, we make reference to students’ experiences in the world and connect those experiences to the topic. This is another way in which we strive to design texts that are meaningful to students and connect to their experiences. For example, in a text that introduces the term, “energy”, we write:

You probably hear the word “energy” used a lot. Maybe an adult has asked you, “Where do you get all that energy?”. You may have eaten something called “an energy bar”. You may hear an advertisement for “energy-saving light bulbs”. Now that you are studying erosion, you have been learning about the energy that moving water can transfer to the material with which it collides. How can this word, “energy” be used to describe so many different things? What do scientists mean when they use the word, energy? In this text, we will learn about what scientists mean when they use the word energy, and we will learn about two kinds of energy.

As appropriate, texts for one lesson are explicitly related to previously read texts from other lessons in the unit. This design principle supports our goal of designing texts that will contribute to the coherence of the unit of study.

We use embedded questions in our texts for the dual purpose of piquing curiosity and promoting active engagement and interaction with ideas in the text. For example, in a text that is designed to support the students’ understanding of bird migration, they read the following:

First, there is the question: Are birds really navigating? That is, are they figuring out how to get from one place to another, or are they just following some instinct that tells them where to go? Think about that question for a few minutes. If you wanted to learn the answer to this question: Are birds really navigating? What would you do? [Wouldn’t it be cool if we could just interview the birds?]

9. The Design of Tasks to Support the Productive Use of Texts in Science

As the reader may have begun to realize, the tasks that make use of texts are just as important as the texts themselves. In response to Aukerman and Schuldt’s [1] challenge, we have been wrestling with ways of using text that might be prioritized in project-based science instruction. Valencia, Wixson, and Pearson [44] remind us that the characteristics of text are but one of several factors that influence comprehension; furthermore, they highlight the relationship between texts and tasks and urge that these be considered in tandem when considering the complexity of text. In our research, we try to be as thoughtful about the tasks in which students are engaged as we are about the features of the text. In each case, we strive to make the reading of the text meaningful to advancing knowledge and integral to promoting interest, curiosity, and enthusiasm for the topic at hand. In other words, we strive to promote readers’ textual dexterity through designing a range of ways of using text in project-based science instruction for purposes that matter to students. We also strive to design texts and tasks that provide opportunities for students to take on the roles outlined in the Four Resources Model, especially those of meaning-maker, text user, and text critic.

In our work, one of the most important considerations in designing tasks that make use of texts is identifying and designing opportunities for students to use text as a tool for engaging in science practices. As mentioned previously, one of the most obvious intersections of using integrating text in science and engaging in science practices is Practice 8 of the NGSS, which calls for students to participate in “obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information”. Although this is a clear intersection, we have found that there are many opportunities for students to use text in the service of other science practices as well. For example, in MLPBL, we often use texts as a launchpad for engaging students in “asking questions” (NGSS Practice 1). In the text of an interview with Ron Finley, the Gangsta Gardener, about community gardening that students read at the beginning of the Plant unit, students generate questions to post on the Driving Question board that they are interested in investigating during the unit. As another example, in a unit about organism adaptations and ecosystem dynamics, after reading a text about squirrels’ structures, students revise scientific models (NGSS Practice 2) that they are developing to explain how squirrels survive in their habitat. Also in the Plant unit, students read a historical fiction text about George Washington Carver and use information in the text and their observations of illustrations in the text to support them to plan and conduct their own investigation (NGSS Practice 3) of how different features of the environment (e.g., type of soil, amount of sunlight, amount of water) affect plants’ traits. Finally, as students read the Balloon Rocket text in the Toys unit, they analyze and interpret secondhand data (NGSS Practice 4) provided in the text and use that data as evidence to construct an explanation (NGSS Practice 6) about the phenomenon described in the text.

When the primary goal is aligned with Practice 8, Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information from text, there are a variety of ways in which we structure tasks. One way that we do this is by “jigsawing” [45] the reading of text. For example, students do not read all three of the investigations scientists have done to study bird migration; rather, they study one investigation (displacement, eye masking, or study of the role of the earth’s magnetic field) and prepare a poster that illustrates the investigation to share with the entire class.

Another dimension of tasks related to reading and obtaining information from texts is the use of writing. For example, in the plant unit, the students generate a portfolio entitled “Ready Set Grow!”. This report provides a context for students to share what they have learned about the plants that they grew for their class garden. In the bird unit, the students are positioned as ornithologists and are asked to document, in a digital ornithology lab, what they are learning about the bird for which they are the specialist (its structure/function relationships, predator/prey relationships, nesting behaviors, and social habits) and to include documentation of a design solution (i.e., bird feeder or bird house) they developed to help particular birds in their community survive and thrive. In addition to incorporating written descriptions of their bird and design solution, they can import jpg files and video files (including videos of themselves mimicking their bird’s calls).

In the Toys unit, students develop a “design portfolio” in which they trace their design process from initial prototype to final toy. The portfolio includes the results of their design tests and the documentation of changes to their toy to improve its design over the course of the unit. The portfolio also includes student models that explain the motion of their toy and the forces that affect the motion of their toy (e.g., gravity, friction), as well as their findings from interviews with younger students about how to improve the design of their toy.

As a final example, in the unit on prehistoric and modern animal adaptations, students conclude the unit by preparing a class-developed model in which they address the driving question, “Why do we see so many squirrels and no stegosauruses?”. In their model, students are encouraged to explain how squirrels survive in their environment, how stegosauruses survived in their environment, how eutherian (squirrel-like) animals survived in their environment during the Jurassic period, and why they think stegosauruses no longer exist.

Videos and simulations are additional text sources in our curriculum. We treat the videos as text, even developing viewing guides to encourage the students to view the video in a purposeful manner and to provide the grist for the class to debrief following the viewing of a video. The following are sample questions designed to support the students’ viewing of and notetaking regarding a GPS study of an owl’s migration story.

As you watch, be thinking about:

• What are some of the questions that scientists have about snowy owls?
• Why do scientists think that owls might stop at places like airports that are wide open spaces?
• How did this “owl sleuth” conduct his research?

Yet another dimension of the task is the manner in which we group students. When students are reading texts independently, rather than participating in a whole class reading and discussion of the text, they are often paired as partners. We will frequently embed opportunities for a turn-and-talk moment in researcher-designed texts. For example, in the text that describes how humans capture sound energy, the students read the following:

To check your understanding of how humans gather and interpret sound energy, turn to your partner and, using the diagram above, trace the path of sound energy to and through the ear to the brain.

To support our description of the features of text selection/design, roles, placement, and associated tasks,

Table 2. One third-grade unit example texts, roles, placement, and tasks.

Example Text	Example Role	Placement	Task
Squirrel Survival Texts (e.g., Escaping Predators, Finding Food, Raising Young, Surviving Winter)	Provide information to supplement first-hand evidence	Students read these texts after using photographs and videos to make observations and draw initial models to describe how squirrels survive	After reading, students revisit and revise models describing how squirrels survive in their habitats, based on new information from the texts.
For Squirrels, It’s Headfirst and Down!	Show everyday experiences in a new way	Students read this text after making video observations and conducting investigations of how squirrels eat and jump compared to humans	After reading, students revisit and revise models describing how squirrels survive in their habitats, based on new information from the text.
Organism Structure Function Texts (e.g., ants, cottontail rabbits, coyotes, earthworks, white pine trees, red-tailed hawks, garden spiders)	Establish connections between investigations and crosscutting concepts	Students read this text after activating their prior knowledge related to observing organisms around their community and brainstorming how organisms interact with one another within a system	After reading one or more of the texts, students collaborate to construct a class model that describes interactions among the organisms, including squirrels.
Animals from Today and Long Ago	Illustrate aspects of the natural world unlikely to be familiar to students	Students read this text after examining and comparing diagrams and skeletons of the Juramaia (a prehistoric mammal) and squirrels and making claims about how the organism’s structures helped them survive in their habitats	After reading this text, students revisit and make additions to a class model that describes interactions of organisms that lived in a prehistoric environment.
The Koala: A Success Story!	Illustrate scientific practices	Students read this text at the end of the unit as an opportunity to apply what they learned about organisms’ survival in different habitats	After reading, students compare the koala to squirrels and the stegosaurus, and make claims about why some organisms survive changes in their environment and others die out.

illustrates the interplay of text selection and/or design, the roles texts play within a unit of instruction, text placement within instruction and in connection with first-hand investigation, and the tasks associated with various texts. We illustrate this interplay using example texts from the same unit of instruction that is featured in Table 1.

10. The Role of the Teacher in Supporting Student Sensemaking with Text

Key to wrestling with ways of using text in instruction is being thoughtful about the role of the teacher in facilitating students’ use of text. In this section of the article, we illustrate one teacher’s practice during her enactment of an interactive read aloud of the Koala text that was introduced in the section entitled, Text and National Standards. The teacher is Ms. Lane, and her students are third graders. Our goals are to illustrate the design of a text and to show how the teacher used the text to support student sensemaking, as well as to comment on how the text and/or teacher’s practice might additionally have supported sensemaking. We begin by describing the text, which is entitled, The Koala: A Success Story! This 1149-word text was written by literacy researchers to be included in the third-grade unit of study featuring the driving question: Why do I see so many squirrels, but I can’t find any stegosauruses? In this unit, students work to explain how squirrels’ needs for survival are met in interaction with other organisms in their environment. Concurrently, students work to explain how stegosauruses survived in prehistoric environments but are no longer found. In this text, which is included at the very end of the unit, the students participate in an interactive read aloud about another species—the koala—that, like the squirrel, managed to survive following major changes in its habitat. They learn about the following:

• The koala’s traits and how those traits support its survival;
• The unique habitat of the koala (the eucalyptus tree) and the key role the eucalyptus tree has played in the survival story;
• How scientists have used what evidence there is from 45,000 years ago to think through what might have happened to the other 23 large species that lived at the same time as the koala and yet did not survive the major changes to their habitat;
• Current threats to the survival of the koala.

This text is included at the end of this unit because it provides a rich opportunity for the students to engage in sensemaking by (a) drawing upon a number of the ideas with which the students have been working across the unit (e.g., structure/function relationships and interdependence in a defined habitat); (b) posing the intellectual challenge of thinking through the analogous relationships between the squirrel and koala; and (c) problem-solving how scientists have used the very same science practices to which the students were introduced in the unit (i.e., the close study of fossils) to generate claims regarding the survival of the koala.

11. Episode 1: “We’re Not Just Dropping All of What We’ve Learned”

Episode 1 begins with Ms. Lane, having introduced the students to the mystery of the disappearing large species in Australia, inviting the students to speculate how it might be that the koala survived while the other large species did not. Following the suggestion in the reading guide—a guide designed to support the teacher’s enactment of the interactive read aloud through a series of suggested discussion prompts—she encourages the students to look at the koala in its habitat and to “look very closely at the koala and see if you notice anything it might have that helped it survive”. She invites the students to first talk with a partner. As she is listening in to the students’ talk, it becomes clear to her that the students are not focused on the argument that is specific to why koalas would have survived when other organisms did not; instead, they are focused only on what features koalas have that would enable them to survive (e.g., eyes, fur, ears). Redirecting their sensemaking discussion, she admonishes, “Yes, of course it has eyes and ears…I’m talking about what do you notice specifically about the koala and …what did I learn about the squirrel that could also apply to the koala?”. Ms. Lane explicitly encourages transfer by noting: “We’re not just dropping all of what we’ve learned. We want to bring what we have learned into this and say ‘Okay, well, what did I learn about the squirrel that could also apply to the koala?’”. This discourse move is consistent with the findings in the scientific sensemaking literature that teachers who successfully supported sensemaking were observed supporting students to make connections designed to activate prior knowledge [46,47,48]. It is also consistent with the Four Resources Model role of meaning-maker, as Ms. Lane uses questions and prompts to support students to focus on the message of the text and to interpret that message by bringing to the text the relevant knowledge needed to understand it.

12. Episode 2: But, Why?

In sensemaking Episode 2, the students are reading about the fact that the koala’s mother’s milk contains bacteria that help the koala to digest the eucalyptus leaves and get the water it needs from those leaves. This information was included in the text because, earlier in the unit, the students had learned about the complex role of bacteria in the squirrels’ environment. The guide reminded the teacher that this was an opportunity to make a connection to the content the students were introduced to earlier in which they learned about “the good and the bad” regarding bacteria. Ms. Lane does indeed take up that suggestion. When the students provide the vague response, “So, he [the koala] can live”, Ms. Lane presses, “Why does he need it to live though? What does it help him to do?”. She encourages the students to look back in the text, and when the students respond that the bacteria help the koala “digest”, she presses yet again, “What does digest mean?”. The class concludes that digest means “breaking down”. We were reminded of the research of Thompson et al. [49] and McNeil and Pimentel [50] regarding the role that pressing thinking plays in productive sensemaking discussions. Again, we see how Ms. Lane supported students to take on the role of meaning-maker with the text to understand how the koala survived.

13. Episode 3: “Think about What You Have Learned…”

In the third illustrative episode, the students, having read about the disappearance of 23 species of large animals from Australia, are positioned as knowledgeable others and are asked, with the use of an embedded question, before being introduced to the thinking of scientists, to “Think about what you have learned from studying why we see squirrels all around us, but no dinosaurs. How would you explain the disappearance of these huge organisms?”. The teacher is prompted to stop the reading at this point and have the students engage in a “turn and talk” to share their ideas regarding why only the koala survived. This led to a productive exchange of ideas in which the students speculated that (1) the size of the animals made it difficult for them to get around the trees (“Maybe it’s because…they couldn’t really get around that much because the trees were getting in the way.”), (2) given the size of the large animals, they must have needed a lot of food and perhaps there was not enough (“Thinking about how heavy they were, maybe too much food was eaten by all of them.”), (3) perhaps nothing happened to the food source (eucalyptus trees) for the koala and so they were able to survive (“So the koalas…nothing happened to their food supply.”), (4) given the large size of the other animals perhaps they had nowhere to move (“Maybe they didn’t have…anywhere to move.”), and (5) the food supply for one group of animals ran out, and now many more animals were relying on a smaller supply of food (“Maybe too many of the animals got the food.”). This last speculation led the teacher to remind the students that this was a good example of “cause and effect”, which the students had encountered in an earlier text. We share this example to support the claim that using embedded questions in texts—questions that are tailored to the program of study—can be a productive way to build sensemaking opportunities into the curriculum.

In this episode, students move from the role of meaning-maker to beginning to take on the role of text user, as they are asked to explain the disappearance of the huge organisms, based on evidence provided in the text and their prior knowledge from the unit of instruction. Recall that one of the NGSS practices, constructing explanations, calls for students to construct explanations based on observed patterns and to use evidence to support explanations. Here, students used the text to engage in the science practice of explaining phenomena.

14. Episode 4: A Missed Opportunity

With Episode 4, we explore evidence suggesting how we could improve features of the text and/or the teaching guide to enhance sensemaking opportunities. About three quarters of the way through the text, after the students have speculated as to the survival of the koala, the content focuses on the explanations that scientists have tendered for why the 23 species of animals might have disappeared and what role the arrival of Sapiens might have played in this disappearance. There are four explanations offered (i.e., the slow-moving nature of the animals made them easy prey; they had long pregnancies and typically birthed but one offspring; they did not recognize Sapiens as dangerous; Sapiens burned large areas of Australia and might have burned many food sources for the other animals, but the eucalyptus is resistant to fire and hence koalas still had a food source).

The interactive reading guide encouraged the teacher to invite students to the whiteboard to highlight each of the explanations and to discuss whether the students agreed or disagreed with each explanation. At this point in the lesson, and through to the completion of the text, the teacher departed from the guide. The class had a very abbreviated discussion of the last explanation (resistance of the eucalyptus to fire) and reasons why this would be beneficial to the koala’s survival. This suggestion in the reading guide was designed to invite students into the role of text analyst or text critic, encouraging them to critique explanations provided by scientists.

We have at least three hypotheses about how this might have unfolded differently and enabled the students to take more advantage of the rich ideas in the text and take on the role of text critic. The first is that we should have divided teaching with this text into two lessons. At this point in the lesson, the class has been reading and discussing the text for about 40 min. This is a long time for a discussion in a third-grade class, and while the video and field note evidence suggest that the students continued to be engaged, the teacher might have been concerned about maintaining interest and enthusiasm. The second hypothesis is that we could have done more to structure how students responded to this content. For example, rather than recommend students highlight content in the text, we could have suggested preparing a T-chart: in one column, the students could have listed the scientific explanation, and in the second column, the students could have entered their assessment of the reasoning of the scientists. The third hypothesis we have is that we could have done more to support the teacher’s content knowledge, ensuring that she was comfortable with the chain of reasoning that the students are being called on to evaluate. The literature is clear that a teacher’s capacity to engage in sustained sensemaking with students is influenced by their degree of comfort with the content (e.g., [51]).

15. Discussion

Over time, different modifiers have been used to characterize the successful reader. For example, in the 1960s and 70s the successful reader was the “skilled reader” who had command of a sequence of subskills that culminated in their ability to acquire meaning, which resided in the text. The term, “skilled” reader gave way to the “strategic reader”, who played an active role in bringing meaning to text by integrating their prior knowledge with new knowledge in the text and deploying strategies to promote, monitor, and regulate comprehension. A modifier that has currency today is the “agentive reader”, who has the capacity and inclination to decode, comprehend, use the text to achieve purposes important to the reader, and critically analyze the text. Aukerman and Schuldt [1] proposed an umbrella term to capture all the abilities readers must deploy to be agentive readers; that is, readers must demonstrate “textual dexterity”, which they characterize as “allow[ing] readers to access, understand, use, and scrutinize text for purposes that matter to them” (p. 3). We find this characterization consistent with the goals of the research and development in which we have been engaged.

Our goal has been to advance an understanding of how the design, placement, and use of text within a project-based science curriculum can promote the textual dexterity for which Aukerman and Schuldt advocate. Our focus has been on the interplay of the design, placement, and use of text. Our reasoning is that students’ textual dexterity is necessarily limited and/or enhanced by the quality, richness, and accessibility of the ideas/information in the text; furthermore, readers should be provided compelling reasons to engage with the text and should be positioned to be critical of the text. In this article, we have described 12 uses of text in project-based science instruction. Furthermore, we have identified five design principles that support readers’ textual dexterity. Finally, we have suggested that, in the pursuit of textual dexterity, researchers and educators must also attend to the context(s)/tasks in which the text is used and how the teacher mediates productive uses of the text. We acknowledge that this is a complex picture, but given what is at stake—the preparation of textually dexterous readers—one would expect complexity.

Our research and development are guided by an orientation that assumes that learners are sensemakers, and that the activity of sensemaking should be central to curriculum and instruction. This orientation, complemented by the construction-integration model of comprehension [9], as well as the four resources model [11] and the DRIVE model of reading [13], inform our design process, shaping how we construct and select text, as well as prepare guides to support the work of teachers as they integrate the texts in their instruction. For example, our guides for teachers focus on the questions and prompts that will support students to build situation models of the text by integrating the ideas in the text with the ideas they have generated through their own investigative activity. While this article has focused on text design processes and principles, as well as teachers’ practice, we have documented students’ learning in earlier publications [25,52].

As we conclude this piece, we ask what additional features we would suggest researchers and curriculum designers attend to in the selection, design, and use of text that will advance readers’ textual dexterity. Some promising ideas are provided by the recent reports, Science and Engineering Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators [53] as well as the Equity in K-12 STEM Education [54]. The authors of these reports urged that texts be used to help children identify interests and identities that might encourage them to envision their participation in the scientific community. This can be accomplished by providing rich descriptions of what scientists do and how they contribute to society. Furthermore, texts can be designed and used to introduce social justice issues relevant to students’ lives and the role of science in redressing injustice. Illustrative of this is the work of Davis and Schaeffer [55] who developed a unit of study on the Flint Water Crisis. Davis and Schaeffer [55] conducted, and reported selected findings from, a two-year ethnographic project in which they investigated the agency and meaning making of fourth- and fifth-grade Black students. The instructional context was a socio-scientific unit that addressed water and water justice and coincided with broadening public awareness of the water crisis in Flint, MI. Davis and Schaeffer investigated Black students’ affective, sociopolitical, and disciplinary meaning-making related to water and water justice as they participated in the Water is Life unit.

Davis and Schaeffer found that, at the beginning of the unit, students viewed access to clean water as an isolated problem in Flint. However, when students began to investigate water and water access locally, in Riverview, findings indicated that students started to develop views of water justice as both ethical and sociopolitical issues. As students made connections between the Flint and local Riverview water issues, they began to leverage their science knowledge to understand water access as a larger, systemic problem. For example, Davis and Schaeffer report that students’ informational posters about Flint provided evidence that students were working with ideas about toxicity and molecular structure and were using their developing understandings of phenomena as resources for deepening their understandings of human experiences, ethics, and politics.

One additional example is the scholarship of Smith et al. [56], who engaged middle school students in the study of urban forestry. By studying overlapping maps that depict tree canopy cover, temperature, income, race, and lung disease hospitalizations, students made inferences about the importance of urban trees in the ecosystem. Students also identified their own communities on the maps to understand how their neighborhoods might be affected by tree canopy cover. Furthermore, the students were supported to obtain information about and compare multiple solutions for urban heat management and evaluate different approaches to addressing disparities in tree distribution in urban settings. Finally, they developed multimodal compositions (e.g., podcasts, infographics, posters, videos) to share their learning.

Smith et al. [56] found that engaging in digital multimodal composing supported students’ sensemaking about critical urban forestry in multiple ways. Using multiple modes of information to make sense of critical urban forestry supported students to, for example, participate in perspective-taking, embrace tree equity as a justice issue, engage authentic audiences through multimodal storytelling, and propose solutions to issues related to critical urban forestry that ranged from focusing on the actions of individuals to focusing on urban planning.

We believe that this research provides a promising answer to the questions posed by Aukerman and Schuldt [1], “How can reading instruction best help students develop and flourish as literate beings?” (p. S86). Shifting the instructional focus to investigating water issues or forestry in local areas allows students to leverage lived experiences to further facilitate meaning making and action in the service of addressing social justice issues, consistent with becoming an agentive reader.

Finally, we have argued that one of the goals of our work has been to promote textual dexterity. We have suggested ways that the design, placement, and enactment of text in project-based science provide students the means to “access, understand, use, and scrutinize text for purposes that matter to them” (p. S87). Much of the research on integrated science and literacy instruction has demonstrated efficacy through targeting and measuring outcomes such as science content knowledge, science vocabulary, and reading comprehension. As a community, we need to challenge ourselves to determine how we might accrue evidence that, in addition to these outcomes, our instructional programs are valuing and enhancing readers’ textual dexterity.