The need for such well-established disciplinary literacy skills in STEM education are acknowledged by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Common Core State Standards for English/language arts-technical subjects (CCSS-ELA.RST).

Science and engineering also require sophisticated mathematical knowledge and skills to solve problems, reason abstractly and quantitatively, to develop and use models, and for evidence to construct viable arguments and critique reasoning. As described by Lemke ^1: “When scientists think, talk, write, work and teach …they do not just use words; …they combine, interconnect, and integrate verbal text with mathematical expressions, quantitative graphs, information tables, abstract diagrams, maps, drawings, photographs, and a host of unique specialized visual genres seen nowhere else” (p.88).

Overlapping Practices in Mathematics, Science and ELA

Focusing on scientific argumentation has positive effects on student achievement and conceptual understanding ⁶. Though the NGSS and CCSS have moved educators in the direction of evidence-based argumentation, teachers find that engaging students in argumentation is a challenge ⁷. The program provides teachers with instructional resources and practice in scientific argumentation about valid and invalid reasoning to deepen understanding of such argumentation.

More information about the role of argumentation in Science, Literacy, and Mathematics

Furthermore, the collaborative discourse and argumentation practices important for science and engineering also require rich disciplinary language understanding and use ^9-13. Learning these disciplinary literacy skills and practices in grades 6-12 is inextricably linked to participating in post-secondary education, to participation in today’s workplace and to society ^14,15.

Although in U.S. middle schools teaching science and engineering disciplinary literacy skills is a shared responsibility of science, mathematics and English language arts (ELA) teachers, this is not well recognized and too often, little instructional collaboration occurs ¹⁶. However, when teachers are provided with additional training and support, it can make a difference – for students and teachers alike¹⁷.  

However, it is challenging engaging students in complex text, for most school textbooks are insufficiently complex and few supplementary 6-8 grade band complex texts exist for science and engineering^{9, 18, 19}. Further, as noted by Litman and Greenleaf²⁰: “Reducing the complexity of texts and the effort required of students to make sense of them may similarly compromise student learning from text-based argumentation” (p. 110).

Although many students, especially diverse learners including student with disabilities and English second language learners, have trouble accessing complex grade-level texts, avoiding complex text or only using texts at a lower grade level that lack sufficient complexity is problematic. As Shanahann (2019) poignantly notes, avoidance in complex text for diverse learners would result in “no opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills that would enable them to catch up” ²¹ (p.22). And, as Shanahan also noted, that “students are so aware that they are being relegated to the ‘dumb books,’ with serious consequences for their self-esteem” (p. 22).