Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32586
Teaching Science Content Area Literacy to 21st Century Learners

Authors: Melissa C. LaDuke


The use of new literacies within science classrooms needs to be balanced by teachers to both teach different forms of communication while assessing content area proficiency. Using new literacies such as Twitter and Facebook needs to be incorporated into science content area literacy studies in addition to continuing to use generally-accepted forms of scientific content area presentation which include scientific papers and textbooks. The research question this literature review seeks to answer is “What are some ways in which new forms of literacy are better suited to teach scientific content area literacy to 21st century learners?” The research question is addressed through a literature review that highlights methods currently being used to educate the next wave of learners in the world of science content area literacy. Both temporal discourse analysis (TDA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA) were used to determine the need to use new literacies to teach science content area literacy. Increased use of digital technologies and a change in science content area pedagogy were explored.

Keywords: Science content area literacy, new literacies, critical discourse analysis, temporal discourse analysis.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 336


[1] Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). Retrieved from
[2] Mishra, P., and Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
[3] Farrelly, M. (2020). Critical discourse analysis. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds). SAGE research methods foundations (pp. 98-104). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
[4] Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin, (Eds.). Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[5] Wodak, R. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-33). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
[6] Barnes, D. (1992). The role of talk in learning. In K. Norman (Ed.) Thinking voices: The work of the national oracy project (pp. 123-128). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
[7] Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33-59.
[8] Piaget, J. (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace. (Original work published 1936)
[9] Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
[10] Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, and the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
[11] Rich, E. (2010, October 11). How do you define 21st-century learning? Education Week. Retrieved from,and%20respect%20for%20diverse%20cultures
[12] Albers, P., Holbrook, T. & Flint, A. (Eds). (2014). New methods of literacy research. Routledge, NY: Guilford Press.
[13] Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97-101.
[14] Krajcik, J.S., and Sutherland, L.M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456-459.
[15] Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
[16] Pearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S. Brandt (Eds). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 116-147). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
[17] Michel, N., Cater III, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development, 20(4), 397-418.
[18] Figueroa-Flores, J. F. (2016). Gamification and game-based learning: Two strategies for the 21st century learner. World Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 507-522.
[19] International Literacy Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st-century technologies. Retrieved from
[20] Keys, C.W., and Bryan, L.A. (2000). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
[21] Brickhouse, N.W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53-62.
[22] Duschl, R.A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467- 501.
[23] Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121-133.
[24] Hashweh, M.Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47-63.
[25] Flanagan, L., and Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
[26] Lesley, M., McMillan, S., & Webb, S. (2012). Taking a multiliteracies approach to content area literacy, (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
[27] List of Science Members on Twitter. Retrieved from
[28] Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., and Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 18, 7-22.
[29] Columba, L., Kim, C. Y., & Moe, A. J. (2005) The power of picture books in teaching math, science, and social studies. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers.
[30] Romano, T. (2000). Blending genre, altering style. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
[31] National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implication for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.
[32] Ness, M.K. (2010). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49.2, 143-166.
[33] Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & MacLeod, J. (2018). Promoting education equity in rural and underdeveloped areas: Cases on computer-supported collaborative teaching in China. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2393-2405.
[34] Pruit, P., Ang, C. S., Farzin, D., & Chaiwut, N. (2015, June). Exploring the internet of “Educational Things” (IoET) in rural underprivileged areas. In 2015 12th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[35] Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(4), 525-537.
[36] Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
[37] Matson, J.O., and Parsons, S. (1998). The nature of science: achieving science literacy by doing science. In W. F. McComas (Ed). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 223-230). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[38] Krajcik, J.S, McNeill., K.L., Reiser, B.J. (2007). Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Retrieved from