Cross-disciplinary language changes in 4th graders as a predictor of the quality of written scientific explanation | special issue


  • Alejandra Meneses Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
  • Maximiliano Montenegro Universidad de la Serena
  • Daniela Acevedo Universidad Alberto Hurtado
  • Javiera Figueroa Universidad Alberto Hurtado
  • Evelyn Hugo Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile


cross-disciplinary language, disciplinary writing, scientific explanations, school genre


Upper elementary students face conceptual and linguistic challenges when writing in science. One way to scaffold science writing is the explicit teaching of cross-disciplinary language. Limited research has explored the dynamics of these language changes in instructional contexts. This study examines the micro-developmental changes in cross-disciplinary language skills and their contributions to the quality of 191 science explanations written by 65 fourth graders that participated in language and literacy-based instruction. The instruction’s pedagogical design was focused on writing-to-learn and learning-to-write the scientific explanation genre. Each student wrote an initial, a scaffolded draft, and a final explanation that was scored for scientific quality and productive cross-disciplinary language skills. Students’ prior and final scientific knowledge was also measured. The results showed large instruction size effects on the scientific quality (0.71), productive cross-disciplinary language skills (0.46), and explanation length (0.64). Stepwise regression analysis showed that prior and final science knowledge and productive cross-disciplinary language skills significantly predict the quality of the final explanation (R2 = .704, F(11,38) = 9.03, p < .000). This research offers evidence of the dynamic relationships between language, literacy, and science in contexts of explicit cross-disciplinary language instruction for disciplinary literacy and learning.


Aparici, M., Cuberos, R., Salas, N., & Rosado, E. (2021). Linguistic indicators of text quality in analytical texts: Developmental changes and sensitivity to pedagogical work (Indicadores lingüísticos de la calidad textual en los textos analíticos: cambios evolutivos y sensibilidad al trabajo pedagógico). Journal of Education and Development, 44(1), 9-46.

Avalos, M., Gómez, M., Gort, M., & Secada, W. (2017). "Hey! Today I will tell you about the water cycle!" Variations of language and organizational features in third-grade science explanation writing. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 149–176.

Bajtin, M. (1982). Estética de la creación verbal [Aesthetics of verbal creation]. Siglo XXI.

Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J-.P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods. An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. The Guilford Press.

Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.

Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. Routledge.

Cabello, V. M., & Sommer, M. (2020). Andamios de retiro gradual. Parte 1: visibilización del pensamiento en la construcción de explicaciones científicas escolares. Estudios Pedagógicos, 46(1), 257–267.

Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.

de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25(1), 23–39.

Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2010). The role of language in the learning and teaching of science. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in Science teaching (pp. 135–157). McGraw Hill.

Fang, Z., Cao, P., & Murray, N. (2020). Language and meaning making: Register choices in seventh- and ninth-grade students’ factual writing. Linguistics and Education, 56, 1–11.

Fang, Z., Gresser, V., Cao, P., & Zheng, J. (2021). Nominal complexities in school Children’s informational writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50.

Fang, Z., & Park, J. (2020). Adolescents’ use of academic language in informational writing. Reading and Writing, 33(1), 97–119.

Figueroa, J., Meneses, A., & Chandia, E. (2018). Academic language and the quality of written arguments and explanations of Chilean 8th graders. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 703–723.

Fitts, S., Gross, L., & Ramirez, B. (2020). "We observed that the magnetic field is stronger than gravity": Exploring linguistically diverse fourth-grade students’ written explanations in science notebooks. Linguistics and Education, 56, 100809.

Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226.

Hand, B. (2017). Exploring the role of writing in science: A 25-year journey. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 25(3), 16–23.

Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representations in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 225–247.

Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35(4), 343–373.

Hsu, Y. S., Lai, T. L., & Hsu, W. H. (2015). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241–273.

Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). Writing in science: Why, how, and for whom? A systematic literature review of 20 years of intervention research (1996–2016). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 533–570.

Huerta, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., & Irby, B. J. (2014). Developing and validating a science notebook rubric for fifth-grade non-mainstream students. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1849–1870.

Huerta, M., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2016). Measuring and comparing academic language development and conceptual understanding via science notebooks. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 503–517.

Klein, P. D., & Unsworth, L. (2014). The logogenesis of writing to learn: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and Education, 26(1), 1–17.

Lee, O. (2020). Science and language instructional shifts with second-language learners. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(2), 263–284.

Lee, O., Llosa, L., Grapin, S., Haas, A., & Goggins, M. (2019). Science and language integration with English learners: A conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Science Education, 103(2), 317–337.

Lesterhuis, M., Verhavert, S., Coertjens, L., Donche, V. & De Maeyer, S. (2017). Comparative judgement as a promising alternative to score competences. In G. Ion & E. Cano (Eds.), Innovative practices for higher education assessment and measurement (pp. 120-140). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson Education.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Larning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

Meneses, A., Hugo, E., Montenegro, M., Valenzuela, A., & Ruiz, M. (2018). Explicaciones científicas: propuestas para la enseñanza del lenguaje académico. Boletín de Lingüística, 30(49–50), 134–157.

Meneses, A., Uccelli, P., Santelices, M. V., Ruiz, M., Acevedo, D., & Figueroa, J. (2018). Academic language as a predictor of reading comprehension in monolingual Spanish-speaking readers: Evidence from Chilean early adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 223–247.

Moje, E. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254–278.

Myhill, D., & Chen, H. (2020). Developing writers in primary and secondary school years. In Developing Writers Across the Primary and Secondary Years. Routledge.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.

Phillips Galloway, E., Qin, W., Uccelli, P., & Barr, C. (2020). The role of cross disciplinary academic language skills in disciplinary, source based writing: Investigating the role of core academic language skills in science summarization for middle grade writers. Reading and Writing, 33(1), 13–44.

Phillips Galloway, E., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Beyond reading comprehension: exploring the additional contribution of Core Academic Language Skills to early adolescents’ written summaries. Reading and Writing, 32(3), 729–759.

R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL

Rappa, N. A., & Tang, K.-S. (2018). Integrating disciplinary-specific genre structure in discourse strategies to support disciplinary literacy. Linguistics and Education, 43, 1–12.

Romero-Contreras, S., Silva-Maceda, G., & Snow, C. E. (2021). Academic vocabulary and language skills: Predictors of reading comprehension of upper elementary and middle school students in Mexico. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 58(2), 1–15.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn. Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Equinox.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. F. (2004). Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477–1506.

Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seah, L. H. (2016). Understanding the conceptual and language challenges encountered by grade 4 students when writing scientific explanations. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 413–437.

Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2011). Understanding students’ language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education, 95(5), 852–876.

Sommer, M., & Cabello, V. M. (2020). Andamios de retiro gradual. Parte 2: apoyos a la construcción de explicaciones en ciencia primaria. Estudios Pedagógicos, 46(1), 269–284.

Tang, K. S. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): An exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440.

Uccelli, P. (2019). Learning the language for school literacy. In V. Grøver, P. Uccelli, M. L. Rowe, & E. Lieven. (Eds.), Learning through Language (pp. 95–109). Cambridge University Press.

Uccelli, P., Deng, Z., Phillips Galloway, E., & Qin, W. (2019). The role of language skills in mid-adolescents’ science summaries. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(3), 357–380.

Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356.

Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., & Qin, W. (2020). The language for school literacy: Widening the lens on language and reading relations. In E. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. V (pp. 155–179). Routledge.

van der Steen, S., Steenbeek, H., Den Hartigh, R., & van Geert, P. (2019). The link between microdevelopment and long-term learning trajectories in science learning. Human Development, 64, 4-32.

Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.



How to Cite

Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., Acevedo, D., Figueroa, J., & Hugo, E. (2023). Cross-disciplinary language changes in 4th graders as a predictor of the quality of written scientific explanation | special issue. Journal of Writing Research. Retrieved from