Science & Education

, Volume 28, Issue 1–2, pp 63–85 | Cite as

Analyzing the Language of an Adapted Primary Literature Article

Towards a Disciplinary Approach of Science Teaching Using Texts
  • Moriah Ariely
  • Zohar Livnat
  • Anat YardenEmail author


Learning the unique linguistic forms and structures that construct and communicate scientific principles, knowledge, and beliefs is important for developing students’ disciplinary literacy. The use of scientific language is apparent in the texts that scientists produce to communicate their findings to other scientists—the research articles. Texts are underused in the science classroom and the texts that students do read often do not reflect the core attributes of authentic scientific reasoning. Adapted primary literature (APL) refers to an educational genre that enables the use of scientific articles in high school. In the adaptation process, the language of the article is changed to make it more accessible for high school students. Here, we present a systemic functional linguistics (SFL) analysis of an APL article compared to the original research article and to a popular article. The three texts were systematically scanned and compared for specific lexicogrammatical items that characterize five linguistic features of scientific writing: informational density, abstraction, technicality, authoritativeness, and hedging. We found that the adaptation process lowered the lexical complexity, while retaining the authenticity of the scientific writing. APL articles, as suggested by the linguistic analysis presented here, may serve as models of scientific reasoning and communication and may promote students’ language awareness and disciplinary literacy. We suggest using APL articles as an apprenticeship genre, for learning about the unique features of authentic scientific texts, and the reasoning that is reflected in the way the articles are written.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-finanacial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.


  1. Alvermann, D. E., & Rush, L. S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school levels. Adolescent literacy research and practice, 210–227.Google Scholar
  2. Ariely, M., & Yarden, A. (2018). Using authentic texts to promote disciplinary literacy in biology. In K. Kampourakis & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Teaching biology in schools (pp. 204–215). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 403–428.Google Scholar
  4. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. In A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, I., & Nuckles, M. (2014). Scholarly holds lead over popular and instructional: Text type influences epistemological reading outcomes. Science Education, 98(5), 867–904.Google Scholar
  6. Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2003). Learning biology through research papers: A stimulus for question-asking by high-school students. Cell Biology Education, 2(4), 266–274.Google Scholar
  7. Brill, G., Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 497–512.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. N. (2007). Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 278–302.Google Scholar
  9. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.Google Scholar
  10. Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086.Google Scholar
  11. Davoodi-Semiromi, A., Schreiber, M., Nalapalli, S., et al. (2010). Chloroplast-derived vaccine antigens confer dual immunity against cholera and malaria by oral or injectable delivery. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 8(2), 223–242.Google Scholar
  12. 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: What research has to say (pp. 135–157): Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Falk, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2008). Teaching a biotechnology curriculum based on adapted primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1841–1866.Google Scholar
  14. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.Google Scholar
  15. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.Google Scholar
  16. Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  17. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Language and reading in secondary content areas. In Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy (pp. 1–17). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597.Google Scholar
  19. Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247–273.Google Scholar
  20. Ford, D. J. (2009). Promises and challenges for the use of adapted primary literature in science curricula: Commentary. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 385–390.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Soul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Le’on, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Goodney, D. E., & Long, C. S. (2003). The collective classic: A case for the reading of science. Science & Education, 12(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
  24. Guynup, S. (2000). Seeds of a new medicine. Genes, plants, and edible vaccines. Retrieved from (
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.Google Scholar
  26. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin’s the origin of species. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 86–105). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  27. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993b). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  28. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993c). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116.Google Scholar
  29. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (Vol. 8). Pittsburgh: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454.Google Scholar
  32. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.Google Scholar
  34. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164.Google Scholar
  35. Hynd-Shanahan, C. (2013). What does it take? The challenge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(2), 93–98.Google Scholar
  36. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2011). Syllabus of biological studies (10th–12th grade). Jerusalem, Israel
  37. Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 29–32.Google Scholar
  38. Koomen, M. H., Weaver, S., Blair, R. B., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy in the science classroom: Using adaptive primary literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 847–894.Google Scholar
  39. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. In. Norwood: Albex Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Livnat, Z. (2010a). Impersonality and grammatical metaphors in scientific discourse. The rhetorical perspective. Lidil. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues(41), 103–119.Google Scholar
  41. Livnat, Z. (2010b). Rhetoric of the Scietific Article (in Hebrew): Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
  42. Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle texts as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166–202). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  43. McConachie, S. M., & Petrosky, A. R. (2009). Engaging content teachers in literacy development. In S. M. McConachie, A. R. Petrosky, & L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning (pp. 1–13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  44. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and instruction, 14(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
  45. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.Google Scholar
  46. Muench, S. B. (2000). Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 255–260.Google Scholar
  47. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  48. Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse processes, 14(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.Google Scholar
  51. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2008). Reading as inquiry. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 233–262). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Norris, S. P., Macnab, J. S., Wonham, M., & de Vries, G. (2009). West Nile virus: Using adapted primary literature in mathematical biology to teach scientific and mathematical reasoning in high school. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 321–329.Google Scholar
  53. Norris, S. P., Stelnicki, N., & de Vries, G. (2012). Teaching mathematical biology in high school using adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 633–649.Google Scholar
  54. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Understanding and teaching Reading comprehension: A handbook. Abington and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218.Google Scholar
  56. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.Google Scholar
  57. Parkinson, J. (2001). Popular and academic genres of science: A comparison, with suggestions for pedagogical applications. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Natal, Durban.Google Scholar
  58. Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 379–396.Google Scholar
  59. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.Google Scholar
  60. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313–319.Google Scholar
  61. Sato, B. K., Kadandale, P., He, W., Murata, P. M., Latif, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2014). Practice makes pretty good: Assessment of primary literature reading abilities across multiple large-enrollment biology laboratory courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 677–686.Google Scholar
  62. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459.Google Scholar
  63. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  64. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  65. Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452.Google Scholar
  66. Sung, Y.-T., Wu, M.-D., Chen, C.-K., & Chang, K.-E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior and performance of fifth-graders: Evidence from eye-movement data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 665.Google Scholar
  67. Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381–405.Google Scholar
  68. To, V., Fan, S., & Thomas, D. (2013). Lexical density and readability: A case study of English textbooks. Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society (37), 61–71.Google Scholar
  69. Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456.Google Scholar
  70. van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821.Google Scholar
  71. Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2001). The role of text in classroom learning: Beginning an online dialogue. In M. L. Kamile, P. B. Mosenthal, D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 609–628). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Wahlberg, S. J., & Gericke, N. M. (2018). Conceptual demography in upper secondary chemistry and biology textbooks’ descriptions of protein synthesis: A matter of context? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar51.Google Scholar
  73. Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1993). The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiental world. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science. Literacy and Discursive Power (pp. 136–165).Google Scholar
  75. Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307–311.Google Scholar
  76. Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190–195.Google Scholar
  77. Yarden, A., Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2015). Adapted primary literature: The use of authentic scientific texts in secondary schools. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Yeong, F. M. (2015). Using primary literature in an undergraduate assignment: Demonstrating connections among cellular processes. Journal of Biological Education, 49(1), 73–90.Google Scholar
  79. Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105–122.Google Scholar
  80. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.Google Scholar
  81. Zer-Kavod, G., & Yarden, A. (2013). Immunization—The next generation: Developing genetically engineered eatable plants that can confer immunity against cholera and malaria (an adapted primary literature article). In Gene Tamers - Studying Biotechnology Through Research (In Hebrew, 2nd ed.). Rehovot: Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Faculty of Jewish StudiesBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations