737 words | 4-minute read

Our previous posts on the importance of literacy across academic subjects highlighted the role of reading in mathematics and presented specific evidence-based strategies for teachers. Although many students perceive science as a break from language arts and other subjects with a more overt connection to literacy (Barnes et al., 2024), research consistently identifies a strong relationship between reading skills and science achievement (e.g., Carter & Simpson, 1978; Reed et al., 2017; Jang et al., 2024). That this would be the case almost goes without saying; in many classrooms, students primarily access science content through text (van den Broek, 2010). Although other skills, such as math, support science achievement, reading is essential for students to successfully apply those skills in scientific contexts (Barnard-Brak et al., 2017). 

The breadth of reading skills required for success in science cannot be conveyed through a simple technique or described in a single blog post. Entire curricula are dedicated to interweaving effective literacy instruction aligned with the science of reading into science instruction (e.g., Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading; WestEd, 2025). Outside of a comprehensive approach to literacy, vocabulary instruction has been identified as a critical driver of student performance in content-area subjects such as science (e.g., Kaldenberg et al., 2015). Nevertheless, observational studies suggest that explicit vocabulary instruction is underused in many science classrooms (e.g., Drew & Thomas, 2018; Scholes et al., 2021).

The Iowa Reading Research Center has shared a number of resources focused on effective vocabulary instruction. In this post, we will focus on semantic feature analysis, a research-based strategy that supports students in learning vocabulary by helping them understand the relationships between terms and concepts. 

Visualizing Content Connections in Science: Semantic Feature Analysis

Semantic feature analysis (SFA) uses a chart to help students compare related terms and concepts based on their shared features. Research supports SFA and related strategies as tools for improving vocabulary acquisition and comprehension in the content areas, including science (Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Dexter et al., 2011). Science texts often include a blend of domain-specific (Tier 3) vocabulary (e.g., "photosynthesis" or "conduction") and general academic (Tier 2) terms such as "process," "structure," or "transfer" (Beck & McKeown, 2007). Strategies like SFA are especially helpful when students must distinguish between Tier 3 concepts. SFA can support content comprehension and disciplinary literacy, and this strategy aligns with the emphasis on explicit instruction associated with the science of reading. 

Instructors can use SFA during pre-reading to activate background knowledge, after a reading passage to emphasize content distinctions, or as a summative tool to help students understand related vocabulary. Before developing the chart, instructors should review assigned texts to identify key terms. Students then complete the chart by noting (a) when a direct relationship exists between a term and a feature described in the text and (b) when no relationship is present. Instruction in the use of SFA should include generally effective methods, such as modeling and guided practice, until students can apply SFA independently. 

The example below shows an SFA organizer provided to students as they read a passage about heat transfer—a core concept in physical science that refers to the movement of thermal energy from one substance to another due to differences in temperature (Xie, 2012). Before using the SFA organizer, the teacher would introduce key terms for the lesson—such as “conduction,” “convection,” and “radiation”—ideally with visuals and examples. Then, the teacher would review the characteristics listed in the top row. For example, they might explain what “requires matter” means. Next, the teacher would model how to complete a single row before having the students finish the organizer, with guidance as needed. A “+” indicates a term shares that characteristic; a “-” indicates the term does not. For a blank SFA organizer, see the Supplemental Resource section at the end of the post. 

Finally, students would be asked to review these associations either with discussion questions or writing prompts (e.g., “What do these processes have in common?”). 

Of course, vocabulary is just one of the elements of reading required for success in science. General comprehension and decoding are keys to science achievement. Educators seeking to explore literacy integration in science and other content areas are encouraged to consult IRRC materials and practice guides from the What Works Clearinghouse. 

Supplemental Resource

Semantic Feature Analysis Organizer

References

Barnard-Brak, L., Stevens, T., & Ritter, W. (2017). Reading and mathematics equally important to science achievement: Results from nationally-representative data. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.001

Barnes, Z. T., Schrodt, K., & Fields, R. S. (2024). Science, literacy, and students with disabilities: What middle school science teachers need to support students with disabilities in their classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 40(6), 586–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023.2299672  

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Different ways for different goals, but keep your eye on the higher verbal goals. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 182–204). The Guilford Press.

Carter, G. S., & Simpson, R. D. (1978). Science & reading: A basic duo. Science Teacher, 45(3), 19–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24131991 

Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871103400104

Dexter, D. D., Park, Y. J., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). A meta–analytic review of graphic organizers and science instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications for the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00341.

Drew, S. V., & Thomas, J. (2018). Secondary science teachers’ implementation of CCSS and NGSS literacy practices: A survey study. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9784-7 

Jang, W., Kwon, K. A., & Horm, D. (2024). The role of language and literacy skills in science learning from kindergarten to 5th grade: Mitigating gender, racial/ethnic, and socio-economic disparities. Education Sciences, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090994

Kaldenberg, E. R., Watt, S. J., & Therrien, W. J. (2015). Reading instruction in science for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714550204 

Reed, D. K., Petscher, Y., & Truckenmiller, A. J. (2017). The contribution of general reading ability to science achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.158

Scholes, L., Stahl, G., Comber, B., McDonald, S., & Brownlee, J. L. (2021). ‘We don’t read in science’: Student perceptions of literacy and learning science in middle school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1860192 

van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182594 

WestEd. (n.d.). Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading. STEMworks. https://stemworks.wested.org/program/seeds-of-science-roots-of-reading/

Xie, C. (2012). Interactive heat transfer simulations for everyone. The Physics Teacher, 50(4), 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3694080