“Do I Have to Choose Between Teaching Science and Teaching Literacy?” Why the Answer Is No (and What to Do Instead)

A question I hear from teachers all the time is this:

“My district is requiring us to devote more time to reading and writing in all subject areas. I already have too much content to cover. Is there a way to teach literacy skills without sacrificing time for science?”

It’s a fair concern and an important one.

The short answer is: you don’t have to choose.

But making that possible requires rethinking what we mean by “literacy” and how it develops in a science classroom.

The Problem with How We Often Think About Literacy

When most people hear “literacy,” they think of reading and writing skills, usually taught separately from content.

That view leads to a common (and frustrating) instructional tradeoff:

• Time spent on reading and writing = less time for science

• Time spent on science = less time for literacy

So literacy becomes something extra teachers are expected to “add on” to an already full curriculum.

But that tradeoff only exists if we treat literacy as something separate from doing science.

A More Useful Way to Think About Literacy in Science

In science, literacy is not just about reading and writing. It’s about the ability to:

• Obtain information (from texts, data, graphs, models)

• Evaluate information (What counts as good evidence? Is this explanation convincing?)

• Communicate ideas (through writing, speaking, and visual representations)

And most importantly, it’s about doing all of this in ways that align with how scientists actually work.

This is often called disciplinary literacy.

From this perspective, literacy is not something separate from science, it is how science gets done.

Literacy Develops Through Sensemaking

Students do not become scientifically literate by completing isolated activities like:

• vocabulary worksheets

• reading comprehension questions

• “write a paragraph about…” prompts

Those activities may build general skills, but they rarely help students learn how scientists actually obtain, evaluate, and communicate ideas.

Instead, disciplinary literacy develops when students are engaged in sensemaking, the process of figuring out something that is not yet understood.

In science, sensemaking involves:

• interpreting data

• developing explanations

• evaluating competing ideas

• arguing from evidence

All of these activities require students to read, write, speak, and listen with purpose.

In other words, literacy is not the goal of the activity. It is the tool students use to figure things out.

Why Traditional Instruction Makes This Hard

In many classrooms, instruction is still organized around:

• “I do, we do, you do”

• coverage of content

• practice of procedures

• finding correct answers

In these environments:

• Reading becomes locating information

• Writing becomes repeating ideas

• Discussion becomes limited or optional

Students rarely experience literacy as something useful for thinking. Instead, it feels like something they have to do in addition to learning science.

That’s why it feels like a tradeoff.

A Different Approach: Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI)

If we want students to develop literacy without sacrificing science time, we need to design instruction where literacy is embedded in the work of science itself.

This is exactly what Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) is designed to do.

ADI organizes instruction around a simple but powerful goal:

Students work together to develop and defend an explanation for a scientific phenomenon using evidence.

To do this, students must:

• Read data, models, and scientific texts

• Write explanations and arguments

• Talk through ideas with peers

• Listen and respond to alternative explanations

• Evaluate claims and evidence

None of these are add-ons. They are necessary for completing the task.

What This Looks Like in Practice

In an ADI classroom, students might:

• analyze data from an investigation

• develop a claim about what is happening

• support that claim with evidence and a justification of the evidence

• present and critique arguments with peers

• revise their arguments based on feedback

• write a final argument that communicates their thinking clearly

Throughout this process, students are constantly engaging in literacy practices but always for a purpose:

to figure something out and convince others their explanation makes sense.

This changes everything.

• Reading becomes a way to gather evidence

• Writing becomes a way to clarify and justify ideas

• Discussion becomes a way to test and refine thinking

Literacy is no longer competing with science. It is driving the learning of science.

Why This Actually Saves Time

It might seem like this approach would take longer.

In reality, it often leads to more efficient learning because:

• Students develop deeper understanding, reducing the need for reteaching

• Ideas are connected and meaningful, not memorized and forgotten

• Students learn how to use knowledge, not just recall it

When students spend time explaining, arguing, and refining ideas, they are doing the kind of thinking that leads to lasting learning.

You Don’t Need to Add More. You Need to Reorient

The key takeaway is this:

You don’t need to add literacy to science instruction.

You need to design science instruction so that literacy is required.

When classrooms are organized around sensemaking and argumentation:

• literacy develops naturally

• science understanding deepens

• instructional time is used more effectively

This is not about doing more. It’s about doing things differently.

Want to Learn More About Argument-Driven Inquiry?

If you’re looking for a practical way to integrate literacy and science without sacrificing one for the other, Argument-Driven Inquiry offers:

• classroom-ready instructional units

• a clear, research-based instructional model

• professional learning for teachers and instructional leaders

You can explore resources and learn more here:

👉 https://www.argumentdriveninquiry.com

If your district is pushing for more literacy, this is an opportunity—not a constraint. With the right approach, you can strengthen students’ reading, writing, and communication by helping them do more meaningful science.