Mapping the Evidence Base: A Scoping Review of Disciplinary Literacy Research in K-12 Education

• In Event: Reimagining K–12 Disciplinary Literacy: Access, Engagement, and Innovation Across Subjects

Abstract

Objectives: This scoping review systematically mapped the existing research evidence on disciplinary literacy (DL) in K-12 education to understand DL's impact on educational outcomes. The study aimed to identify gaps in the evidence base, assess the readiness for meta-analytic synthesis, and determine which outcomes are most likely to be impacted by disciplinary literacy interventions. Key questions guiding the review included: How has prior research conceptualized DL as both intervention and outcome? Which student populations and educational contexts show evidence of DL effectiveness? What methodological approaches have been used to study DL impacts?

Theoretical Framework: Disciplinary literacy is conceptualized as a theoretical and instructional framework emphasizing the distinct ways of reading, writing, thinking, and communicating intrinsic to specific academic disciplines. This framework centers how expert practitioners use specialized discourses to consume, interpret, create, and share knowledge within their fields. The scoping review methodology follows established evidence-synthesis approaches for mapping knowledge bases in emerging research domains, providing systematic identification of what has been established through prior research and determining gaps for future investigation.

Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted using the EBSCO platform to search studies published after January 2010. Boolean search terms included "disciplinary literac*," "disciplinary read*," "disciplinary writ*," combined with effectiveness, impact, and academic outcome terms. Articles were screened using Rayyan software and categorized as included (with quantitative outcomes), background, or excluded. Twenty-one studies meeting inclusion criteria were coded using an a priori codebook examining disciplinary focus, outcomes, grade levels, sample characteristics, intervention descriptions, study design, and effect sizes. Summary statistics and qualitative analysis identified primary themes and patterns across the literature.

Data Sources: The review analyzed 21 empirical studies meeting inclusion criteria, with 18 from peer-reviewed journals and 3 doctoral dissertations. Studies spanned elementary through high school levels, with disciplinary foci including history (n=11), science/engineering (n=9), and mathematics (n=1). Research designs included randomized controlled trials (n=5), quasi-experimental designs (n=8), and one-group pre-post designs (n=8). Most studies used researcher-developed rather than standardized outcome measures, with outcomes including writing ability, content knowledge, literacy/reading comprehension, and student motivation measures.

Findings: The study revealed promising but limited evidence for disciplinary literacy effectiveness. Twenty of 21 studies reported positive results on some or all outcome measures, with 18 studies reporting statistically significant findings. However, the evidence base showed considerable heterogeneity in intervention approaches, outcome measures, and populations studied. Elementary studies predominantly focused on science/engineering (6 of 7 studies), often motivated by Next Generation Science Standards. Writing ability and content knowledge were the most frequently measured outcomes (10 studies each). The current database was deemed insufficient for meta-analysis due to limited sample size, lack of standardized measures, and methodological diversity.

Significance: This systematic mapping of disciplinary literacy research reveals both the promise and current limitations of the empirical evidence base. While studies consistently show positive effects, the field lacks the standardized approaches and sufficient volume of rigorous studies needed for definitive conclusions about DL effectiveness. The findings highlight critical needs for developing common outcome measures, conducting larger-scale studies, and building more systematic research programs.

Authors

• Aaron Soo Ping Chow, WestEd

• Thomas Torre Gibney, WestEd

• Jazmin T. Cruz, WestEd