In this study, we explored the potential of two forms of discussion (disciplinary vs. traditional) for 39 sixth- and seventh-grade students with or at risk for learning disabilities (LD), before writing historical arguments. Nine teachers who led small group discussions in six heterogeneous social studies classrooms implemented the intervention. Students who were involved in disciplinary discussions (n = 19) scored statistically higher than their peers who engaged in traditional discussions (n = 20) on a measure of historical knowledge (partial η2 = .23); they also wrote essays with better persuasive quality (partial η2 = .43) and greater evidence of historical thinking (partial η2 = .40). A delayed posttest delivered 8 weeks after instruction ended revealed that students in the experimental condition continued to write in more historically sophisticated ways than did students in the comparison condition (partial η2 = .19). Challenges, however, remain for struggling learners who must now meet basic and advanced disciplinary literacy goals.
BouckE. C.OkoloC. M.EnglertC. S.HeutscheA. (2008). Cognitive apprenticeship into the discipline: Helping students with disabilities think and act like historians. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(2), 21–40.
2.
BradfordK. (2011). Reading and writing in math, science, and social studies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BuckleyC. Y. (2005). Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between Regular and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive classrooms. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 18, 153–198.
4.
BulgrenJ. A.GranerP. S.DeshlerD. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 17–27.
5.
CarrE. H. (1954). What is history?New York, NY: Knopf.
6.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards: Application to students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
7.
De La PazS. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery inculturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139–156.
8.
De La PazS.Monte-SanoC.FeltonM.CroningerR.JacksonC.WorlandK. (2016). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/rrq.147
9.
De La PazS.FerrettiR.WissingerD.YeeL.MacArthurC. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29, 412– 454.
10.
De La PazS.GrahamS. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 167–181.
11.
DriverR.NewtonP.OsborneJ. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analyses program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
13.
FeltonM.HerkoS. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 672–683.
14.
FeltonM.KuhnD. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 135–153.
15.
FerrettiR. P.MacArthurC. D.OkoloC. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59–71.
16.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216–227.
17.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.JohnsonJ. S.DiminoJ.PetersonA. (2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 264–280.
18.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
19.
Hernandez-RamosP.De La PazS. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in project-based learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 151–173.
20.
HuckS. W.McLeanR. A. (1975). Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data for a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 511–518.
21.
JitendraA. K.GajriaM. (2011). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(8), 1–16.
22.
KuhnD.ShawV.FeltonM. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
23.
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR.OkoloC. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th century american Immigration. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 160–172.
24.
MacagnoF.KonstantinidouK. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27(3), 225–243.
25.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2010). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
MinkL. (1987). Historical understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
MojeE. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
28.
Monte-SanoC. (2008). Qualities of effective writing instruction in history classrooms: A cross-case comparison of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045–1079.
29.
Monte-SanoC.De La PazS. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273–299.
NewmanL.WagnerM.HuangT.ShaverD.KnokeyA.-M.YuJ.. . .CametoR. (2011). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities (NCSER Report No. 2012-3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.
32.
NussbaumE. M.EdwardsO. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443–488.
33.
OkoloC. M.FerrettiR. P. (1996). The impact of multimedia design projects on the knowledge, attitudes, and collaboration of students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 223–351.
34.
OkoloC. M.FerrettiR. P.MacArthurC. A. (2007). Talking about history: Discussions in a middle school inclusive classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 154–165.
35.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2010a). PSSA technical report, 2010. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
36.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2010b). Writing assessment handbook. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
37.
Psychological Corporation. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
38.
ReismanA. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition & Instruction, 30, 86–112.
39.
ReznitskayaA.AndersonR. C.McNurlenB.Ngyuen-JahielK.ArchodidouA.KimS. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.
40.
SampsonV.GroomsJ.WalkerJ. P. (2010). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217–257.
41.
SeixasP. (2015). A model of historical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory: Incorporating ACCESS. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00131857.2015.1101363
42.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.
43.
ShemiltD. (1983). The devil’s locomotive. History and Theory, 22(4), 1–18.
44.
SongY.FerrettiR. P. (2013). Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revising process: Effects of strategy instruction on college students’ argumentative essays. Reading and Writing, 26, 67–90.
45.
ToulminS. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46.
van DrieJ.van BoxtelC. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 87–110
47.
van HoverS. D.YeagerE. A. (2003). Secondary history teachers and inclusion of students with disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Studies Research, 27(1), 36–45.
48.
WaltonD.ReedC.MacagnoF. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
WineburgS. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.
50.
WissingerD.De La PazS. (2016). Using small-group discussions to enhance the historical arguments of middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 43–59.
