Writing in science can be challenging for all learners, and it is especially so for students with cognitive or language-based learning difficulties. Yet, we know very little about how to support students with learning disabilities (LD) or who are English learners (EL) when asked to write for authentic purposes during science instruction. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of 14 high-quality studies to identify effective writing instruction elements for students with LD, those who are EL, and for at-risk learners more generally. We analyzed the studies according to purpose, participants, dependent variables, and interventions. Then, we categorized instructional elements into two broad types of support: (a) cognitive skills and processes and (b) linguistic skills and processes. Quantitative analyses showed students (regardless of disability or language status) who received structured cognitive instruction on text features demonstrated substantial growth in writing. Conversely, although language in science differs from everyday language, it is absent from this literature. Thus, our findings provide insights into necessary cognitive and linguistic supports for these students, and implications for designing effective writing instruction.
*AkkusR.GunelM.HandB. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629
2.
*AugustD.Branum-MartinL.Cardenas-HaganE.FrancisD. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903217623
3.
Bangert-DrownsR.HurleyM.WilkinsonB. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-Learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
4.
BeckS. W.LlosaL.FredrickT. (2013). The challenges of writing exposition: Lessons from a study of ELL and non-ELL high school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29(4), 358–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.758938
5.
*Benedek-WoodE.MasonL.WoodP.HoffmanK.McGuireA. (2014). An experimental examination of quick writing in the middle school science classroom. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 69–92.
6.
*BrownB. A.RyooK.RodriguezJ. (2010). Pathway towards fluency: Using disaggregate instruction to promote science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1465–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903117921
7.
*BulgrenJ.MarquisJ.DeshlerD.LenzB.SchumakerJ. (2013). The use and effectiveness of a question exploration routine in secondary-level English language arts classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(4), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12018
CooperH.HedgesL. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 3–16). Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
De La PazS. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(2), 92–106. http://doi.org/10.1207/sldrp1402_3
11.
De La PazS.GrahamS. (1997). The effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 203–222.
12.
De La PazS.GrahamS. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687
De La PazS.McCutchenD. (2017). Learning to write. In MayerR. E.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 32–53). Routledge Press.
15.
De La PazS.Monte-SanoC.FeltonM.CroningerR.JacksonC.WorlandK. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.147
16.
De La PazS.ShermanC. (2013). Revising instruction in inclusive settings: Effects for English learners and novice writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12011
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593674
19.
GeeJ. P. (2002). Literacies, identities, and discourses. In SchleppegrellM.Cecilia ColombiM. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in fast and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 159–175). Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
GereA. R.LimlamaiN.WilsonE.MacDougall SaylorK.PughR. (2019). Writing and conceptual learning in science: An analysis of assignments. Written Communication, 36(1), 99–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804820
21.
GillespieA.GrahamS. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527238
22.
GrahamS.HallT. E. (2016). Writing and writing difficulties from primary grades to college: Introduction to the special issue. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715592154
23.
GrahamS.HarrisK. (2006). Preventing writing difficulties: Providing additional handwriting and spelling instruction to at-risk children in first grade. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 64–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603800509
24.
GrahamS.HarrisK.SantangeloT. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 498–522. https://doi.org/10.1086/681964
25.
HallidayM. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge. In MartinJ.VeelR. (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–235). Routledge.
26.
*HandB.WallaceC.YangE. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252
27.
HayesJ. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
*HebertM.BohatyJ.NelsonJ.RoehlingJ. (2018). Writing informational text using provided information and text structures: An intervention for upper elementary struggling writers. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2165–2190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9841-x
*KingirS.GebanO.GunelM. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1645–1663. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p2007
*KleinP. D.RoseM. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 433–461. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.4
33.
LeeO. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004491
34.
*LeeO.MahotiereM.SalinasA.PenfieldR.Maerten-RiveraJ. (2009). Science writing achievement among English language learners: Results of three-year intervention in urban elementary schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235880903170009
35.
LeeO.QuinnH.ValdesG. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
36.
LeeY.De La PazS. (in press). Writing scientific explanations: Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship for students with LD and English learners. Exceptional Children.
37.
LevinD. M.De La PazS.LeeY.EscolaE. N. (in press). Use of cognitive apprenticeship models of instruction to support middle school students’ construction and critique of written scientific explanations and arguments. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
38.
*MasonL. H.KatieH.DianaP.YoreK. (2006). TWA plans strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607300104
39.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
40.
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out. A survey of business leaders. College Entrance Examination Board.
41.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
42.
NesiH.MoretonE. (2012). EFL/ESL writers and the use of shell nouns. In TangR. (Ed.), Academic writing in a second or foreign language (pp. 126–145). Continuum.
43.
NewellG.BeachR.SmithJ.VanDerHeideJ. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4
44.
OlsonC.ScarcellaR.MatuchniakT. (2015). English learners, writing, and the common core. Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 570–592. https://doi.org/10.1086/681235
45.
*RouseG. A.GrahamS.ComptonD. (2017). Writing to learn in science: Effects on grade 4 students’ understanding of balance. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1103688
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.
48.
SchleppegrellM. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
TerblancheL. (2009). A comparative study of nominalisation in L1 and L2 writing and speech. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.1.4.752
50.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Twenty-ninth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Parts B and C. 2007. Retrieved October 30, 2019, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2007/parts-b-c
WhittakerR.O’DonnellM.McCabeA. (2006). Language and literacy: Functional approaches. Continuum.
53.
WignellP.MartinJ. R.EgginsS. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle texts as technology. In HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 136–165). Falmer Press.
*WrightK.HodgesT.ZimmerW.McTigueE. (2018). Writing-to-learn in secondary science classes: For whom is it effective?Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35, 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1541769
56.
ZwiersJ. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting common core standards across disciplines, grades 5-12 (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
