Writing in science can be challenging for all learners, and it is especially so for students with cognitive or language-based learning difficulties. We examined the effects of a cognitive apprenticeship on student disciplinary writing skills as well as near and far transfer of learning outcomes. This instructional approach included a gradual release of responsibility for learning through four, 3-day investigations that included authentic scientific experiments, small- and whole-group discussions, and the construction and revision of scientific arguments. Intervention students showed significant gains for both near (effect size = 1.08) and far (effect size = 0.76) transfer disciplinary writing outcomes. These results held true even when compared with a nonequivalent control group (effect size = 1.95). Students with disabilities demonstrated similar rates of growth as peers without disabilities, especially with respect to the quality of their claims and ability to provide scientific evidence. This study provides additional data on the value of cognitive apprenticeships in middle school science classrooms, and the results indicate the importance of discussion in helping students to think and write more like scientists.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.HurleyM. M.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
2.
BarnettS. M.CeciS. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
3.
BerlandL. K.McNeillK. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional context. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
4.
BerlandL. K.RussR. S.WestC. P. (2020). Supporting the Scientific Practices through Epistemologically Responsive Science Teaching. Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 264–290.
5.
BransfordJ.BrownA. L.CockingR. (Eds.). (1999). Learning and transfer. In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 39–66). National Academy Press.
BrownV. L.WiederholtJ. L.HammillD. D. (2009). TORC-4: Test of reading comprehension (4th ed.). Pro-Ed.
8.
CampbellD. T.CookT. D.ShadishW. R.Jr. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
9.
CarterM.FerzliM.WiebeE. N. (2007). Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651907300466
10.
ChangN. M. (2006). Learning to discriminate and generalize through problem comparisons [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Carnegie Mellon University.
11.
ChiM. T. H.VanLehnK. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.695709
12.
De La PazS. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139
13.
De La PazS.FeltonM.Monte-SanoC.CroningerB.JacksonC.DeograciasJ.HoffmanB. P. (2014). Developing historical reading and writing with struggling adolescent readers: Implementation and learning outcomes. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42, 228–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.908754
14.
De La PazS.LevinD. M. (2018). Beyond “they cited the text”: Middle school students and teachers’ written critiques of scientific conclusions. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1433–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11165-016-9609-8
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.NokesJ. D. (2020). Strategic processing in history and historical strategy instruction. In DinsmoreD. L.FryerL. K.ParkinsonM. M. (Eds.), Handbook of strategies and strategic processing (pp. 195–215). Routledge.
17.
EngleR. A. (2006). Findings about the nature of the whale group’s transfer [Supplement]. Available from the author.
18.
EngleR. A.LamD. P.MeyerX. S.NixS. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.695678
19.
FeltonM.LevinD. M.De La PazS.ButlerC. (in press). Scientific argumentation and responsive teaching: Dialogic teaching in three 8th grade science classrooms. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21740
20.
FordM. J. (2008). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
GroomsJ.EnderleP. J.HutnerT.MurphyA.SampsonV. (2016). Argument-driven inquiry in physical science: Lab investigations for Grades 6-8 (Vol. 4). NSTA Press.
24.
HammillD. D.LarsenS. C. (2009). Test of written language (4th ed.). PRO-ED.
25.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.MasonL. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295
26.
HoganK.MaglientiM. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1025
LeeY.De La PazS. (2021a). Writing scientific explanations: Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship for students with LD and English learners. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921999310
29.
LeeY.De La PazS. (2021b). Science writing research for students with and at risk for learning disabilities and English learners: A systematic review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(4), 1–14. 10.1177/07319487211018213
30.
LevinD. M.De La PazS.LeeY.NadalE. (2021). Supporting students’ construction and critique of scientific explanations and arguments: A cognitive apprenticeship for teaching scientific writing in middle school inclusion classrooms. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2021-V26-I1-10380
31.
McNeilK. L.KrajcikJ. S. (2012). Supporting Grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.
32.
MestreJ. (2003). Transfer of learning: Issues and research agenda [Paper Presentation]. Workshop held at the National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA, United States.
33.
Monte-SanoC.De La PazS.FeltonM. (2014). Implementing a disciplinary literacy curriculum for U.S. history: Learning from expert middle school teachers in diverse classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 540–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.904444
34.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
35.
OsborneJ.ErduranS.SimonS. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 944–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
36.
ReevesL. M.WeisbergR. W. (1994). The role of content and abstract information in analogical transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.381
37.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.561
38.
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
39.
SampsonV.EnderleP.GroomsJ.WitteS. (2013). Writing to learn and learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
40.
SchwartzD. L.NasirN. (2003). Transfer of learning. InGuthrieW. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1449–1452). Macmillan.
41.
TelescaL.EhrenB. J.Hahs-VaughnD. L.Zygouris-CoeV. I.Pak-HinKongA. (2020). The effect of metalinguistic sentence combining on eighth grade students’ understanding and written expression of comparison and contrast in science. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 63(9), 3068–3083. http://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00086
42.
ThorndikeE. L. (2009). Educational psychology. Biblio-Life. (Original work published 1903)
WissingerD. R.De La PazS. (2020). Effects of discipline-specific strategy instruction on historical writing growth of students with writing difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420904343
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.
