Today’s students live within a world filled with complexity, uncertainty, and misinformation; thus, educators need to help all learners, including students with learning disabilities, how to comprehend complex information about the natural world and make credible evidence-based claims. Our study is a first step in making this possible. In this investigation, our goal was for students to make a claim, use evidence and content-specific vocabulary, and then use reasoning to link claims with evidence in an argument. These outcomes were assessed using a pre–post design with a scenario-based assessment administered twice before and once after instruction, which used multimodal STEM text sets to fuse science and literacy learning. Data indicate that (a) both students with disabilities and those without disabilities made significant gains in argumentation and (b) the effects of instruction were similar for both groups of students. Gains for students with disabilities suggest the multimodal STEM text sets provided important scaffolding that enabled this group to learn important content in the general education classroom.
BerlandL. K.HammerD. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
2.
BerlandL. K.McNeillK. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
3.
BooneW. J.StaverJ. R.YaleM. S. (2013). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer.
4.
BoyleJ. R.RosenS. M.ForchelliG. (2016). Exploring metacognitive strategy use during note-taking for students with learning disabilities. Education 3-13, 44(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2014.929722
5.
BoyleS.RizzoK. L.TaylorJ. C. (2020). Reducing language barriers in science for students with special educational needs. Asia-pacific Science Education, 6(2), 364–387.
6.
BrickerL. A.BellP.Van HorneK.ClarkT. L. (2017). Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. In SchwarzC. V.PassmoreC.ReiserBrian J.Helping students make sense of the world using the Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 259–281). National Science Teaching Association.
7.
BulgrenJ. A.EllisJ. D.MarquisJ. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 82-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9452-x
8.
CappielloM. A.DawesE. T. (2021). Text sets in action: Pathways through content area literacy. Stenhouse Publishers.
9.
CervettiG. N.HiebertE. H. (2015). The sixth pillar of reading instruction: Knowledge development. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 548–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1343
10.
CervettiG. N.WrightT. S.HwangH. (2016). Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect?Reading and Writing, 29(4), 761–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9628-x
11.
CheukT. (2013). Relationships and convergences among the mathematics, science, and ELA practices(Refined version of diagram created by the Understanding Language Initiative for ELP Standards). Stanford University.
12.
DeaneP.SongY.van RijnP.O’ReillyT.FowlesM.BennettR.. . .ZhangM. (2019). The case for scenario-based assessment of written argumentation. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1575–1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9852-7
13.
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/sldrp1402_3
14.
De La PazS.ButlerC.LevinD. M.FeltonM. K. (2022). Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship on transfer of argumentative writing in middle school science. Learning Disability Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221119365
15.
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
16.
Elish-PiperL.WoldL. S.SchwingendorfK. (2014). Scaffolding high school students’ reading of complex texts using linked text sets. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(7), 565-574. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.29
17.
FriedrichL.BearR.FoxT. (2018). For the Sake of Argument: An Approach to Teaching Evidence-Based Writing. American Educator, 42(1), 18.
18.
GilkersonJ.RichardsJ. A.WarrenS. F.MontgomeryJ. K.GreenwoodC. R.Kimbrough OllerD.. . .PaulT. D. (2017). Mapping the early language environment using all-day recordings and automated analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0169
GotwalsA. W.SongerN. B. (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94(2), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20368
21.
GrahamS.KiuharaS. A.MacKayM. (2020). The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
22.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4–9.
23.
HebertM.KearnsD. M.HayesJ. B.BazisP.CooperS. (2018). Why children with dyslexia struggle with writing and how to help them. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 49(4), 843-863. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0024
24.
KimJ. S.BurkhauserM. A.MesiteL. M.AsherC. A.RelyeaJ. E.FitzgeraldJ.ElmoreJ. (2021a). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465
25.
KimJ. S.RelyeaJ. E.BurkhauserM. A.SchererE.RichP. (2021b). Improving elementary grade students’ science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6
26.
KimballD. R.HolyoakK. J. (2000). Transfer and expertise. In TulvingE.CraikF. I. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 109–122). Oxford University Press.
27.
KleinP. D.RoseM. A. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 433–461.
28.
KuhnD. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.
29.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
30.
LeeY.PazS. D. L. (2021). Writing scientific explanations: Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship for students with LD and English learners. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 458–475. doi. 10.1177/0014402921999310
31.
LevinD. M.De La PazS.LeeY.EscolaE. N. (2021). 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, 26(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2021-V26-I1-10380
32.
LinacreJ. M. (2011). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS [Computer manual]. Winsteps.
33.
LinacreJ. M.TennantA. (2009). More about critical eigenvalue sizes (variances) in standardized residual principal components analysis (PCA). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 23(3), 1228. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt233f.htm
34.
LinacreJ. M.WrightB. D. (1988). Facets. MESA.
35.
LlewellynD. (2013). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation. Corwin Press.
36.
LupoS. M.BerryA.ThackerE.SawyerA.MerrittJ. (2020). Rethinking text sets to support knowledge building and interdisciplinary learning. The Reading Teacher, 73(4), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1869
37.
LupoS. M.StrongJ. Z.LewisW.WalpoleS.McKennaM. C. (2018). Building background knowledge through reading: Rethinking text sets. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.701
38.
LupoS. M.TortorelliL.InvernizziM.RyooJ. H.StrongJ. Z. (2019). An exploration of text difficulty and knowledge support on adolescents’ comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.247
39.
MasonL. H.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (2011). Self-regulated strategy development for students with writing difficulties. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534922
40.
McLaughlinM.OverturfB. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K–5 standards. Reading Teacher, 66(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01115
41.
McNeillK. L.González-HowardM.Katsh-SingerR.LoperS. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274
42.
McNeillK. L.KrajcikJ. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In LuftJ.BellR.Gess-NewsomeJ. (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121–134). National Science Teachers Association Press.
43.
Miller-StruttmannN. E.HeiseD.SchulJ.GeibJ. C.GalenC. (2017). Flight of the bumble bee: Buzzes predict pollination services. PLOS ONE, 12(6), Article e0179273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179273
44.
MoonN. W.ToddR. L.MortonD. L.IveyE. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology.
45.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.
46.
NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
47.
OsborneJ. F.HendersonJ. B.MacPhersonA.SzuE.WildA.YaoS. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
48.
PearsonP. D.HansenJ.GordonC. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967909547324
49.
PearsonP. D.MojeE.GreenleafC. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595
50.
SjöströmJ.EilksI. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of bildung. In DoriY.MevarechZ.BakerD. (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65–88). Springer.
51.
SmithR.SnowP.SerryT.HammondL. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348
52.
SperryD. E.SperryL. L.MillerP. J. (2019). Reexamining the verbal environments of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Child Development, 90(4), 1303–1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13072
53.
SpiroR. J.CollinsB. P.ThotaJ. J.FeltovichP. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
54.
SteinwegC.GutowskiW. J. (2015). Projected changes in greater St. Louis summer heat stress in NARCCAP simulations. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2), 159–168.
55.
ToulminS. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
56.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook (Version 4.1). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
57.
WrightB. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, Article 370. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt83b.htm – note there is no doi associated with this article but the link goes directly to the article
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.
