Developing academic literacy involves learning valued content and rhetoric in a discipline. Within history, writing from primary documents to construct an evidenced interpretation of an issue requires students to transform both background and document knowledge, read and interpret historical documents, and manage discourse synthesis. The authors examine the potential of the Advanced Placement Document-Based Question as constructed and presented by an exemplary teacher to engage students in historical reasoning and writing. The authors analyzed how five students responded to four document-based questions over a year, tracing how organization, document use, and citation language indicate the degree to which writers transformed and integrated information in disciplinary ways. Students moved from knowledge telling (listing period and document content as discrete information bits) to knowledge transformation (integrating content as interpreted evidence for an argument). Students had difficulty learning to handle the complex layers of the task. The authors discuss how instruction might mediate this complexity and promote academic literacy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, J. M.
(1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 133-178.
2.
Ackerman, J. M.
(1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334-370.
3.
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
. (1996). High standards, American style: Broadening access to AP courses is something we can do now. American Educator, 20(1), 40-41.
4.
Applebee, A. N.
(1981). Writing in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
5.
Applebee, A. N.
(1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577-596.
6.
Applebee, A. N.
(1993). Literature in the secondary school (NCTE Research Report No. 25). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
7.
Bailyn, B.
(1994). On the teaching and writing of history: Responses to a series of questions. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
8.
Ball, C. C.
, Dice, L., & Bartholomae, D. (1990). Telling secrets: Student readers and disciplinary authorities. In R. Beach & S. Hynds (Eds.), Advances in discourse processes: Vol. 39. Developing discourse practices in adolescence and adulthood (pp. 337-358). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9.
Bartholomae, D.
(1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other process problems (pp. 134-165). New York: Guilford.
10.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
11.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Britt, M. A.
, Rouet, J. -F., Georgi, M. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Learning from history texts: From causal analysis to argument models. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 47-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Cook, A.
(1988). History/writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Durst, R. K.
(1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(4), 347-376.
15.
Emig, J.
(1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
16.
Flower, L.
(1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41, 19-37.
17.
Flower, L.
(1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, P. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. Peck (Eds.), Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35-75). New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
Flower, L.
(1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
19.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Flower, L.
, Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M. J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. C. (Eds.). (1990). Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Fulwiler, T.
, & Young, A. (Eds.). (1982). Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
22.
Gee, J.P.
(1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: An introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5-17.
23.
Geisler, C.
(1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Gere, A. R.
(Ed.). (1985). Roots in the sawdust. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
25.
Greene, S.
(1993). The role of task in the development of academic thinking through reading and writing in a college history course. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 46-75.
26.
Greene, S.
(1994). Students as authors in the study of history. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 137-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Hayes, J. R.
, & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Herrington, A.
, & Moran, C. (Eds.). (1992). Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
29.
Holt, T.
(1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
30.
Joliffe, D. A.
, & Brier, E. M. (1988). Studying writer's knowledge in academic disciplines. In D. A. Joliffe (Ed.), Advances in writing research: Vol. 2. Writing in academic disciplines (pp. 35-87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
Langer, J. A.
(1984). The effects of available information on responses to school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 27-43.
32.
Langer, J. A.
(1992). Speaking of knowing: Conceptions of understanding in academic disciplines (pp. 69-85). In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
33.
Langer, J. A.
, & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
34.
Lave, J.
, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Leinhardt, G.
(1993a). Instructional explanations in history and mathematics. In W. Kintsch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 5-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Leinhardt, G.
(1993b). Weaving instructional explanations in history. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 46-74.
37.
Leinhardt, G.
(1994). History: A time to be mindful. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 209-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Leinhardt, G.
(1995, May). Paul's voice, Paul's pen: Learning to reason in history. Paper presented at the Tanner Symposium on Memory, Representation, and Culture, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
39.
Leinhardt, G.
, Stainton, C., & Virji, S. M. (1994). A sense of history. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 79-88.
40.
Leinhardt, G.
, Stainton, C., Virji, S. M., & Odoroff, E. (1994). Learning to reason in history: Mindlessness to mindfulness. In M. Carretaro & J. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 131-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
Leinhardt, G.
, & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Issues of distance and expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441-486.
42.
Marshall, J. D.
(1987). The effects of writing on students' understanding of literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 30-63.
43.
McCutchen, D.
(1984). Writing as a linguistic problem. Educational Psychologist, 14(4), 226-238.
44.
McGinley, W.
, & Tierney, R. J. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6(3), 243-269.
45.
Meyer, B.J.F.
(1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
Newell, G. E.
(1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 265-287.
47.
Newell, G. E.
(1994). The effects of written between-draft responses on students' reasoning about literature. Written Communication, 11(3), 311-347.
48.
Olson, D. R.
(1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47(3), 257-281.
49.
Olson, D. R.
, & Torrance, N. (1981). Learning to meet the requirements of written text: Language development in the school years. In C. H. Fredericksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication: Vol. 2. Process, development, and communication (pp. 235-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
Penrose, A. M.
(1992). To write or not to write: Effects of task and task interpretation on learning through writing. Written Communication, 9, 465-500.
51.
Perfetti, C. A.
, Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Perfetti, C. A.
, Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. -F., Georgi, M. C., & Mason, R. A. (1994). How students use texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In M. Carretaro & J. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 257-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Rothschild, E.
(1995). Aspiration, performance, reward: The Advanced Placement Program at 40. College Board Review, 176-77, 24-32.
54.
Russell, D.
(1992). American Origins of the writing-across-the-curriculum movement. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 22-44). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
55.
Scardamalia, M.
, & Bereiter, C. (1984). Development of strategies in text processing. In H. Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 379-406). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Scardamalia, M.
, & Bereiter, C. (1985). Development of dialectical processes in writing. In D. Olsen, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 307-329). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Scardamalia, M.
, & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied linguistics: Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142-175). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Schama, S.
(1991, September 8). Clio has a problem. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 29-33.
59.
Smagorinsky, P.
(1995). Constructing meaning in the disciplines: Reconceptualizing writing across the curriculum as composing across the curriculum. American Journal of Education, 103, 160-184.
60.
Sperling, M.
(1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66, 53-86.
61.
Spivey, N. N.
(1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-267.
62.
Spivey, N. N.
, & King, J. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 1-14.
63.
Stockton, S.
(1995). Writing in history: Narrating the subject of time. Written Communication, 12(1), 47-73.
64.
Walvoord, B. E.
, & Breihan, J. R. (1990). Arguing and debating: Breihan's history course. In B. E. Walvoord & L. P. McCarthy (Eds.), Thinking and writing in college: A naturalistic study of students in four disciplines (pp. 97-143). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
65.
Walvoord, B. E.
, & McCarthy, L. P. (1990). Thinking and writing in college: A naturalistic study of students in four disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
66.
Wineburg, S.
(1991a). 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.
67.
Wineburg, S.
(1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.
68.
Wineburg, S.
(1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69.
Wineburg, S.
, & Wilson, S. M. (1991). Subject matter knowledge in the teaching of history. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers' subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction (pp. 305-347). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
70.
Witte, S. P.
(1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9(2), 237-308.
71.
Young, K. M.
(1996). Learning between the lines: An account of an apprenticeship in poetry (Technical Report No. CLIP-96-03). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
72.
Young, K. M.
, & Leinhardt, G. (in press). Wildflowers, sheep, and democracy: The role of analogy in the teaching and learning of history. In J. F. Voss & M. Carretaro (Eds.), Learning and reasoning in history. London: Woburn.
