In inclusive science classrooms, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have changed how science is taught in recent years. For example, students are now taught scientific concepts and practices that involve using complex skills such as argumentation and reasoning and then applying these skills during writing activities. Unfortunately, students with learning disabilities (SWLD) often experience difficulties with scientific reasoning and argumentation as well as writing skills. To address these concerns, a scientific argumentative writing intervention was developed comprised of an argumentative strategy and a graphic organizer. Seventy high school biology students, 19 of whom were SWLD, were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group. Students in the experimental group were taught the intervention. Findings showed that students in the experimental group outperformed students in the control group on the amount of text written and the quality of their essays. Limitations of the study, as well as implications for teachers, are discussed.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. The Guilford Press.
3.
BanilowerE. R.SmithP. S.MalzahnK. A.PlumleyC. L.GordonE. M.HayesM. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc. https://bit.ly/40JkCSH
4.
BarryL. M.MooreW. E. (2004). Students with specific learning disabilities can pass state competency exams: Systematic strategy instruction makes a difference. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.48.3.10-15
5.
BoyleJ. R. (2024). Argumentative writing for students with disabilities in inclusive science classes: A pilot study. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 41(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2024.2389776
6.
BoyleJ. R.FrithD.JoyceR. (2023). Using the JIGSAW smartpen strategy to complete the note-taking puzzle. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 55(6), https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221117815
BuiY. N.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2006). The effects of a strategic writing program for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive fifth-grade classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00221.x
9.
BulgrenJ. A.EllisJ. D.MarquisJ. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. J Sci Educ Technol, 23(1), 82–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24019829 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9452-x
10.
BulgrenJ. A.MarquisJ. G.LenzK. B.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2009). Effectiveness of question exploration to enhance students’ written expression of content knowledge and comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 25(4), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903120813
11.
ChenY. C.ParkS.HandB. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
12.
CiulloS.MasonL. H.JuddL. (2021). Persuasive quick-writing about text: Intervention for students with learning disabilities. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519882894
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
14.
CrossleyS. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11, 415–443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
15.
Cuenca-CarlinoY.MustianA. L. (2017). Self-regulated strategy development: Connecting persuasive writing to self-advocacy for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 39(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291303900102
16.
Cuenca-SanchezY.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.KiddJ. K. (2012). Teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders to self-advocate through persuasive writing. Exceptionality, 20(2), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.669291
17.
De La PazS. (1997). The effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.203
18.
De La PazS.ButlerC.LevinD. M.FeltonM. K. (2024). Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship on transfer of argumentative writing in middle school science. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(2), 70–83. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.libproxy.temple.edu/10.1177/07319487221119365
19.
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
20.
De La PazS.LevinD. M.ButlerC. (2023). Addressing an unfulfilled expectation: Teaching students with disabilities to write scientific arguments. Written Communication, 40(2), 448–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221149093
21.
DepremS. T.ÇakıroğluJ.ÖztekinC.KıngırS. (2023). Effectiveness of argument-based inquiry approach on grade 8 students’ science content achievement, metacognition, and epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 1057–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10299-x
22.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Corwin Press.
23.
DrewS. V.OlinghouseN. G.Faggella-LubyM.WelshM. E. (2017). Framework for disciplinary writing in science grades 6-12: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000186
24.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. V.OkoloC. M.ShanklandR. K.MoxleyK. D.CourtadC. A.Jocks-MeierB. S.O'BrienJ. C.MartinN. M.ChenH.-Y. (2009). The learning-to-learn strategies of adolescent students with disabilities: Highlighting, note taking, planning, and writing expository texts. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(3), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508408318804
25.
FerrettiR. P.LewisW. E.Andrews-WeckerlyS. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies?Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 577–589. https://doi.org/.libproxy.temple.edu/10.1037/a0014702
26.
FlanaganS. M.BouckE. C. (2015). Supporting written expression in secondary students with a series of procedural facilitators: A pilot study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(4), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.857975
27.
GarwoodJ. D.WertsM. G.MasonL. H.HarrisB.AustinM. B.CiulloS.MagnerK.KoppenhaverD. A.ShinM. (2018). Improving persuasive science writing for secondary students with emotional and behavioral disorders educated in residential treatment facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 44(4), 227–240. https://doi.org/libproxy.temple.edu/10.1177/0198742918809341
28.
GorardS. (2012). The propagation of errors in experimental data analysis: A comparison of pre- and post-test designs. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 36(4), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.741117
29.
GrahamS.BruchJ.FitzgeraldJ.FriedrichL.FurgesonJ.GreeneK.KimJ.LyskawaJ.OlsonC. B.Smither WulsinC. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively (NCEE 2017-4002). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/Search/Products?productType=1
30.
GrahamS.CollinsA. A.CiulloS. (2023). Special and general education teachers’ beliefs about writing and writing instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/libproxy.temple.edu/10.1177/00222194221092156
31.
GrahamS.CollinsA. A.Rigby-WillsH. (2017). Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Except Child, 83(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916664070
32.
GrahamS.HarrisK. (1992). Cognitive strategy instruction in written language for learning disabled students. In VogelS. (Ed.), Educational alternatives for students with learning disabilities (pp. 91–115). Springer-Verlag.
33.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.McKeownD. (2014). The writing of students with learning disabilities, meta-analysis of self-regulated strategy development writing intervention studies, and future directions: Redux. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed, pp. 405–438). The Guilford Press.
GroomsJ.EnderleP.SampsonV. (2015). Coordinating scientific argumentation and the Next Generation Science Standards through argument-driven inquiry. Science Educator, 24(1), 45–50. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1069981.pdf
36.
GuoL.CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18, 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002
37.
HomburgerS. A.Drits-EsserD.MaloneM.StarkL. A. (2021). Building argumentation skills in the biology classroom: An evolution unit that develops students’ capacity to construct arguments from evidence. American Biology Teacher, 83(2), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2021.83.2.104
38.
HsuP.-S.Van DykeM.ChenY.SmithT. J. (2016). A cross-cultural study of the effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on middle school students’ science knowledge and argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 325, 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12118
39.
HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R.TherrienW. J.BensonS. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140–148. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.libproxy.temple.edu/10.1111/ldrp.12142
40.
Institute of Education Science – Regional Educational Laboratory (IES- REL). (2020). Implementing high-quality performance assessments in science. https://bit.ly/42piQaF
41.
İlterİ (2017). Improving the Reading comprehension of primary-school students at frustration-level reading through the paraphrasing strategy training: A multiple-probe design study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2017131894
42.
KahnS.LewisA. R. (2014). Survey on teaching science to K-12 students with disabilities: Teacher preparedness and attitudes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(8), 885–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9406-z
43.
KallestinovaE. (2017). Crafting an argument in steps: A writing process model for graduate and professional students with LD. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 15–37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141997.pdf
44.
KangM.RaganB. G.ParkJ. H. (2008). Issues in outcomes research: An overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.215
45.
KrawecJ.MontagueM. (2014). The role of teacher training in cognitive strategy instruction to improve math problem-solving. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(3), 126–134. https://doi.org/libproxy.temple.edu/10.1111/ldrp.12034
46.
KroeschA. M.PeeplesK. N.PleasantC. L.Cuenca-CarlinoY. (2022). Let’s argue: Developing argumentative writing skills for students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(5), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1970659
47.
LancasterP. E.LancasterS. J. C.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2006). The efficacy of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a test-taking strategy to students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340602100202
48.
LeeY.De La PazS. (2021). Science writing intervention research for students with and at risk for learning disabilities, and English learners: A systematic review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(4), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487211018213
49.
MasonL. H.CiulloS.CollinsA. A.BradyS.ElcockL.OwenL. S. (2022). Exploring inclusive middle-school content teachers’ training, perceptions, and classroom practice for writing. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 20(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1359620.pdf
50.
McCutchenD. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3
51.
McNamaraD. S.CrossleyS. A.RoscoeR. D.AllenL. K.DaiJ. (2015). A hierarchical classification approach to automated essay scoring. Assessing Writing, 23, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.09.002
52.
McNeillK. L.KrajcikJ. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460. https://doi.org/http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736770
53.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M.MaczugaS. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182
54.
MumbaF.BandaA.ChabalengulaB.DolenceA. (2015). Chemistry teachers’ perceived benefits and challenges of inquiry-based instruction in inclusive chemistry classrooms. Science Education International, 26(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1064034.pdf
55.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg
56.
NewellG. E.MisarK. S. (2022). Argumentative writing as an epistemic practice in middle school science. Journal of Literacy Research, 54(3), 272–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X221116860
57.
New Jersey Department of Education. (2023). Special education (N.J.A.C. 6A:14). New Jersey administrative code. https://www.nj.gov/education/code
58.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://bit.ly/4autnU0
59.
NilsenK.IvelandA.TylerB.BrittonT.NguyenK.ArnettE. (2020). NGSS in the classroom: What early implementer science instruction looks like. WestEd.
60.
NussbaumE. M.Van WinkleM. S.TianL.PutneyL. G.HuertaM.PereraH. N.DoveI. J.HerreraA. N.CarrollK. R. (2024). Extending science instruction beyond the CER: Use of critical questions in the argumentation of middle school science students. Science Education, 108(5), 1420–1447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21877
61.
NystrandM.GraffN. (2001). Report in argument’s clothing: An ecological perspective on writing instruction in a seventh-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 479–493. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002134
62.
OliveT. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4
63.
OliveT. (2021). Executive functions in skilled writers. In LimpoT.OliveT. (Eds.), Executive functions and writing (pp. 207–226). Oxford University Press.
64.
QuintanaC.ReiserB.DavisE. A.KrajcikJ.FretzE.GolanR. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for designing educational software. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. https://doi.org/bmbsjc
65.
RayA. B.GrahamS. (2021). A college entrance essay exam intervention for students with high-incidence disabilities and struggling writers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(4), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720917761
66.
RiccominiP. J.MoranoS.HughesC. A. (2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially designed instruction, high-leverage practices, explicit instruction, and intensive instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 20–27. https://doi-org.libproxy.temple.edu/10.1177/0040059917724412
67.
RoitschJ.GumpertM.SpringleA.RaymerA. M. (2021). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Quality appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221
68.
RuffiniC.OsmaniF.MartiniC.GieraW. K.PeciniC. (2024). The relationship between executive functions and writing in children: A systematic review. Child Neuropsychology, 30(1), 105–163. https://doi.org/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09297049.2023.2170998
69.
SaddlerB. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035555
70.
SaddlerB.AsaroK. (2007). Increasing story quality through planning and revising: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/25474635
71.
SampsonV.EnderleP.GroomsJ.WitteS. (2013). Writing to learn by 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
72.
SantangeloT. (2014). Why is writing so difficult for students with learning disabilities? A narrative review to inform the design of effective instruction. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12, 5–10. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1039858
73.
ScanlonD.CassR.AmtzisA.SideridisG. (2009). Procedural facilitation of propositional knowledge in the content areas. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903120854
74.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2009). Adolescents with learning disabilities as writers: Are we selling them short?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00282.x
75.
SextonM.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299806400301
76.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
77.
TankersleyA.HasselerE.LewisE.LucasL.HeldingB. (2024). Science teachers’ initial use of NGSS science practices in diverse classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(6), 572–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2024.2316434
78.
TaylorJ.TherrienW. J.KaldenbergE. R.WattS. J.ChanlenN.HandB. (2011). Using an inquiry-based teaching approach to improve science outcomes for students with disabilities: Snapshot and longitudinal data. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 15(1), 27–39. https://scholarworks.rit.edu/jsesd/vol15/iss1/4/ https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.04.0003
79.
TaylorJ. C.TsengC.MurilloA.TherrienW.HandB. (2018). Using argument-based science inquiry to improve science achievement for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 21(1), 1–14. https://scholarworks.rit.edu/jsesd/vol21/iss1/2/ https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.10.0001
TherrienW. J.BensonS. K.HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R. (2017). Explicit instruction and next generation science standards aligned classrooms: A fit or a split?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12137
82.
TroiaG. (2011). How might pragmatic language skills affect the written expression of students with language learning disabilities?Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 40–53. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ927243 https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e31820a0b71
83.
TroiaG. A.GrahamS. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher- directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040101
84.
TroiaG. A.GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500208
85.
TroiaG.LinS.MonroeB.CohenS. (2009). The effect of writing workshop instruction on the performance and motivation of good and poor writers. In TroiaG. A. (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers: Evidence-based practices (pp. 77–104).
ValasaL. L.MasonL. H.HughesC. (2014). Essay-writing interventions for adolescents with high incidence disabilities: A review of research. International Journal for Research in Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.28987/ijrld.v2i1.1845
88.
Vander HartV.PowerM. (2021). Teaching writing strategies with tiered supports for middle school students with and without special needs: A case study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 66(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.2016568
89.
VenvilleG. J.DawsonV. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
90.
WagnerS.SibleyL.WeilerD.BurdeJ. P.ScheiterK.LachnerA. (2024). The more, the better? Learning with feedback and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 89, 101844–101855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101844
91.
WendlingB. J.SchrankF. A.SchmittA. J. (2007). Educational Interventions Related to the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Assessment Service Bulletin No. 8). Riverside Publishing. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2370/2179
92.
WingardK. C. (2019). 2018 NSSME+: Status of high school biology. Horizon Research, Inc. https://bit.ly/3E50ulc
93.
WongB. Y. L.ButlerD. L.FiczereS. A.KuperisS. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900209
94.
YamanF. (2018). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Math Education, 16, 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9
