Effects of Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction on Historical Writing Growth of Students With Writing Difficulties.

This article reports the results from a study investigating the effects of a discipline-specific reading and writing intervention (I3C/PROVE IT!) with fourth and fifth graders. Participants included 237 students with writing difficulties (WD) from an initial pool of 608 upper elementary school students in a larger study. Teachers and students were randomly assigned to I3C/PROVE IT! or business-as-usual conditions and then provided instruction on reading historical documents and writing evidence-based arguments. Findings indicated that over a period of almost 3 months, the historical writing growth trajectories of students with WD in I3C/PROVE IT! classrooms were significantly greater than their peers in business-as-usual classrooms. Significant findings favoring I3C/PROVE IT! students also generalized to domain-general measures. This study provides evidence for the benefits of discipline-specific interventions in social studies for students with WD. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

Improving the Historical Knowledge and Writing of Students With or At Risk for LD.

In this study, we explored the potential of two forms of discussion (disciplinary vs. traditional) for 39 sixth- and seventh-grade students with or at risk for learning disabilities (LD), before writing historical arguments. Nine teachers who led small group discussions in six heterogeneous social studies classrooms implemented the intervention. Students who were involved in disciplinary discussions ( n = 19) scored statistically higher than their peers who engaged in traditional discussions ( n = 20) on a measure of historical knowledge (partial η2 = .23); they also wrote essays with better persuasive quality (partial η2 = .43) and greater evidence of historical thinking (partial η2 = .40). A delayed posttest delivered 8 weeks after instruction ended revealed that students in the experimental condition continued to write in more historically sophisticated ways than did students in the comparison condition (partial η2 = .19). Challenges, however, remain for struggling learners who must now meet basic and advanced disciplinary literacy goals.

Source interpretation: teaching students with and without LD to read and write historically.

We review domain-specific teaching approaches for students with learning disabilities in social studies, then present De La Paz's 2005 historical reasoning strategy so that readers understand the rationale for and have information on each stage of instruction. Next, we highlight the role of self-regulation for the reasoning process. We then turn to describing the role of each teacher (Morales as the social studies educator and Winston as the special educator), first as they collaborate with De La Paz and each other, then as Morales works alone, 1 year later. Implications are given for changes in teaching. The topic of women's suffrage is used throughout the article to highlight the teaching approach and to present student work.