In the current study, we examined the effect of cognitive apprenticeship with contextualized language instruction on students with LD (SWLDs) and English learners’ (ELs) ability to compose scientific explanations using a multiple-probe, multiple-baseline single-case design. Six middle school students (three in each subgroup) participated in ten 30-min sessions in an after-school program. The intervention was implemented with high fidelity, and all participants believed they benefited from the writing instruction. After instruction, SWLDs and ELs had similar gains. They wrote better explanations, as demonstrated by substantial improvements in the quality of their causal and mechanistic reasoning ( τ = 1), grammatical and lexical sophistication ( τ = 1), and holistic writing ( τ = 0.95–0.96). Changes in writing performance were maintained for 4 or more weeks. We discuss implications of these findings for science classrooms and suggest areas for future writing research.

Writing in science can be challenging for secondary students, particularly for those with learning disabilities, students who are English learners (EL), and students who struggle with literacy due to other cognitive, language-based, or motivational learning difficulties (i.e., at risk or struggling learners). Moreover, science teachers are generally not equipped to support students’ writing in ways that are authentic to science. Despite being described more than 30 years ago, the field lacks information on cognitive apprenticeships that focus on disciplinary literacy, especially in science. In this paper, we take up these challenges and describe two intervention programs with middle school teachers and their students, focusing on the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. We describe efforts to support students’ written construction and critique of explanations and arguments, and suggest ways that general and special educators can support students’ engagement in scientific practices through writing.

Writing in science can be challenging for all learners, and it is especially so for students with cognitive or language-based learning difficulties. Yet, we know very little about how to support students with learning disabilities (LD) or who are English learners (EL) when asked to write for authentic purposes during science instruction. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of 14 high-quality studies to identify effective writing instruction elements for students with LD, those who are EL, and for at-risk learners more generally. We analyzed the studies according to purpose, participants, dependent variables, and interventions. Then, we categorized instructional elements into two broad types of support: (a) cognitive skills and processes, and (b) linguistic skills and processes. Quantitative analyses showed students (regardless of disability or language status) who received structured cognitive instruction on text features demonstrated substantial growth in writing. Conversely, although language in science differs from everyday language, it is absent from this literature. Thus, our findings provide insights into necessary cognitive and linguistic supports for these students, and implications for designing effective writing instruction.

No abstract