Writing Scientific Explanations: Effects of a Cognitive Apprenticeship for Students With LD and English Learners

Abstract

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.

Addressing an Unfulfilled Expectation: Teaching Students With Disabilities to Write Scientific Arguments

“…A recent study by Telesca et al (2020) demonstrated benefits in metalinguistic instruction (involving sentence combining and learning compare and contrast transition words) helped middle school students who struggled with literacy to better understand and express similarities and differences between related scientific concepts. A pilot study with SWDs shows promise for using a cognitive apprenticeship to integrate contextualized linguistic instruction with instruction in scientific reasoning (Lee & De La Paz, 2021). Students with LD and English language learners (ELLs) in that study wrote better mechanistic explanations with greater lexical sophistication and grammatical complexity after engaging in contextualized language activities that deconstructed language parts (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions) used to convey science ideas.…”

“…Students with attention and behavioral disabilities may also lack the goal setting and the self-monitoring skills needed to complete a complex writing task (Mason & Hedin, 2011; Boyle et al, 2016; Romine et al, in press). Students with cognitive, memory, or language disabilities may lack the required semantic and syntactic skills required for argumentative writing (Lee & De La Paz, 2021; Wissinger & De La Paz, 2020). Many SWDs who possess autism-like characteristics think literally and may struggle with abstract writing (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010).…”

“…However, SRSD begins instruction with reading, analyzing and discussing model texts (Harris & Mason, 2023), whereas cognitive apprenticeships begin with problem-solving tasks that connect literacy (e.g., reading, writing, argumentation) with learning in a given domain. Epistemic ways of reasoning in the discipline are not foregrounded in the SRSD model, and SRSD researchers often use domain-general measures of writing, such as the organizational structure of an essay, the accuracy of information, or clarity of language (Lee & De La Paz, 2021).…”

Language Views for Scientific Sensemaking Matter: A Synthesis of Research on Multilingual Students’ Experiences with Science Practices Through a Translanguaging Lens

“…In half the studies, researchers took a linguistic view of language (see first row of Table 1). From this view, language was defined in terms of the named language(s) students knew and/or were developing proficiency in (González-Howard & McNeill, 2016; Licona & Kelly, 2020; Swanson et al, 2014), along with features of these named languages, like vocabulary terms (Relyea et al, 2022), lexical density (Symons, 2017), and language structures used for particular practices (González-Howard et al, 2017; Lee & Paz, 2021; Rodriguez-Mojica, 2019).…”

“…Researchers who took a linguistic view mostly focused on the practices of argumentation or explanation and, to a much lesser extent, on modeling. The main reason researchers offered for studying multilingual students’ experiences with argumentation and explanation was that these practices are more language-intensive, with speaking, writing, and reading described as the primary modes through which students sensemake and express ideas when engaged with these practices (e.g., González-Howard & McNeill, 2016; Infante & Licona, 2021; Lee & Paz, 2021; Rodriguez-Mojica, 2019). Meanwhile, researchers who shared an expansive view of language focused primarily on the practice of modeling and, to a lesser extent, on explanation or argumentation.…”