Historical Reasoning among Middle School Students with Learning Differences: Exploring the Use of Multiple Sources in Writing

References

• Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 201–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064002201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. (2005). A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 413–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2019). Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 32(5), 1149–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anmarkrud, Ø., Brante, E. W., & Andresen, A. (2018). Potential processing challenges of Internet use among readers with dyslexia. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 117–132). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Artiles, A. J., Dorn, S., & Bal, A. (2016). Objects of protection, enduring nodes of difference: Disability intersections with “other” differences, 1960–2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 777–820. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16680606
   Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (DISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Individual differences in multiple document Comprehension. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.) Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99–116). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berkeley, S., King-Sears, M. E., Hott, B. L., & Bradley-Black, K. (2014). Are history textbooks more “considerate” after 20 years? The Journal of Special Education, 47(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912436813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloome, D., Kim, M., Hong, H., & Brady, J. (2018). Multiple source use when reading and writing in literature and language arts in classroom contexts. In J. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 254–266). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(4), 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. R., & Durik, A. (2018). Representations and processes in multiple source use. In J. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 17–33). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brownell, M. T., Mellard, D. F., & Deshler, D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer performance between students with learning disabilities and other low-achieving students on problem solving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special Education Teacher Quality and Preparation: Exposing Foundations, Constructing a New Model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2009). Effectiveness of question exploration to enhance students’ written expression of content knowledge and comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903120813
   Google Scholar
• Claravall, E. B., & Irey, R. (2020). Historical thinking in the middle school classroom: Integration of authentic curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In S. Stacko, M. Caskey, & S. Mertens (Eds). Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: Intersecting new needs and new approaches (pp. 31–53). Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Claravall, E. B., & Irey, R. (2022). Fostering historical thinking: The use of document-based instruction for students with learning differences. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 46(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2021.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., & Hamlet, C. (2012). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410393012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciullo, S., Collins, A., Wissinger, D. R., Mckenna, J. W., Lo, Y., & Osman, D. (2020). Students with learning disabilities in the social studies: A meta-analysis of intervention research. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919893932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, L., Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2004). Writing performance assessments: How important is extended time? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source document in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29(4), 412–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312461591
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., & Piantedosi, K. W. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S., & Wissinger, D. R. (2017). Improving the historical knowledge and writing of students with or at risk for LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(6), 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416659444
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Smedt, F., & Van Keer, H. (2018). Fostering writing in upper primary grades: A study into the distinct and combined impact of explicit instruction and peer assistance. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9787-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Oliviera, L. C. (2011). Knowing and writing school history: The language of students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 482–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370060201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, J. G. (2020). It’s time to be scientific about dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S61–S75.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Endacott, J. L. (2014). Negotiating the process of historical empathy. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.826158
   Google Scholar
• Ferretti, R., MacArthur, C., & Okolo, C. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fulmer, S. M., & Frijters, J. C. (2011). Motivation during an excessively challenging reading task: The buffering role of relative topic interest. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(2), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.481503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1086/499668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. D., Shanahan, C. & Project Readi. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Collins, A. A., & Rigby-Wills, H. (2017). Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 83(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916664070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Olinghouse, N. G., & Harris, K. R. (2009). Teaching composing students with learning disabilities: Scientifically supported recommendations. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers (pp. 165–186). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (vol. III, pp. 403–422). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2016). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624216
   Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2022). Why are so many students of color in special education: Understanding race and disability in schools. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huijgen, T., van de Grift, W., van Boxtel, C., & Holthuis, P. (2017). Teaching historical contextualization: The construction of a reliable observation instrument. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0295-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, S. F., & Law, Y. K. (2007). The roles of instructional practices and motivation in writing performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.2.145-164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewen, J. W. (2018). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. The New Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.4.4lm3811r1033431n
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mac Arthur, C. A. (2006). The effect of new technologies on writing and writing process. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & Fitzgerald (Eds.) Handbook of writing research (pp. 248–262). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mac Arthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407100103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy Young, K., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary document: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moje, E. B., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., & Kim, H. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 453–486). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12450445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, G. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nokes, J. D. (2010). Observing literacy practices in history classrooms. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(4), 515–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473438
   Google Scholar
• Nokes, J. D. (2013). Building students’ historical literacies: Learning to read and reason with historical texts and evidence. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisman, A. (2012). The document-based lesson’: Bringing disciplinary inquiry into high school history classrooms with adolescent struggling readers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 233–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.591436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roitsch, J., Gumpert, N., Springle, A., & Raymer, A. M. (2021). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Quality appraisal for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. /M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Potocki, A. (2019). Multiple-text comprehension. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 365–380). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., & van der Wijst, P. J. (2006). Text structure as a window on the cognition of writing: How text analysis provides insights in writing products and writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 386–405). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six: Historical thinking concepts. Nelson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, E. A., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Interventions to promote reading for understanding: Current evidence and future directions. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 381–408). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, E., Hairrell, A., Kent, S., Ciullo, S., Wanzek, J. A., & Vaughn, S. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412451131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strømsø, H. (2017). Multiple models of multiple-text comprehension: A commentary. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1320557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. M. (2005). Teachers doing research: An introductory guidebook. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 324–336). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Troia, G. A., Shankland, R. K., & Wolbers, K. A. (2012). Motivation research in writing: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2012). That’s in the time of the Romans! Knowledge and strategies students use to contextualize historical images and documents. Cognition and Instruction, 30(2), 113–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.661813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Drie, J., Braaksma, M., & van Boxtel, C. (2015). Writing in history: Effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., & Griffin, T. D. (2018). Effects of instructional condition on comprehension from multiple sources in history and science. In J. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 17–33). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S., & Martin, D. (2009). Tampering with history: Adapting primary sources for struggling readers. Social Education, 73(5), 212–216.
   Google Scholar
• Wissinger, D. R., & Ciullo, S. (2018). Historical literacy research for students with and at risk for learning disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(4), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar