View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Enhancing Disciplinary Literacy through Integrated Writing and Process Instruction: An Intervention Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Enhancing Disciplinary Literacy through Integrated Writing and Process Instruction: An Intervention Study
Language: English
Authors: Lieke Holdinga (ORCID 0000-0002-2543-6594), Jannet van Drie (ORCID 0000-0003-0353-8255), Gert Rijlaarsdam (ORCID 0000-0002-2633-7336)
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2026 39(1):141-183.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 43
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Grade 10
High Schools
Secondary Education
Grade 11
Grade 12
Descriptors: Intellectual Disciplines, Multiple Literacies, Intervention, Writing Instruction, Integrated Activities, Grade 10, Grade 11, Grade 12, History Instruction, Writing Achievement, Knowledge Level, Writing Processes, Literacy
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-025-10630-2
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: Writing activities can be powerful tools for learning, linking literacy with content knowledge to build students' disciplinary literacy. However, students are relatively unexperienced writers who benefit from teacher support to balance literacy with content goals. This study evaluated a brief, flexible writing intervention designed to help students in grades 10-12 improve their disciplinary writing in the specific domain of history. Conducted with 14 classes across 10 schools, the study used a pretest-posttest design to assess effectiveness. Three conditions were established: a writing task with process instruction condition (WT + S; seven classes, 119 students), a writing task-only condition (WT; three classes, 63 students), and a control condition (four classes, 86 students). Teachers in WT and WT + S conditions were instructed to design and implement literacy tasks, with the WT + S condition receiving additional writing process instruction tailored to individual writing approaches. Effects on students' disciplinary writing performance were assessed using a transfer literacy task about a new topic. After writing, students were asked to indicate their level of epistemic experience during writing. Historical content knowledge gained during the intervention period was measured using a free recall task. Findings showed that writing practice with process instruction (WT + S) significantly enhanced disciplinary writing (effect size = 0.63) and epistemic experience (effect size = 0.31). Content knowledge improved across all groups, regardless of condition. This study underscores the potential of targeted writing process instruction as a valuable asset in content classrooms for developing students' disciplinary writing skills.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1505451
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEXlWkZKJG0OrTBi2S09Y6FAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDSh3108ud5HOPX6OgIBEICBm52Z8y5lvbKTk-WO5HuLktjXWgQ0oX29mgi6isuXAM_QPcLMbP2gjCn_wTb9s2LsWmicm-HSNkdQqZKnhND6GxaqAY4oQ4FWaQH57hu0b_5uOTCi0iY74DP4YwPFrtdINvmHcnNuPkwUYSjItfC7fWOL5fHL9C8ot6hxKigSo0Z0fsmy3NBBwwh3sFShJ4TK_JIjpP9UazS6EjdP
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191377942;2ap01jan.26;2026Feb09.04:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191377942-1">Enhancing disciplinary literacy through integrated writing and process instruction: an intervention study </title> <p>Writing activities can be powerful tools for learning, linking literacy with content knowledge to build students' disciplinary literacy. However, students are relatively unexperienced writers who benefit from teacher support to balance literacy with content goals. This study evaluated a brief, flexible writing intervention designed to help students in grades 10–12 improve their disciplinary writing in the specific domain of history. Conducted with 14 classes across 10 schools, the study used a pretest–posttest design to assess effectiveness. Three conditions were established: a writing task with process instruction condition (WT + S; seven classes, 119 students), a writing task-only condition (WT; three classes, 63 students), and a control condition (four classes, 86 students). Teachers in WT and WT + S conditions were instructed to design and implement literacy tasks, with the WT + S condition receiving additional writing process instruction tailored to individual writing approaches. Effects on students' disciplinary writing performance were assessed using a transfer literacy task about a new topic. After writing, students were asked to indicate their level of epistemic experience during writing. Historical content knowledge gained during the intervention period was measured using a free recall task. Findings showed that writing practice with process instruction (WT + S) significantly enhanced disciplinary writing (effect size =.63) and epistemic experience (effect size =.31). Content knowledge improved across all groups, regardless of condition. This study underscores the potential of targeted writing process instruction as a valuable asset in content classrooms for developing students' disciplinary writing skills.</p> <p>Keywords: Disciplinary literacy; History; Writing; Cognitive load; Intervention study; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-2">Introduction</hd> <p>International reports have shown a worrying decline in students' general ability to read and write critically (Goldman, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref1">15</reflink>]). Dutch students – who represent the context of our study – are no exception to this. Both researchers and policy makers have become aware that development of literacy skills should be a responsibility of <emph>all</emph> teachers, and not only language teachers (e.g., Lee & Spratley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]; Moje, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]; Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref4">38</reflink>]). Moreover, literacy is distinct from subject to subject, and is inextricably linked to the acquisition and sharing of knowledge (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref5">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on previous research, we argue that this shared responsibility of teachers to foster literacy requires more than merely incorporating basic literacy tasks into content courses (Monte-Sano, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]). Further effort is needed: teachers must provide guidance on students' reading and writing processes within their respective disciplines. However, in the Netherlands, the culture of teaching is still primarily focused on subject-specific content knowledge and reasoning, and teachers are not commonly skilled to teach disciplinary literacy (De Oliveira, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]). For this purpose, we designed and tested a brief and flexible disciplinary writing intervention in which students in grades 10–12 learned how to approach writing tasks in history to improve their disciplinary literacy skills. The first part of the intervention was a short professional development course for participating teachers, in which they learned how to design effective literacy tasks. The second part of the intervention was the implementation of writing process instruction into their history lessons. The effectiveness of both parts of the intervention was tested empirically in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-3">Processes in writing for content construction</hd> <p>With a disciplinary literacy task, students are challenged to combine content knowledge, historical reasoning ability, and the ability to communicate ideas to a reader in an effective way (Van Boxtel & Van Drie, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref8">44</reflink>]). The most prominent genre in the field of history is argumentative writing (Nokes & De La Paz, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]), which is suited to develop <emph>historical reasoning</emph>: the ability to organize information about the past to describe, compare, or explain historical phenomena (Van Drie & Van Boxtel, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]). The critical analysis and interpretation of source material are essential in this regard (Nokes & De La Paz, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]). An effective approach to fostering historical reasoning is an evaluative task (Van Drie et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]), which stimulates students to apply their knowledge of how to assess historical sources to make a well-reasoned judgment on a historical issue.</p> <p>In general, more advanced writing tasks require students to manage the complexity of handling two subtasks or processes – semantic content construction and rhetorical goals. This complexity puts a strain on working memory. According to Kellogg ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]), this cognitive load plays a role in the maturation of writing, which follows a three staged path. In the first stage, writers need all space in working memory available to deal with the representation of their mental text. This implies that when such novice writers read their written text, they tend to read what they intended to write ‒ what they thought they wrote ‒ instead of what is actually written in the physical, external text. In the second stage, during secondary education, the basic writing processes such as typing or handwriting and sentence generation are proceduralized. That creates space in working memory to manage the interaction between two representations of the text: the writer's mental text and the text as it is. It is this interaction between intended text (the mental representation) and the written text (the external representation) that constitutes knowledge in long term memory. Advanced writers create a third representation of the text in working memory, namely the projected representation by the reader. These three representations – author's ideas, the understanding of what the text says, and the interpretations of any reader – might differ considerably. The larger the variation, the greater the cognitive load of reconciling these discrepancies. The various processes involved in writing-for-knowledge construction place heavy demands on working memory, which might be reduced by task decomposition and guiding students through the process.</p> <p>Accordingly, in Bereiter's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]) model of writing developmental stages, epistemic writing is seen as the ultimate stage of writing competence: "writing comes to be no longer merely a product of thought but becomes an integral part of thought" (Bereiter, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>], p. 88). The epistemic function of writing – the awareness of acquiring and constructing knowledge through writing – is then experienced. A writer at this stage can manage the conflict between knowledge development processes and rhetorical organization processes. Both Kellogg's and Bereiter's analyses suggest that if writing is to be implemented as a knowledge-building activity in secondary education, tasks must stimulate interplay between the text to be written and the content sources.</p> <p>The <emph>dual-process model</emph>, presented by Galbraith and Baaijen ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]), provides additional insight in the complex relations between text production and content construction. According to this model, writing assumes the interplay of two processes. There is the <emph>knowledge-constituting process</emph>, in which implicit knowledge is activated and comes to the surface next to the <emph>knowledge-transforming process</emph>, in which the knowledge is organized, aimed at communicating the knowledge through text. These two processes conflict; the rhetorical organization of the text may be disrupted by dispositionally generated content necessary to constitute the writer's understanding, and vice versa: a focus on the rhetorical aspects of the text may hinder the development of understanding. Successful management of this conflict enables the writer 'to create a coherent knowledge object, which satisfies rhetorical goals but at the same time fully captures the writer's implicit understanding of the topic' (Galbraith & Baaijen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>], p. 246).</p> <p>Although it is assumed that text quality and discovery evolve in tandem, Galbraith and Baaijen ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]) disputed this. The dual-process model explains why: planning a text structure reduces the knowledge-constituting process because it involves retrieving pre-existing knowledge <emph>before</emph> the actual text composition process rather than allowing ideas to emerge <emph>through</emph> a process of synthesis during writing. Therefore, when knowledge construction is the aim, it is advisable to allow students to focus on idea generation through exploratory writing before considering rhetorical goals. Grounded on the dual-process model, which suggests a disruptive conflict between content generation and rhetorical organization, writing tasks should be accompanied by reading-writing process instruction, to reduce mental load, and stimulate learning.</p> <p>Research shows that teaching reading strategies (e.g., Nokes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]; Reisman, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref20">35</reflink>]) and reading-thinking-writing strategies (e.g., De La Paz, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]; De La Paz & Felton, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref22">32</reflink>]) effectively enhance historical reasoning in writing. These studies often involve long, intensive interventions spanning semesters or full school years, requiring substantial professional development (e.g., De La Paz et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]) and extensive student writing based on large document sets (e.g., Wissinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref24">48</reflink>]). Such interventions are not well-suited to our educational context, with teachers who prioritize knowledge building. The national history exams, which mark the finalization of secondary education in the Netherlands, are designed to assess students' historical thinking competencies and historical reference knowledge through use of short open-ended questions (Van Drie et al., accepted for publication). In contrast to the approach taken in Angel-Saxon countries, essay writing or document-based questions are not included in the national examinations. Consequently, Dutch history teachers tend to place less emphasis on the promotion of students' disciplinary writing skills, and instead focus on knowledge building. The current study tests whether outcomes similar to previous long-ranging interventions can be achieved through a brief intervention, using an integrated reading-thinking-writing strategy for short writing tasks. In contrast to other studies with contexts similar to ours (Stoel et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref25">41</reflink>]; Van Drie et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]; Van Driel et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]), we prioritize disciplinary literacy instead of reasoning. Furthermore, our objective was to develop a flexible intervention that would allow teachers to experience ownership and to make adjustments as needed. As a consequence, we define fidelity as adherence to the design principles we instructed rather than strict adherence to a precise script.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-4">Individual differences</hd> <p>Previous studies suggest that individual characteristics may moderate the effects of interventions designed to improve student writing. Research has positively associated <emph>self-efficacy</emph> with writing performance (Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref29">30</reflink>]). A second variable to consider is <emph>writing beliefs</emph>. White and Bruning ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref30">47</reflink>]) defined two types of beliefs: <emph>transmissional</emph> beliefs—the self-perception that writing is primarily a means of transmitting information to one another, and <emph>transactional</emph> beliefs—the notion that writing can fulfill an epistemic function with an investment of emotion and effort. <emph>Transactional</emph> writers are expected to be more engaged in the process and to produce writing that demonstrates greater depth of content development and higher quality of voice and fluency. Furthermore, research by White and Bruning ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref31">47</reflink>]) indicated that implicit beliefs about writing are closely related to text quality. Writers with <emph>transactional</emph> beliefs tend to produce texts of higher quality than writers who do not hold this view.</p> <p>Galbraith ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]) posited that different beliefs about writing may not only affect text quality, but also influence writers' <emph>learning through writing</emph>. The two conflicting writing processes mentioned earlier (<emph>knowledge constitution</emph> and <emph>knowledge transformation</emph>) make different contributions to text quality and the development of understanding; the dual-process model predicts that the effects on these measures will vary depending on how writers with different beliefs prioritize the two conflicting processes (Galbraith, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]). Galbraith's original research draws on the concept of <emph>self-monitoring</emph> (<emph>high</emph> vs. <emph>low self-monitoring</emph>) (Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]), which is a social-psychological construct of self-observation and self-control, guided by situational cues to social appropriateness, whereas the belief types defined by White and Bruning are specific to the act of writing. According to Galbraith, <emph>high self-monitors</emph> focus on the social context in which they find themselves, while <emph>low self-monitors</emph> tend to focus on their own views and beliefs. Galbraith postulated that <emph>low self-monitors</emph> are more likely to develop their thoughts through writing. Galbraith also examined the influence of two planning tasks: making a structured plan before beginning the writing task (<emph>outline planning</emph>) versus writing a summary sentence of main ideas (<emph>synthetic planning</emph>) (Galbraith et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]). Galbraith hypothesized that only the latter type of writing contributes to the development of comprehension through writing.</p> <p>Baaijen's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]) subsequent studies demonstrated that the effects of writing beliefs showed similar interactions with the type of planning. When writers are directed towards <emph>synthetic planning</emph>, <emph>high transactional</emph> and <emph>low transmissional</emph> writers produced better-quality text, and <emph>high transactional</emph> writers experienced greater increases in understanding than <emph>low transactional</emph> writers. Conversely, when writers are directed towards <emph>outline planning</emph>, <emph>low transactional</emph> writers produced text of a similar quality to that of <emph>high transactional</emph> writers. However, <emph>high transactional</emph> writers were less likely to experience increases in understanding.</p> <p>With her studies, Baaijen ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]) demonstrated that text quality and learning through writing necessitate distinct approaches to writing. This complexity presents a challenge for disciplinary literacy instruction as the objective of such tasks is twofold: learning by writing combined with learning to write. We aimed to overcome this challenge by presenting students a flexible strategy that accommodates different types of writers. Overall, for our study on disciplinary writing instruction, with expected effects on text quality and epistemic experience, the inclusion of a measure of writing beliefs to check generalizability seems relevant if the goal is to test interventions that are intended to produce general effects.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-5">Research aims</hd> <p>In this study, we build on existing knowledge about how to approach writing in history and we examine the effects of a <emph>brief</emph> intervention focusing on a strategy that encompasses the <emph>entire</emph> reading-thinking-writing process, which is to be applied to <emph>short</emph> writing tasks. The dual-process model (Galbraith & Baaijen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref38">13</reflink>]) suggests that writing process instruction may impact both knowledge constitution and knowledge transformation processes. To account for this, we included both text quality and knowledge measures.</p> <p>Our research questions were: To what extent can disciplinary writing tasks contribute to students' (a) disciplinary writing performance, (b) epistemic experience of writing, and (c) course content knowledge (RQ1)? To what extent does process instruction for such writing tasks add to these effects (RQ2)? Additionally, we investigated to what extent effects of the learning conditions are moderated by individual differences (writing beliefs and self-efficacy) (RQ3)? Two experimental conditions were employed to separate the effects of integrated writing tasks (condition WT) from the effects of additional writing process instruction (condition WT + S). In addition, a control condition (condition C) was included as control for maturation effects.</p> <p>Based on previous intervention studies showing success of reading-thinking-writing strategies for students' writing quality (e.g. De La Paz & Felton, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref39">32</reflink>]; De La Paz et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref40">33</reflink>]), we expected to find positive effects of the inclusion of integrated writing tasks on epistemic experience, disciplinary writing performance and course content knowledge, yet <emph>only when</emph> these tasks are accompanied by writing process instruction. Without guidance through the two interacting processes, knowledge constitution and knowledge transformation, we hypothesized that students would get stuck in knowledge constitution and make little effort at knowledge transformation. Furthermore, we hypothesize that students will gain more understanding of the course content taught during the intervention period, if they are provided with process guidance for the practice writing tasks they will be performing during the intervention period.</p> <p>We aimed the intervention to be effective for all students, while we provided students with process options that best suited their dispositions. Therefore, we did not expect moderation effects for self-efficacy or writing beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-7">Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-8">Teacher participants</hd> <p>Qualified (MA degree) history teachers (mean age: 43 yrs) from ten different schools across the Netherlands were selected, with 14 classes (grades 10–12). By agreement, teachers were assigned to a condition (WT + S: 7 teachers, 119 students; WT: 2 teachers, 63 students; C: 3 teachers, 86 students). Teachers' teaching experience ranged from 2 to 40 years (<emph>M</emph> = 15 yrs). The recruitment of teachers was conducted via a general call for participants (using LinkedIn). Additionally, we reached out directly to teachers who met the specified criteria. To ensure a diverse pool of candidates, we sought teachers who taught in upper secondary schools across a range of educational institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-9">Student participants</hd> <p>In this study 288 students participated. We received consent to participate in the study from 278 (96,5%) students (and in the case of minors: also their parents). Due to the then Covid-19 restrictions (quarantines or isolations), the rate of students' absence was higher than anticipated, and, due to this, insufficient data was available for 10 students. Results presented in this study are thus based on the data of 268 students (14–19 years, <emph>M</emph> = 16.2, <emph>sd</emph> = 0.85; WT + S: <emph>M</emph> = 16.1; WT: <emph>M</emph> = 16.3; C: <emph>M</emph> = 15.7). The students were enrolled in the pre-university track (grades 10–12), which is the highest track in the Dutch secondary school system and the only track that allows students to enter university. Class size ranged from 10 to 32 students (<emph>M</emph> = 20.6).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-10">Measurements</hd> <p>Table 1 presents an overview of measurements in pretest and posttest. To measure <emph>disciplinary writing performance</emph> (RQ1-2a), we designed literacy tasks: students performed source-based writing tasks about history topics which were unrelated to the history course-content. In the pretest, the prompt was: <emph>To what extent do you think Western museums should return colonial art to the country of origin?</emph> Four source texts were provided (<emph>M</emph> = 218 words). For the posttest, the issue was the Dutch police actions in Indonesia (1947–1949).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]The prompt to respond to was: <emph>To what extent can the term "police action" be justified, in hindsight?</emph> Again, four source texts were provided (<emph>M</emph> = 198 words). Both tasks contained mostly primary sources, representing multiple perspectives. Students were provided 40 min to perform a writing task.</p> <p>Table 1 Research design overview</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Condition</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>PD session</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Pretest (DWP, EE, TP, CCK</p><p>ID)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>History courses</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Posttest (DWP, EE, TP, CCK)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Integration of literacy tasks</p></th><th align="left"><p>Integration of process instruction</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>WT</p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> + </p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WT + S</p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left"><p> + </p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> + </p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p> + </p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>When an activity was conducted, a + is presented. DWP: Disciplinary Writing Performance; EE: Epistemic Experience; TP: Task Perception; CCK: Course Content Knowledge; ID: Individual Differences</p> <p>Transfer task topics were nested within measurement occasions, as counterbalancing was avoided for several reasons. First, since students were unfamiliar with such tasks, the pretest needed to gauge their ability to integrate and evaluate sources with a manageable topic. Second, counterbalancing would add unnecessary variance. Third, we focused on a difference hypothesis, expecting variations due to posttest conditions rather than growth. The pretest also served as an initial practice task, allowing students to experience the task firsthand, helping them identify any challenges.</p> <p>We checked for condition effects on four task perception aspects: prior knowledge, topic interest, effort, and difficulty, by asking all students to rate four statements, on a scale of 1 (completely disagree), to 5 (completely agree). Mean scores are presented in Table 2. Results showed that students felt they had more prior knowledge in the posttest than in the pretest (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib223" id="ref43">223</reflink>) = 9.73, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002), and they perceived the posttest as more difficult (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib235" id="ref45">235</reflink>) = 22.07, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). However, no effect of condition was observed (Pillai's Trace 0.059, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib452" id="ref47">452</reflink>) = 1.72, <emph>p</emph> = 0.09), meaning that possible differences between conditions on outcome variables were not influenced by differences in these task perception variables.</p> <p>Table 2 Task perception scores (Scale 1–5)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WT + S</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WT</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Control</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left"><p>Statement</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pretest <italic>M (SD) n</italic> = 107</p></th><th align="left"><p>Posttest <italic>M (SD) n</italic> = 91</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pretest <italic>M (SD) n</italic> = 55</p></th><th align="left"><p>Posttest <italic>M (SD) n</italic> = 55</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pretest <italic>M (SD) n</italic> = 70</p></th><th align="left"><p>Posttest <italic>M (SD) n</italic> = 78</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I knew a lot about the topic already before I'd read the source texts."</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.58 (.98)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.71 (1.04)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.78 (.92)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.02 (1.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.39 (.90)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.80 (1.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Topic interest</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I think the topic of this task is interesting."</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.54 (.92)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.64 (.89)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.67 (.90)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.82 (.82)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.44 (.92)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.51 (1.00)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Effort</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I put a lot of effort into this writing task."</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.38 (.79)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.45 (.73)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.19 (.58)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.16 (.71)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.07 (.78)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.30 (.94)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I thought this writing task was difficult."</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.74 (.91)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.00 (.90)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.59 (.84)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.06 (.91)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.71 (.99)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.14 (1.04)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A measure of students' <emph>epistemic experience</emph> (RQ1-2b) was included in both the pretest and posttest. After performing the transfer writing task, students rated the statement "Through this writing task I learned a lot about the topic" on a scale of 1–5 (cf. Baaijen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]). "The topic" referred to the topic of the respective task (pretest: colonial art; posttest: police actions). This question tested if the students <emph>felt</emph> they had gained knowledge on a topic <emph>through</emph> the reading-writing task set.</p> <p>To measure effects on <emph>course content knowledge</emph> (RQ1-2c), we administered a ten-minute open recall test, before and after the history lessons (cf. Casado-Ledesma et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]; Langer & Applebee, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]). The question used was: "What do you know about ...". On the dots, each teacher filled out the topic they discussed during the intervention period.</p> <p>Before the pretest writing session, we administered two questionnaires (Appendix A) to measure <emph>individual differences</emph>: a writing beliefs questionnaire, and a self-efficacy questionnaire (RQ3) using Qualtrics. The teachers instructed their students to complete these in a lesson prior to the start of the intervention. It took students about 10 min to complete both questionnaires. The <emph>writing beliefs</emph> questionnaire consisted of 26 statements about writing in general (Vandermeulen, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>], a Dutch adaptation of White & Bruning, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]). All students were asked to indicate to what extent they thought each statement was true, on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Following Vandermeulen ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref53">45</reflink>]), four scales were distinguished: transmission, high amount of revision, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. Three out of four scales were reliable (<emph>transmission</emph>:<emph> α</emph> = 0.67; <emph>emotional engagement</emph>: <emph>α</emph> = 0.59; <emph>cognitive engagement</emph>: <emph>α</emph> = 0.77). The <emph>high amount of revision</emph> scale was not reliable (<emph>α</emph> = 0.47), similar to Vandermeulen ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref54">45</reflink>]). No further analyses with this scale were conducted. The three remaining beliefs scales did not correlate highly (varying from − 0.031 to 0.314), which lead us to consider them separate.</p> <p>The <emph>self-efficacy</emph> questionnaire was based on Vandermeulen ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref55">45</reflink>]) and tested in a former study (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]). It consisted of 30 'I can'-statements, which were all related to aspects of the historical reading-writing process (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). Students were requested to indicate the extent to which they believed the statements to apply to them on a scale from 0 to 100. The consistency of the self-efficacy questionnaire was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.93).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-11">Procedures and materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-12">Part I of the intervention: writing task design (condition WT and WT + S)</hd> <p>The intervention was content-neutral; its aim was to be generalizable across different historical topics. Consequently, in all conditions, teachers taught their history courses in accordance with the pre-planned content outlined in the school-specific year plan.</p> <p>As a preparation to work with self-designed tasks, the eight teachers from condition WT + S and WT took part in an informative online PD session about effective disciplinary literacy task design at the start of the school year (September). In the session, four principles were set (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) the task contains an evaluative question and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>) includes primary source texts (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>). In addition, the task should (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) serve as a substitute for one or a set of other learning activities on the same topic and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>) can be completed within one class period, with the objective of enabling the teacher to observe the reading and writing processes and provide guidance accordingly.</p> <p>At the end of the session, teachers were instructed to design two writing tasks based on these design principles. The research team supported the teachers by providing written feedback on draft versions. An overview of topics and writing prompts as implemented in the study, and an example task can be found in Appendix B. The topics covered various time periods, running from the Middle Ages to the decolonization period (second half of twentieth century).</p> <p>The self-designed writing tasks were implemented in Lessons 3 and 5 (Table 3). Students were permitted to collaborate in the prewriting phase but wrote their texts individually. The writing tasks were provided on paper, and completed on a computer, using laptops in the classroom or computers in a computer room.</p> <p>Table 3 Description of instructional stages and learning activities in the intervention</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Session</p></th><th align="left"><p>Stage</p></th><th align="left"><p>Learning activities</p></th><th align="left"><p>WT + S</p></th><th align="left"><p>WT</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Develop background knowledge</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Task experience</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students perform a first evaluative writing task on an uninstructed historical issue (pretest)</p></td><td align="left"><p>As WT + S</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>1</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Reflection</p></td><td align="left"><p>The students write down what they thought was easy while performing the task from Lesson 0, and what was difficult</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Describe it</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Building new knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>The teacher presents and explains the <italic>Reading-Thinking-Writing s</italic>trategy</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Comparing strategy to own experience</p></td><td align="left"><p>The students compare their own experiences with evaluative tasks to the presented strategy</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Model it (process)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Observing strategy demonstrated by a modeling peer (video)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students watch a 12-min video in a plenary session on the main screen. This video presents the strategy and contains fragments showing modeling peers, who demonstrate how each step of the strategy could be performed</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Assessing a peer's performance</p></td><td align="left"><p>As a processing activity, the students individually compare the performance of the modeling peer with the strategy as presented by scoring the peer on a scale from 0 to 100</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>2</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p><italic>Model it (product)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Assessing peers' texts</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students individually assess three example texts</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generating criteria</p></td><td align="left"><p>In a class discussion, students generate a criteria list</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Applying new learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students apply the criteria; they revise the text they wrote (Lesson 0), with the criteria list in mind</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Support it</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Scaffolded practice</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students perform a next evaluative writing task, scaffolded by the support of peers and the teacher, and a written guide</p></td><td align="left"><p>As WT + S, but no guide</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Support it</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher/Peer feedback</p></td><td align="left"><p>The teacher chooses how to provide feedback from the suggestions in the teacher manual, with a focus on the <italic>process</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>As WT + S, but with a focus on <italic>content</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Independent performance</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Individual work</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students perform a third evaluative task by the support of a written guide</p></td><td align="left"><p>As WT + S, but no guide</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Support it</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher/Peer feedback</p></td><td align="left"><p>The teacher chooses how to provide feedback from the suggestions in the teacher manual, with a focus on the <italic>process</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>As WT + S, but with a focus on <italic>content</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Transfer</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Individual work</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students perform a fourth evaluative source-based writing task on an uninstructed historical issue (posttest)</p></td><td align="left"><p>As WT + S</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Writing lessons were alternated with feedback lessons (Lesson 4 and 6). The teachers were provided with condition specific suggestions on how to provide this feedback. In the teaching manual for condition WT + S, the suggestions all encouraged the teachers to focus their feedback on students' writing <emph>process</emph>. In the teaching manual for condition WT, teachers were guided towards providing <emph>product</emph> feedback focused on content. The feedback lessons were designed to be low cost for teachers, since it is generally known that the workload of providing feedback on written products is one of the main reasons for teachers to avoid writing tasks as learning activities.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-13">Part II of the intervention: process instruction (condition WT + S only)</hd> <p>In condition WT + S, additional process instruction of two lessons (Table 3: Lessons 1 and 2) was provided, <emph>prior</emph> to the writing and feedback lessons. In line with De La Paz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]), we based our instructional design on the principles of strategy instruction (cf. self-regulated strategy development; Harris & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref65">16</reflink>]) and included the five SRSD stages: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) developing background knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) describing, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) modeling, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>) supporting, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>) performing independently. However, in contrast to De La Paz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref71">33</reflink>]), the SRSD-stages were implemented in a highly condensed manner, since we prioritized feasibility for this specific target group of history teachers and upper secondary students.</p> <p>In Lesson 1, the Read-Think-Write strategy (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]; Appendix C) for performing evaluative writing tasks was presented and modeled. The seven-step RTW-strategy tipped students how to read source texts diligently, how to connect information from different sources, and how to write a text with the reader in mind. It contained two routes (<emph>outline planning</emph> vs. <emph>drafting</emph>) to accommodate individual preferences (Kieft et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]), and to provide room for both learning through writing and producing high quality texts (Baaijen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]). A video of students modeling the RTW strategy was provided to ease the burden on teachers who might feel challenged by having to model unfamiliar literacy processes. Teachers showed the video on the smart board and discussed it in a guided class discussion. Peer modeling in a video was a mode of observational learning (Braaksma et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>]). In Lesson 2, students read, analyzed, and discussed with peers three sample texts written by anonymous students in response to the pretest assignment on colonial art, so that students could compare and contrast their own writing experiences for this topic with the sample texts. In a subsequent class discussion, the class constructed a list of criteria for good evaluative history texts. Analyzing and discussing exemplars is a means of conveying teachers' tacit knowledge of what these criteria actually mean (Polanyi, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]). In previous research (Orsmond et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref77">29</reflink>]), discussion of exemplars has been shown to reduce differences between student and teacher ratings.</p> <p>Teachers were free to alternate intervention lessons with content lessons, whenever they considered this useful or necessary. Teachers implemented the intervention lessons between October and January. The mean time between pretest and posttest was 8.3 weeks (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.3).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-14">Control condition</hd> <p>Between the pre- and the posttest, students in the control condition attended regular history classes, as they were used to. Teacher logs showed that this mostly involved the teacher explaining history content within the classroom, and students working on assignments from the workbook, individually or in groups. Students in the control condition read sources and wrote notes and short answers to questions set in their textbooks. They did not engage in larger writing assignments. It is worth noting that writing texts during class time is not a common practice in Dutch history education (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-15">Fidelity of implementation</hd> <p>We used teacher logs, observations and interviews to obtain insight into whether the intervention was implemented as intended. Given the design's flexibility, it is valuable to monitor how teachers utilize this flexibility in practice. All teachers kept a guided logbook during the intervention period, to detect manipulations of the design. In conditions WT + S and WT, the first author observed one intervention lesson of each group. We interviewed each teacher of condition WT + S and WT, as well as a group of three to four students from each group within these conditions, after the intervention. Interviews were conducted by the first author. They were audiotaped and transcribed. With the observations and interviews, we aimed to obtain an image of all schools, student populations and attitudes, and individual teachers' idiosyncrasies with regard to the implementation of the provided materials. Furthermore, we analyzed the quality of teachers' self-designed tasks and the feedback approaches they chose to implement. Based on these sources, we concluded that teachers were able to design quality writing tasks, and they implemented the instruction within the margins of our intended design, keeping sight of main goals. Analyses of tasks and feedback approaches can be found in Appendix D.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-16">Data preparation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-17">Writing performance: text rating procedures</hd> <p>The data set consisted of 277 texts. We excluded 11 texts (pretest: 5; posttest: 6) which were unfinished (containing only a few words accompanied by a remark such as 'I had no time left') or reflected that the task was not fully understood (for example when students noted: 'I have no idea what to do with this task' or 'I don't understand the source texts'). Of these eleven excluded texts, nine were from the control condition. We assumed these students were off-task during the measurement, so we considered their effort too low to include them in the analyses.</p> <p>For the analyses, seven indicators of text quality were employed. These comprised five disciplinary aspects for text quality (derived from De La Paz et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref79">33</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) <emph>understanding of the issue</emph>, the text displays a thorough understanding of the historical issue; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>) <emph>multiperspectivity</emph>, opposing views are thoroughly presented in the text; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>) <emph>argumentation</emph>, arguments are elaborated on with accurate facts, examples, and details; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref83">4</reflink>) <emph>source use</emph>, source information is integrated into the text; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>) <emph>structure</emph>, the text is cohesive and coherent. Furthermore, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref85">6</reflink>) a <emph>holistic</emph> judgment was obtained, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref86">7</reflink>) <emph>text length</emph> was analyzed (word count).</p> <p>We recruited 21 history teachers to evaluate the texts. We thought it was important to evaluate the texts from the perspective of history teachers, since we were interested in disciplinary writing quality. The raters were not involved in the intervention. Raters independently rated three subsets of all the texts, blinded to condition, using a prefixed system of overlapping rater teams, in which each text was rated by three raters (Van den Bergh & Eiting, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>]). Raters were instructed by a short written instruction. Texts were assessed with two instruments: using a rubric and a scale. Raters were asked to determine scores on the five disciplinary aspects first (using the rubric), and then to determine a holistic score (using the scale), before moving to a next text.</p> <p>The rubric (Appendix E) contained the five disciplinary aspects. Raters appointed a score ranging from 1 (fully absent) to 5 (fully present) on each aspect. All five aspects were specified in the rubric.</p> <p>The text scale was designed and tested in a previous study (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]). The scale presented a series of five exemplars representing scores 70–85-100–115-130 in an ascending sequence from left to right in text quality. These exemplars functioned as anchors during the rating procedure. The exemplars were annotated with considerations of the five disciplinary aspects the raters had assessed first, to guide their attention. The raters were asked to compare a text to the exemplars and to place the text on the text scale, and to determine for each text a score that they thought was correct in relation to the exemplars. Raters could provide scores between 70 and 130, or even below 70 or above 130.</p> <p>The average reliability of jury ratings were satisfactory: intraclass correlation coefficients of the juries ranged from 0.79 (pretest argumentation) to 0.89 (posttest structure) (<emph>M</emph> = 0.84). Further analyses were consistently conducted with the average score of the three raters.</p> <p>To test the validity of the holistic score, we conducted regression analyses with the five aspect scores explaining the variance in the holistic score. For both pretest and posttest, the explained variance was 81.286 and 84.292, respectively, with standard <emph>b</emph>-weights all significant, ranging from 0.142 to 0.282 in the pretest and from 0.109 to 0.309 in the posttest. Furthermore, the holistic score correlated highly with text length (<emph>r</emph> = 0.85, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Since we had no aspect specific hypotheses, it was decided to focus the analyses on the holistic score when analyzing disciplinary writing performance.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-18">Course content knowledge: recall test analyses</hd> <p>As indicators for course content knowledge gain, we analyzed students' responses to the recall tests. Responses were segmented into idea units (defined as T-units; minimal terminable units (Hunt, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>])). We calculated the number of units from the posttest that contained new or extended information compared to the pretest, only if the units were factually correct (see Appendix F for an example). A subset (10%, <emph>n</emph> = 28) was analyzed by a second rater, to check the reliability of scoring (ICC = 0.95).</p> <p>Second, we calculated the mean length of new units, since it was hypothesized that students in the writing conditions would write more and richer units containing connectors and adverbs, indicating more relations between concepts. Generally, relations within units are associated with more elaborated knowledge, and understanding of content.</p> <p>Those students' recall tests which were completely blank (i.e., 2.3%) were excluded from the analyses, as the underlying reasons were unknown. Conversely, responses only consisting of remarks, such as 'I don't know anything about this', were included: with the word/unit count for tests only containing such a remark being 0.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-19">Data analysis</hd> <p>The data set contained a nested structure: scores for disciplinary writing performance, epistemic experience and task perception were nested in participants (two measurement occasions: Time), which again were nested in intact classes (which coincide with history topics). Therefore, we conducted multilevel analyses. The effects of the interventions were tested by comparing four nested models, with Class as random factor, and measurement occasion as repeated measure, including Class*Subject as random factor: Model 0 with intercept and random factors only, Model 1 with the added factor Time, Model 2 with the added factor Condition, and Model 3 with the added interaction Time*Condition. To gain insight into the effects of Condition at the posttest, the analysis for the best fitting model was reran, using dummy variables for the effect of Condition (three levels), and Time (two levels), and the resulting pairwise comparisons were checked.</p> <p>To test the moderator hypotheses for self-efficacy and writing beliefs, we centered the predictor scores, and expanded the models presented above, with Model 4 (general effect of the learner variable LV); Model 5 (added: interaction LV with Time); Model 6 (added: interaction LV with Condition); and Model 7 (added: interaction LV with Time and Condition). We ran these series of models for holistic score, representing disciplinary writing performance, and for epistemic experience.</p> <p>For the course content knowledge gain indicators (number of new units and length of new units) at the posttest, two models were compared: Model 0 with Class as random factor, Model 1 with added factor Condition. Appendix G presents all model comparisons.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-20">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-21">Disciplinary writing performance (RQ1-2a)</hd> <p>To check for similarity of conditions on the pretest, we conducted a multivariate analysis. This revealed a condition effect (Pillai's Trace = 0.171, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref91">450</reflink>) = 7.03, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) on students' initial writing performance. Table 4 presents the initial scores on all outcome variables. Subsequent univariate analyses demonstrated that the condition had a significant effect on holistic quality (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib226" id="ref93">226</reflink>) = 17.95, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), with the WT + S condition exhibiting superior performance compared to both the WT and C conditions. No significant differences were observed between the WT and C conditions.</p> <p>Table 4 Mean pretest scores per condition</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>WT + S</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 115</p><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>WT</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 61</p><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Control</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 78</p><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Disciplinary writing performance</p></td><td align="left"><p>Holistic text quality<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>88.22 (18.72)</p></td><td align="left"><p>74.31 (19.32)</p></td><td align="left"><p>71.73 (20.31)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Text length</p></td><td align="left"><p>236.42 (133.85)</p></td><td align="left"><p>149.24 (81.97)</p></td><td align="left"><p>140.19 (88.77)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Epistemic experience<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3.27 (0.96)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.93 (1.01)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.17 (1.08)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Writing beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transmission <sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.88 (.56)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.92 (.52)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.90 (.51)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional Engagement<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.36 (.53)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.35 (.56)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.33 (.48)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive Engagement<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.65 (.77)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.80 (.63)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.55 (.80)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>65.6 (9.50)</p></td><td align="left"><p>68.9 (10.60)</p></td><td align="left"><p>65.2 (10.10)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>a</emph> </sups> <emph>Benchmark</emph> = <emph>100; </emph><sups><emph>b</emph></sups><emph>Scale</emph> = <emph>1–5; </emph><sups><emph>c</emph></sups><emph>Scale</emph> = <emph>1–100.</emph></p> <p>However, despite this initial advantage, Model 3 fitted the data for holistic quality best, revealing an interaction effect of Time and Condition, indicating an effect of Condition (Fig. 1). This effect is due to condition WT + S (<emph>β</emph> = 16.81, <emph>se</emph> = 3.21, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib241" id="ref94">241</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref95">77</reflink>) = 5.24, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Condition WT + S demonstrated superior performance relative to the control condition at the pretest stage (mean difference = 15.42, <emph>se</emph> = 6.42, <emph>p</emph> = 0.03), and this advantage was further amplified at the posttest stage (mean difference = 32.02, <emph>se</emph> = 6.47, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). At the pretest, no significant difference was observed between conditions WT + S and WT. However, at the posttest, condition WT + S demonstrated superior performance compared to condition WT (mean difference = 19.68, <emph>se</emph> = 6.43, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01). These findings indicate that the incorporation of writing tasks alone was insufficient to improve students' writing performance in history. However, when writing process instruction was integrated, it had a beneficial effect on students' ability to write a good disciplinary text.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Holistic scores in the posttest, as estimated under model 3</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-22">Epistemic experience (RQ1-2b)</hd> <p>To explore if students would benefit from process instruction to manage the two conflicting processes (knowledge constitution and knowledge transformation), we included an epistemic experience measure. Model 3 fitted the data best, suggesting an interaction effect of Time and Condition (Fig. 2). This effect is due to condition WT + S (<emph>β</emph> = 0.35, <emph>se</emph> = 0.16, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib224" id="ref96">224</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref97">31</reflink>) = 2.19, <emph>p</emph> < 0.03), and condition WT (<emph>β</emph> = 0.42, <emph>se</emph> = 0.19, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib219" id="ref98">219</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref99">30</reflink>) = 2.52, <emph>p</emph> < 0.02). At the pretest, no differences were observed between the three conditions, while at the posttest, condition WT + S outperformed the control condition (mean difference = 0.50, <emph>se</emph> = 0.18, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). No differences were observed between condition WT and both other conditions. In short, both in WT and WT + S the level of epistemic experience increased significantly, resulting in a significant difference between the control condition and condition WT + S, but not between condition WT and the control condition. This suggests that writing practice might have enhanced students' feel of learning through writing, even when no writing process instruction was provided.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Epistemic experience ratings (Scale 1–5) in the posttest, as estimated under model 3</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-23">Course content knowledge (RQ1-2c)</hd> <p>For the two indicators of course content knowledge, Model 1 did not improve the fit with the observed data, indicating no effect of Condition (Table 5). Neither the <emph>number of new units</emph>, nor the <emph>mean length of new units</emph> differed significantly between pairs of conditions, probably due to the variance between and within groups: for new units: S<sups>2</sups> = 3.99 (between groups) and 13.75 (within groups), for mean T-length: S<sups>2</sups> = 4.65 (between groups) and 22.76 (within groups). These findings indicate that students demonstrated comparable levels of course content knowledge gain during the intervention period, irrespective of the learning activities they were required to undertake during class time (writing or other). Contrary to our expectations, integrated writing did not result in the reinforcement of course content knowledge when process instruction was provided.</p> <p>Table 5 Descriptives for course content knowledge indicators</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>WT + S</p></th><th align="left"><p>WT</p></th><th align="left"><p>Control</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M (SD)</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of new units</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.41 (4.76)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.61 (3.41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.72 (3.73)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean length of new units</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.34 (5.29)</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.35 (5.66)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.73 (4.58)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191377942-24">Moderating effects of individual differences (RQ3)</hd> <p>With regard to individual differences (beliefs and self-efficacy) we found no significant differences between conditions (Pillai's Trace 0.037, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref100">6</reflink>, 474) = 1.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.36). We tested whether individual differences moderated the intervention effect. For <emph>writing performance</emph>, there were no moderating effects of learner variables. We did observe a better fit in Model 4, with the addition of cognitive engagement and self-efficacy (Appendix G), indicating a direct effect of those factors on writing performance in all conditions (Table 6). The effects were positive: students with higher self-efficacy scores, and students reporting more cognitive engagement beliefs, obtained higher holistic scores (Appendix H).</p> <p>Table 6 Estimates of fixed effects on holistic score for two covariates (Model 4)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% confidence interval</p></th><th align="left" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Moderators</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>b</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE b</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Lower bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper bound</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>.007</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>.048</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Furthermore, for <emph>epistemic experience</emph>, we have observed a direct effect of cognitive engagement beliefs and emotional engagement beliefs (Appendix G, Model 4), besides a moderating effect of emotional engagement and of self-efficacy (Appendix G, Model 7). These beliefs seem to contribute to the positive effect of WT + S.</p> <p>In condition WT + S, epistemic experience ratings developed differently for the different levels of emotional engagement beliefs: they remained unchanged from pre- to posttest for low-level emotional engagement beliefs, while they increased for high-level emotional engagement beliefs (<emph>b</emph> = -0.86; <emph>se</emph> = 0.32, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007) (Fig. 3). The same pattern was observed for self-efficacy (Fig. 4). These results indicate that the process instruction seemed most effective, relatively, for students with higher self-efficacy or higher emotional beliefs levels, with regard to epistemic experience.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Epistemic experience in condition WT + S for students with different levels of emotional beliefs (= EB)</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Epistemic experience in condition WT + S for students with different levels of self-efficacy (= SE)</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-25">Discussion</hd> <p>In the current study, we aimed to investigate whether integrating writing tasks as learning activities into the history classroom, when accompanied by writing process instruction, would foster students' historical writing, epistemic experience and history learning (pre-university education, grades 10–12). To do this, we proposed three research questions. Specifically, we have investigated whether integrating writing tasks as learning activities into the history classroom (RQ1), and additional discipline specific writing process instruction (RQ2), would improve the students' disciplinary writing proficiency, epistemic experience, and course content knowledge. Additionally, we have explored if certain learner variables moderated intervention effects (RQ3).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-26">Effects of disciplinary writing tasks</hd> <p>We hypothesized that the simple integration of self-designed writing tasks would <emph>not</emph> lead to more course content knowledge in a recall task, greater epistemic experience or more advanced disciplinary writing performance in a transfer task. Our results confirmed these expectations. From the data, we can conclude that integration of writing tasks (condition WT) was indeed not sufficient for students to significantly outperform a non-writing control group on writing performance. These results confirm Monte-Sano's previous finding (2008), being that merely the act of extensive reading-writing was not sufficient for students to improve their evidence-based history essay writing. Furthermore, condition WT did not outperform the control condition when assessing epistemic experience in the posttest writing task, nor on both course content indicators.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-27">Effects of writing process instruction</hd> <p>We predicted that students who received additional disciplinary writing process instruction, would achieve higher text-quality scores than students who performed writing tasks without process instruction, or than those students in a non-writing condition. We expected the process instruction to reinforce the effects on epistemic experience, and course content knowledge. From the data obtained, we might conclude that the inclusion of writing process instruction indeed effectuates students' writing performance positively. These results confirm previous results of cognitive apprenticeship approaches (e.g., De La Paz et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, condition WT + S scored highest on epistemic experience: students more often viewed the writing process as a content learning experience for that specific topic. It seems that they experienced more space for the constitution of knowledge. This may be an indication that students matured in their writing toward the most advanced level of epistemic writing (Bereiter, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>With regard to course content knowledge, there were no differences observed between condition WT + S and the control condition. The inclusion of writing process instruction and writing tasks thus seems not to impact course content knowledge, while, at the same time, it does seem a better option for obtaining disciplinary writing proficiency, and for a better epistemic experience, than implementing comprehensive writing tasks.</p> <p>One question that remains is whether process instruction does actually reduce the cognitive load of managing the two opposing processes in writing. Exploratively, we could seek support in the task perception data that we collected (see Table 2). We could hypothesize that students in the WT + S condition would have experienced the writing tasks as less difficult or as requiring less effort after process instruction: but the results in Table 2 do not support such a hypothesis. Accordingly, at the posttest, the correlations between effort and text quality as well as epistemic experience were stronger for condition WT and the control condition (Appendix G, Table 10) than for condition WT + S, which may indicate that less effort was involved in completing the task for students who were taught the strategy. In addition, the perceived difficulty of the task seemed to be negatively related to text quality, in condition WT and the control condition, with no relation in the WT + S condition. Further research on the effects of writing instruction on cognitive load may shed more light on this issue. It is possible to achieve this objective through process measures, such as keystroke logging or monitoring student choices.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-28">Individual differences</hd> <p>Our writing process instruction was designed to be effective for students with diverse belief types and self-efficacy levels, because of its flexibility towards individual writing preferences. Based on the results of condition WT + S, we can conclude that our aim was met. What we did find with regard to individual differences, was that cognitive engagement beliefs and self-efficacy directly affect holistic text quality. The general effect of self-efficacy on text quality does confirm previous research outcomes (e.g. Sanders-Reio et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref103">36</reflink>]); students with higher self-efficacy, generally write higher quality texts. With regard to cognitive engagement, our findings are also in line with previous research (Villalón et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref104">46</reflink>]). We might hypothesize that students who consider writing tasks as learning tasks, perceive writing as more useful, however, we did not find a correlation between cognitive engagement beliefs and reported task effort (Appendix H).</p> <p>Furthermore, we found two moderator effects for epistemic experience in condition WT + S only: emotional engagement and self-efficacy. Students with higher emotional engagement belief scores and/or with higher self-efficacy scores, seemed to experience the epistemic function of writing even more, after they received writing process instruction. For the generalizability of the interventions, this finding has no direct consequences for the instructional design, as this condition was most effective for the general, average participant. But this finding urges to us to speculate on the underlying mechanisms, as we outlined in the introduction when describing Kellogg's theory of development of juggling with multiple text representations.</p> <p>In both cases, it could be that the knowledge-constituting process (Galbraith & Baaijen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref105">13</reflink>]) is given more space by the process instruction; the RTW-strategy we implemented provides a frame for the two processes, distributing students' attention over both the knowledge-constituting and the knowledge-transforming process. Space for both processes apparently benefits <emph>content</emph>. An important missing piece of information in our study, however, is which writing approach – <emph>outline planning</emph> or <emph>drafting</emph> – the students chose to apply, or which language production processes (e.g. linear or non-linear text production; Baaijen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref106">2</reflink>]) were involved. In future research, this would be of particular interest in the case of students with relatively high self-efficacy and/or with relatively high emotional engagement beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-29">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>The validity of the results can be challenged on several grounds. First, the design allowed flexibility with regard to content matter. Moreover, the students were not constrained by a fixed strategy either: we provided different routes, in order to accommodate each student's writing preferences. This research design intentionally increased generalizability; the effects are not bound to a certain course within history education, as various thematic units were involved, in all conditions. Although we consider adaptability an important strength of our instructions, it might also be seen as a limitation. The differences between groups, and thus also between conditions, may have resulted in different outcomes. However, we tried to maintain consistency between groups, and between conditions, during the intervention, by a) establishing and monitoring clear design principles for writing tasks and process instruction; b) using statistical analyses which level out group differences; and c) measurements, for example, the recall test contained a pre- and posttest; controlling for prior knowledge of the different topics.</p> <p>Further to this, it is essential to critically examine our measuring instruments. The results for epistemic experience were based on a one-item measure, which indicates the necessity for caution in interpreting the results. Nevertheless, the test–retest correlation of <emph>r</emph> = 0.46 suggested a certain degree of reliability. Furthermore, we might question the recall instrument as a measure for course content knowledge. Previous research has criticized recall tests as a measure of knowledge gain through writing, since this test is likely to detect knowledge accretion, which is only a peripheral outcome of writing (Schumacher & Gradwohl Nash, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref107">37</reflink>]). However, the recall measure was not the only content measure in our study; in the assessment of the students' texts, we deliberately included content-related indicators, such as argumentation, understanding of the issue, and multiperspectivity as well.</p> <p>Furthermore, it should be noted that our intervention was designed for students in the highest educational level, which may limit the generalizability of this intervention to other learning levels. In addition, a final limitation worth mentioning is that the current research design does not allow conclusions about the durability of the effect observed. In future research, it might become a research question if a literacy task later on in the school year would need to be accompanied by another process instruction, or if a quick reminder of the strategy would be sufficient.</p> <p>The results also provoke other questions, for example, about students' changed writing processes. Students who received writing process instruction wrote longer texts, which were of higher quality. A longer text might be the result of students starting to write early in the process; early writing and more time spent on writing was associated with higher quality text in a previous study (Holdinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref108">17</reflink>]). Alternatively, longer texts might also be the result of an increased writing speed. Future research might explore this further, possibly using keystroke-logging, to monitor students' disciplinary writing processes and change, as a result of writing process instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-30">Conclusions</hd> <p>In this study, we aimed to overcome known obstacles for teaching disciplinary literacy as well as some obstacles in generalizability across domain specific content. The inclusion of literacy tasks was perceived as successful: the teachers of conditions WT + S and WT experienced the writing tasks as instructive learning activities. During evaluative interviews, the teachers indicated that they considered it 'the essence of history' to learn to think about complex historical issues from several perspectives. This makes writing evaluative texts a valuable activity for learning history, in a different way than the textbook dictates.</p> <p>Although history teachers have generally tended to underrate writing process instruction, and might not consider this a priority, our results indicate that if teachers want to teach students to write historically, writing opportunities with writing process instruction is vital. The present study has shown that teachers can replace workbook questions on a variety of topics, with evaluative writing tasks, and add writing process instruction. These additions not only increase students' historical writing performance in transfer tasks, but also stimulate to experience the process of writing as epistemic.</p> <p>Furthermore, students' course content knowledge developed similarly across conditions. This is particularly important because, from a history teacher's perspective, lagging growth in content knowledge would be problematic. The provision of process instruction is already often seen as a "waste of time" for building knowledge, which would be even more so if recall tests had confirmed this. However, our study showed that literacy tasks as learning activities were not at all detrimental to course content knowledge; in fact, the results suggest that students improved their historical reasoning, given the higher scores on situational understanding, argumentation, and use of sources that can be seen as indicators of this skill (Van Boxtel & Van Drie, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref109">44</reflink>]; Van Drie et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref110">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-31">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to greatly thank the students and teachers who participated in this study, and the raters who assessed all texts, for their time, effort and commitment.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-32">Funding</hd> <p>We confirm that this work has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose, and the research complies with the guidelines formulated by the Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Project 2021-CDE-13682). Our research was supported by a grant from the Dutch Dudoc-Alfa Sustainable Humanities Programme (Grant No. DA2-2018–14).</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-33">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-34">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>We have no further conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-35">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-36">Appendix A: Overview of topics and tasks</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Condition</p></th><th align="left"><p>Teacher</p></th><th align="left"><p>Group</p></th><th align="left"><p>Grade</p></th><th align="left"><p>Topic during intervention period</p></th><th align="left"><p>Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>Writing prompts</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="9"><p>WT + S</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>1&2</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>1&2</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Modern imperialism related to industrialization</p></td><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent did Industrialization lead to a higher standard of living?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent was the ethical politics experienced as a continuation of the Dutch domination of the Dutch East Indies?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>3</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>3&4</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>10th</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>The expansion of religions in the Middle Ages</p></td><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>How important was the battle of Poitiers in halting the advance of the Saracens?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent were crusaders guided by their own interests when participating in the crusades?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>12th</p></td><td align="left"><p>Decolonization</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Open assignment: students formulated their own inquiry question and searched for suiting sources themselves</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>6</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>The conflict in the Netherlands that resulted in the foundation of a Dutch state</p></td><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent was the relationship between Philip the Good and the citizens of Ghent around 1450 illustrative for the relationship between princes and city councils in the same period?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent was the Iconoclasm of 1566 an expression of religious, political and/or socio-economic discontent?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>6</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>7</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>The Age of Enlightenment</p></td><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent is it justified to introduce compulsory vaccination in a pandemic, starting from ideas of John Stuart Mill?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>May a Prime Minister call upon citizens to have their children vaccinated against COVID, if you take as your starting point the ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers Locke and Rousseau?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>WT</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>8</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>9&10</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>The division of the world into two ideological blocs</p></td><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>How successful have the United Nations been for the last 50 years?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent did the mutual image of the US (and allies) and the SU (and allies) play a role in the Vietnam War?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>9</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>11</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Labour conditions in the Soviet Union</p></td><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>Which of the causes of World War I do you think was most important?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent was the Soviet Union a workers' paradise in the period 1924–1941?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Control</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>The Treaty of Versailles</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>10th</p></td><td align="left"><p>Crusades and investiture controversy</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>The time of regents and monarchs</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>10th</p></td><td align="left"><p>The time of monks and knights</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>An example task designed by Teacher 8 is presented on the next pages.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-37">Appendix B: Writing beliefs and self-efficacy questionnaires</hd> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-38">Appendix C: Strategy cheat sheet</hd> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-39">Appendix D: Implementation fidelity</hd> <p>See Table 7.</p> <p>Table 7 Analysis of task design, task implementation and feedback approaches</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Condition</p></th><th align="left" colspan="9"><p>WT + S</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>WT</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Group</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>1&2</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>3&4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5<sup>a</sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>6</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>7<sup>b</sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>9&10</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>11</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Task</p></th><th align="left"><p>A</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left"><p>A</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>A</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left"><p>A</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left"><p>A</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th><th align="left"><p>A</p></th><th align="left"><p>B</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="14"><p><italic>Principle #1 Evaluative question</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Present yes/no</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="14"><p><italic>Principle #2 Multiple sources</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Present yes/no</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of sources</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of textual sources</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of visual sources<sup>1</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean length of source texts</p></td><td align="left"><p>201</p></td><td align="left"><p>183</p></td><td align="left"><p>211</p></td><td align="left"><p>168</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>200</p></td><td align="left"><p>162</p></td><td align="left"><p>455</p></td><td align="left"><p>312</p></td><td align="left"><p>175</p></td><td align="left"><p>146</p></td><td align="left"><p>131</p></td><td align="left"><p>105</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="14"><p><italic>Principle #3 Suitability for learning</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' grade level</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>10th</p></td><td align="left"><p>10th</p></td><td align="left"><p>12th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td><td align="left"><p>11th</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Difficulty as experienced by teachers<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="14"><p><italic>Principle #4 Task duration</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Appropriate for one lesson hour<sup>3</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Duration of lessons</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>45′</p></td><td align="left"><p>45′</p></td><td align="left"><p>60′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>50′</p></td><td align="left"><p>40′</p></td><td align="left"><p>40′</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Feedback approach<sup>4</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>6*</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>6*</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>1</sups>Pictures, tables, cartoons, or videos. <sups>2</sups>Difficulty: 1 = easy, 2 = not too difficult, not too easy, 3 = difficult. <sups>3</sups>Task duration: 1 = too short for one lesson hour, 2 = not too short, not too long, 3 = too long for one lesson hour. <sups>4</sups>Feedback approach: 1 = creating a scale; 2 = comparing text to a scale (not used); 3 = discussion of random text (not used); 4 = discussion of good example; 5 = assessing on criteria; 6 = individual written feedback; 7 = discussion of content only. Note: options 6 and 7 were not suggested in the teaching manual. <sups>a</sups>The teacher of Group 5 provided students with only one extensive writing task without preselected sources, because they felt it suited their students' grade (12th) better to let them formulate their own question and to search for appropriate sources themselves. Nevertheless, we validated this practice as an operationalization of our task design principles, because the students ultimately engaged with an evaluative question and also utilized sources. <sups>b</sups>The teacher of Group 7 merged Lessons 3 and 5 into one session, in which two evaluative writing tasks were performed. Feedback lessons 4 and 6 were also merged into one lesson. <sups>*</sups>Texts were graded by the teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-40">Appendix E: Scoring rubric for assessment of text quality</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Score</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th char="." align="left"><p>3</p></th><th char="." align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Understanding of the issue</p></td><td align="left"><p>The text barely displays understanding of the main issue, or understanding is lacking completely. The text:</p><p>contains inaccuracies;</p><p>lacks historical concepts;</p><p>lacks historical context</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The text displays a simple and basic understanding of the main issue. The text:</p><p>is reasonably correct;</p><p>contains some historical concepts;</p><p>contains a brief historical context</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The text displays a thorough understanding of the main issue</p><p>The text:</p><p>is accurate;</p><p>contains all necessary historical concepts;</p><p>places the issue in its historical context</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Multiperspectivity</p></td><td align="left"><p>The text is one-sided; the main issue is discussed, but not from different perspectives</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Opposing views are presented in the text, but not very elaboratively</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Opposing views are presented in the text, thoroughly</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Argumentation</p></td><td align="left"><p>The arguments in the text are weak and/or barely elaborated on</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The different views are supported by strong and/or weaker arguments, and the arguments are only moderately elaborated on</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The different views are supported by strong arguments, which are elaborated on with accurate facts, examples and details</p><p>Arguments are thoughtfully considered and weighed</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Use of sources</p></td><td align="left"><p>Source information is presented as 'own text' (e.g. it is presented as facts, and/or references are not provided)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Source information is made explicit in the text by referencing (e.g. 'According to Eduard Douwes Dekker ...')</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Source information is integrated in the text; authors of sources are not only mentioned, but also discussed (i.e., the author's position as a reporter)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Structure</p></td><td align="left"><p>Overall, the text has no clear structure. The text presents paragraphs or sentences in an unclear manner, which makes the text difficult to understand. Structural elements are lacking</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Overall, the text has a reasonably clear and logical structure. The text is divided into paragraphs, but those are not always logical or are not presented in the right order. Linkages between paragraphs or between sentences are mostly implicit, e.g. because linking words or signal words are lacking</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Overall, the text has a clear and logical structure. The text is coherent, both internally and from paragraph to paragraph. Transitions are clear, i.e. through the use of connectors</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191377942-41">Appendix F: Example of unit analysis</hd> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0191377942-42">Appendix G: model comparisons</hd> <p>See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.</p> <p>Table 8 Model comparisons for writing proficiency indicators</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Holistic score</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Text length</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Situational understanding</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Multiperspectivity</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Argumentation</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Source use</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Structure</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> para<italic>-</italic>meters</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept + 2 random components</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>4250.471</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>5982.417</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1318.079</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1357.689</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1262.091</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1383.766</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1381.415</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>4243.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>.007**</p></td><td align="left"><p>5973.483</p></td><td align="left"><p>.003**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1310.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>.005**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1352.376</p></td><td align="left"><p>.021*</p></td><td align="left"><p>1253.756</p></td><td align="left"><p>.004**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1342.898</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1367.023</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>4167.100</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>5903.422</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1244.861</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1282.373</p></td><td align="left"><p>.006**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1190.793</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1284.373</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1299.792</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>4140.144</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>5864.882</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1229.578</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1261.992</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1179.706</p></td><td align="left"><p>.004**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1255.911</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1267.515</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <p>Table 9 Model comparisons for epistemic experience</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> parameters</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept + 2 Unstructured components</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1240.415</p></td><td align="left"><p>.947</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1240.415</p></td><td align="left"><p>.998</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>1231.841</p></td><td align="left"><p>.884</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1225.290</p></td><td align="left"><p>.038*</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <p>Table 10 Model comparisons for course content knowledge indicators</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Number of new units</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Mean length of new units</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> parameters</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept + 2 Unstructured components</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1173.831</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p> < .001**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1244.420</p></td><td align="left"><p> < .001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1170.943</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>.239</p></td><td align="left"><p>1241.386</p></td><td align="left"><p>.219</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <p>Table 11 Model comparisons for holistic score with covariates</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Covariates</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> parameters</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Transmissional beliefs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3953.433</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.644</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3948.182</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.072</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3948.023</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.691</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3947.512</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.774</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Cognitive engagement beliefs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3946.463</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.007**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3945.929</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.077</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3945.403</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.047*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3944.312</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.580</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Emotional engagement beliefs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3953.366</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.060</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3946.383</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.030*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3945.870</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.474</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3942.921</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.229</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Self-efficacy total score</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3771.236</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.048*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3769.215</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.221</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3768.090</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.724</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>3767.918</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.917</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <p>Table 12 Model comparisons for epistemic experience with covariates</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Covariates</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> parameters</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Transmissional beliefs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1163.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.471</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1159.859</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.201</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1159.648</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.646</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1156.596</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.218</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Cognitive engagement beliefs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1151.659</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1150.406</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.530</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1147.947</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.117</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1142.983</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.085</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Emotional engagement beliefs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1159.527</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.044*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1159.193</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.842</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1158.674</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.472</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1151.094</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.022*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Self-efficacy total score</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1112.883</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.160</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1108.800</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.120</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1108.518</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.596</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plus: Time*Condition*Cov</p></td><td align="left"><p>1100.608</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.020*</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-43">Appendix H: Correlations between variables</hd> <p>See Tables 13, 14 and 15.</p> <p>Table 13 Correlations between T1 and T2 results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Whole Sample (<italic>n</italic> = 194)</p></th><th align="left"><p>WT + S (<italic>n</italic> = 83)</p></th><th align="left"><p>WT (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Control (<italic>n</italic> = 63)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Writing performance</p></td><td align="left"><p>Holistic text quality</p></td><td align="left"><p>.552**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.460**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.511**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.393**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Text length</p></td><td align="left"><p>.654**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.602**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.480**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.521**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Epistemic experience</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>.464**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.352**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.444**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.584**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Task perception</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.322**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.335**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.482**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.247</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Interest</p></td><td align="left"><p>.351**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.111</p></td><td align="left"><p>.482**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.533**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Effort</p></td><td align="left"><p>.346**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.295**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.219</p></td><td align="left"><p>.414**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></td><td align="left"><p>.250**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.230*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.183</p></td><td align="left"><p>.310*</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <p>Table 14 Correlations between learner variables and task perceptions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Whole sample</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>WT + S</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>WT</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Control</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></th><th align="left"><p>Interest</p></th><th align="left"><p>Effort</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></th><th align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></th><th align="left"><p>Interest</p></th><th align="left"><p>Effort</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></th><th align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></th><th align="left"><p>Interest</p></th><th align="left"><p>Effort</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></th><th align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></th><th align="left"><p>Interest</p></th><th align="left"><p>Effort</p></th><th align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>T1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transmissional beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p>.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>.066</p></td><td align="left"><p>.133</p></td><td align="left"><p>.004</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .076</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .058</p></td><td align="left"><p>.170</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .033</p></td><td align="left"><p>.293*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.018</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .029</p></td><td align="left"><p>.032</p></td><td align="left"><p>.094</p></td><td align="left"><p>.293*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .021</p></td><td align="left"><p>.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>.078</p></td><td align="left"><p>.097</p></td><td align="left"><p>.095</p></td><td align="left"><p>.088</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .312*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .040</p></td><td align="left"><p>.127</p></td><td align="left"><p>.092</p></td><td align="left"><p>.065</p></td><td align="left"><p>.221</p></td><td align="left"><p>.125</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.051</p></td><td align="left"><p>.332**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.097</p></td><td align="left"><p>.017</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .005</p></td><td align="left"><p>.255**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.089</p></td><td align="left"><p>.151</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .017</p></td><td align="left"><p>.304*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.291*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.062</p></td><td align="left"><p>.109</p></td><td align="left"><p>.442**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.003</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .164</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.242**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.133</p></td><td align="left"><p>.056</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .255**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.322**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.187</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .026</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .320**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.158</p></td><td align="left"><p>.074</p></td><td align="left"><p>.075</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .040</p></td><td align="left"><p>.135</p></td><td align="left"><p>.072</p></td><td align="left"><p>.189</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .307*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>T2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transmissional beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p>.175*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .007</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .018</p></td><td align="left"><p>.044</p></td><td align="left"><p>.225*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .155</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .169</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .090</p></td><td align="left"><p>.205</p></td><td align="left"><p>.136</p></td><td align="left"><p>.038</p></td><td align="left"><p>.217</p></td><td align="left"><p>.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>.096</p></td><td align="left"><p>.163</p></td><td align="left"><p>.089</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .092</p></td><td align="left"><p>.020</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .038</p></td><td align="left"><p>.080</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .124</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .029</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .060</p></td><td align="left"><p>.077</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .418**</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .202</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .015</p></td><td align="left"><p>.272*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.199</p></td><td align="left"><p>.211</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .012</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .050</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .022</p></td><td align="left"><p>.157*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.120</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .036</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .084</p></td><td align="left"><p>.179</p></td><td align="left"><p>.060</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .008</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .188</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .164</p></td><td align="left"><p>.146</p></td><td align="left"><p>.227</p></td><td align="left"><p>.115</p></td><td align="left"><p>.230</p></td><td align="left"><p>.205</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .176</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.180**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.143*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.039</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .163*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.172</p></td><td align="left"><p>.110</p></td><td align="left"><p>.066</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .270*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .084</p></td><td align="left"><p>.075</p></td><td align="left"><p>.029</p></td><td align="left"><p>.022</p></td><td align="left"><p>.347**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.178</p></td><td align="left"><p>.079</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .171</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <p>Table 15 Correlations between learner variables and task perception, and outcome variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Whole sample</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WT + S</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WT</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Control</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Holistic score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Epistemic experience</p></th><th align="left"><p>Holistic score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Epistemic experience</p></th><th align="left"><p>Holistic score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Epistemic experience</p></th><th align="left"><p>Holistic score</p></th><th align="left"><p>Epistemic experience</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>T1</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Learner variables</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transmissional beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .017</p></td><td align="left"><p>.036</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .096</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .136</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .155</p></td><td align="left"><p>.234</p></td><td align="left"><p>.221</p></td><td align="left"><p>.162</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.004</p></td><td align="left"><p>.079</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .053</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .033</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .200</p></td><td align="left"><p>.072</p></td><td align="left"><p>.244*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.256*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.137*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.121</p></td><td align="left"><p>.105</p></td><td align="left"><p>.065</p></td><td align="left"><p>.108</p></td><td align="left"><p>.110</p></td><td align="left"><p>.211</p></td><td align="left"><p>.265*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.092</p></td><td align="left"><p>.085</p></td><td align="left"><p>.018</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .097</p></td><td align="left"><p>.278*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.038</p></td><td align="left"><p>.154</p></td><td align="left"><p>.429**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Task perception</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .010</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .071</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .103</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .283**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.189</p></td><td align="left"><p>.024</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .059</p></td><td align="left"><p>.212</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Interest</p></td><td align="left"><p>.155*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.271**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.286**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.200*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .062</p></td><td align="left"><p>.096</p></td><td align="left"><p>.154</p></td><td align="left"><p>.528**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Effort</p></td><td align="left"><p>.318**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.287**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.224*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.260**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.182</p></td><td align="left"><p>.169</p></td><td align="left"><p>.418**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.381**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></td><td align="left"><p>.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>.069</p></td><td align="left"><p>.028</p></td><td align="left"><p>.168</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .068</p></td><td align="left"><p>.233</p></td><td align="left"><p>.075</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .175</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>T2</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Learner variables</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transmissional beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .072</p></td><td align="left"><p>.007</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .083</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .026</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .102</p></td><td align="left"><p>.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>.155</p></td><td align="left"><p>.086</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .032</p></td><td align="left"><p>.164*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>.274**</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .296*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.142</p></td><td align="left"><p>.053</p></td><td align="left"><p>.073</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.167*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.271**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.209*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.326**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.045</p></td><td align="left"><p>.429**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.217</p></td><td align="left"><p>.134</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.038</p></td><td align="left"><p>.082</p></td><td align="left"><p>.024</p></td><td align="left"><p>.155</p></td><td align="left"><p>.202</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .010</p></td><td align="left"><p>.140</p></td><td align="left"><p>.103</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Task perception</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.056</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .169*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.005</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .197</p></td><td align="left"><p>.250</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .190</p></td><td align="left"><p>.203</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .123</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Interest</p></td><td align="left"><p>.213**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.141*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.071</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .148</p></td><td align="left"><p>.338*</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .045</p></td><td align="left"><p>.476**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.455**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Effort</p></td><td align="left"><p>.268**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.262**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.206*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.119</p></td><td align="left"><p>.428**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.384**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.416**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.559**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Difficulty</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .118</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .130</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .025</p></td><td align="left"><p>.011</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .297*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.107</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .128</p></td><td align="left"><p> − .344**</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups> <emph>*</emph> </sups> <emph>p</emph> < <emph>.05, </emph><sups><emph>**</emph></sups><emph>p</emph> < <emph>.01.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0191377942-44">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191377942-45"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref41" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baaijen VM, Galbraith D, de Glopper C. Effects of beliefs and planning on writing performance. Learning and Instruction. 2014; 33: 81-91. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref36" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baaijen, V. M. (2012). The development of understanding through writing. Doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bereiter CGregg LW, Steinberg ER. Development in writing. Cognitive processes in writing. 1980; Lawrence Erlbaum: 73-93</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref63" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Van den Bergh H, Eiting MH. A method of estimating rater reliability. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1989; 26; 1: 29-40. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1989.tb00316.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref70" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Braaksma MA, Rijlaarsdam G, Van den Bergh H, van Hout-Wolters BHM. Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and instruction. 2004; 22; 1: 1-36. 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref49" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Casado-Ledesma L, Cuevas I, Van den Bergh H, Rijlaarsdam G, Mateos M, Granado-Peinado M, Martín E. Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: Instructional practices in secondary education. Instructional Science. 2021; 49; 4: 515-559. 10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Van Drie J, Van Boxtel C. Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students' reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review. 2008; 20; 2: 87-110. 10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Van Drie J, Van Boxtel C, Van der Linden JLO'Donnell AM, Hmelo CE, Erkens G. Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Collaborative Learning, Reasoning and Technology. 2006; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 265-296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Van Drie J, Braaksma M, Van Boxtel C. Writing in history: Effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality. Journal of Writing Research. 2015; 7; 1: 123-156. 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Drie J, Van Driel J, Van Weijen D. Developing students' writing in history: Effects of a teacher-designed domain-specific writing instruction. Journal of Writing Research. 2021; 13; 2: 201-229. 10.17239/jowr-2021.13.02.01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Driel J, Van Drie J, Van Boxtel C. Writing about historical significance: The effects of a reading-to-write instruction. International Journal of Educational Research. 2022; 112. 10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101924101924</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galbraith D. Writing as discovery. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 1; 1: 5-26. 10.1348/978185409X421129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galbraith D, Baaijen VM. The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist. 2018; 53; 4: 238-257. 10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galbraith, D, Torrance, M, & Hallam, J. (2006). Effects of writing on conceptual coherence. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 1340–1345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22(2), 89‒116. https://jstor.org.stable/23317413</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris K, Graham S. Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. 19962; Brookline Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holdinga CC, Janssen TM, Rijlaarsdam GCW. The relationship between students' writing process, text quality, and thought process quality in 11th-grade history and philosophy assignments. Written Communication. 2021; 38; 4: 544-586. 10.1177/07410883211028853</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holdinga CC, Van Drie JP, Janssen TM, Rijlaarsdam GCW. Writing to learn history: An instructional design study. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 2023; 23; 1: 1-44. 10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.1.526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellogg RT. Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research. 2008; 1; 1: 1-26. 10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieft M, Rijlaarsdam G, van den Bergh H. An aptitude–treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction. 2008; 18; 4: 379-390. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langer, J. A, & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22. National Council of Teachers of English.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. D, & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. Fi-nal report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on advancing adolescent liter-acy. Carnegie Corporation of New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moje EB. Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 2008; 52: 97-107. 10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers' practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045–1079. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/27667162">http://www.jstor.org/stable/27667162</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nokes JD, Dole JA, Hacker DK. Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99; 3: 492-504. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nokes JD, De La Paz SMetzger SA, McArthur Harris L. Writing and argumentation in history education. The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning. 2018; Wiley-Blackwell: 551-578. 10.1002/9781119100812.ch21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Oliveira LC. Knowing and writing school history. The language of students' expository writing and teachers' expectations. 2011; Information Age Publishing. 10.1108/978-1-61735-338-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orsmond P, Merry S, Reiling K. The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2002; 27; 4: 309-323. 10.1080/0260293022000001337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares F. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2003; 19; 2: 139-158. 10.1080/10573560308222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De La Paz S. Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005; 97; 2: 139-156. 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De La Paz S, Felton MK. Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2010; 35: 174-192. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De La Paz S, Monte-Sano C, Felton M, Croninger R, Jackson C, Worland Piantedosi K. A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly. 2017; 52; 1: 31-52. 10.1002/rrq.147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polanyi, M. (1973). Personal knowledge. Routledge/Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reisman A. Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction. 2012; 30; 1: 86-112. 10.1080/07370008.2011.634081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders-Reio J, Alexander PA, Reio TG Jr, Newman I. Do students' beliefs about writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance?. Learning and Instruction. 2014; 33: 1-11. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schumacher GM, Gradwohl Nash J. Conceptualizing and measuring knowledge change due to writing. Research in the Teaching of English. 1991; 25; 1: 67-96. 10.58680/rte199115476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan T, Shanahan C. Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review. 2008; 78; 1: 40-59. 10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan T, Shanahan C. Disciplinary literacy: Just the faqs. Educational Leadership. 2017; 74; 5: 18-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder M. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974; 30; 4: 526. 10.1037/h0037039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoel GL, Van Drie JP, Van Boxtel CAM. The effects of explicit teaching of strategies, second-order concepts, and epistemological underpinnings on students' ability to reason causally in history. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109; 3: 321-337. 10.1037/edu0000143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Drie, J, Van Boxtel, C, & Braaksma, M. (2014). Writing to engage students in historical reasoning. In; G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. C. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 28, Writing as a learning activity (pp. 94‒119). Leiden: Brill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Drie, J, Huijgen, T, & van Boxtel, C. (accepted for publication). The national history exam in the Netherlands: What should students understand and be able to do? In P. Gautschi, L. Gibson, K. Van Nieuwenhuyse, & J. Wojdon Eds.), Putting History to the Test: History Exams Around the World. Wochenschau Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Boxtel, C, & Van Drie, J. (2018). Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. In: S. A. Metzger, & L. McArthur Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 149‒176). Wiley-Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandermeulen, N. (2020). Synthesis writing in upper-secondary education: From a baseline of texts and processes to process-oriented feedback. Dissertation KU Leuven.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villalón R, Mateos M, Cuevas I. High school boys' and girls' writing conceptions and writing self-efficacy beliefs: What is their role in writing performance?. Educational Psychology. 2015; 35; 6: 653-674. 10.1080/01443410.2013.836157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White MJ, Bruning R. Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2005; 30; 2: 166-189. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wissinger DR, Ciullo SP, Shiring EJ. Historical literacy instruction for all learners: Evidence from a design experiment. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2018; 34; 6: 568-586. 10.1080/10573569.2018.1510795</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191377942-46"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> In 1947, the Dutch government did not recognize the Republic of Indonesia as an independent state but regarded it as a rebellious movement within the colony of the Dutch East Indies, against which "police action" had to be taken.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lieke Holdinga; Jannet van Drie and Gert Rijlaarsdam</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib223" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib235" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib452" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib450" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib226" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib241" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib224" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib219" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref110"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1505451
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Enhancing Disciplinary Literacy through Integrated Writing and Process Instruction: An Intervention Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lieke+Holdinga%22">Lieke Holdinga</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2543-6594">0000-0002-2543-6594</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jannet+van+Drie%22">Jannet van Drie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0353-8255">0000-0003-0353-8255</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gert+Rijlaarsdam%22">Gert Rijlaarsdam</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2633-7336">0000-0002-2633-7336</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 39(1):141-183.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 43
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+10%22">Grade 10</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+11%22">Grade 11</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+12%22">Grade 12</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Literacies%22">Multiple Literacies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Activities%22">Integrated Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+10%22">Grade 10</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+11%22">Grade 11</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+12%22">Grade 12</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22History+Instruction%22">History Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Achievement%22">Writing Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-025-10630-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Writing activities can be powerful tools for learning, linking literacy with content knowledge to build students' disciplinary literacy. However, students are relatively unexperienced writers who benefit from teacher support to balance literacy with content goals. This study evaluated a brief, flexible writing intervention designed to help students in grades 10-12 improve their disciplinary writing in the specific domain of history. Conducted with 14 classes across 10 schools, the study used a pretest-posttest design to assess effectiveness. Three conditions were established: a writing task with process instruction condition (WT + S; seven classes, 119 students), a writing task-only condition (WT; three classes, 63 students), and a control condition (four classes, 86 students). Teachers in WT and WT + S conditions were instructed to design and implement literacy tasks, with the WT + S condition receiving additional writing process instruction tailored to individual writing approaches. Effects on students' disciplinary writing performance were assessed using a transfer literacy task about a new topic. After writing, students were asked to indicate their level of epistemic experience during writing. Historical content knowledge gained during the intervention period was measured using a free recall task. Findings showed that writing practice with process instruction (WT + S) significantly enhanced disciplinary writing (effect size = 0.63) and epistemic experience (effect size = 0.31). Content knowledge improved across all groups, regardless of condition. This study underscores the potential of targeted writing process instruction as a valuable asset in content classrooms for developing students' disciplinary writing skills.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1505451
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1505451
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-025-10630-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 43
        StartPage: 141
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Literacies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 10
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 11
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 12
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: History Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Enhancing Disciplinary Literacy through Integrated Writing and Process Instruction: An Intervention Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lieke Holdinga
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jannet van Drie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gert Rijlaarsdam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1