Improving argumentative writing and argumentative knowledge of English Language Learners and non-English Language Learners through dialogic instruction: a mixed-effects regression analysis

Abstract Although rudimentary forms of argumentation emerge early in oral language, many students, especially English Language Learners (ELLs), struggle to construct evidence-based written arguments. These difficulties may stem from limited academic vocabulary, unfamiliarity with genre conventions, and fewer opportunities to use academic language involving argumentation. This study examined whether exposure to a dialogic instruction intervention that includes small-group discussions, vocabulary instruction, and analytical reading of argumentative texts was associated with improvements in argumentative writing and conceptual understanding of argumentative concepts among middle school ELLs and non-English Language Learners (non-ELLs). In total, 802 students in the 6th (34.4%), 7th (34.4%), and 8th grades (31.2%) from the mid-Atlantic region of the United States participated in the study. Mixed-effects regression models revealed that while non-ELL students entered the study with stronger pre-intervention reading and writing skills, specific indicators of instructional exposure (e.g., attendance and engagement with aligned tasks) significantly predicted posttest gains for both groups. Notably, ELLs with higher reading proficiency showed greater benefits from curriculum-aligned assignments, while ELLs with lower proficiency gained more from consistent attendance. These findings highlight the need for responsive instruction that aligns supports with students’ linguistic readiness and task demands. The activities associated with this project were approved by the University of Delaware’s Institutional Review Board. The authors have no conflict of interest to report.