| Abstract: | Sixth‐grade students with and without mild disabilities participated in an eight‐week project‐based investigation about immigration to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Students' investigations were designed to promote their understanding of the perspectives of immigrants and Americans who opposed immigration, as well as the “ways of life” that gave impetus to immigration and often resulted in conflict between these groups. At the conclusion of these investigations, students were assigned the role of the immigrants or opponents of immigration and were asked to debate the desirability of immigration to the United States during this historical period. The primary focus of this article is on the opportunities afforded by, and the limitations of, these classroom debates. The debates promoted high levels of engagement and equal participation by students with and without disabilities as well as by boys and girls. Analyses of content and structure showed that students' discourse was influenced by the knowledge they gained during their investigations, but the use of this knowledge was shaped by the competitive rhetorical goal of defending a particular viewpoint. Later rounds of the debates were more balanced and drew more on the breadth of available knowledge than did earlier rounds. Overall, the debates were more typical of everyday arguments than academic arguments. The implications of our findings for the design of instructional opportunities in the social studies in inclusive classrooms are discussed. |
