Multiple-documents-based (inquiry) tasks are often used to examine historical thinking, as they require students to apply discipline-specific ways of reasoning and writing. Intervention studies using such tasks have often relied on principles from cognitive apprenticeship to make these discipline-specific heuristics explicit to students. While several studies have found positive results, they offer little insight into how and where exactly students' progress on historical thinking manifests itself, nor into the differential effects of the intervention. Building on essay data gathered during an intervention study on students' historical inquiry skills, this study explores differential effects of the intervention according to students' initial historical inquiry ability. To this end, a purposeful sample of students was selected for whom the intervention was particularly effective. The qualitative analysis of students' essay tasks (pretest and posttest) revealed remarkable differences between students with high and low pretest scores. Although both groups made progress on all aspects of the essay task, they differed in terms of where and how this progress manifested itself: at posttest, students with a high initial score outperformed others in evaluating sources and rebuttals. This study offers insight into patterns of progress in students' historical inquiry skills which can inform differentiation in instructional practices.