A Randomized Experiment of a Cognitive Strategies Approach to Text-Based Analytical Writing for Mainstreamed Latino English Language Learners in Grades 6 to 12
Kim, James S.; Olson, Carol Booth; Scarcella, Robin; Kramer, Jason; Pearson, Matthew; van Dyk, David; Collins, Penny; Land, Robert E. (2011). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v4 n3 p231-263. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ932553
-
examining2,726Students, grades6-12
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2021
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: English language arts composite |
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English learners, year 1 sample;
|
328.48 |
325.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
California Standards Test: English language arts, Reading subtest |
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English learners, year 1 sample;
|
0.02 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: English language arts, Writing subtest |
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English learners, year 1 sample;
|
0.04 |
-0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 95% Not Hispanic or Latino 5%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 15 secondary schools (9 middle schools and 6 high schools) in the Santa Ana Unified School District, an urban school district in California, during the 2007–08 and 2008–09 school years.
Study sample
The study consisted of 52 Pathway to Academic Success Project teachers and 51 comparison group teachers. The sample included 2,726 English learner students in grades 6 to 12. All students were English learners, 95% of students were Hispanic, and Spanish was the first language for 88% of students. Forty-nine percent of students were male, and 79% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The Pathway to Academic Success Project trains teachers to improve the reading and writing abilities of English learners who have an intermediate level of English proficiency by incorporating cognitive strategies into reading and writing instruction. The cognitive strategies include goal setting, tapping prior knowledge, asking questions, making predictions, articulating and revising understanding of text, and evaluating writing. The Pathway to Academic Success Project training lasted 2 years. During each school year, Pathway to Academic Success Project teachers participated in 46 total hours of training, including six full-day sessions (6 hours each) and five after-school sessions (2 hours each). Developers of the Pathway to Academic Success Project led the training with support from district literacy coaches who were experienced Pathway to Academic Success Project teachers. The first two professional development days focused on introducing teachers to the cognitive strategies toolkit and instructional strategies for teaching students to use the toolkit. Throughout the year, teachers received curriculum materials that modeled approaches to using the cognitive strategies and described strategies for implementing those curriculum materials with students within the schools’ English language arts curricula, including direct instruction, teacher modeling, and guided student practice. In the third and fourth professional development days, teachers focused on analyzing students’ performance on a writing assessment to determine strengths and areas for growth and received further training on the implementation of cognitive strategies to enhance interpretive reading and analytical writing. In the fifth and sixth professional development days, teachers analyzed students’ post-test writing, reflected on their growth as writers, and made plans for Year 2. Throughout implementation, Pathway to Academic Success Project teachers had access to the district literacy coaches who supported them in integrating into the ELA curriculum a cognitive strategies approach to writing. Pathway to Academic Success Project teachers also received 26 hours of business-as-usual professional development.
Comparison Group
Comparison group teachers received 26 hours of business-as-usual professional development that focused on the teacher’s guide for using the district’s ELA textbook (Holt Elements of Literature series). The textbook contained instruction in cognitive reading strategies and included questions throughout reading selections to aid students’ comprehension, but focused more on cognitive strategies in reading than writing. The professional development included sessions on interpreting test data, using test data to improve students’ California Standards Test scores, improving students’ summarizing strategies while reading, creating professional learning communities, and understanding how to teach the ELA textbook. Comparison group teachers did not receive coaching support, but did receive resources, such as classroom library books.
Support for implementation
The study authors conducted observations of Pathway to Academic Success Project implementation and comparison classrooms at the end of the first year of implementation. Authors found no differences in the use of specific Pathway to Academic Success Project reading or writing activities during classroom observations between intervention and comparison classrooms. Study authors also surveyed Pathway to Academic Success Project and comparison group teachers about their classroom instruction. Nearly twice as many Pathway to Academic Success Project teachers reported devoting time to writing skills compared with comparison group teachers.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Olson, Carol Booth; Kim, James S.; Scarcella, Robin; Kramer, Jason; Pearson, Matthew; van Dyk, David A.; Collins, Penny; Land, Robert E. (2012). Enhancing the Interpretive Reading and Analytical Writing of Mainstreamed English Learners in Secondary School: Results from a Randomized Field Trial Using a Cognitive Strategies Approach. American Educational Research Journal, v49 n2 p323-355.
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2017
-
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively Practice Guide
(findings for Secondary Writing)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of Literary Analysis, writing assessment |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
California Standards Test, writing subtest |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Assessment of Literary Analysis, writing assessment |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
California Standards Test, writing subtest |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 15 secondary schools in Santa Ana Unified School District, California.
Intervention Group
Teachers received professional development through the Pathway Project on reading and writing strategy instruction. They modeled the strategies in class and gave students time to practice and reflect on their use of writing strategies. They used an on-demand writing assessment to gauge student needs and progress. The intervention was implemented over 2 school years, with effects measured after 1 year and after 2 years.
Comparison Group
Teachers received professional development that emphasized interpreting test data, using test data to improve state standardized test scores, helping students improve their summarizing strategies during reading activities, forming professional learning communities, and understanding the core English language arts textbook.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Olson, Carol Booth; Kim, James S.; Scarcella, Robin; Kramer, Jason; Pearson, Matthew; van Dyk, David A.; Collins, Penny; Land, Robert E. (2012). Enhancing the Interpretive Reading and Analytical Writing of Mainstreamed English Learners in Secondary School: Results from a Randomized Field Trial Using a Cognitive Strategies Approach. American Educational Research Journal, v49 n2 p323-355.
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2014
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
88% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 95% Not Hispanic or Latino 5%
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2014
- Grant Competition (findings for Pathway Project)
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of Literary Analysis (ALA) |
Pathway Project vs. Another intervention |
Post-test (year 1) |
Full sample;
|
6.27 |
5.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Standards Test English/Language Arts (CST-ELA): Writing subtest |
Pathway Project vs. Another intervention |
Post-test (year 1) |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
-0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Standards Test English/Language Arts (CST-ELA)- scaled score |
Pathway Project vs. Another intervention |
Post-test (year 1) |
Full sample;
|
327.66 |
325.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test English/Language Arts (CST-ELA): Reading subtest |
Pathway Project vs. Another intervention |
Post-test (year 1) |
Full sample;
|
0.02 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 95% Not Hispanic or Latino 5%
A Randomized Experiment of a Cognitive Strategies Approach to Text-Based Analytical Writing for Mainstreamed Latino English Language Learners in Grades 6 to 12
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2012
- Single Study Review (322 KB) (findings for Pathway Project)
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of Literary Analysis (ALA) |
Pathway Project vs. Professional development |
Posttest |
Grades 6-12;
|
6.44 |
5.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Standards Test (CST): Writing |
Pathway Project vs. Professional development |
Posttest |
Grades 6-12;
|
0.04 |
-0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): Readng |
Pathway Project vs. Professional development |
Posttest |
Grades 6-12;
|
0.02 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 95% Not Hispanic or Latino 5%
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).