Final impact analysis report WriteUp! (Dev12-13).
Forrester, E. P., & Capps, C. (2015). Lake Elsinore, CA: Key Data Systems.
-
examining3,212Students, grades4-10
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2017
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for WriteUp!)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
End of Year District Test: ELA |
WriteUp! vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 4, 5, 6;
|
N/A |
29.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
End of Year California Standards Test: ELA Assessment |
WriteUp! vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 7, 8, 9, 10;
|
N/A |
360.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
End of Year California Standards Test: ELA Assessment |
WriteUp! vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 4, 5, 6;
|
N/A |
376.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
End of Year District Test: ELA |
WriteUp! vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 7, 8, 9, 10;
|
N/A |
32.41 |
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.
-
7% English language learners -
- 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 Black 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Not Hispanic or Latino 75%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention took place in five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school in a California school district. From the sample school district, six comparison elementary schools, one comparison middle school, and one comparison high school were selected based on matching demographic variables. All ELA teachers selected for the study were trained in the Step Up to Writing curriculum.
Study sample
The specific characteristics of the study participants were not described. However, the study provides general district-wide descriptive statistics for the elementary and middle/high school groups. Because of the one-to-one matching procedure, the groups were equivalent on race/ethnicity, gender, SES, English proficiency and disability, but no information about the proportions of these characteristics was provided for the study sample. District-wide, the intervention elementary schools had an enrollment of 6078 with a composition of 9.7% African-American, non-Hispanic, 45.3% Hispanic or Latino, 14.9% were English language learners, and 33.6% were socio-economically disadvantaged. The comparison elementary schools had an enrollment of 4635 with a composition of 4.3% African-American, non-Hispanic, 40.9% Hispanic or Latino, 10.4% were English language learners, and 36.2% were socio-economically disadvantaged. The middle/high school intervention sample had an enrollment of 4974 with a composition of 12.8% African-American, non-Hispanic, 48.8% Hispanic or Latino, 6.2% were English language learners, and 42.0% were socio-economically disadvantaged. In comparison, the middle/high school comparison sample had an enrollment of 2994 with a composition of 2.6% African-American, non-Hispanic, 39.3% Hispanic or Latino, 4.1% were English language learners, and 35.2% were socio-economically disadvantaged.
Intervention Group
This study examines the impact of WriteUp! on student language arts achievement and writing achievement. The intervention used the Step Up to Writing curriculum, which featured students writing narrative, personal essay, and expository pieces, engage in reading for improved comprehension, and demonstrate competent study skills. Additionally, WriteUp! had a professional development component that provided a one-day workshop that taught teachers about the integration of the online writing program and the use of technology in the writing program. The professional development component also supported teachers through frequent and effective staff development sessions that were presented in a teach/practice model and a coach/mentor model.
Comparison Group
The schools in the comparison group fell into one of two categories: 1) the schools had the technology but did not use the online writing program or 2) the schools did not have the technology on their campuses to implement the online program. Other than the designation of not participating in the professional development or use of the curriculum, the study only refers to the comparison condition as "business as usual." The "Step Up to Writing" curriculum - but not the online program - was chosen as the district-wide curriculum and in both the intervention and comparison groups.
Support for implementation
The authors mentioned that program materials for the WriteUp! curriculum and strategies for institutions who are interested in implementing the program are available. Additionally, the authors include the professional development overview, focusing on the writing instruction literature, technology tools and strategies, focusing on how the technology tool was aligned with the standards by the school district.
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).