UC Irvine Writing Project’s Pathway to Academic Success program: An Investing in Innovation (i3) validation grant evaluation. Technical report.
Woodworth, K., Arshan, N., & Gallagher, H.A. (2017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. https://www.sri.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/pathway_i3_sri_technical_report_21dec17_final_in_jan.pdf.
-
examining894Students, grades7-12
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Literary Analysis (AWC-LA) |
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample at the end of Year 1;
|
3.40 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Literary Analysis (AWC-LA) |
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample at the end of year 2, continuing students;
|
3.40 |
3.40 |
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.
-
13% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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 Asian 7% Black 2% Other or unknown 72% White 19% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 66%
Study Details
Setting
The University of California, Irvine's Writing Project (UCIWP) offered the Pathway Project in one large Southern California district and supported three other Southern California sites with implementing the Pathway Project. Criteria for selecting the additional sites included experienced leadership and large numbers of English learners. Students in grades 7-12 enrolled in ELA classes participated in the study.
Study sample
The sample was approximately 48% female and 52% male. The majority of students (66%) were Latino/a. The sample was 19% White, 2% African American, and 7% Asian (72% of students' race was unspecified). Approximately 13% of treatment group students were English learners.
Intervention Group
The University of California Irvine’s Writing Project’s Pathway to Academic Success program provides ongoing, sustained professional development (PD) for secondary English Language Development and English language arts teachers. This PD focuses on how to explicitly teach, model, and scaffold instruction in the cognitive strategies (or thinking tools) that research indicates experienced readers and writers access when they analyze and interpret complex texts. In addition to attending PD, teachers are expected to implement at least two extended Pathway-developed lessons or “tutorials”—one designed to teach students to use cognitive strategies for reading and writing and another designed to teach specific strategies for essay revision. The Pathway Project is designed to change teachers’ instructional practices in analytical reading and writing, with the goal of improving 7th through 12th grade English-learner students’ ability to read and write analytically, thereby improving their school success and persistence through college.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition implemented business as usual. Teachers likely implemented their typical English curricula and received business as usual professional development. Students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
Support for implementation
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included several types of support. Before program implementation, leaders from all four sites met several times before project launch in fall 2014 to learn more about the Pathway Project and to discuss available supports. During program implementation, site directors learned more about the details of the Pathway Project by observing the professional development sessions. Finally, the UCIWP team provided extensive resources for the sites to use in delivering the professional development (e.g., agendas, presentation materials) as well as instructional materials (e.g., tutorials or scaffolded lessons) for them to give the teachers.
Pathway to Academic Success (Pathway Project) Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- The study is ineligible for review because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).