Evaluation of the College, Career, and Community Writers Program: Findings from the i3 Scale-up Grant. Technical Report.
Christina Park, Nicole Arshan, Allison Milby, Rebecca Goetz (2021). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611837
-
examining1,865Students, grades7-9
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Conventions scale of the Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-based Argument (AWC-SBA) |
College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.91 |
2.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Content scale of the Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-based Argument (AWC-SBA) |
College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.85 |
2.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Stance scale of the Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-based Argument (AWC-SBA) |
College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.79 |
2.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Structure scale of the Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument (AWC-SBA) |
College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.76 |
2.61 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural
-
- 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
Alabama, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 0% Black 24% Native American 1% Other or unknown 9% Pacific Islander 0% Two or more races 3% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Not Hispanic or Latino 91% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 75% Other or unknown 25%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in English language arts classrooms in 47 rural districts across 16 states in the U.S and reports impacts for students in grades 7-9.
Study sample
Study authors reported on the characteristics of the population of students in participating districts in the year prior to the start of the study (2016-17), rather than the analysis sample. The student population in these districts consisted of 24% Black non-Hispanic, 62% White non-Hispanic, 1.3% American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.4% Asian, and 0.1% Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander. Nine percent of students were Hispanic, 75% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 6% were classified as English language learners.
Intervention Group
The National Writing Project's (NWP) College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP) is designed to improve the argument writing of students in upper elementary, middle, and high school by introducing English language arts (ELA) teachers to new instructional practices with support from the NWP network. NWP work is delivered through local, university-based site affiliates that provide the professional development (PD) in their service areas. To develop capacity for the work, local Writing Projects first hold Advanced Institutes to prepare local teacher leaders to provide C3WP professional development the year prior to implementation of the program in partner districts. Local Writing Projects then implement C3WP at scale in the partner districts, with the help of these teacher leaders. C3WP has three components: intensive PD to support classroom implementation, instructional resources that focus on key skills for argument writing, and formative assessment to focus analysis and inform next steps. C3WP is characterized by cycles of argument writing. A cycle of argument writing starts when PD providers introduce an instructional resource and help teachers plan for classroom implementation. Teachers then use the instructional resource in the classroom, often with in-classroom support from a teacher leader. Teachers collaboratively review student writing generated from the resource in PD. Together, they use the formative assessment tool to determine the next resource based on student progress. Teachers are expected to get at least 40 hours of PD and implement at least four C3WP cycles each year.
Comparison Group
Districts in the comparison condition implemented their existing professional development for English language arts teachers and typical instruction. Each district assigned to the comparison condition agreed not to seek professional development focusing on instruction of argument writing, and to wait until the end of the study to use any intervention tools, materials, or strategies. The comparison condition districts were eligible to offer the intervention in the year following the study (2020-2021).
Support for implementation
Local Writing Project site leaders often provided in-classroom support for teachers, including co-teaching and coaching, assisted teachers in applying the formative assessment tools to student writing samples, and helped teachers plan the next instructional steps. Site leaders also conducted annual needs assessments and asked participating districts for feedback on the professional development plans.
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).