Expanding the Expository Reading and Writing Curriculum: An Evaluation of an Investing in Innovation Validation Grant
Fong, Anthony; Porterfield, Anne; Skjoldhorne, Susann; Hadley, Lucy (2022). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED621317
-
examining7,093Students, grades11-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cambium Assessment's Grade 11 ELA/Literacy PT Interim Comprehensive Assessment |
Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 12 (Students who took the grade 11 Performance Task Section of the Cambium Interim Comprehensive Assessment);
|
3.82 |
3.48 |
No |
-- | |
|
Non-Performance Task ELA/Literacy Interim Comprehensive Assessment |
Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 11 (Students who took the Non-Performance Task ELA/Literacy Interim Comprehensive Assessment);
|
0.14 |
-0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Cambium Assessment's Grade 11 ELA/Literacy Non-PT Interim Comprehensive Assessment |
Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 12 (Students who took the Non-Performance Task portion of Cambium's Interim Comprehensive Assessment);
|
0.01 |
0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Smarter Balanced ELA/Literacy Summative Assessment |
Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 11 (Students who took the full grade 11 Smarter Balanced ELA/Literacy Summative Assessment);
|
2571.57 |
2564.09 |
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.
-
9% English language learners -
Female: 45%
Male: 55% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, 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, Washington
-
Race Other or unknown 79% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 68% Not Hispanic or Latino 32% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in grade 11 and 12 English classes in California and Washington. In California, 43 high schools in 26 school districts participated. These schools were located in Northern and Southern California, as well as the Central Valley and Coast. In Washington, six high schools in six school districts participated. They were located in Western and Eastern Washington. Schools were located in city, suburban, town, and rural areas.
Study sample
The 11th grade students who took the non-performance task had a higher percentage of male (57%) compared to female students (43%). Most were Hispanic (71%), followed by White (18%), Asian (3%), Black or African American (2%), or another race (1%). Most did not have ELL status (89%) or special education status (92%). The 11th grade students who took the Smarter Balanced Assessment had a higher percentage of male (51%) compared to female students (48%). Most were Hispanic (66%), followed by White (19%), Asian (5%), Black or African American (4%), or another race (5%). Most did not have ELL status (88%) or special education status (91%). For the 12th grade students who took the non-performance task most were male (56%) compared to female (44%). Most were Hispanic (73%), White (17%), or another race (10%). Most did not have ELL status (91%) or special education status (93%). For the 12th grade students who took the performance task most were male (57%) compared to female (43%). Most were Hispanic (65%), White (25%), or another race (10%). Most did not have ELL status (95%) or special education status (90%).
Intervention Group
The Expository Reading and Writing Curriculum (ERWC) is a college-preparatory English language arts (ELA) curriculum supported by professional learning. The curriculum has 67 modules, 28 of which were for grade 11, 27 were for grade 12, and 14 were for both grades 11 and 12. Of these, grade 11 teachers used two issue modules, one book module, one drama module, and one foundational document module; grade 12 teachers used three issue modules, one book module, and one drama module. Grade 11 and 12 teachers taught three mini modules.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition received business as usual, which included several commercial curricula: CollegeBoard: SpringBoard (2018), Holt: Literature and Language Arts (2012), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Collections (2017), McGraw-Hill: StudySync (2017), and Savvas (formerly Pearson) MyPerspectives (2017). Some grade 11 teachers (40%) and grade 12 teachers (43%) indicated that they did not use commercial curricula.
Support for implementation
Teachers were trained in a summer institute before the school year, coached five times during the year, and participated in a community of practice throughout the year. Coaching sessions were intended to include a planning conversation, a classroom visit, and reflective conversation. Starting in March 2020 the coaching visits were held virtually because of COVID-19. Community of practice meetings also moved online due to COVID.
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).