Fong, Anthony B.; Finkelstein, Neal D.; Jaeger, Laura M.; Diaz, Rebeca; Broek, Marie E. (2015). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559522
Reviewed: June 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California State University English Placement Test |
Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
141.93 |
140.83 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 23% | |
| Black | 5% | |
| Other or unknown | 46% | |
| White | 26% |
| Hispanic | 46% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 54% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in grade 12 English language arts classrooms across 24 high schools in nine school districts in California. Most of the schools were located in urban areas but six were classified as suburban and three as rural.
A total of 4,941 students in grade 12 English language arts classrooms were included in the study: 3,309 students in the intervention schools, and 1,632 students in the comparison schools. For the analyses, comparison students were reweighted to match the intervention group sample size. Thus, the full study sample included 6,618 students. The study classrooms were taught by 56 teachers in the intervention schools and 58 teachers in the comparison schools. Approximately 51% of the students in the study sample were female. Twenty-six percent of the students were White, 23% were Asian, 5% were Black, and 46% did not report race. Forty-six percent of the students were Hispanic or Latino. To be included in the study, students needed to perform at the Early Intermediate performance level on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) in Grade 11. Students who were receiving special education services or who were receiving English instruction from a novice teacher were excluded from the study.
Students in the intervention schools received the year-long Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) program that was developed by a task force of California State University faculty and high school educators to improve student literacy skills and better prepare them for college-level English courses. The ERWC is a program that consists of a classroom curriculum, teacher professional learning, and curriculum materials for teachers and students. The curriculum includes 12 modules. Each module has three parts: Reading Rhetorically, Connecting Reading to Writing, and Writing Rhetorically. Teachers are expected to teach 8 to 10 of the modules and one full-length book each semester. In this study, 63% of the intervention teachers taught at least 8 of 12 modules. However, the study reported that just 18% of intervention teachers delivered at least 8 modules with adequate fidelity.
Students in the comparison schools received business-as-usual grade 12 English language arts instruction typically offered at their schools. About 45% of students in the comparison group enrolled in English 4 in grade 12, and about 46% enrolled in AP English Literature; the remainder enrolled in World Literature or another course.
As a condition of becoming eligible to teach the ERWC course, intervention teachers participated in 20 hours of professional learning prior to the study period. Intervention teachers participated in additional professional learning over the study period, which included a two-day summer session, professional learning community meetings, and coaching sessions. The study reported that 96% of teachers attended both days of the summer session, 95% participated in coaching, and 73% participated in professional learning community meetings.
Reviewed: July 2020
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively Practice Guide
(findings for Secondary Writing)
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California English Placement Test |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 23% | |
| Black | 5% |
| Hispanic | 46% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 54% |
The study takes place in 24 California high schools in 9 school districts, focusing on eligible 12th grade students.
Sample characteristics for the intervention and comparison conditions were identical for the analytic sample: 51% female, 5% black, 23% Asian, 46% Hispanic, and 13% took AP English in 11th grade.
ERWC is a yearlong English Language Arts course for 12th grade high school students. It consists of 12 modules. Teachers receive the specified curriculum, professional development training on the course, and materials to support the curriculum. To teach the course, a teacher must complete 20 hours of professional learning activities. Only 10 of the 56 ERWC teachers in the study (17.9%) taught at least 8 of the modules (meaning at least one activity in each of the module's 6 strands). 62.5% of the teachers taught at least 5 activities from at least 8 of the modules. The study assessed fidelity of the intervention by collecting implementation feedback charts, coaching logs, and professional learning community logs from teachers. The study also conducted a qualitative survey with ERWC teachers to receive feedback on their teaching experience with the course.
Comparison students were enrolled in a non-ERWC English course. For the weighted analytic sample of 3,309 comparison students, 62.57% were enrolled in English 4, 25.26% were enrolled in AP English Literature, 10.85% were enrolled in world literature, and 1.32% were enrolled in other English courses such as English literature or Mexican Chicano literature. None of their teachers were concurrently teaching ERWC classes.
ERWC teachers all participated in a 20-hour professional learning course. They also had the opportunity to attend a two-day summer professional-learning session, participate in professional learning community meetings, and receive coaching sessions. The study concluded that 82.1% of the teachers participated in sufficient professional-learning components of the intervention and all teachers received the curriculum materials.
Reviewed: August 2016
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English Placement Test |
Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 27% | |
| Black | 4% | |
| White | 24% |
| Hispanic | 45% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 55% |
This study took place in nine California school districts, with a total of 24 participating high schools. In the primary analyses, there were a total of 56 teachers in the Intervention condition (ERWC) and 58 teachers in the comparison condition. The number of teachers in the analytic sample from sensitivity analysis #3, which is reviewed here by the WWC, is not reported.
The overall sample included 52% female, 4% African American, 27% Asian, 45% Hispanic, and 24% White students.
The intervention condition was a year-long academic reading and writing course implemented by teachers who a) agreed to participate in the intervention group and b) attended both summer professional development for the intervention training and ongoing, professional development while teaching the intervention course. The intervention condition was an Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) designed to improve students' English language arts skills. Teachers participated in two days of face-to-face summer professional development prior to implementing the ERWC. Intervention teachers also received curriculum materials for use in their classrooms; these materials were developed specifically for the ERWC. Students in the ERWC course received instruction designed to improve reading and writing skills, with a special focus on reading and writing rhetorically. The curriculum modules were built along three primary domains: a) reading rhetorically, b) connecting reading to writing, and c) writing rhetorically. Students also practice analytical writing skills (e.g., summative essays, timed writing exercises, and writing in response to prompts).
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual and included students' participation in their non-ERWC English language arts courses.
Teachers in the intervention condition participated in two days of summer face-to-face professional development as well as ongoing, yearlong professional learning communities and development opportunities during the intervention year. During their professional development, teachers learned to use the curriculum materials, were immersed in the Expository Reading and Writing course objectives and curriculum, and had opportunities to work with other intervention group teachers. Activity logs were kept, and teachers were encouraged to participate in professional learning communities at their school sites along with other intervention group teachers. Teachers were in communication with the research team, and had ongoing opportunities to ask questions and receive support as they worked to teach the ERWC in their schools.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube