Department-funded evaluation (findings for Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC))
Meets WWC standards with reservations
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Not Hispanic or Latino
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.
Support for implementation
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.