Gallagher, H. A., Woodworth, K. R., & Arshan, N. L. (2015). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. https://www.nwp.org/uploads/files/sri-crwp-research-brief_nov-2015-final.pdf.
Reviewed: February 2024
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively Practice Guide
(findings for National Writing Program’s College-Ready Writers Program)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing (AWC-SBA) stance measure |
National Writing Program’s College-Ready Writers Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.12 |
2.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing (AWC-SBA) structure measure |
National Writing Program’s College-Ready Writers Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.96 |
2.74 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing (AWC-SBA) content measure |
National Writing Program’s College-Ready Writers Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.04 |
2.82 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was implemented in 44 high-poverty rural school districts in 10 states across the country.
On average, approximately two-thirds of students in intervention and comparison districts were eligible for free of reduced-price meals.
The intervention was implemented over the course of two school years. Teachers implemented the writing instruction techniques in their classrooms throughout the school years. Students were in CRWP classes starting in fall of 2013, and the final assessment was administered in spring 2015. The formative assessment component of the intervention was implemented in the second year. Teachers were expected to use formative assessment tools provided to them in training twice during the school year.
The comparison condition was business-as-usual professional development provided by each district. Teachers in the comparison condition spent approximately the same amount of time on writing instruction as those in the intervention condition, but they were spent less time on argument writing instruction.
The intervention is a professional development program provided to teachers. It is overseen by the National Writing Project network and implemented by local Writing Project sites. The network developed tools and provided opportunities for the local sites to develop a shared understanding of argument writing instruction. The network also helped local sites adapt the model while maintaining core features. The formative assessment component of the professional development program (of interest for this review) involved providing teachers with training on how to use the "Using Source Material" formative assessment tool in the classroom. The tool includes six steps for teachers to follow in assessing and providing feedback on student writing, including a holistic rating of the use of source material; a rating of how well source material is signaled and commented on, and the establishment of credibility of sources; a description of source material was used; and the teachers' assessment of next steps for the student. The tool was introduced during professional development sessions at the beginning of the second year of the study. By February of that year, the professional development facilitators were expected to have analyzed student writing provided by teachers two times. In addition, the professional development facilitators showed teachers real time reports of aggregate ratings on the tool. After examining aggregate ratings, the professional development facilitators discussed with teachers what argument skills to focus on during the next round of instruction.
Reviewed: December 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing: Content |
Communities in Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing: Structure |
Communities in Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing: Stance |
Communities in Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-Based Argument Writing: Conventions |
Communities in Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted with teachers who worked in rural high-poverty school districts. School districts in the study were located in 10 U.S. states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
The school districts included in the study were rural high-poverty school districts. All students were in grades 7 through 10 in 2013-14 or 2014-15. Other sample characteristics were provided at the school district level but not specifically for the analytic sample. Approximately 66% of students in study districts were eligible for free- or reduced-price-lunch, about 37% were "students of color," and about 3% were English learners. The teacher population included all ELA teachers in grades 7-10 who taught a core ELA class for at least half a year during either study year. This excluded teachers who taught in schools serving exclusive populations, such as alternative schools, or vocational schools with no ELA department. CRWP called for Local Writing Project sites to serve all target grade 7–10 ELA teachers in CRWP districts and permitted sites to offer professional development to any teachers in CRWP districts outside the target population (e.g., social studies and elementary school teachers).
The College-Ready Writers Program is a professional development program aimed at improving student writing achievement through increases in teacher competence. Teachers of English language arts in grades 7 through 10 were asked to participate in 45 hours of professional development per year over two years. The professional development was designed by 12 university-based National Writing Project affiliates and emphasized instructional methods for argument writing. Included in the professional development were instructional coaching and lesson design sessions. Approximately 76% of English language arts teachers in the intervention school districts attended 45 hours of College-Ready Writers Program each year. Based on feedback gathered during the first year of the intervention, classroom resources, such as curricular "mini-units" and formative assessment tools, were developed and distributed to teachers during the second year.
The comparison group received "business as usual" professional development program with a delayed (post-intervention) treatment option.
The intervention was funded under an i3 Validation grant and provides professional development, curricular resources, and assessment tools related to writing to participating teachers. College-Ready Writers Program leadership supported implementation with frequent phone calls and site visits. External evaluations also provided ongoing feedback on early successes and challenges. Observations made during the first year of the study led to modifications in focus and in the tools provided to teachers during the second year.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Gallagher, H. A., Arshan, N., & Woodworth, K. (2016). Working paper: Impact of the National Writing Project's College-Ready Writers Program in high-need rural districts. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from https://www.sri.com/
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