Alterman, Emma; Balu, Rekha; Haider, Zeest (2019). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594081
Reviewed: March 2022
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
15.90 |
15.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric - analysis subscore |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric - documents subscore |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric - facts subscore |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric - organization subscore |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric - outside information subscore |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Essay writing scored with NY Regents Exam Thematic Essay rubric - task subscore |
Drive to Write vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study examines a set of high schools in New York City, some of which had adopted the Drive to Write program. The schools selected for the study were all in the New Visions for Public Schools network, which provides professional development, leadership training, data infrastructure, and other services to New York City public schools.
Students who attend these study schools are described as low-income and high-need. Specific information about sample characteristics was not provided.
Drive to Write is designed to improve student writing performance by helping teachers provide students with regular, even real-time, feedback on their draft papers. This coaching and professional development program for teachers is designed and administered by New Visions for Public Schools, an educational support network that delivers professional development, data infrastructure, leadership training, certification, and other key services to New York City public schools serving students in grades 6-12. Drive to Write tools include a writing skills syllabus, a skills-based rubric, and other customized technology tools for teachers. The intervention is indented to improve student course grades and student-level writing outcomes on the Global History Regents Exam.
Schools and teachers in the comparison condition maintained their typical writing and Global History instruction. Teachers received business as usual professional development and supports. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
This coaching and professional development program for teachers is delivered by New Visions for Public Schools, an educational support network that serves New York City public schools serving students in grades 6-12.
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