The pathway to academic success: Scaling up a text-based analytical writing intervention for Latinos and English learners in secondary school.

Abstract

This study reports findings from a multisite cluster randomized controlled trial designed to validate and scale up an existing successful professional development program that uses a cognitive strategies approach to text-based analytical writing. The Pathway to Academic Success Project worked with partner districts affiliated with 4 National Writing Project (NWP) sites in southern California. Informed by a wide body of research on the efficacy of strategy instruction to enhance students' academic literacy, the intervention aimed to help secondary school students, particularly Latinos and mainstreamed English learners, to develop the academic writing skills called for in the rigorous Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. Two hundred thirty teachers from partner districts affiliated with the NWP sites were stratified by school and grade and then randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. Treatment teachers participated in 46 hrs of training and learned how to apply cognitive strategies by using an on-demand writing assessment to help students understand, interpret, and write analytical essays about nonfiction texts. Multilevel models revealed significant effects on a holistic measure of an on-demand writing assessment (d ϭ .32) as well as on 4 analytic attributes: content (d ϭ .31), structure (d ϭ .29), fluency (d ϭ .27), and conventions (d ϭ .32). Four dimensions of scaling up-spread, reform ownership, depth, and sustainability-are also discussed.

A Synthesis of Professional Development Targeting Literacy Instruction and Intervention for English Learners

“…The number of implementers who received PD within the studies ranged from one (McGriff, 2015) to just over 100 (Olson et al, 2020, n = 113). Studies only employing quantitative methods had the largest average implementer sample size (average n = 52.86; range = 6–113).…”

“…Five studies used PD programs to train early elementary teachers (i.e., Grades K–2; Amendum et al, 2018; Babinski et al, 2018; Ehri & Flugman, 2018; Tang et al, 2020; Tong et al, 2010); five trained upper elementary teachers (i.e., Grades 3–5; Hart & Lee, 2003; Lara-Alecio et al, 2012; Matsumura et al, 2010, 2013; O’Hara et al, 2013). Five studies included secondary teachers teaching middle school exclusively (i.e., Grades 6–8; Aguirre-Muñoz et al, 2009; Burstein et al, 2014; Echevarria et al, 2011; Green et al, 2013; McGriff, 2015), whereas Kim and colleagues (2011) and Olson et al (2017, 2020) trained teachers in Grades 6 through 12. No study included high school (i.e., Grades 9–12) teachers exclusively.…”

“…The quantitative data sources in these studies described the effects of the PD program on teachers’ practice and knowledge (Aguirre-Muñoz et al, 2009; Hadjioannou et al, 2016; Hart & Lee, 2003; O’Hara et al, 2013) or their fidelity when implementing the intervention package (Echevarria et al, 2011; Tang et al, 2020). The majority of student outcomes ( n = 7) in quantitative studies were standardized assessments, whereas three studies used a researcher-created writing measure to monitor student writing progress (Kim et al, 2011; Olson et al, 2017, 2020). Finally, no study that only utilized qualitative methods reported student outcomes.…”

“…Two PD programs were evaluated in more than one study. Specifically, Pathway Project (Kim et al, 2011; Olson et al, 2017, 2020), Questioning the Author (Matsumura et al, 2010, 2013), and Story Retelling and Higher Order Thinking for English Language and Literacy Acquisition and Academic Oral and Written Language (Tang et al, 2020; Tong et al, 2010) were all tested in multiple studies.…”

“…Studies infrequently used writing assignments to support students’ content understanding and academic language development ( n = 7), provided students language-based support of their writing ( n = 7), provided students with opportunities to discuss and work together on aspects of writing ( n = 3), or assessed students’ writing to make data-based instructional decisions ( n = 5). Olson et al (2017, 2020) and Lara-Alecio et al (2012) were the only studies to include all four suggestions for carrying out the recommendation to provide students with structured opportunities to develop their writing skills.…”