Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 973–994 | Cite as

Examining the text-based, on-demand, analytical writing of mainstreamed Latino English learners in a randomized field trial of the Pathway Project intervention

  • Tina MatuchniakEmail author
  • Carol Booth Olson
  • Robin Scarcella
Article

Abstract

This study reports on the effects of the Pathway Project, a professional development intervention aimed at supporting the academic language development of English Learners (ELs). Using a subset of data collected during a multi-site cluster randomized controlled trial involving nine middle and six high schools in an urban, low-income school district over 3 years, this study examines how the Pathway Project intervention impacted ELs’ abilities to analyze literature, use academic words, and include commentary in their essays. A total of 103 English teachers were stratified by school and grade and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Each year, Pathway teachers participated in 46 hours of training and learned how to apply a cognitive strategies approach to literacy instruction in order to help students understand, interpret, and write analytical essays about themes in literature. Through a textual analysis of 300 randomly sampled pre- and 300 post-intervention essays collected from 1,640 mainstreamed secondary ELs (820 experimental and 820 control), this study examined the ways in which the intervention impacted the writing outcomes of secondary ELs. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the students’ literary analysis and the use of commentary in their essays with the number of years in the treatment condition as the independent variable revealed significant effects of the intervention on the afore-mentioned posttest measures, with students who received 2 years of the intervention outperforming those who received only 1 year of the intervention.

Keywords

English language learners Secondary school Analytical writing Cognitive strategies instruction 

References

  1. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing? English Journal, 98(5), 18–28.Google Scholar
  2. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.Google Scholar
  3. Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Education research Journal, 40, 685–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Ballantyne, K., Sanderman, A., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  9. Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buly, M. R., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Egawa, K. (2006). Literacy coaching: Coming out of the corner. Voices in the Middle, 13(4), 24–28.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Conley, M. W. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84–106.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Access to quality teaching: An analysis of inequality in California’s public schools. Expert report prepared for Williams v. State of California. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from http://128.48.120.222/uc/item/7d20c58j.
  15. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies skills and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. What research has to say about reading instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 205–242).Google Scholar
  17. Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Vogt, M. E. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Educational Data Partnership. (2010). Santa Ana unified school district profile. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/.
  19. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. Handbook of writing research (pp. 208–221).Google Scholar
  21. Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Garmon, M. A., & Tarrant, K. L. (1998). Accelerating reading progress in early literacy project classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.Google Scholar
  24. Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Keiffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/EL1-Interventions.pdf.
  25. Frederiksen, C. H., & Dominic, J. F. (1981). Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (Vol. 2, pp. 17–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Friedlaender, D., & Frenkel, S. (2002). School equity study documentation. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.Google Scholar
  27. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. Knowing What to Write: Conceptual Processes in Text Production, 4, 139–164.Google Scholar
  28. Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence-based practices for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 11–29). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2006). Listening to teachers of English learners. Santa Cruz: Center for the Future of Teaching Learning. Available at http://www.cft.org/.
  30. Gandara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2002). The inequitable treatment of English learners in California’s Public schools. Expert report prepared for Williams v. State of California. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/03b7k2km.
  31. Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved August 12, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/264.
  32. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32(7–23), 42–44.Google Scholar
  34. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.Google Scholar
  37. Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. G. (2006). Accountability by assumption: Implications of reform agendas for teacher preparation. Journal of Latinos and Education, 5(3), 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates. (2002). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students entering California’s public colleges and universities. Sacramento: ICAS.Google Scholar
  39. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  40. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, J. (2011). Relationships among and between ELL status, demographic characteristics, enrollment history, and school persistence (CRESST report 810). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  42. Kim, J. S., Olson, C. B., Scarcella, R., Kramer, J., Pearson, M., van Dyk, D., Collins, P., & Land, R. (2011). A randomized experiment of a cognitive strategies approach to text-based analytical writing for mainstreamed Latino English language learners in grades 6–12. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. Google Scholar
  43. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning. Google Scholar
  44. Langer, J. A. (1991). Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive perspective. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N., Ranta, L., & Rand, J. (2006). How languages are learned (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milewski, G., Johnson, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M. (2005). A survey to evaluate the alignment of the new SAT writing and critical reading sections to curricula and instructional practices. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  49. National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (May, 2006). Writing and school reform, including the neglected “R.” College Board.Google Scholar
  50. National Governor’s Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
  51. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  52. Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.Google Scholar
  53. Olson, C. B., Kim, J. S., Scarcella, R., Kramer, J., Pearson, M., van Dyk, D., et al. (2012). Enhancing the interpretive reading and analytical writing of mainstreamed English learners in secondary school: Results from a randomized field trial using a cognitive strategies approach. American Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 323–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 269–303.Google Scholar
  55. Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2008). Taking a reading/writing intervention for secondary English language learners on the road: Lessons learned from the pathway project. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3), 259.Google Scholar
  56. Ortega, L. (Ed.). (2009). Second language acquisition. Hodder education.Google Scholar
  57. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609–640). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  58. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary educational psychology. Google Scholar
  59. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  60. Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Tech. Rep. No. 2003-1). Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.Google Scholar
  61. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2009). Language in academic subject areas and classroom instruction: what is academic language and how can we teach it? Paper presented at workshop on The role of language in school learning sponsored by The National Academy of Sciences, Menlo Park, CA, October, 2009. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cfe/Paper_Mary_Schleppegrell.pdf.
  62. Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  63. Snow, C., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we know and where do we go from here?. New York: Carnegie Corporation.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, D. P., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 568–580.Google Scholar
  66. Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 246–280). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  67. Tompkins, G. E. (1997). Literacy for the 21 st century: A balanced approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  68. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development: 2000 (NCES 2001–088). Washington, DC: Parsad, B., Lewis, L.,& Farris, E. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001088.pdf.
  69. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing2011 (NCES 2012-470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (original work published in 1934).Google Scholar
  71. Wilcox, K. C. (2011). Writing across the curriculum for secondary English language learners: A case study. Writing & Pedagogy, 3(1), 79–112. doi: 10.1558/wap.v3i1.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Matuchniak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carol Booth Olson
    • 1
  • Robin Scarcella
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Division of Academic English/ESLUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations