Language for Writing Program Evaluation

This evaluation investigated the effects of the Language for Writing program. Ten classrooms were involved including 201 students at the beginning of the project. Posttest scores were obtained for 126 students. This evaluation was conducted over 2 years. Evaluation I was conducted over a 5month period from January 2003 to May 2003. Evaluation II was conducted over a 9month period from September 2003 to May 2004. Results from Evaluation I found that students in general and special education made statistically and educationally significant improvements in their writing performance. The results from Evaluation II replicated those of the 1st year; that is, all students in general and special education made statistically and educationally significant improvements in their writing skills. There was also some evidence that English language learners experienced improved performance across both evaluations. Additionally, it was found that the length of lesson had decreased and teacher satisfaction with lesson length had improved as compared to the 1st year. In general, teachers were pleased with all aspects of the program. Writing is perhaps the most complex of all the language skills we need to teach to students (Bain, Bailet, & Moats, 1991; Hall, Salas, & Grimes, 1999; Harris, Schmidt, & Graham, 1997). Good writing means that writers must take on two roles simultaneously—namely the roles of author and secretary (Dixon, Isaacson, & Stein, 2002). Unfortunately, these two roles are not typically taught in an explicit manner. Without formalized instruction and practice throughout much of the school day, students are not likely to become better writers (Dixon et al.). According to Graves (1985), children need to practice writing several times a week to see any significant change in the quality of their writing. Thus, if we want to improve the writing skills of students, we need to teach these skills early and explicitly and have our students write more. Writing is critical to successful school performance. Students are required to use writing as a means of communication with themselves (e.g., taking notes from class lectures and discussions) and others (e.g., writing answers to questions posed by the teacher). Students also use writing to facilitate the learning process. That is, students use their writing skills to practice skills introduced in the classroom. For example, students are often taught to write information on note cards and to quiz themselves prior to tests. Students are also asked to demonstrate skills they have learned through writing (e.g., papers, tests, or homework; Fredrick & Steventon, 2004). Writing is also important because of its relationship to reading. Tierney and Shanahan (1991) found that reading and writing are related; however, the nature of this relationship is not completely clear. What is clear is that students who have difficulty in their written expression often have difficulties in their reading (Isaacson, 1994). Adams (1990) suggested that students’ reading influences their writing. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) also Journal of Direct Instruction 81 Language for Writing Program Evaluation Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 81–96. Address correspondence to Ronald Martella at rmartella@ewu.edu RONALD C. MARTELLA and KATHLEEN M. WALDRON-SOLER, Eastern Washington University noted the need for increased time spent on reading and writing activities. Demands on writing continue to increase in upper elementary, middle school, high school, and college (Harris & Graham, 1996). Recognizing the relationship between writing and successful school performance, highstakes state tests often include a writing component. According to Fredrick and Steventon (2004), “Forty-nine of fifty states require a measure of writing competency for high school graduation or include writing assessments as part of statewide testing” (p. 142). Fredrick and Steventon also indicate that the SAT will include a writing component that is one third of the total SAT score in 2005. Beyond the public school system, writing continues to be an ever-increasing skill used in the workplace (Agnew, 1992). For example, many jobs require writing reports, taking notes related to job activities, and/or communicating through email with colleagues and/or other concerned parties. Given these ever-increasing writing demands, instruction in writing skills is too important to leave to chance. According to Fredrick and Steventon (2004), “The importance of writing begins at an early age and continues for a lifetime. As a literate society we rely on writing as an effective means of communication in all walks of life. Because we rely on writing as a major means of communication in our society, writing instruction is critical” (p. 140). Therefore, it seems prudent to teach young children basic writing skills early and well when they are in elementary school. One such program that was developed to teach early writing skills was the Distar Language III program (Engelmann & Osborn, 1987). This program was revised into the new Language for Writing program (Engelmann & Osborn, 2003). The Language for Writing program is designed for secondthrough fifth-grade students who have been through the Language for Learning (Engelmann & Osborn, 1999) and Language for Thinking programs (Engelmann & Osborn, 2002). However, the Language for Writing program can also be used with students who have not yet completed the first two language programs if their placement test scores indicate they are ready for this program. As stated by Waldron-Soler and Osborn (2004), “Students placed in the program should be reading and writing at an end of second-grade or beginning of third-grade level, and have adequate knowledge of basic spoken school English” (p. 73). Older students can also be placed in the program if they possess the aforementioned skills and pass the placement test. The purpose of this paper is to describe a program evaluation of the Language for Writing program. The overall program evaluation was completed in two parts. Evaluation I was completed from January 2003 to May 2003. Evaluation II was completed from September 2003 to May 2004. The purpose of this program evaluation was two-fold. First, the improvement in student performance during the implementation of the Language for Writing program was assessed. Second, suggested areas for revision in the Language for Writing program were made based on feedback during Evaluation I. The evaluation of the Language for Writing program followed the program evaluation guidelines outlined by Martella, Nelson, and Marchand-Martella (1999).