the+differences+between+NWP+participants'+students+and+comparison+students+were+statistically+significant.

=B. Summary of Research and Results by Site=

Project Model
This study examines the effects of a professional development program conducted in the Mehlville School District near St. Louis, Missouri. Gateway Writing Project (GWP) provided the inservice program, which sought to develop a core group of teacher-leaders who could build and sustain a literacy improvement program at the middle and high school levels. The study compares data from communication arts teachers and their students in grades 6–11. A total of 17 program teachers—8 from 2004–2005 and 9 from 2005–2006—participated in the study. The 10 comparison group teachers did not participate in the GWP professional development program. The quasi-experimental study design matched teachers and students to ensure comparability on a number of qualitative and quantitative demographic and performance variables. Data included interviews and classroom observations, as well as student writing samples. Program effectiveness was measured in terms of the teachers’ classroom use of writing process skills and strategies, as well as students’ performance in writing. Program group students’ achievement increased overall more than that of comparison students, according to both the holistic assessment and the component analysis of the six analytic elements. These differences were statistically significant for stance and sentence fluency. Qualitative analysis suggests that participating teachers implemented a range of skills and strategies taught in the professional development program in their classrooms; key features of program teachers’ classroom practice included student choice in writing assignments, use of modeling strategies, and a range of prewriting activities. This study suggests that when teachers experience the writing process as writers (rather than solely readers or teachers), they are better able to support students in using the same strategies.

Students
MWTI’s 2004–2005 research compares teacher practices and student outcomes for ninth graders in two high schools, one of which participated in MWTI professional development. The 2005– 2006 research compares teacher practices and student outcomes for students in grades 3, 4, and 5 in two elementary schools, one of which participated in MWTI professional development. The research employed a quasi-experimental design, assessing the writing of program and comparison groups of students using pre/ post writing assessments. The 2004–2005 sample included 298 program and 157 comparison students along with 5 teachers in each group. The 2005–2006 sample included 26 teachers and 435 students in the program school and 16 teachers and 217 students in the comparison school. Research questions focused on the differences in improvement in students’ writing between pre and post assessments. Teachers’ practices in both schools were analyzed according to writing instruction strategies implemented in classrooms and each teacher’s overall degree of implementation of the strategies that had been presented in the NWP professional development. Additionally, the study examined the correlation of prominent- and syntactic-feature scores of students’ writing with their overall writing-assessment scores. Student growth in writing between pre and post assessments was significantly greater for the program students. Even though comparison students scored higher than program students on the pre assessment, program students significantly outperformed comparison students on all aspects of the post assessment—the holistic score as well as analytic scores for content, structure, stance, sentence fluency, diction, and conventions. The teaching practices of teachers participating in the writing project professional development were more process based and student centered than those of teachers in the comparison group. In the 2005–2006 study, program group teachers’ practices included more student choice, teacher and peer response, variety of revision strategies, and publication opportunities outside the classroom. Teachers with the highest implementation of NWP teaching strategies fostered the greatest growth in student writing. Findings also show statistically significant correlations between certain prominent features and the analytic writing attribute scores. This study contributes to our understanding of the teaching of writing and to the design of professional development. 5

Professional Development Model for Improving the Teaching of Writing
This two-year study investigates the impact of a partnership between the New York City Writing Project (NYCWP) and six high schools in large urban districts where challenges include poverty, low student achievement, inexperienced teachers, and increasing demands for high-stakes testing. The research examines, by comparing data from two sets of teachers and their students in grades 9–12, how NYCWP professional development supports teachers’ growth and affects student writing. Seventeen program group teachers participated in the NYCWP professional development program at their school sites; the four comparison group teachers—from a school with similar demographics—did not have access to NYCWP professional development. The analysis of teachers’ growth was based on interviews and surveys about instructional practices and attitudes. Students’ growth was measured by pre/post assessments of student writing samples. Program students’ scores generally increased across writing prompt administrations, whereas the scores of students in the comparison group either decreased or stayed the same. A statistically significant difference favoring the program group was shown in the specific writing element of stance. In addition, results suggest that students’ perceptions of themselves as writers may predict future writing performance. Also, students who reported that they sometimes find writing to be frustrating tended to do better on the writing samples. Finally, students did better on the writing samples the more often they reported using writing in other subject areas across the curriculum. Teachers in both the program and comparison groups developed their teaching practices during the study period, suggesting the positive impact of one-on-one mentoring and direct coaching. (Although comparison group teachers did not have any exposure to NYCWP, all of them worked to some degree with a literacy teacher-mentor from another university.) Program group teachers adopted a student-centered pedagogy in a variety of subject areas. All the program group teachers adopted an approach that teaches writing as a process including revising, editing, peer editing, and responding to student journal-writing. Students of teachers who were exposed to NYCWP for more than one year but had less than five years of teaching experience made the most improvement in writing. This suggests that the NYCWP professional development model is most effective for teachers early in their teaching career, and that professional development needs to be consistent and continuous in order to be effective.

Development Program in the Teaching of Writing
The South Coast Writing Project’s (SCWriP) multiyear study examines the effects of a professional development program, IIMPaC, focused on the teaching of writing. (IIMPaC is an acronym for five elements of the program: inquiry, inservice workshops, models, practice, and coaching.) IIMPaC operates in partnership with low-performing schools that serve low-income populations with a substantial proportion of English language learners. The 2005–2006 research focuses on eight language arts teachers of grades 3–8 and the students in their classes, from two schools that participated in IIMPaC: a middle school and one of the elementary schools that feeds it. Nine teachers and their students from matched schools provide comparison data. Data used to assess the effects of participation in IIMPaC on teachers’ classroom practices include surveys, interviews, classroom observations, and collections of teacher and student work. The program’s impact on student attitudes was measured by a survey adapted from an established measure of writing apprehension (Daly and Miller 1975), administered in a pre/post fashion. The program’s impact on students’ writing performance was measured by timed writing prompts drawn from an established archive of writing assessments, administered in a pre/post fashion and independently scored at a national conference. From pre to post assessments, student writing scores in the program group improved more than those of the comparison group across all measured attributes, and improvement was statistically significant in the attribute of diction. Teachers in both groups used a common set of terms (e.g., prewriting, revision, and editing) to talk with students about writing process. However, the two groups of teachers used these common terms to refer to practices that at times differed greatly between the SCWriP group and the comparison group. Similarly, the two groups differed in the way they framed genres of writing, offering them either as preset and rigid forms prescribed by teachers and test-makers, or as socially situated tools for communication in particular rhetorical situations. Overall, teachers in the program group demonstrated more ownership over their classroom curriculum than the teachers in the comparison group, who showed a tendency to adhere closely to the textbook program. As a result, students in the program teachers’ classrooms were more often positioned as writers facing authentic communicative tasks.

Teachers’ Writing Lives and Student Achievement in Writing
This 2004–2005 study focuses on several teacher practices (teachers’ own writing lives, ways of organizing the classroom, and ongoing involvement in professional development activities) in relation to their students’ achievement in writing. Participants included 17 teacher-consultants affiliated with three Alabama NWP sites, and 15 closely matched comparison teachers, all of whom taught secondary English language arts. Teachers’ survey reports were analyzed in relation to their students’ performance on pre/post writing assessments. The research builds on literature examining the NWP’s construction of writing as an “uncertain” and “nonroutine” task, as well as literature on how classroom work arrangements affect student writing. The study asks whether teachers who themselves have extensive writing lives are more likely to view writing as an uncertain, rather than routine, task; whether this understanding (which is supported by NWP professional development) would lead teachers to establish classroom environments where writing is taught as a nonroutine composing process, more than as a restricted, routine task; and whether these factors might predict student writing achievement. Participating NWP teachers reported more extensive writing lives than comparison teachers. In addition, the teacher-consultants’ students showed significantly greater achievement in writing than the students of non-TCs on several nonroutine dimensions of writing (quality of ideas, voice, and a holistic score), and these gains did not occur at the expense of more routine dimensions of writing (e.g., vocabulary and conventions). Results suggest a significant interaction effect between the writing lives of teachers who participate in intensive and ongoing NWP activities, and their students’ achievement in what can be argued to be the most uncertain aspects of writing: holistic writing quality and the quality of ideas. These findings are consistent with the NWP’s assertion that teachers’ own writing is essential to the professional development of teachers of writing. Further, the positive and statistically significant association between participating teacher-consultants’ level of ongoing NWP work—beyond the summer institute— and their students’ writing achievement provides descriptive data consistent with the assertion that this facet of the NWP professional development model is a way of improving schools.

Through the Lens of the Family Writing Project
This 2004–2005 study documents the effects of participation in the Family Writing Project (FWP), a family literacy program offered by the Southern Nevada Writing Project (SNWP). The FWP provides opportunities for students, parents, and teachers from the highly diverse and transient Las Vegas community to come together outside of the school day to write about matters important to their lives. FWP teacher-facilitators engage family members in writing and art activities, discussions, publishing, and community projects. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of participation in the FWP on 1) students’ achievement in writing and attitudes about writing, and 2) teachers’ practices (including their approaches to teaching writing and their relationships with students and families). The study employed a pre/post quasi-experimental design, matching individual students to examine differences between two groups: 21 middle school students who participated in the FWP and were also students in FWP teacher-consultants’ classrooms, and a comparison group of carefully matched students from a school of similar size and demographics with no FWP involvement or other instruction from SNWP teacher-consultants. Data collected in 2004–2005 included student writing samples from three points in time; pre/post student surveys; and interviews of teachers, students, and parents. FWP students demonstrated greater growth in each of six writing attributes (content, structure, stance, sentence fluency, diction, and conventions) as well as on a holistic assessment. This difference was statistically significant for the program group in the area of word choice. FWP students liked writing more than comparison students (and used it to understand their feelings), and their positive attitudes were sustained over time at the FWP sites. Interviews with the FWP teacher-consultants documented changes in their classroom practices as well as in their understanding of the need to establish and value relationships with students and parents.