Currents in Literacy

Extended Day: An Innovative Academic Support Program

By Linda Hanson

The Massachusetts Department of Education put out a challenge in 1998 to cities and towns in the Commonwealth to come up with innovative and effective programs to improve student performance on the statewide Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test. The state would provide help in the form of grant money, but the funding would be contingent upon stringent documentation and program evaluation criteria. Many localities backed away from this potential source of money due to the strict documentation requirements, however, the town of Arlington, with the help of the Hood Children's Literacy Project, applied for and was awarded grant money to create a program that focused on improving student achievement in the area of writing.

Arlington's MCAS Extended Day Academic Support Program had three major components to address the diverse needs of students, teachers, and parents. Improving student achievement in writing, specifically in the area of composition, was the primary goal. This goal was arrived at by a thorough review of the 1998 town MCAS scores. Sixty-eight percent of Arlington fourth graders scored "Failing" or "Needs Improvement" in the English Language Arts section of the test. Subject area sub scores showed that students had the most difficulty with "Composition: Topic Development," and in responding in writing to open-ended questions. With this deficiency in mind, giving students the tools and practice to meet the sophisticated writing requirements set forth in the state English Language Arts framework, and covered on the MCAS test, became the focus of the grant.

A parallel goal was to provide professional development for teachers in the teaching of writing. The grant authors reasoned that by giving teachers a better understanding of the scope of the writing demands specific to the state frameworks and the MCAS test, they would be better prepared to provide instruction that would help students meet these requirements. As reflected in the new standards, communicating knowledge and understanding through writing has taken on a much more prominent place in today's curriculum. The MCAS test is unique in its reliance on student writing samples as indicators of achievement. Grant administrators recognized the need to provide teachers with additional tools and strategies to meet the requirements of this evolving field.

Finally, giving parents access to information about how they can help support their children's writing development at home was also considered crucial to the success of the grant. To this end, two town-wide workshops were held to inform parents of students in grades 4-8 about the writing process. These workshops, run by Hood Project staff, focused more on the nuts and bolts of expository or report writing, and less on the specific demands of the MCAS test. These workshops also offered parents the opportunity to ask questions and share concerns about their experiences working with their children on writing assignments.

In addition, Sue Fleming, one of the workshop presenters, conceived and wrote a booklet entitled The Home/School Writing Partnership: An invitation to parents to participate in their children's growth as writers. All workshop participants were given a copy of this booklet as a companion to the workshop.

Parental involvement, professional development, and student achievement were the cornerstones of the Extended-Day Academic Support Program grant. Effectively addressing each of these distinct and important areas in the ten-week time span of the program was the challenge of the team who worked together to implement the grant.

Organization of the Program

The grant was written as a joint effort by Joanne Gurry, Assistant Superintendent of Arlington Schools; Mike McCabe, Principal of the Thompson Elementary School with Marilyn Flaherty of Peirce Elementary School; and William Stokes, Project Director of the Hood Children's Literacy Project. Linda Hanson and Sue Fleming, Hood Project staff carried out the staff training sessions and conducted the parent involvement workshops. Members of this team met weekly to assess the progress of the project and to chart future actions.

The academic support program was quickly organized into a ten-week, after-school program for students in grades 4, 5, and 8, when the town got word that it had received a lower than expected level of funding. The grant team decided on a ten-week time frame which would include weekly one-hour professional development sessions for the staff responsible for providing the student instruction. On subsequent days, teachers would meet with small groups of students for two one-hour after-school instructional periods to implement the writing strategies reviewed during the professional development sessions.

The first and last week of the course were reserved for the students to complete pre- and post- assessment writing samples. These sample responses would constitute data that would be analyzed and scored by Lesley University faculty working with the Hood Project using a rubric specifically designed for this purpose but modelled on the published MCAS rubric. An analysis of the writing assessments would constitute one aspect of the project evaluation.

The other eight weeks of the course focused on specific writing skills or forms demanded by the state frameworks. Two weeks were dedicated to the Long Composition. With this form of writing the emphasis was on understanding the prompt, brainstorming and organizing responses using a web, writing a first draft, revising for content and composition elements, and writing a final draft. The remaining six weeks of the course focused on helping students respond to open response questions. The particular forms covered were: writing character descriptions using fiction, posing questions and making inferences using biographies, summarizing relevant parts of informational texts, writing a literary analysis using historical fiction and poetry, writing compare and contrast responses using a variety of texts, and carrying out scientific writing from a prompt.

As the course began to take shape, however, it quickly became evident that writing does not stand alone. The teaching staff and trainers recognized the need to also include reading comprehension strategies to complement the writing skills being taught. The link between these closely connected skills quickly became apparent as the group moved into the open-response questions.

The following reading comprehension topics were integrated into the program:

• setting a purpose for reading;
• using knowledge of the text format;
• posing questions before, during, and after reading;
• determining importance;
• drawing inferences;
• synthesizing information;
• and visualizing to help understand the text.

These strategies were often taught in concert with specific writing skills, depending on the prompt. In short, what evolved was a crash course in critical reading and writing.

Through the professional development sessions, teaching staff were encouraged to first model the writing or reading strategy being covered that week. They were then asked to lead the students in a guided practice of the strategy using a new prompt, and finally students were expected to independently carry out the strategy using a different prompt. While this "gradual release of responsibility" model (Pearson and Gallagher 1983) was considered widely effective, it was also clear that the ten-week time frame did not allow sufficient time for guided practice of a strategy before students were asked to carry it out independently and then move on to the next strategy. For the purpose of this course, many teachers wisely chose to focus on modeling the strategies and guided practice.

Program Evaluation Components

Along with detailed information about student attendance, the state grant also required that project evaluation components be built into the program. The stated purpose for this was to facilitate the replication of successful programs. One of the measures of program effectiveness has already been mentioned: the collection of pre- and post- assessment writing samples from all of the students in the program. In addition to this, teacher, student, and parent written evaluations were designed and completed by all participants. These written evaluations will be examined for evidence of degree of satisfaction with the program, and for ideas for future course adaptations.

In addition to these components, the performance of Arlington students who participated in the course, and who also took the 1999 MCAS test, will be tracked and analyzed to determine if participation in the course led to higher student scores on the written response questions.

Preliminary Findings and Results: Teacher Feedback

Upon completion of the course, teachers and students were asked to complete a written evaluation of the course. Teachers had an additional follow-up session where they discussed their reaction to the course with program administrators. The teacher evaluations made it clear that teachers felt the program had been worthwhile to the students. According to teachers, students learned how to organize their writing before they begin to write, to be aware of different writing forms, to keep audience in mind, to have more confidence in their writing, and to not be so afraid of writing. One teacher wrote that students learned that "writing is not just creative writing" and that "planning is an important part of the writing process."

Teachers also felt the course prodded students to read with a purpose, pick out the important details, skim and scan, and be selective readers. Discovering the connection between reading comprehension and writing ability was new for some teachers. Teachers also felt that the ten-week course helped students feel more confident about the task of taking the MCAS test, and more capable of "writing on demand." This perceived boost to students' self-esteem as writers was an especially nice outcome of the course.

It was also interesting to note that teachers felt the students actually enjoyed the process of coming in for after-hours academic instruction. One teacher wrote, "I believe the experience for my children has been thoroughly positive, not only in enthusiasm, but also in effort put forth." Another responded, "The children enjoyed the experience." Clearly, these teachers were making these small group sessions come alive for their students. And for all those who might think otherwise, this experience proved that writing can be fun!

By and large, teachers seemed very satisfied with the program, but they also made constructive suggestions for future improvements. Most teachers liked the idea of combining professional development sessions with academic support work. They also voiced approval of the after-school time frame and an eight- to ten-week schedule. Many teachers felt, however, that the fall or winter would be a much better time of year to hold the program, eliminating competition with spring sports schedules and MCAS test taking. Expanding the program to include teachers in grade three and all grade four teachers was a commonly heard refrain. Including math, history, and more science prompts was also a popular suggestion. Finally, the need to allow more time for teachers and students to cover the amount of material in the course was expressed.

Twenty-seven teachers volunteered for this after-school program. Teachers checked off "improving student achievement," and "gaining new skills" as "very important" reasons for participating in the program. The fact that they received a stipend was generally considered a "somewhat" important reason for participating. Some teachers also noted that they signed on because they felt the course would give them more information about the MCAS test itself, and would offer them information to help all of their students improve their writing skills. This group of teachers was motivated to do the best by the children they teach.

Student Feedback

The students, for the most part, confirmed their teachers' perceptions in their own written evaluations. One student summed up her feelings about the course in this way, "This after school (course) helped by making me feel comfortable and prepared. I knew what I needed to do." Another stated, "It gave me more confidence." A third intoned, "It helped me elaborate on my writing. It made formatting easier too." Still others mentioned that the program helped by teaching them how to include more details, create graphic organizers, set up their writing, restate questions, brainstorm, and to remember introductions and conclusions. It was clear from many responses that students felt better prepared through knowing what to expect on the MCAS test.

By and large, students agreed with their teachers that after school was a good time to run the course. Several students mentioned the benefits of incorporating the program into the school day. Some thought fewer sessions were needed, others hope for more in a future course. But there was a strong sentiment in favor of moving the time of year to the fall or winter. This feeling was reflected in comments like, "[We should] take some of the work outside!" "[The course] should be in the winter because it's so hot in the spring." Others mentioned that they simply prefer to play outside during the nice weather.

In spite of their misgivings about the time of year, the students showed their approval of the course by making requests for future after-school courses in a variety of subjects, from math and science, to gym, music, art, spelling, social studies, vocabulary, and geography. Other suggestions included adding games to the program, and having students act out different writing scenarios. A few students would also like to see creative or fictional writing included. Others added that being allowed to type some of their responses would be more convenient.

It would be misleading to say that all of the students were equally enthusiastic about participating in an after-school program. Some of the criticisms came from fifth grade students who felt the material covered was similar to what they had done the previous year. Or that, since they had already taken the fourth grade MCAS test, the information was coming too late for them. Others simply did not like the idea of staying after school.

It was evident for some that food is the way to a good writer's heart. Providing snacks for those who forget, and having more pizza would be welcome additions, commented some. The pizza and soda provided by the grant for the final session was gratefully received. At this session, students celebrated their accomplishments by reading pieces they had written during the course of the program.

Parent Feedback

Parents chimed in, too, with their well-thought out evaluations of the parent workshop that was provided as part of the grant. Parents from across the town were invited to attend a workshop given in the morning, and repeated at night, that addressed expository, or report writing. The presentation on the teaching of writing and children's literature was led by Sue Fleming, Hood Project Research Associate and lecturer at Lesley University. Fleming also brought her experience as a mother, grandmother, and former elementary school teacher to this task. The forty-five minute presentation was followed by a twenty minute question and answer session. Participants were provided with a booklet that outlined many of the strategies discussed during the presentation.

Parents were very appreciative of the effort to include them in the conversation about writing processes and expectations. Many commented on the usefulness of the "good, practical suggestions for organizing research info." Others wrote that it was a "great overview of process writing," and that a real strength was that the workshop helped her to think of ways to "talk to my child about writing." Parents acknowledged that parent information sessions were greatly needed in order for parents to feel better prepared to help their children with their writing at home.

The most commonly heard drawback was the lack of time to more fully explore the issues, and especially the need for more time for parents to share personal "real-life" situations and specific problems that they encounter with their children. Parents felt that questions such as, how to slowly withdraw support, how to get students to write in their own words, and how to help reluctant writers get off the starting block deserved more time and attention.

Several parents mentioned that they would like to continue this dialogue with teachers or school administrators in order to better understand writing curriculum demands and expectations. Role playing, using examples of student writing and the process that went into creating a specific written piece would be welcome additions for some. Future workshops to "address specific age/developmental issues regarding writing...[and] more information about facilitating other types of writing [besides report writing]" would be gladly received by parents, one parent wrote. Parents are clearly eager to attend forums that address their role as supporting characters in the drama of writing.

Pre- and Post-Assessment Writing Results

A "Long Composition" writing sample was used for both the pre- and post-assessment writing samples. Staff from the Hood Children's Literacy Project at Lesley University scored all of the writing samples based on the following criteria:

Composition components:

• topic development
• organization
• details
• word choice
• variety of sentence structure
• interest (voice)

Conventions components:

• grammar/usage
• spelling
• punctuation and capitalization

A student could receive from one to four points in each category, with the highest possible score being forty points. Composition elements were given more weight than mechanics, but standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation still counted for 40% of the total score. The categories and breakdown reflect the scoring practices employed by the state MCAS examiners, as well as what the Hood staff deemed to be important features of a well-crafted written response.

Of the 232 students who completed both the pre-test and the post-test, more than half of the students (143) achieved a higher score on their final writing sample. Some scores increased by only one or two points (total = 45), but a significant number of students received scores that were from 3 to 19 points higher (total = 98) on the post test. Mean pre-test score equaled 25.2, while mean post-test score equaled 27.6. Statistical analysis using a test-retest "t-test" showed a statistically significant increase in scores (p<.001).

When looking more closely at the areas of improvement, it appears that there was a stronger proportionate gain in composition than in writing conventions for these students. Scorers noted that pre-tests that lacked a clear beginning, middle, and end showed improvement in organization on the post-test. Clearly defined introductions also characterized the post-test samples. The addition of more details on the post-test was frequently cited as a positive change. Overall, students that showed improvement demonstrated gains in most aspects of the composition process.

Of the 62 students who scored lower on the post-test sample, a greater proportion of the decreased scores were attributed to poorer marks in the area of writing conventions. Of the 62, 29 scored only one or two points lower, while 33 scored 3 or more points lower. One might hypothesize that these students were not paying as much attention to the mechanics of their writing (due to various factors having to do with the scheduling of the post-assessment writing samples late in the spring, during the same week as MCAS testing was undertaken by students in grades 4 and 8). A total of 27 students scored exactly the same on the pre- and post-tests.

For the most part, the post tests showed a great deal of growth, especially in topic development and organization. In their individual reports, scorers also included areas where teachers could focus future instructional efforts. Some of these areas include: identifying all important parts of the prompt in the introduction; developing the details that are added to the rough drafts; employing opening sentences that capture a reader's attention in order to pull the reader into the piece; and filling out, rather than cutting short the conclusions. Finally, as progress is made on the front of structuring the essays, students can then turn their attention to letting their literate personalities come through, and include feelings and opinions that will give their pieces voice.

Conclusion

Successfully completing the lofty goals of this grant was an enormous undertaking that required the hard work and dedicated talent and inspiration of the teachers, students, administrators, and teacher trainers that were involved in the project. It is clear from all who participated that it was a worthwhile and valuable effort. Lessons were learned and new initiatives were conceived of as a result of the work that was carried out. For many, being given the opportunity to collaborate with their colleagues, improve their own skills, and at the same time enhance the writing instruction they offer their students was a reward in and of itself.

This project points out the complexity of the act of writing, and the many resources and supports that students (and adults) need to be successful writers. And while it will be instructive to see whether or not student scores on the writing portion of the '99 MCAS test show an improvement, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence pointing to the increase in students' confidence, skill, and flexibility as writers. This shows that the Extended-Day Academic Support Program has moved students in the right direction.

References

Pearson, P. David, and Margaret C. Gallagher. 1983. "The Instruction of Reading Comprehension." Contemporary Educational Psychology 8:317-344.

Linda Hanson is a Consulting Teacher of Reading currently working with the Hood Children's Literacy Project a the Thompson School. She is also a parent of a second grade student at the Thompson School.