A Theory of Impacts Model for Assessing Computer Science Interventions through an Equity Lens: Identifying Systemic Impacts Using the CAPE Framework

With more recognition being given to the diverse and changing demographics in education, there is a need to understand how well computer science education is meeting the needs of all learners as it starts to infiltrate K-12 schools. The CAPE framework is a newer model for assessing the equitable delivery of computer science education and can be used to understand a school’s capacity to offer equitable computer science (CS) education, equitable student access to CS education, equitable student participation in CS, and equitable experiences of students taking CS. Since the CAPE framework is a new way to research CS education through an equity-lens, there are few, if any, frameworks that can be leveraged to explore research questions in a complex, multi-school intervention. To address this gap, we used a design-based research approach to create and determine the feasibility of a new model, Theory of Impacts, informed by the CAPE framework (the ToI-CAPE model), for evaluating a multi-school intervention. In this article, we provide a detailed explanation of creating and using the ToI-CAPE model for a specific intervention and the feasibility of using ToI-CAPE across factors based in experiences and how to use this model in other research and evaluation projects. Overall, the use of the ToI-CAPE model can be used to shed light on the critical subcomponents and agents at work in the intervention and the actions necessary across these components and agents to support intended outcomes

A Theory of Impacts Model for Assessing Computer Science Interventions through an Equity Lens: Identifying Systemic Impacts Using the CAPE Framework

With more recognition being given to the diverse and changing demographics in education, there is a need to understand how well computer science education is meeting the needs of all learners as it starts to infiltrate K-12 schools. The CAPE framework is a newer model for assessing the equitable delivery of computer science education and can be used to understand a school’s capacity to offer equitable computer science (CS) education, equitable student access to CS education, equitable student participation in CS, and equitable experiences of students taking CS. Since the CAPE framework is a new way to research CS education through an equity-lens, there are few, if any, frameworks that can be leveraged to explore research questions in a complex, multi-school intervention. To address this gap, we used a design-based research approach to create and determine the feasibility of a new model, Theory of Impacts, informed by the CAPE framework (the ToI-CAPE model), for evaluating a multi-school intervention. In this article, we provide a detailed explanation of creating and using the ToI-CAPE model for a specific intervention and the feasibility of using ToI-CAPE across factors based in experiences and how to use this model in other research and evaluation projects. Overall, the use of the ToI-CAPE model can be used to shed light on the critical subcomponents and agents at work in the intervention and the actions necessary across these components and agents to support intended outcomes

Writing Motives and Writing Achievement of Elementary School Students From Diverse Language Backgrounds

This study examined the intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-regulatory motives for writing and writing achievement of three groups of third- to fifth-grade students in an urban school district: (a) 189 emergent bilingual students receiving services for English language development (ELD); (b) 374 reclassified bilingual students who had exited ELD programs; and (c) 563 native English-speaking students. Intrinsic and self-regulatory writing motives were significantly higher for emergent bilingual students and reclassified bilingual students than their native English-speaking peers. Extrinsic writing motives were significantly higher for reclassified bilingual students than both emergent bilingual and native English-speaking students. Native English-speaking students scored significantly higher on a district standardized writing achievement test than both reclassified and emergent bilingual students, with reclassified bilingual students scoring significantly higher than emergent bilingual students. Finally, after controlling for variance related to student language status (e.g., emergent bilingual), gender, and grade, motives for writing predicted a small but statistically detectable amount of variance in writing achievement. Implications for practice and research are provided

Do content revising goals change the revising behavior and story writing of fourth grade students at-risk for writing difficulties?

This study examined the impact of content revising goals on the revising behavior and story writing performance of fourth grade students at-risk for writing difficulties. Twenty-two students (11 boys, 11 girls) were randomly assigned to either a content revising or general revising goal condition. In the content revising goal condition, students revised four stories using each of the following content goals once: revise the story to add another character, set it on the planet Mars, place it 100 years in the future, and change the ending. In the general goal condition, students revised their four stories using a goal to make the paper better. Students wrote and revised a story before (pretest) and after (posttest) these four practice sessions using the goal to make the paper better. Using pretest scores as a covariate, students in the content revising goal condition made statistically more text-level revisions, more text-level revisions that changed meaning, and more text-level revisions rated as improved at posttest when compared to students in the general revising goal condition. The length and quality of posttest stories for students in the two different revising goal conditions did not differ statistically though. The study demonstrated that repeated application of content revising goals resulted in positive and independent changes in students’ revising behaviors. These findings also provide support for Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development

Writing motivational incentives of middle school emergent bilingual students

The purpose of this study was to compare the motivational incentives for writing of middle school emergent bilingual students with their peers whose first language was English. The study included 285 emergent bilingual students (146 girls, 139 boys) who were matched with 285 native English speakers (NE) on race, gender, and grade. The emergent bilingual students included two groups: students receiving English language services (EL) and students who had been reclassified as English proficient (REP). All students completed the school district’s standardized informative writing test and a survey assessing the following writing motivational incentives: curiosity, involvement, social recognition, grades, competition, emotional regulation, and relief from boredom. While the writing motivational incentives of EL and REP students were similar, one or both of these groups of emergent bilingual students had statistically higher scores than NE students on all but one of the motivational incentives for writing. NE students were more motivated than emergent bilingual students to write for better grades, and they also had higher scores on the standardized writing test. REP students scored higher on this test than EL students. While motivational incentives for writing predicted NE students’ writing performance, this was not the case for EL and REP students

Yes, they can: Developing transcription skills and oral language in tandem with SRSD instruction on close reading of science text to write informative essays at grades 1 and 2

This randomized controlled trial with first- and second-grade students is the first experimental study addressing long-running disagreements about whether primary grade students should develop transcription and oral language abilities before learning to compose. It is also the first study at these grade levels to teach close reading (using science text aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards) to plan and write a timed informative essay. Theoretically and evidence-based multi-component writing instruction was developed, termed “Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus.” SRSD Plus integrates evidence-based practices for transcription (handwriting and spelling) and oral language skills (vocabulary and sentence structure) with SRSD instruction for close reading to learn and then write informative essays. A total of 93 children in Grade 1 (n = 46, 50% female) and Grade 2 (n = 47, 51% female) in a high poverty school participated in the study (50% boys; mean age = 6.68; SD = 0.48). Students were randomly assigned to either teacher-led SRSD Plus or business-as-usual (writers workshop) condition within class in each grade. SRSD Plus was implemented with small groups for 45 min, three times a week, for 10 weeks. Outcomes examined included: instructional fidelity, spelling, handwriting fluency, vocabulary, sentence proficiency, discourse knowledge, planning, writing quality, structural elements in informative essays, number of words written, use of transition words, expository text comprehension, and use of source text. Results showed moderate to large effect sizes in writing outcomes, oral language skills (vocabulary and sentence proficiency), spelling, and discourse knowledge. Differential effects due to grade, gender, and race are examined, and directions for future research are discussed

Writing and Writing Motivation of Students Identified as English Language Learners

The purpose of this study was to examine the writing performance and motivational beliefs of students who were identified by their school district as English language learners. The study included 880 students (463 girls; 417 boys) in grades three to eight who wrote an informative/explanatory essay on information technology and completed a motivational survey assessing their intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-regulation incentives for writing. Ninety-seven percent of students’ scores on the writing measure did not meet grade-level proficiency for writing, girls received higher scores than boys, and writing scores generally increased across the six grade-levels. A majority of students agreed that intrinsic and extrinsic incentives drive their writing behavior, but only 38% of students indicated that self-regulation incentives had such an effect. Gender was not related to students’ motivational scores, but scores for the three motivational incentives declined from lower to higher grades. Recommendations for future research and suggestions for classroom practice were provided

Do children with reading difficulties experience writing difficulties? A meta-analysis

In this meta-analysis, we examined whether children identified with reading difficulties (RD) evidence writing difficulties. We included studies comparing children with RD with (a) typically developing peers matched on age (k = 87 studies) and (b) typically developing younger peers with similar reading capabilities (k = 24 studies). Children identified with RD scored lower on measures of writing than their same age peers (g = −1.25) when all writing scores in a study were included in the analysis. This same pattern occurred for specific measures of writing: quality (g = −0.95), output (g = −0.66), organization (g = −0.72), sentence skills (g = −0.78), vocabulary (g = −1.17), syntax (g = −1.07), handwriting (g = −0.64), and spelling (g = −1.42). Differences in the writing scores of children identified with RD and same age peers were moderated by whether the writing assessment was a norm-referenced or researcher-designed measure when all writing measures or just spelling were included in the analyses. Depth of orthography for studies involving European languages also moderated differences in the spelling scores of children identified with RD and same age peers. Finally, children identified with RD scored lower on writing than younger peers with similar reading capabilities (g = −0.94) and more specifically on spelling (−0.93). We concluded that children with RD experience difficulties with writing, providing support for theoretical propositions of reading and writing connections as well as the importance of writing instruction for these students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved