U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

National Writing Project (NWP)

Goal 8: To improve the quality of student writing and learning, and the teaching of writing in the nation's classrooms.
Objective 1 of 1: SUPPORT AND PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE WRITING SKILLS OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Teacher satisfaction: Each year, National Writing Project (NWP) teacher participants and teacher leaders will rate the program as good or excellent and will affirm that the NWP has had a positive impact on their teaching practice.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Participants Rating NWP Program as Good or Excellent
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999
95
75
2000
98
75
2001
98
90

Percentage of Participants Reporting Positive Impact on Practice at Follow-up Assessment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Gained concrete teaching strategies Learned more up-to-date research more motivated to seek prof. development Better able to assess students
Gained concrete teaching strategies Learned more up-to-date research more motivated to seek prof. development** Better able to assess students
2000
       
75 75 75 75
2001
95 93 91 88
75 75 75 75
2002
       
75 75 75 75
Status: Target exceeded. Participant rating: Initial data gathered at Annual Summer Institutes. Summer 2000 and 2001 data showed 98 percent of new teacher participants rated MWP Program as good or excellent. In 2001, NWP served over 100,000 teachers in 167 sites.

Explanation: Impact on Practice: Inverness Research Associates surveyed respondents to the Summer 2000 survey (2,731 teachers). They reported a 22% response rate for the Impact on Practice follow-up survey (2001). The survey examined three areas: 1. The overall value of the NWP summer institutes for teachers. 2. Influences of NWP institutes on teachers' use of specific classroom practices. 3. Benefits that accrue to participants' students because of NWP institutes.  
Source: Other Survey/Research
Collecting Agency: Inverness Research Associates.
Survey/Research Report Title: Client Satisfaction and Program Impact.

Additional Source Information: Inverness Research Associates Client Satisfaction and Program Impact: Results from a May 2001 follow-up survey of participants at NWP Summer 2000 invitational institutes.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Inverness uses the NSP model for collection/verification.

Limitations: Low response rate.

Improvements: Trying for higher response rate.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Improved student writing: Percentage of students who demonstrated improved writing skills at follow-up assessment.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
3rd grade
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Rhetorical effectiveness Conventions
Rhetorical effectiveness Conventions
2000
85 66
   
2001
89 83
75 75
2002
   
75 75

4th grade
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Rhetorical effectiveness Conventions
Rhetorical effectiveness Conventions
2000
96 82
   
2001
81 73
75 75
2002
   
75 75
Status: Target exceeded. Baseline established during pilot year. Assessment in design phase during 1999, with first available data in fall 2000. Study documents a cohort of students annually using a pre-and post-assessment design. Data from results show percent of students who reached 1) adequate or strong achievement for rhetorical effectiveness and 2) general or clear control of writing conventions by post-assessment.

Explanation: Data collected in 25 third and fourth grade classrooms at 25 sites in four States (CA, MS, OK, PA) in first year of study. At 17 of 25 sample sites at least 50 percent of the Student population eligible for free or reduced lunch. Data collected in 29 third and fourth grade classrooms at 29 sites in 5 States (CA, KY, MS, OK, PA) in the second year of the study. At 21 of 29 sample sites more than 50 percent of student population eligible for free or reduced lunch.  
Additional Source Information: Academy for Educational Development.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: December 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Data to be supplied by the Academy for Educational Development. Validation procedure to be determined.

Limitations: Each year's assessment involves a new set of students, teachers, and sites. Selection of sites is dependent on teacher participation in writing project professional development. Student cohort changes each year of the study.

 

Return to table of contents