Author Description

Findings showed that UC had been widely used in the state for all years, but usage had varied across grades. Most UC users only utilized its main feature targeting writing prompts practices and did not use the other embedded features. The detailed usage of UC was determined by factors not only at the student level but also at the teacher and school levels. Regarding UC's single year of effect, the results showed that students with greater UC usage performed better in ELA compared to their expected ELA scores if they had not been exposed to UC at all (effect size = 0.17) or if they had used UC less frequently (effect size = 0.11). Furthermore, English language learners, students in special education programs, and low-income students with greater UC usage benefitted more in ELA performance, but the improvements were not sufficient to close the performance gap between them and their peers. Additionally, there was a cumulative benefit to students who used UC repeatedly, but those cumulative effects decreased each year and peaked after three years of implementation.