Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant

U.S. Department of Education Evidence Form

OMB No. 1894-0001

Exp. 05/31/2022

1. Level of Evidence

Select the level of evidence of effectiveness for which you are applying. See the Notice Inviting Applications for the relevant definitions and requirements.

[ ] Demonstrates a Rationale [ ] Promising Evidence [ ] Moderate Evidence [ ] Strong Evidence

2. Citation and Relevance

Fill in the chart below with the appropriate information about the studies that support your application.

A. Research/Citation	B. Relevant Outcome(s)/Relevant Finding(s)	C. Project Component(s)/Overlap of Populations and/or Settings

Instructions for Evidence Form

1. Level of Evidence. Check the box next to the level of evidence for which you are applying. See the Notice Inviting Applications for the evidence definitions.

2. Citation and Relevance. Fill in the chart for each of the studies you are submitting to meet the evidence standards. If allowable under the program you are applying for, you may add additional rows to include more than four citations. (See below for an example citation.)

   1. Research/Citation. For Demonstrates a Rationale, provide the citation or link for the research or evaluation findings. For Promising, Moderate, and Strong Evidence, provide the full citation for each study or WWC publication you are using as evidence. If the study has been reviewed by the WWC, please include the rating it received, the WWC review standards version, and the URL link to the description of that finding in the WWC reviewed studies database. Include a copy of the study or a URL link to the study, if available. Note that, to provide promising, moderate, or strong evidence, you must cite either a specific recommendation from a WWC practice guide, a WWC intervention report, or a publicly available, original study of the effectiveness of a component of your proposed project on a student outcome or other relevant outcome.

   2. Relevant Outcome(s)/Relevant Finding(s). For Demonstrates a Rationale, describe how the research or evaluation findings suggest that the project component included in the logic model is likely to improve relevant outcomes. For Promising, Moderate and Strong Evidence, describe: 1) the project component included in the study (or WWC practice guide or intervention report) that is also a component of your proposed project, 2) the student outcome(s) or other relevant outcome(s) that are included in both the study (or WWC practice guide or intervention report) and in the logic model (theory of action) for your proposed project, and 3) the study (or WWC intervention report) finding(s) or WWC practice guide recommendations supporting a favorable relationship between a project component and a relevant outcome. Cite page and table numbers from the study (or WWC practice guide or intervention report), where applicable.

   3. Project Component(s)/Overlap of Population and/or Settings. For Demonstrates a Rationale, explain how the project component(s) is informed by the research or evaluation findings. For Promising, Moderate, and Strong Evidence, explain how the population and/or setting in your proposed project are similar to the populations and settings included in the relevant finding(s). Cite page numbers from the study or WWC publication, where applicable.

To support these levels of evidence, applicants are encouraged to provide a logic model. [Add Attachment]

EXAMPLES: For Demonstration Purposes Only (the three examples are not assumed to be cited by the same applicant)

A. Research/Citation	B. Relevant Outcome(s)/Relevant Finding(s)	C. Project Component(s)/Overlap of Populations and Settings
Graham, S., Bruch, J., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L., Furgeson, J., Greene, K., Kim, J., Lyskawa, J., Olson, C.B., & Smither Wulsin, C. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively (NCEE 2017-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/22. This report was prepared under Version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook (p. 72).	(Table 1, p. 4) Recommendation 1 (“Explicitly teach appropriate strategies using a Model – Practice – Reflect instructional cycle”) is characterized as backed by “strong evidence.” (Appendix D, Table D.2, pp. 70-72) Studies contributing to the “strong evidence” supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 1 reported statistically significant and positive impacts of this practice on genre elements, organization, writing output, and overall writing quality.	(Appendix D, Table D.2, pp. 70-72) Studies contributing to the “strong evidence” supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 1 were conducted on students in grades 6 through 12 in urban and suburban school districts in California and in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. These study samples overlap with both the populations and settings proposed for the project.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2017, February). Transition to College intervention report: Dual Enrollment Programs. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Intervention/1043. This report was prepared under Version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook (p. 1).	(Table 1, p. 2) Dual enrollment programs were found to have positive effects on students’ high school completion, general academic achievement in high school, college access and enrollment, credit accumulation in college, and degree attainment in college, and these findings were characterized by a “medium to large” extent of evidence.	(pp. 1, 19, 22) Studies contributing to the effectiveness rating of dual enrollment programs in the high school completion, general academic achievement in high school, college access and enrollment, credit accumulation in college, and degree attainment in college domains were conducted in high schools with minority students representing between 32 and 54 percent of the student population and first generation college students representing between 31 and 41 percent of the student population. These study samples overlap with both the populations and settings proposed for the project.
Bettinger, E.P., & Baker, R. (2011). The effects of student coaching in college: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student mentoring. Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Education. Available at https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/bettinger_baker_030711.pdf Meets WWC Group Design Standards without Reservations under review standards 2.1 (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Study/72030).	The intervention in the study is a form of college mentoring called student coaching. Coaches helped with a number of issues, including prioritizing student activities and identifying barriers and ways to overcome them. Coaches were encouraged to contact their assignees by either phone, email, text messaging, or social networking sites (pp. 8-10). The proposed project for Alpha Beta Community College students will train professional staff and faculty coaches on the most effective way(s) to communicate with their mentees, suggest topics for mentors to talk to their mentees, and be aware of signals to prevent withdrawal or academic failure. The relevant outcomes in the study are student persistence and degree completion (Table 3, p. 27), which are also included in the logic model for the proposed project. This study found that students assigned to receive coaching and mentoring were significantly more likely than students in the comparison group to remain enrolled at their institutions (pp. 15-16, and Table 3, p. 27).	The full study sample consisted of “13,555 students across eight different higher education institutions, including two- and four-year schools and public, private not-for-profit, and proprietary colleges.” (p. 10) The number of students examined for purposes of retention varied by outcome (Table 3, p. 27). The study sample overlaps with Alpha Beta Community College in terms of both postsecondary students and postsecondary settings.

Paperwork Burden Statement: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1894-0001. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to vary from 1 to 4 hours per response, with an average of 1.5 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202.