Using Evidence to Support Proposed Strategies and Activities

1. FY 2015 SSSUsing Evidence to Support Proposed Strategies and ActivitiesCompetitive Preference Priorities 1(b) and 2(b) • Addressing priority(ies) in the application: procedures and definitions of terms • Addressing priority(ies) in project implementation: effective strategies in practice • Questions and Answers

2. Competitive Preference Priority 1(b) Strategies to Develop Non-Cognitive Factors Supported by Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness • May score (up to) 2 points {correction to be issued} • Can only earn points if applicant addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1(a)

3. Competitive Preference Priority 2(b) Individual Counseling Activities Supported by Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness • May score 2 points • Can only earn points if applicant addresses Competitive Preference Priority 2(a)

4. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) (cont.) • Purpose of evidence priorities: To maximize likelihood of success of strategies/activities implemented under 1(a) and 1(b), ensuring that they draw on what works

5. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) (cont.) • To address either/both priorities: • Provide citation, link, and relevant findings from one study for each priority on Abstract and Program Profile Sheet • Study must be related to the respective priority

6. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities 1(b) & 2(b) (cont.) • What we mean by “a study”: • A journal article or report, not a book, literature review, summary, or PP presentation • Must have enough technical detail that it can be reviewed to determine if it meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards • Can already have been reviewed by the WWC (see Appendix)

7. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities1(b) & 2(b) • How a study demonstrates Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness: • Meets WWC standards with or without reservations and has: • Statistically significant, favorable impact; • No overriding, statistically significant unfavorable impacts; • Includes a sample that overlaps with students proposed to receive strategies under 1(a) or 1(b)

8. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities1(b) & 2(b) • Types of studies that can meet Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness: • Randomized controlled trial that meets WWC standards without reservations or with reservations (lottery/random chance determines who participates in special services)

9. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities1(b) & 2(b) 2. Matched quasi-experimental study that meets WWC standards with reservations (includes a comparison group of students who do not participate in special services but are otherwise very similar to the group who does participate)

10. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities1(b) & 2(b) About the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC): • Reviews quality and summarizes existing research • WWC standards address: • Quality of the design: does the study design allow us to draw causal conclusions (X had an impact on Y)? • Strength of data: does the study focus on relevant outcomes and measure them appropriately? • Adequacy of statistical procedures: are data analyzed properly?

11. FY 2015 SSSCompetitive Preference Priorities1(b) & 2(b) More information on how to meet WWC standards: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19

12. Evidence-Supported Strategies that Address CPP 1(b) and 2(b):Study Author Descriptions • Greg Walton (Develop Non-Cognitive Factors) • Nicole Stephens (Develop Non-Cognitive Factors) • Racher Baker (Individual Coaching)