Project COMPASS Final Evaluation Report
Edmunds, Julie; Gicheva, Dora; Thrift, Beth; Hull, Marie (2019). SERVE Center at University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611756
-
examining2,295Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Project COMPASS)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent completed course with a C or higher |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
53.42 |
52.57 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percent completed course with a D or higher |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Incoming academic performance below median;
|
52.96 |
46.95 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Percent completed course with a D or higher |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
59.32 |
56.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percent completed course with a C or higher |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Incoming academic performance below median;
|
45.39 |
42.03 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College persistence - enrolled in higher education for another term |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
PSY-150 and BUS-110 students;
|
72.26 |
70.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Withdraw rate |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Incoming academic performance below median;
|
35.54 |
46.27 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Percent Drop or Withdraw |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
31.92 |
38.54 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College persistence - enrolled in higher education for another year |
Project COMPASS vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
PSY-150 and BUS-110 students;
|
80.33 |
77.10 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 60%
Male: 40% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
North Carolina
-
Race Black 31% Other or unknown 69% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Not Hispanic or Latino 90%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three courses, Psychology 150 (PSY-150), Business 110 (BUS-110), and Computer and Information Science 110 (CIS-110) at Wake Technical Community College, a large community college located in North Carolina. Within each course, students were assigned to either an intervention or comparison course section (PSY-150: 16 intervention sections and 20 comparison sections; BUS-110: eight intervention sections and nine comparison sections; and CIS-110: six intervention sections and eight comparison sections). The PSC-150 and BUS-110 sections included in the study were from the fall and spring 2017-2018 academic year and the CIS-110 sections were from the fall and spring of the 2018-2019 academic year.
Study sample
The study sample demographics are as follows: 60% of students were female and 31% were Black. One-tenth (10%) of students were Hispanic. About half (48%) were eligible for Pell grants. The average age of students was approximately 26 years old.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition were enrolled in a Project COMPASS section of the course. Project COMPASS uses a series of technology-enhanced strategies including live-streamed student gatherings and live text chats to support increased student-teacher and student-student interactions and improve social, cognitive, and teaching presence in the online setting. The technology tools included use of web conferencing, web messaging with automated features, video presentations, video chat, and desktop sharing. As part of the project, instructors were trained in the use of these technologies and strategies, as well as strategies designed specifically to support minority students. Each course lasted one semester, which was approximately 16 weeks.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were enrolled the in the same courses, but taught by teachers who had not been trained in the Project COMPASS protocol.
Support for implementation
Project COMPASS instructors were required to complete a 30-hour training program focused on best practices for online teaching, including online course design, instruction, accessibility, and communication. Other support included biweekly lunches to discuss challenges with implementation; topics discussed included texting tools, tips for Blackboard use, and video editing. Also, implementation support was provided by an instructional designer, instructional technologist, and media production assistant. Additional resources included training, video captioning, course formatting, as well as access to a repository of resources such as instructional guides, activities, and assessments.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).