CompuPower Investing in Innovation Evaluation: Final Report
Clements, Peggy; Auchstetter, Amelia; Lin, Shuqiong; Savage, Corey (2022). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED623914
-
examining223Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for CompuPower)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA |
CompuPower vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.12 |
3.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Critical Thinking Skills for Everyday Life |
CompuPower vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.21 |
1.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Self-Regulation (researcher-created) |
CompuPower vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.11 |
0.94 |
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.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Other or unknown: 49% -
Rural
-
- 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
Arizona
-
Race Asian 1% Black 3% Native American 1% Other or unknown 16% Two or more races 1% White 77% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 18% Other or unknown 82% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 49% Other or unknown 51%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in nine rural public and charter high schools in Arizona. The intervention and data collection took place across two cohorts in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 academic years, with five of the nine schools participating in the first year and six of the nine schools participating in the second year. Two schools participated in both years. Each school offered one CompuPower course, with differing policies on the grade level(s) of students invited to participate in the course.
Study sample
Of the total sample, 51 percent of students were female and 49 percent were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch. Eighteen percent were Hispanic, 77 percent were White, 3 percent were Black, 1 percent were Asian, 1 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1 percent were two or more races. Two percent were English language learners.
Intervention Group
The CompuPower program is a theory- and research-based high school course for students. The focus of the course is on culturally responsive computing, emphasizing society, science, and technology as innovation drivers. The course is implemented over an entire academic year and consists of 120 hours of materials, with five or six units per academic quarter. As part of the program, a 3-day summer residential program at Arizona State University is offered to students to give them the opportunity to work collaboratively with each other and industry mentors. Finally, the CompuPower program also includes a parent workshop component called the Parent Academy, which is designed to help parents support their children's STEM educational opportunities in high school and college.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition received business as usual. Comparison students were students in the same grades, schools, and years as their matched intervention peers, but they had not enrolled in the CompuPower course.
Support for implementation
Mentor teachers who deliver the CompuPower curriculum receive a professional development component designed to be implemented as a 2-day summer workshop. They learn about the rationale of the program and how to use culturally relevant and responsive teaching practices. As part of the study, implementation fidelity scores were calculated. The implementation of the CompuPower program in this study did not meet all implementation guidelines, largely due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
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).