Edmunds, Julie A.; Dudley, William N.; Hutchins, Bryan C.; Arshavsky, Nina; Lewis, Karla (2019). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED604217
Reviewed: October 2023
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.
Reviewed: January 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned any college credit |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. 11th and 12th grade students only. ;
|
29.76 |
17.48 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Average number of college credits earned |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. 11th and 12th grade students only.;
|
3.53 |
1.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Average number of college credits earned |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. Economically disadvantaged 11th and 12th grade students.;
|
2.35 |
0.95 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Percentage enrolled in any college course |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. 11th grade students.;
|
35.45 |
28.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percentage enrolled in any college course |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. 12th grade students.;
|
48.98 |
41.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average number of college credits earned |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. Black, Native American, & Hispanic or Latino 11th and 12th grade students. ;
|
1.31 |
0.78 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students dropping out of school (annual) |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. ;
|
1.63 |
1.84 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percentage of students dropping out of school (annual) |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. Economically disadvantaged. ;
|
3.54 |
2.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percentage of students dropping out of school (annual) |
STEM Early College Expansion Project (SECEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Michigan only. Black, Native American, & Hispanic or Latino.;
|
2.41 |
2.96 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in four intermediate school districts in Michigan.
The study does not provide demographic information on the student sample.
The STEM Early College Expansion Partnership (SECEP) is designed to increase the number of students who graduate from high school and who are prepared for enrollment and success in STEM-focused postsecondary education. SECEP’s goal was to redesign high schools by enhancing STEM curriculum and instruction in schools while also expanding access to college courses for students. The project intended to accomplish this by supporting the implementation of the STEM Early College High School Model in comprehensive high schools. Schools were expected to implement four core components: (1) a STEM college-focused academic program, (2) student support, (3) high school-college collaboration, and (4) a culture of continuous improvement. To support these school-level changes, the intervention included coaching and technical assistance to districts, workshops and conferences, a community of practice, school-based SECEP coaching, district-level teams, and district-college collaboration.
Schools in the comparison condition implemented business-as-usual. Teachers likely implemented their typical STEM curricula and received business-as-usual professional development. Students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
A set of implementation support services were provided, including leadership coaching to districts, conferences and workshops, a community of practice, school-based coaching, district-level teams, and a district-college collaboration.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube