U.S. Department of Education OMB No. 

1894-0001 Exp. 

07/31/2025

Evidence Form 

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.) 

a. 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. 

b. 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. 

c. 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

A. Research/Citation 

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/2 

2. This report was prepared under Version 

3.0 of the WWC Handbook (p. 72). 

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/104 

3. This report was prepared under Version 

3.0 of the WWC Handbook (p. 1). 

B. Relevant Outcome(s)/Relevant Finding(s) 

(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. 

(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. 

C. Project Component(s)/Overlap of 

P l i d S i (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. 

(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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Research/Citation 

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/betti 

nger_baker_030711.pdf 

Meets WWC Group Design Standards 

without Reservations under review standards 

2.1 (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Study/72030). 

B. Relevant Outcome(s)/Relevant Finding(s) 

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). 

C. Project Component(s)/Overlap of 

The full study sample consisted of P l i d S i “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 Innovation 

and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202