Karcher, Michael J.; Davis, Claytie, III; Powell, Brad (2002). School Community Journal, v12 n2 p35-50 Fall-. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ659184
Reviewed: September 2016
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Third Edition (WRAT-3): Spelling subtest |
U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program (SMP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 42% | |
| White | 19% |
| Hispanic | 39% |
The study took place at a public elementary school within a school district that had some of the highest dropout rates in the city.
The comparison condition had six boys and seven girls, while the intervention condition had four boys and nine girls. Forty-two percent of students were African American, 39% were Mexican American, and 19% were Caucasian.
In the Spring, before students were assigned to mentoring, they took the connectedness survey and achievement test in a large room with students who would be assigned to the comparison condition. The Stephen's Kids Developmental Mentoring program, developed at St. Stephen's Episcopal School, was a year round program where children participated in academic and recreational activities; had opportunities to develop academic and social skills, attitudes, and knowledge; and were exposed to activities, cultures, and people within the mentor-mentee relationship. The students met with mentors monthly during Stephen's Kids Saturdays, and then during a two-week summer program. The nine Saturday meetings that occurred during the school year (September-May) provided academic enrichment classes in the morning, followed by afternoon social connectedness activities with the mentor. The summer enrichment program lasted eight hours a day for six consecutive days. During the program students participated in classes integrating activities in multiple academic subjects (math, science, writing, and computers) that culminated in a final project. Parental involvement was encouraged throughout. A year after students took the baseline measures, they again took the connectedness survey and achievement test in a large room.
Comparison condition students were from the same public school as intervention condition students and they were statistically equivalent across age, gender, and ethnicity. Comparison condition students took the pre- and post-test measures in a large group format in the same room as intervention condition students. Pretest was conducted in the Spring before random assignment while the posttest was conducted in the Spring of the following year. Students were given movie passes for taking the assessments, which were collected by a researcher. The authors do not provide more explanation of what may be assumed to be a business-as-usual comparison condition (i.e., not receiving mentoring).
Students selected to be mentors received a two-day training at the beginning of the program and monthly one-hour group supervision. Researchers administered and collected the WRAT-3 and connectedness scale. The authors were also part of the team that created the mentorship program.
Reviewed: July 2009
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 42% | |
| White | 19% |
| Hispanic | 39% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 61% |
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
Structuring Out-of-School Time to Improve Academic Achievement Practice Guide