Stemming the Tide of Summer Melt: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Post-High School Summer Intervention on Low-Income Students' College Enrollment
Castleman, Benjamin L.; Arnold, Karen; Lynk Wartman, Katherine (2012). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v5 n1 p1-17. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ952097
-
examining162Students, gradePS
Summer Counseling Intervention Report - Transition to College
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2018
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Summer Counseling.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled full time first semester |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
46.00 |
32.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment: First semester |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
58.00 |
45.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrollment in any 4-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
40.00 |
26.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any 2-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
23.00 |
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: 56%
Male: 44% -
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
Rhode Island
-
Race Asian 3% Black 29% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 45%
Study Details
Setting
All students in the study were sampled from seven urban schools in the Big Picture Network, which is located in Rhode Island. The school population at Big Picture schools is predominantly low income and minority, with large numbers of potential first generation college students.
Study sample
The students in Big Picture Network schools must opt-in to attend these schools and may, therefore, have higher motivation and/or greater parental involvement than students enrolled in traditional public schools. The sample of intervention students (n = 81) was 43% male, 29% Black, 49% Hispanic, 21% White, and 2% Asian; 17% of students had an IEP, 68% received free lunch, and 81% reported that they planned to attend college. The sample of comparison students (n = 81) was 45% male, 29% Black, 40% Hispanic, 21% White, and 5% Asian; 17% of students had an IEP, 62% received free lunch, and 80% reported that they planned to attend college.
Intervention Group
Participants were recent high school graduates who worked with school-based counselors throughout the summer to "secure financial aid, complete necessary paperwork, and alleviate concerns about going to college" (pg. 2). The counselors' primary goal was to help students receive financial aid or address any gaps between financial aid packages and anticipated costs of attending college. Counselors also acted as liaisons to the colleges and addressed any information barriers the students faced. The counselors took an active role in communicating with students via email, text message, and in-person consultation. The study authors reported that 84% of students interacted with the counselors at some time during the intervention period.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition had access to regular counseling services delivered by the high school; however, comparison students did not receive proactive counseling from the counselors over the summer. The authors report that 21% of the students in the comparison condition contacted a counselor during the summer intervention period.
Support for implementation
Two college counselors were hired full-time to work through the summer to provide information and work with the students. The authors reported that the intervention cost less than $15,000 in total, which costs approximately $187.50 per student.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Arnold, Karen; Fleming, Shezwae; DeAnda, Mario; Castleman, Benjamin; Wartman, Katherine Lynk. (2009). The Summer Flood: The Invisible Gap among Low-Income Students. Thought & Action, p23-34.
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs Intervention Report - Developmental Education
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Developmental Summer Bridge Programs.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).