The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring
Karcher, M. (2008). Prevention Science, 9, 99–113.
-
examining468Students, grades5-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for School-based mentoring)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading grades |
School-based mentoring vs. Communities in Schools-San Antonio's supportive services |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Math Grade |
School-based mentoring vs. Communities in Schools-San Antonio's supportive services |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Global Self-Esteem scale of the Self-Esteem Questionnaire |
School-based mentoring vs. Communities in Schools-San Antonio's supportive services |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
- 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
Texas
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 19 public schools served by Communities in Schools (CIS)-San Antonio (seven elementary schools, five middle schools, and seven high schools).
Study sample
The majority of the analytic sample was female (67%). 72% of the intervention group and 61% of the comparison group were female. The majority of the students in the analytic sample (55%) were Mexican-American (59% of the intervention group and 52% of the comparison group). The next largest racial/ethnic group represented in the sample was Hispanic/Anglo biracial, which comprised one third of the analytic sample (33.3%). The average age of students in the analytic sample was 13 years old.
Intervention Group
The intervention group participants received mentoring plus supportive services from Communities in Schools-San Antonio. Students who were in the intervention group received an average of 8 mentoring sessions throughout the school year (the program was designed to provide weekly mentoring). Mentors and mentees were matched based on similar interests. Mentors were recruited from various sources, including military bases, local businesses, colleges, and local organizations. 70% of mentors were college students, 13% were military personnel, 15% were full-time employed adults, and 2% had "other" roles. Mentors participated in a one-hour orientation before being assigned to a youth. Additional evening/training support sessions were offered, but were not well-attended. Mentoring could only take place during the school day on the school site. Mentoring took place in various settings (cafeteria, library, CIS agency office, etc.). Mentors completed activity logs to document the time spent with their mentee. Mentees had access to their school's case manager as a resource and could also participate in enrichment and supportive services, such as tutoring which the comparison group also received.
Comparison Group
Comparison group students received supportive services from Communities in Schools-San Antonio, which were managed by a case manager in each school. The supportive services included educational enhancement activities, enrichment, supportive guidance, and/or tutoring (p. 101). The comparison condition received these support and enrichment services during the academic year. Four of the comparison students also received mentors through the program.
Support for implementation
Mentors received a one-hour training session and had access to additional evening/support sessions. A case manager in each school managed the supportive services. Communities in School, a national organization, is structured to partner with local businesses, social service agencies, health care providers, and volunteers for a host of enrichment programming (see www.communitiesinschools.org).
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).