African American College Students Excelling in the Sciences: College and Postcollege Outcomes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program.
Maton, Kenneth I.; Hrabowski, Freeman A. III; Schmitt, Carol L. (2000). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v37 n7 p629-54. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ612095
-
examining93Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Meyerhoff Scholar's Program)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College GPA |
Meyerhoff Scholar's Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Meyerhoff Students vs. Current White Students;
|
3.30 |
3.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College GPA |
Meyerhoff Scholar's Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Meyerhoff students vs. Current Asian Students;
|
3.30 |
3.17 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College SEM GPA |
Meyerhoff Scholar's Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Meyerhoff Students vs. Current White Students;
|
3.16 |
2.79 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
College SEM GPA |
Meyerhoff Scholar's Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Meyerhoff students vs. Current Asian Students;
|
3.16 |
2.92 |
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: 71%
Male: 29% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Maryland
-
Race Asian 33% Black 33% White 33%
Study Details
Setting
The study is a QED designed to examine the effects of the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program, which was designed to encourage African-American students to enroll in and complete Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (SEM) programs at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC).
Study sample
All Meyerhoff scholarship recipients were Black. The Asian and Caucasian comparison group identified with those racial categories.
Intervention Group
The intervention is UMBC's Meyerhoff scholarship program. The Meyerhoff scholarship provides full tuition, room, and board for recipients. Before their freshman year, students participate in a summer bridge program and take courses in math, science, and African American studies. Students are encouraged to study in groups and are required to live in the same dorm during their freshman year. They are also required to live on campus for the remainder of their time at UMBC. Students are encouraged to engage in tutoring, either by receiving tutoring themselves or by serving as a tutor. The program sets high academic standards. Advisors and other support staff advise and mentor students and track their progress. Students participate in summer internships and in community service. Faculty are involved in selecting scholarship recipients and in mentoring students. Students are also mentored by science, engineering, and mathematics professionals.
Comparison Group
The second comparison condition comprised Caucasian and Asian students who started at UMBC between 1990 and 1992. These students took at least three SEM courses and earned at least 10 SEM credits in their freshman year.
Support for implementation
The program was supported by the UMBC administration, but no specifics were described by the authors.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Meyerhoff Scholar's Program)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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
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).