Evaluating the Effectiveness of Extended Orientation for New, Undecided Freshmen.
Shoemaker, Judith S. (1995). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384303
-
examining636Students, gradePS
First year experience courses Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2016
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for First year experience courses.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College GPA |
First year experience courses vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
College students;
|
2.79 |
2.74 |
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.
-
9% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
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
California
-
Race Asian 65% Other or unknown 16% White 18%
Study Details
Setting
The freshman orientation course was offered at the University of California, Irvine campus in 1993. The students included all incoming first-year students with undeclared majors during that academic year.
Study sample
The intervention group was 53% female, and the comparison group was 49% female. The sample was racially diverse. Students in the intervention group were 68% Asian, 18% White, and 14% other minority. Students in the comparison group were 56% Asian, 24% other minority, and 20% White. Of the full study sample, 24% of the intervention group and 25% of the comparison group were classified as low income, and 9% of the intervention group and 8% of the comparison group were English language learners.
Intervention Group
The intervention was a two-credit freshman orientation course called “The University Experience: Issues and Options for Unaffiliated/Undecided Students.” The course met twice weekly and was comprised of guest lectures from faculty and professional staff, group discussion, and various assignments intended to ease the transition to college. Course topics covered library skills, interacting with faculty, university policies and procedures, assessing individual learning styles, setting goals, cultural diversity, stress management skills, and opportunities for student leadership.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition included all unaffiliated or undeclared freshmen who did not enroll in the orientation course. These students received traditional college services and coursework; they did not participate in the orientation course.
Support for implementation
No information was provided regarding support for implementation.
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).