Leveraging technology to engage parents at scale: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial.
Bergman, P. & Chan, E.W. (2017). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
-
examining1,337Students, grades6-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Parent-Alert System)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA |
Parent-Alert System vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Smarter Balanced assessment: Math |
Parent-Alert System vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
|
|
Smarter Balanced assessment: Reading |
Parent-Alert System vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
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.
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
West Virginia
-
Race Black 16% Other or unknown 84%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 22 schools in a district in West Virginia during the 2015-2016 school year.
Study sample
Sample characteristics are provided for the sample at random assignment, but not for the analytic sample. For the control group, 49% of the students were female, 16% Black (no other racial/ethnic groups are specified), 2% were English language learners, and 13% had an IEP. There were an average of 1.77 parents in the household. For the intervention group, 48% of the students were female, 20% Black (no other racial/ethnic groups are specified), 2% were English language learners, and 14% had an IEP. There were an average of 1.74 parents in the household.
Intervention Group
The study examines the effectiveness of a parent-alert system designed to notify the parent via automated text message of the academic progress of their child. The intervention was implemented for the 2015-2016 school year. Parents received weekly alerts if the student had a recorded school absence or missed assignment during the previous week. Parents also received an alert if their student had a low (<70%) average course grade at the end of the month. This information was automatically pulled from school records and triggered an automated text message specifying the number of absences or missed assignments and directing the parent to a parent portal for a Learning Management System for more information. The intervention was intended to increase parent knowledge of their child’s academic problems and increase parental involvement in their child’s academic progress.
Comparison Group
The comparison group's parents did not receive any additional text alerts.
Support for implementation
The authors did not provide information on fidelity of implementation. The alert system, however, was automated, which decreases the likelihood of infidelity. The automated system pulled information from the teacher’s online gradebook using tools developed by the learning management system provider. This information was then combined with the parent’s contact information to send out an automated text-message.
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).