Summer Nudging: Can Personalized Text Messages and Peer Mentor Outreach Increase College Going among Low-Income High School Graduates?
Castleman, Benjamin L.; Page, Lindsay C. (2016). Perspectives in Peer Programs, v27 n1 p11-15. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1124459
-
examining6,196Students, grades12-PS
Summer Counseling Intervention Report - Transition to College
Review Details
Reviewed: March 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Peer Mentoring Intervention;
|
69.90 |
67.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Texting Intervention;
|
71.50 |
69.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Texting Intervention: Lawrence & Springfield;
|
69.90 |
62.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Peer Mentoring Intervention: Boston;
|
73.60 |
70.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Peer Mentoring Intervention: Lawrence & Springfield;
|
66.40 |
62.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any 2-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Texting Intervention;
|
23.00 |
20.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrollment in any 4-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Peer Mentoring Intervention;
|
43.30 |
38.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Texting Intervention: Dallas;
|
74.20 |
71.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any 2-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Peer Mentoring Intervention;
|
13.80 |
14.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Texting Intervention: Boston;
|
68.50 |
70.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any 4-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Texting Intervention;
|
37.00 |
39.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Peer Mentoring Intervention: Philadelphia;
|
65.20 |
67.50 |
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: 58%
Male: 42% -
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
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas
-
Race Black 37% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 54%
Study Details
Setting
This study examined two summer counseling interventions across five different research sites in Massachusetts (Boston, Lawrence, and Springfield), Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), and Texas (Dallas).
Study sample
The Dallas, TX analytic sample was 56% female, 33% Black, 57% Hispanic, 8% White, and 1% Other race/ethnicity. Seventy-nine percent qualified for free/reduced priced lunch. The Boston, MA analytic sample was 60% female, 37% Black, 25% Hispanic, 7% White, and 30% Other race/ethnicity. Seventy-eight percent qualified for free/reduced priced lunch. The Lawrence, MA analytic sample was 63% female, 1% Black, 85% Hispanic, 1% White, and 13% Other race/ethnicity. 78 percent qualified for free/reduced priced lunch. The Springfield, MA analytic sample was 59% female, 31% Black, 36% Hispanic, 10% White, and 22% Other race/ethnicity. Seventy-eight percent qualified for free/reduced priced lunch. And finally, the Philadelphia, PA analytic sample was 56% female, 95% Black, and 2% Other race/ethnicity. Sixty-five percent qualified for free/reduced priced lunch.
Intervention Group
The automated text messaging campaign was implemented in Dallas, TX; Boston, MA; Lawrence, MA; and Springfield, MA. During the summer of 2012, students and their parents in the text messaging intervention were sent a series of 10 automated text messages to remind them about tasks required for college enrollment and to prompt them to request additional help when needed. The texts included reminders to access important paperwork online, register for orientation, register for placement tests, complete housing forms, sign up for/waive health insurance, and included offers to help students complete the FAFSA and interpret financial aid award letters and tuition bills. A text message was sent approximately every 5 days between early July and mid-August. In Dallas, the authors collaborated with the Dallas Independent School District to link students to one of nine college counselors to provide additional assistance. In Boston, Lawrence, and Springfield, the authors collaborated with a nonprofit organization, uAspire, to link students to financial aid advisors at participating high schools. The peer mentoring intervention was implemented in Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, and Philadelphia. Students in the peer mentoring intervention group received contacts from peer mentors who assessed their readiness to matriculate in college in the fall 2012 semester. Peer mentors discussed various topics with their mentees, including whether students were still planning to enroll in college, whether students had completed the FAFSA, whether students had received and reviewed financial aid letters, and whether students had registered for orientation and placement tests. Subsequent meetings and phone conversations served to address any other issues the students may have encountered. Counseling took place between mid-June and mid-August. In Boston, Lawrence, and Springfield, uAspire selected and trained the peer mentors who delivered the intervention. In Philadelphia, the authors collaborated with Mastery Charter Schools which supplied counselors from five high school campuses.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison condition did not receive either of the interventions and conducted "business as usual".
Support for implementation
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.
-
Castleman, B.L., & Page, L.C. (2013). The not-so-lazy days of summer: Experimental interventions to increase college entry among low-income high school graduates. New Directions for Youth Development, 140, 77-97.
-
Castleman, B. L. (2013). Assistance in the 11th hour: Experimental interventions to mitigate summer attrition among college-intending high school (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3662580).
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).