Integrating Technology and Advising: Studying Enhancements to Colleges' iPASS Practices
Mayer, Alexander; Kalamkarian, Hoori Santikian; Cohen, Benjamin; Pellegrino, Lauren; Boynton, Melissa; Yang, Edith (2019). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED597581
-
examining8,011Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Ipass)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative - Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
66.60 |
70.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Withdrew from any course over two semesters |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
24.70 |
25.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
43.00 |
44.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
41.60 |
42.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Withdrew from any course over two semesters |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
35.80 |
35.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Withdrew from any course over two semesters |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
15.90 |
13.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
44.80 |
49.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
9.50 |
11.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
MCCC;
|
32.80 |
33.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
15.60 |
15.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
UNCC;
|
23.70 |
24.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
UNCC;
|
32.40 |
32.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
26.60 |
26.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
CSUF;
|
6.90 |
6.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
MCCC;
|
17.00 |
15.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
CSUF;
|
52.10 |
49.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
19.60 |
17.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
10.90 |
9.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
23.40 |
22.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
89.00 |
88.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
25.77 |
25.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
8.66 |
9.19 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
CSUF;
|
11.97 |
11.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
11.52 |
11.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
UNCC;
|
13.37 |
13.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
11.47 |
11.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
2.98 |
3.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
MCCC;
|
5.31 |
5.60 |
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
Suburban, 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, North Carolina, Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 14% Other or unknown 35% White 51% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 83%
Study Details
Setting
Integrated Planning and Advising for Student Success (iPASS) entails using technology to increase the amount of advising postsecondary students receive throughout their entire college experience. iPASS includes providing advice about career goals and challenges faced while in school. Advisors use iPASS technology to detect early warning signs of academic and non-academic challenges and intervene as needed. The study was conducted in three different postsecondary institutions: (1) California State University, Fresno (Fresno State), (2) the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), and (3) Montgomery County Community College (MCCC). Both Fresno State and UNCC are large four-year institutions, serve mostly full-time students, and have graduate schools. In contrast, MCCC is a two-year college located on two campuses in suburban Pennsylvania and about two-thirds of its students attend school on a part-time basis. The three institutions also differ with respect to the number of students who were awarded a Pell Grant at the time of the study: 27.5 percent of students at MCCC were awarded a Pell grant, whereas 37.3 percent of students at UNCC and 57.4 percent of students at Fresno State received this support.
Study sample
The study sample included 8,011 students who were randomly assigned to either an Enhanced iPASS group or an “unenhanced iPASS” group. Over half of the students in the total sample were White and less than one-fifth (14 percent) were Black. Seventeen percent of the overall sample was Hispanic. Fresno State is designated as a Hispanic-serving institution and nearly two-thirds (62.5 percent) of the participating students from Fresno State were Hispanic. Slightly over half of the total sample was female (52 percent). Approximately one-fifth of the students at MCCC and Fresno State were the first in their family to attend college.
Intervention Group
Students assigned to the Enhanced iPass group received two semesters of the program. Enhanced iPASS enables advisors to follow up with students as they progress through college, refer students to tutoring and other support services, and offer personalized guidance. Each of the three institutions had a slightly different approach when implementing Enhanced iPASS. Fresno State used early alert surveys completed by faculty, and required peer mentors to contact students who appeared to be dealing with challenges. Advising at Fresno State entailed mapping out educational plans, discussing strategies for staying on course to complete a degree, and addressing any early warning alerts. MCCC used Enhanced iPASS to reach students who were considered to be at-risk for not completing a degree program and who were not already required to meet with an advisor. MCCC included a faculty early alert survey, a student self-report on academic and non-academic issues that could affect their academic progress, and a career assessment. The UNCC model entailed first identifying at-risk students and then reaching out to them to offer advising support. Advisors held sustained communication with students and used a toolbox to guide advising sessions. UNCC's model also included early alerts, including notifying students in the program group if they were enrolled in a "critical progression" course for their majors. Finally, the UNCC model included both warnings and positive feedback, as appropriate, which were sent through the early alert system. The study includes two cohorts; however, this WWC review focused primarily on the first cohort since the second cohort had less intervention exposure at the time of the study.
Comparison Group
At all three institutions, students in the comparison group participated in "unenhanced iPASS," which included some of the same features as Enhanced iPASS, such as early alerts, and more advising than what is believed to be offered at a typical college. The “unenhanced iPASS” program was described as being less well-integrated, less consistently applied, and included fewer components than Enhanced iPASS.
Support for implementation
iPASS is an initiative funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support postsecondary institutions with incorporating technology into advising and student services.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2020
- Single Study Review (findings for Ipass)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative - Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
66.60 |
70.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Withdrew from any course over two semesters |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
24.70 |
25.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
43.00 |
44.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
41.60 |
42.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Withdrew from any course over two semesters |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
35.80 |
35.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Withdrew from any course over two semesters |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
15.90 |
13.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
44.80 |
49.50 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
9.50 |
11.30 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
MCCC;
|
32.80 |
33.50 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
15.60 |
15.90 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
UNCC;
|
23.70 |
24.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
UNCC;
|
32.40 |
32.30 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
26.60 |
26.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
CSUF;
|
6.90 |
6.40 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
MCCC;
|
17.00 |
15.70 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Received a D or F in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
CSUF;
|
52.10 |
49.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
19.60 |
17.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Withdrew from any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
10.90 |
9.10 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered in any course |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
89.00 |
88.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
23.40 |
22.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
8.66 |
9.19 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
25.77 |
25.54 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
CSUF;
|
11.97 |
11.72 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
MCCC;
|
5.31 |
5.60 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
1 Semester |
UNCC;
|
13.37 |
13.26 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
CSUF;
|
11.52 |
11.29 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
MCCC;
|
2.98 |
3.16 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
UNCC;
|
11.47 |
11.48 |
-- |
-- | ||
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
Suburban, 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, North Carolina, Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 14% Other or unknown 35% White 51% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 83%
Study Details
Setting
Integrated Planning and Advising for Student Success (iPASS) entails using technology to increase the amount of advising postsecondary students receive throughout their entire college experience. iPASS includes providing advice about career goals and challenges faced while in school. Advisors use iPASS technology to detect early warning signs of academic and non-academic challenges and intervene as needed. The study was conducted in three different postsecondary institutions: (1) California State University, Fresno (Fresno State), (2) the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), and (3) Montgomery County Community College (MCCC). Both Fresno State and UNCC are large four-year institutions, serve mostly full-time students, and have graduate schools. In contrast, MCCC is a two-year college located on two campuses in suburban Pennsylvania and about two-thirds of its students attend school on a part-time basis. The three institutions also differ with respect to the number of students who were awarded a Pell Grant at the time of the study; 27.5 percent of students at MCCC were awarded a Pell grant, whereas 37.3 percent of students at UNCC and 57.4 percent of students at Fresno State received this support.
Study sample
The study sample included 8,011 students who were randomly assigned to either an Enhanced iPASS group or an “unenhanced iPASS” group. Over half of the students in the total sample were White and less than one-fifth (14 percent) were Black. Seventeen percent of the overall sample was Hispanic. Fresno State is designated as a Hispanic serving institution and nearly two-thirds (62.5 percent) of the participating students from Fresno State were Hispanic. Slightly over half of the total sample was female (52 percent). Approximately one-fifth of the students at MCCC and Fresno State were the first in their family to attend college.
Intervention Group
Students assigned to the Enhanced iPass group received two-semesters of the program. Enhanced iPASS enables advisors to follow up with students as they progress through college, refer students to tutoring and other support services, and offer personalized guidance. Each of the three institutions had a slightly different approach when implementing Enhanced iPASS. Fresno State used early alert surveys completed by faculty, and required peer mentors to contact students who appeared to be dealing with challenges. Advising at Fresno State entailed mapping out educational plans, discussing strategies for staying on course to complete a degree, and addressing any early warning alerts. MCCC used Enhanced iPASS to reach students who were considered to be at-risk for not completing a degree program and who were not already required to meet with an advisor. MCCC included a faculty early alert survey, a student self-report on academic and non-academic issues that could affect their academic progress, and a career assessment. The UNCC model entailed first identifying at-risk students and then reaching out to them to offer advising support. Advisors held sustained communication with students and used a toolbox to guide advising sessions. UNCC's model also included early alerts, including notifying students in the program group if they were enrolled in a "critical progression" course for their majors. Finally, the UNCC model included both warnings and positive feedback, as appropriate, which were sent through the early alert system. The study includes two cohorts; however, this WWC review focused primarily on the first cohort since the second cohort had less intervention exposure at the time of the study.
Comparison Group
At all three institutions, students in the comparison group participated in "unenhanced iPASS," which included some of the same features as Enhanced iPASS, such as early alerts, and more advising than what is believed to be offered at a typical college. The “unenhanced iPASS” program was described as being less well integrated, less consistently applied, and included fewer components than Enhanced iPASS.
Support for implementation
iPASS is an initiative funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support postsecondary institutions with incorporating technology into advising and student services.
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).