Three Studies on Student Outcomes in Higher Education
Cannon, R. (2016). The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
-
examining485Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Text message service)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College GPA |
Text message service vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
3.21 |
3.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
college enrollment |
Text message service vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
84.80 |
86.60 |
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
-
- 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
-
Race Other or unknown 69% White 31%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a medium-sized public master's university campus located outside of a major city center on the west coast of the United States.
Study sample
The randomized sample consisted of 485 students with 300 randomly assigned to two treatment groups (150 in each group) and 185 randomly assigned to the control group. The treatment group had the following demographic characteristics: 31.7 percent White, 28.3 percent under-represented minority, 50 percent female, 51.7 percent first-generation, and 42.7 percent Pell-eligible. The comparison group had the following demographic characteristics: 30.8 percent White, 34.1 percent under-represented minority, 54.4 percent female, 46.2 percent first-generation, and 47.3 percent Pell-eligible.
Intervention Group
The text messaging intervention was supplemental to the college’s regular outreach to all students (whether in the intervention or comparison group) regarding deadlines and resources distributed through emails, campus flyers, and social media as well as a limited amount of targeted individual outreach by advisors and orientation leaders. A New England company was the primary developer and deliverer of the intervention, as a third party, in the winter and spring quarters of the 2014-15 academic year. The company started delivering the outreach on February 20, 2015, which was approximately one week in advance of the campus FAFSA priority date. There were two intervention groups. One group received messages with additional social framing and the other group received similar messages without social framing. The final messages received by students in both groups were delivered in spring 2015. The University of Missouri campus support services staff were typically unaware of which messages were sent on which days. In addition, many of the staff who were in direct contact with students were minimally aware or unaware that the intervention was being implemented. The daily text message prompts were delivered to first-year students with a focus on the use of campus supports and key deadlines. Students in the intervention group received an introductory email before the start of the intervention informing them of the service and providing them with an opportunity to opt out before receiving the first text message. Students were given an additional explicit opportunity to opt out as part of the first text message by replying “STOP”, and opting out remained possible throughout the duration of the intervention delivery. Students who did not opt out received brief targeted text messages delivered once per day, Sunday through Friday. The messages varied daily in content, and the exact wording was developed by the third party provider, except for a series of text messages focused on FAFSA renewal that were explicitly prepared by the office of institutional research and the office of financial aid. The messages were worded to remind students of key deadlines, tell them about campus resources, guide them in creating goals to take advantage of those resources, encourage them to make academic progress, solicit updates on their frame of mind, solicit “advice” for other students, provide advice from other students, provide opportunities for other students, and provide opportunities for questions and support. The majority of text messages were meant to be bidirectional, allowing the student to respond to text messages mostly phrased as questions with “yes/no” responses.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition did not receive the text messaging as a supplemental outreach but instead received the college’s regular outreach to all students regarding deadlines and resources distributed through emails, campus flyers, and social media as well as a limited amount of targeted individual outreach by advisors and orientation leaders.
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).