Limited Support for Use of a Social-Belonging Intervention with First-Year Engineering Students
Weaver, J. P., DeCaro, M. S., & Ralston, P. A. (2020). Journal for STEM Education Research, 1-26.
-
examining87Students, gradePS
Social Belonging Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Social Belonging.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Exam Average (Intro Calculus) |
Social Belonging vs. Other intervention |
1 Semester |
Intro Calculus Sample;
|
0.71 |
0.74 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Other intervention |
1 Year |
Engineering Analysis 1 Sample - majority groups;
|
3.10 |
2.95 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Exam Average (Engineering Analysis 1) |
Social Belonging vs. Other intervention |
1 Semester |
Engineering Analysis 1 Sample - majority groups;
|
0.74 |
0.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Engineering Analysis 1 Sample;
|
3.07 |
2.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Exam Average (Engineering Analysis 1) |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Engineering Analysis 1 Sample ;
|
72.90 |
71.76 |
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: 20%
Male: 80% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a large, urban, public university in the Midwest.
Study sample
The second study (Introductory Calculus) included a total of 34% underrepresented students, including 20% female, 10% Black, Hispanic, or Native American students, and 11% first-generation students. Because students could be in multiple categories, these components do not add to the total percent of underrepresented students.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received survey findings about juniors and seniors whose concerns about belonging with other groups decreased over time on campus. They also were shown a slide show with pictures and quotes from these students involved in various activities around the engineering campus. After reviewing the findings and slides, students were asked to write a personal letter to a future student about belonging. The intervention took place during week 2 of their first semester in college. The intervention was completed online, outside of class, and was expected to take 45-60 minutes.
Comparison Group
The comparison group participated in a parallel activity, but the survey results and slides were focused on study skills, rather than belonging. All other conditions were the same.
Support for implementation
Additional information is not available about the implementation of the Social Belonging intervention.
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).