The Impact of a Goal-Setting Intervention for Engineering Students on Academic Probation
Bowman, Nicholas A.; Jang, Nayoung; Kivlighan, D. Martin; Schneider, Nancy; Ye, Xiaomeng (2020). Research in Higher Education, v61 n1 p142-166. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1241329
-
examining113Students, gradePS
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Goal Setting)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Term GPA - Spring 2017 |
Goal Setting vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
In Good Academic Standing |
Goal Setting vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
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: 15%
Male: 85% -
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 Asian 5% Black 12% Other or unknown 10% White 60% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 13% Not Hispanic or Latino 87%
Study Details
Setting
Researchers conducted the study with undergraduates who attended a public Midwestern university, majored in engineering, placed on academic probation from Fall 2006 due to low semester GPA, and remained in engineering at the start of spring 2017.
Study sample
For the 113 engineering majors who were placed on academic probation as a result of their low semester GPA in Fall 2016 and who remained in engineering at the start of Spring 2017, 60% of participants were White, 13% were Latino/Hispanic,12% were Black/African American, 5% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10% were there unknown or international students. Addtionally, 30% were in their first year of college, 25% were first-generation students, and 15% were female.
Intervention Group
The associate dean of the College of Engineering notified undergraduates of their probationary status and described how to return to good academic standing using resources available to students. The Dean also described how to complete an academic performance improvement plan and meet with an academic advisor to go over it.
Comparison Group
The associate dean of the College of Engineering notified undergraduates of their probationary status and described how to return to good academic standing using resources available to students. However, the notification letter did not contain any additional information about an academic performance improvement plan or a meeting with an academic advisor to go over it.
Support for implementation
The study does not report any supports for implementation.
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).