Using Technology to Redesign College Advising and Student Support: Findings and Lessons from Three Colleges' Efforts to Build on the iPass Initiative
Miller, Cynthia; Cohen, Benjamin; Yang, Edith; Pellegrino, Lauren (2020). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED610065
-
examining8,011Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2021
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a Bachelor's degree |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
Student sample at Cal. State U., Fresno;
|
0.60 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Completion of a post-secondary degree |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
Study sample - Montgomery County Community College. ;
|
21.40 |
20.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Received a Bachelor's degree |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
Student sample at University of North Carolina, Charlotte;
|
4.70 |
5.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
Study sample - Cal. State U., Fresno;
|
43.84 |
42.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
Study sample - University of North Carolina, Charlotte;
|
46.26 |
46.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
2 Semesters |
Study sample - Montgomery County Community College;
|
12.54 |
13.37 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Retention to the following semester |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
0 Semesters |
Study sample at California State University;
|
88.20 |
86.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Retention to the following semester |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
0 Semesters |
Study sample - University of North Carolina, Charlotte;
|
82.90 |
83.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Retention to the following semester |
Ipass vs. Ipass |
0 Semesters |
Study sample at Montgomery County Community College;
|
39.60 |
43.50 |
Yes |
-- | ||
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% -
- 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. This is a longer term follow-up study to an earlier report (Mayer et al., 2019). This study looks at student outcomes four semesters after study entry.
Study sample
The study sample included 8,011 students who were randomly assigned to either an enhanced iPASS group or a standard iPASS group. The sample at Fresno State included 1,219 students: 610 students in the enhanced iPASS group and 609 in the standard iPASS group. The sample at the UNCC included 2,989 students: 1,248 in the the enhanced iPASS group and 1,741 students in the standard iPASS group. The MCCC sample included a total of 3,803 students: 1,902 students in the enhanced iPASS group and 1,901 in the standard iPASS group. Slightly more than half (51 percent) of the students in the total sample were White, less than one-sixth (14 percent) were Black, and 17 percent were Hispanic. Slightly over half of the sample were female (52 percent).
Intervention Group
Students assigned to the enhanced iPass condition 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.
Comparison Group
At all three institutions, students in the comparison group participated in standard iPASS intervention 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 standard iPASS program is described as being less well integrated, less consistently applied, and included fewer components than the enhanced version of 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. Each of the participating colleges received supplementary funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to offset study participation costs (such as time for research-related activities) and to expand the capacity of advising staff to support students.
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).