A social-belonging intervention improves STEM outcomes for students who speak English as a second language
LaCosse, J., Canning, E.A., Bowman, N, Murphy, M.C., & Logel, C. (2020). Science Advances.
-
examining2,283Students, gradePS
Social Belonging Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2021
- 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.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STEM GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
ESL;
|
3.24 |
3.13 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportion of STEM credits completed |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
ESL;
|
0.94 |
0.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STEM GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
ESL;
|
3.15 |
3.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Proportion of STEM credits completed |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
ESL;
|
0.94 |
0.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STEM GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Non-ESL;
|
3.05 |
3.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Proportion of STEM credits completed |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Non-ESL;
|
0.93 |
0.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STEM GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Non-ESL;
|
3.00 |
3.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Proportion of STEM credits completed |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Non-ESL;
|
0.92 |
0.92 |
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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, Northeast, South, West
-
Race Asian 50% Black 2% Native American 0% Other or unknown 40% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 34% Not Hispanic or Latino 66%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with incoming first-year undergraduates from 19 four-year colleges and universities across the Unites States, representing public and private institutions and multiple Carnegie classifications and selectivity levels.
Study sample
All students in the analytic sample indicated an interest in STEM. The analytic sample among ESL students is 51% female. Half of the students (50%) were Asian, 8% were White, 3% were Middle Eastern, 2% were Black, 2% were multiracial, less than 1% were Native American, and 1% were classified as Other. Thirty-four percent of the students were Hispanic.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group read stories, written by upper-level students, that were about the transition to college. They were also asked to write an essay describing in their own words what they had read and to answer a short questionnaire about their demographics. There were two versions of the intervention. In the standard version, the stories focused on the transition to college and accompanying challenges related to feelings of belonging. In the customized treatment, the challenges were specific to the students’ own institutions.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received similar stories to read and were also expected to write about what they had read, but neither the stories nor the writing prompt they were given focused on challenges connected with feelings of belonging experienced during the transition to college.
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).