Taking It to the Next Level: A Field Experiment to Improve Instructor-Student Relationships in College
Robinson, Carly D.; Scott, Whitney; Gottfried, Michael A. (2019). AERA Open, v5 n1 Jan-Mar 2019. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1210490
-
examining2,458Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for College-based instructor-student relationship (ISR) intervention)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course grade |
College-based instructor-student relationship (ISR) intervention vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.03 |
-0.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in the next semester |
College-based instructor-student relationship (ISR) intervention vs. Other intervention |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
93.18 |
92.85 |
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: 60%
Male: 40% -
- 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
-
Race Asian 11% Black 5% Other or unknown 63% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 53% Other or unknown 47% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a large public university in the state of California.
Study sample
The randomized sample included 1,361 intervention students and 1,388 comparison students. The analytic sample included 1,220 intervention students and 1,238 comparison students. The student sample was 60 percent female and 40 percent male. More than half (53%) of the students identified their ethnicity as Hispanic. Racial composition included 21 percent White, 11 percent Asian, 5 percent Black, and 63 percent multiple races, other, or unknown. The average age of students was 22 years. More than 43 percent of students were the first generation in the family to attend college.
Intervention Group
The intervention was designed to cultivate more positive relationships between students and their instructors, which is then thought to positively affect student outcomes. Students and instructors took a “get to know you” survey, which asks multiple-choice questions about preferred instructor-student interactions, personal lives, and community involvement. The survey platform then automatically matched responses between students and instructors (i.e., their actual similarities). Both the instructor and student, within an instructor-student dyad, received feedback on seven randomly selected similarities that instructors and students shared. A few weeks after receiving initial feedback, instructors received an email to remind them of the similarities they share with their students.
Comparison Group
Student-instructor dyads in the comparison group also took the "get to know you" survey. However, students learned about commonalities that they had with students from another part of the country, and instructors received no feedback about students.
Support for implementation
Participating faculty were provided with a $150 Amazon gift card. Students did not receive any incentive. No additional support for implementation was provided.
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).