WWC review of this study

The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student advising.

Bettinger, E. P., & Baker, R. B. (2014). Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 36(1), 3-19. doi:10.3102/0162373713500523. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1019184

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    3,527
     Students
    , grade
    PS

Reviewed: May 2021

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Postsecondary degree attainment outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

postsecondary degree attainment

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

24 Months

Full sample: 3 lotteries, 24-month follow-up;
1,346 students

35.20

31.20

No

--
Progressing in college outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

12 Months

Full sample: 7 lotteries, 12-month follow-up;
3,527 students

66.40

61.40

Yes

 
 
5
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

18 Months

Three lotteries: 18-month follow-up;
1,344 students

43.60

36.60

Yes

 
 
7

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

6 Months

Full sample: 7 lotteries, 6-month follow-up;
3,527 students

80.60

76.90

Yes

 
 
5

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

24 Months

Three lotteries; 24-month follow-up;
1,348 students

37.70

35.00

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 47%
    Male: 53%

Setting

The study was conducted with 17 different cohorts (lotteries) in 8 participating universities during the 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 school years.

Study sample

Characteristics of the study sample were not presented separately by lottery. The analytic sample included 47% female and 53% male students.

Intervention Group

Students in the intervention condition were paired to an InsideTrack© coach, who worked to help students prioritize their studies, plan for academic success, and identify and overcome barriers to academic success. Significant time was spent assessing students' lives outside of school in such areas as personal time commitments, primary caregiving responsibilities, and financial obligations. In addition to regular contacts, coaches sometimes had access to course information and student performance in their specific courses. This information was used in an algorithm which directs coaches to specific issues that need to be addressed. Coaches generally worked with students over two semesters. Each coach communicated with his or her students via phone, email, text messages, or social networking sites. Students’ engagement with InsideTrack© coaches was not mandatory. About 98% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least one brief contact from a coach that typically lasted less than five minutes. About 77% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least five contacts of less than five minutes each. InsideTrack© coaches also held longer meetings with students to address topics and identify next steps.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition received no individualized coaching through InsideTrack©. All students had access to regular support services provided through the institution.

Support for implementation

InsideTrack© provided coaches with a large library of tools and resources. Coaches were trained in using these proprietary methodologies and programs to help students navigate decisions. Coaches received feedback from InsideTrack© staff on the content and tone of their calls, and ongoing professional development was available.

Reviewed: November 2019

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Attainment outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Any college degree (%)

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

24 Months

Full sample: 3 lotteries, 24-month follow-up;
1,346 students

35.20

31.20

No

--
Credit accumulation and persistence outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

12 Months

Full sample: 7 lotteries, 12-month follow-up;
3,527 students

66.40

61.40

Yes

 
 
5
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

18 Months

Three lotteries: 18-month follow-up;
1,344 students

43.60

36.60

Yes

 
 
7

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

6 Months

Full sample: 7 Lotteries, 6-Month Follow-Up;
3,527 students

80.60

76.90

Yes

 
 
5

Retention

InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual

24 Months

Three lotteries; 24-month follow-up;
1,348 students

37.70

35.00

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 47%
    Male: 53%

Setting

The study was conducted with 17 different cohorts in 8 participating universities during the 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 school years.

Study sample

Characteristics of the study sample were not presented separately by lottery. The analytic sample included 47% female and 53% male students.

Intervention Group

Students in the intervention condition were paired to an InsideTrack© coach, who worked to help students prioritize their studies, plan for academic success, and identify and overcome barriers to academic success. Significant time was spent assessing students' lives outside of school in such areas as personal time commitments, primary caregiving responsibilities, and financial obligations. In addition to regular contacts, coaches sometimes had access to course information and student performance in their specific courses. This information was used in an algorithm which directs coaches to specific issues that need to be addressed. Coaches generally worked with students over two semesters. Each coach communicated with his or her students via phone, email, text messages, or social networking sites. Students’ engagement with InsideTrack© coaches was not mandatory. About 98% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least one brief contact from a coach that typically lasted less than five minutes. About 77% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least five contacts of less than five minutes each. InsideTrack© coaches also held longer meetings with students to address topics and identify next steps.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition received no individualized coaching through InsideTrack©. All students had access to regular support services provided through the institution.

Support for implementation

InsideTrack© provided coaches with a large library of tools and resources. Coaches were trained in using these proprietary methodologies and programs to help students navigate decisions. Coaches received feedback from InsideTrack© staff on the content and tone of their calls, and ongoing professional development was available.

Reviewed: December 2016



Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top