Bayer, Amanda; Grossman, Jean; DuBois, David (2015). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562266
Reviewed: September 2016
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completion of Schoolwork |
Tutoring vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Quality of work |
Tutoring vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Scholastic efficacy |
Tutoring vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place in school settings throughout urban, suburban and rural areas coordinated by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America clubs in the United States. In this form of mentoring, adults or older students are matched with protégés and meet with them on the school grounds during the school day or soon after, typically for at least one hour a week.
In this study the average age of the treatment group is 11.22 years and 11.24 years for the control group, and 41 elementary, 27 middle, and 3 high schools were included. 54% of students in both groups were female and 69% of students in both groups were on free/reduced lunch. The African American and Hispanic population of each group was 61% for the control and 64% for the treatment group.
The study examines the effects of a school-based mentoring (SBM) program, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA). The school-based BBBSA is a bit more constrained than the community-based BBBSA, which allows pairs to choose locations and activities themselves. The school-based version of the BBBSA program examined here is more limited in nature but has well-defined national standards. Students would meet regularly with volunteers (mentors) on school grounds. The programs did vary slightly, with about half SBM programs had students meet with mentors during the school day while the other half met after school. Program activities varied widely and were often chosen by the pair or by the student alone. Most common activities included talking casually, about family or the future, playing indoor games, doing creative activities, playing sports, doing homework, and the like. Most met for 45-60 minutes, while some met for over an hour. Pairs typically met three to four times per month, averaging about 17 hours over 5.3 months.
The comparison group attended school as usual and did not receive the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America intervention.
About half of the school based mentoring programs met with mentors during the day while half met after school. A variety of locations were used for meetings, such as the cafeteria, library, and designated classrooms. On average, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America agencies overseeing the school programs had 9.5 years of experience implementing the school-based mentoring program. The Big Brothers Big Sisters of America supported sites during implementation using meetings and teleconferences. The pre-match mentor training lasted about 45 minutes on average. The authors noted that mentors who received more training were more likely to develop close relationships with their mentees.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube