Reappraising Academic and Social Adversity Improves Middle-School Students' Academic Achievement, Behavior, and Well-Being
Borman, Geoffrey D.; Rozek, Christopher S.; Pyne, Jaymes; Hanselman, Paul (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED600814
-
examining1,304Students, grade6
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2020
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Targeted Reappraisal Messages)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Middle school grade point average (GPA) |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.12 |
3.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Ds and Fs |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.52 |
0.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ds and Fs |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
0.54 |
0.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Middle school grade point average (GPA) |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
3.05 |
2.96 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ds and Fs |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black; Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
0.90 |
1.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Middle school grade point average (GPA) |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
2.74 |
2.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Middle school grade point average (GPA) |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Asian, White;
|
3.46 |
3.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ds and Fs |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Asian, White;
|
0.15 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Middle school grade point average (GPA) |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female;
|
3.25 |
3.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ds and Fs |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female;
|
0.41 |
0.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absences |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.83 |
7.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Absences |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
6.34 |
8.34 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absences |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
7.78 |
9.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absences |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Asian, White;
|
5.53 |
5.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Absences |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female;
|
6.71 |
6.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student's trust in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.90 |
3.79 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Identification with school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
4.71 |
4.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Evaluation anxiety |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.68 |
2.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Student's trust in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
3.92 |
3.64 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Student's trust in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Female;
|
3.96 |
3.73 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Evaluation anxiety |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Female;
|
2.66 |
2.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Identification with school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Male;
|
4.66 |
4.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Evaluation anxiety |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Asian, White;
|
2.55 |
2.69 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Identification with school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
4.73 |
4.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Student's trust in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Male;
|
3.96 |
3.86 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Student's trust in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Asian, White;
|
3.98 |
3.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Identification with school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Female;
|
4.76 |
4.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Evaluation anxiety |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Male;
|
2.64 |
2.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Evaluation anxiety |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
2.78 |
2.84 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Identification with school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Asian, White;
|
4.69 |
4.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavioral referrals |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.88 |
2.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Behavioral referrals |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
1.87 |
3.39 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Behavioral referrals |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Asian, White;
|
0.30 |
0.88 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Behavioral referrals |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
3.02 |
4.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Behavioral referrals |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female;
|
1.07 |
1.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social belonging in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
4.01 |
3.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Social belonging in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Female;
|
3.99 |
3.81 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Social belonging in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Black, Native American, Hispanic or Latino, or multiracial;
|
4.00 |
3.81 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Social belonging in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Asian, White;
|
4.07 |
3.97 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social belonging in school |
Targeted Reappraisal Messages vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Male;
|
4.09 |
4.02 |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
Urban
-
- 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
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 11 middle schools in one school district in the Midwest. Students in grade 6 are included in the analysis. The activities were administered by teachers during homeroom or English language arts. (pp. 3, 6).
Study sample
The grade 6 analytic sample was 49 percent female, 11 percent had an unspecified disability, 85 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, and 16 percent were English language learners. Forty-three percent of the students belonged to the historically underserved racial/ethnic subgroup defined as African American, Latino, Native American, or multiracial students. (Appendix table S1 on p. 17).
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition completed a reading and writing activity two times early in the school year; one in September and the other at the end of October or early November. The first activity focused on student perceptions of academic performance while the second focused on social belonging. The activities were administered by the classroom teacher, who was blind to the experimental condition and not informed of the study hypothesis. Both activities required students to read three quotes attributed to seventh grade students which reflected on the concerns they had when they were began sixth grade, advice for students in sixth grade, and reassurances of support. The activity then asked students to provide written responses to concerns they might have about their academic performance and social belonging in sixth grade. Finally, the students were asked to rate how much they felt sixth grade and seventh grade students worried about their academic performance and social belonging. (pp. 16288, 16291).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition completed a similar reading and writing activity as the intervention condition students; however, their activities focused on student perceptions on neutral topics. (pp. 16288, 16291).
Support for implementation
The authors provided a 15 minute training to the teachers prior to the start of the school year. The training consisted of instructions for implementation and provided the teachers with a list of proposed responses to questions students might ask about the activity. The study estimates that the cost per student is $1.35 per school year. This estimate assumes the intervention takes 15 minutes to administer two times during the school year. (pp. 16291, Appendix p. 15)
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).