Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
WWC review of this study
Interim Findings Report: MAAPS Advising Experiment
Alamuddin, R., Rossman, D., & Kurzweil, M. (2019). Ithaka S+R.
-
Randomized Controlled Trialexamining10,042Students, gradePS
Alamuddin, R., Rossman, D., & Kurzweil, M. (2019). Ithaka S+R.
Reviewed: May 2021
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.84 |
2.83 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative GPA |
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
2.87 |
2.86 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credit accumulation |
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
65.39 |
65.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Continuous Enrollment |
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
77.00 |
78.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Credit accumulation |
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
27.85 |
27.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Continuous Enrollment |
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.00 |
94.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This multi-site study included 11 large public universities from the University Innovation Alliance, with Georgia State University serving as the lead institution. The other ten universities spanned three regions (excluding the northeastern US): Arizona State University, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, Michigan State University, Ohio State University, Oregon State University, Purdue University, University of California, Riverside, University of Central Florida, and University of Texas at Austin.
Demographic characteristics of the student sample were not reported.
Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS) was a three-year intervention beginning in fall 2016 and continuing through spring 2019. This review presents findings from the first and second years of implementation. The intervention offers wraparound supports to eligible students that include, in addition to business-as-usual advising on their campus: (a) Guided & proactive advising: intensive, proactive advising to help students navigate key academic choices and to establish individualized academic maps; (b) Data-based progress review and early alerts: early and real-time alerts prompted in part through a system of analytics-based tracking when students go off path; the intervention used existing data systems on each campus; and (c) Targeted interventions: timely, targeted advising interventions to get students back on the appropriate academic path. The intervention begins on the fourth day of the student's first semester and continues through the end of the student's third year of college. Across the 11 institutions, there was some variation in the implementation, chiefly in the role or roles of the advisors and the level of coordination: 1) At 2 institutions, MAAPS advisors serve as students’ primary advisors on campus and deliver business-as-usual advising plus MAAPS advising. 2) At 5 institutions, the MAAPS advisors serve as supplemental advisors and deliver MAAPS advising to students, while primary advisors deliver business-as-usual advising, with minimal coordination between the two advisors. 3) At 3 institutions there is a combination of the primary and supplemental models of MAAPS advisement, whereby MAAPS advisors serve as primary advisors to students during their first year only, or to students who have not yet declared a major or been accepted into a professional school, and as supplemental advisors to students who are otherwise primarily advised through their departments or professional schools. 4) At 2 institutions there is a coordinated model of MAAPS advising whereby a MAAPS advisor and departmental advisors collaborate to advise each MAAPS student.
The comparison is a business as usual condition, with services available varying by campus.
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).