Oreopoulos, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2018). Journal of Human Resources, 53(2), 299-329.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA for Online + Coaching |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
2.74 |
2.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
All course grades for Online + Coaching |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
70.11 |
67.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
GPA for Online + Text Messaging |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
2.36 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
All course grades for Online + Text Messaging |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
68.79 |
69.37 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Winter course grades for Online + Coaching |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
75.35 |
68.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Winter course grades for Online + Text Messaging |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
68.66 |
69.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits earned for online vs coaching |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
4.19 |
3.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
College credits failed for online vs coaching |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
College credits failed for online vs text messaging |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.35 |
0.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
College credits earned for online vs text messaging |
Three interventions: online exercise, text message champaign, personal coaching service vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
3.64 |
3.65 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study was set in three campuses of the University of Toronto (U of T, Ontario, Canada): Mississauga and Scarborough, which are commuter campuses, and St. George, which is the main campus and is located in downtown Toronto and has a larger resident student population. The personal coaching intervention only took place on one of the three campuses.
Just over half of the students were female (56.5%), and the average age was 18.5 years old. The authors did not provide information about race/ethnicity or financial status, but about half of the students had a non-English mother tongue, and about half (51.8%) were non-Canadian citizens or international students (43%). Just under one-quarter (23.8%) of the students were first-generation college students. All students in the sample were registered for first-year economics classes in the fall of 2015.
There were two interventions implemented in the study. They share the same base intervention, which was an online, 2.5-hour goal-setting exercise that students completed in the first two weeks of the first semester. Students received credit (2% of their final grade) for this base, online, activity if they completed it in the first two weeks. The authors piloted this intervention in the year preceding the present study and found no discernible effects on students academic outcomes, so they used this base intervention as a comparison condition. The first intervention is the In-Person Coaching ("Online + Coaching"). For this intervention, students completed the online goal setting exercise and were then assigned to an upper-year undergraduate student who served as their personal coach and was available to meet with students to answer any questions (via phone, skype, or in-person). Each coach was assigned to four or five students. About half of the meetings were virtual (skype or text) and half were in-person. Coaches also sent students regular text and email messages offering advice, encouragement and motivation. Coaches provided support and guided students through problems. Topics discussed during meetings included the location of campus services, how to select a major, questions about their academic coursework, getting jobs on campus, their feelings (nervousness, anxiety, sadness) and how to book appointments with counselors. The second intervention was the Text Messaging ("Online + Text Messaging"). For this intervention, students again completed the base online goal setting exercise and were assigned to receive email and text messages at a frequency that they choose (once a week, 2-3 times per week, or 3 or more times per week). They all received email messages, but if they provided their phone number, they received both email and text messages (the same messages). The messages focused on academic and study preparation advice, information on university resources, and motivation and encouragement. The aim of these messages was to provide "nudges" to students. This text messaging campaign was called You@UofT.
Students in this condition completed a 2.5-hour online goal-setting exercise (as described above). The rest of the academic year, students had access to business as usual services and facilities on their respective campuses.
Coaches were provided with materials that included the text and email messages to send to students.
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