Murphy, M. C., Gopalan, M., Carter, E. R., Emerson, K. T., Bottoms, B. L., & Walton, G. M. (2020). Science Advances, 6(29), 1-7.
Reviewed: October 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Social Belonging.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fall semester GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Socially disadvantaged students;
|
2.77 |
2.54 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Continuous Enrollment |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Socially disadvantaged students;
|
86.00 |
76.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Continuous Enrollment |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Socially disadvantaged students;
|
73.00 |
64.00 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 27% | |
| Black | 7% | |
| Native American | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 36% | |
| White | 28% |
| Hispanic | 23% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 77% |
The study was conducted at a large, broad-access, racially and economically diverse, Hispanic-Serving Institution in the Midwest (with over 85% of students commuting to campus).
Among all students randomly assigned, 28% were White, 27% were Asian, 7% were Black, 7% were mixed race, and 2% were Native American. Twenty-three percent of students randomly assigned were Hispanic. The breakdown for socially disadvantaged students was not available.
The intervention was implemented in mandatory first-year writing courses in the students’ first year of college in the spring semester, during a one-hour long class meeting. Students in the intervention group read nine stories from racially diverse upper-year students that described the academic and social challenges to their sense of belonging on campus as well as various strategies they employed that helped them come to feel they belonged at the university over time. The materials represented belonging on campus as a process that develops over time. Students were then asked to describe how their experiences in college to date mirrored the upper-year students’ stories and to write a letter to a future student at their university who might doubt their belonging during the transition to college.
Students in the comparison group performed similar activities. The content matched the intervention condition in length, number of student stories, and even in describing a process of college adjustment that develops over time. However, these students received stories that focused on study skills in college, rather than social belonging.
There was no support for implementation. The researchers designed the intervention and delivered this one-semester experimental procedure.
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