WWC review of this study

Are artificially intelligent conversational chatbots uniformly effective in reducing summer melt? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial.

Nurshatayeva, A., Page, L. C., White, C. C., Gehlbach, H. (2021). Research in Higher Education, 62(3), 392-402. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1294362

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    4,442
     Students
    , grade
    PS

Reviewed: September 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
College enrollment outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Enrolled in any 4-year college

Nudging intervention via AI chatbots vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
4,442 students

95.50

96.00

No

--
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Enrolled in any 4-year college - 1st gen

Nudging intervention via AI chatbots vs. Business as usual

0 Days

First generation college students;
849 students

94.70

92.00

No

--

Enrolled in ECU - 1st gen

Nudging intervention via AI chatbots vs. Business as usual

0 Days

First-generation students;
849 students

92.40

89.00

No

--

Enrolled in ECU

Nudging intervention via AI chatbots vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
4,442 students

92.30

93.00

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 58%
    Male: 42%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    North Carolina
  • Race
    Asian
    3%
    Black
    15%
    Native American
    1%
    Other or unknown
    15%
    White
    66%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    8%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    92%

Setting

The study was conducted at East Carolina University (ECU), a four-year college in Greenville, NC with students who had applied to ECU and been offered admission at ECU (“ECU-intending students”) but had not yet completed pre-matriculation or enrollment activities. The study aimed to reduce “summer melt”, which is when students who have passed other enrollment requirements by spring of their senior year of high school, fail to enroll in college in the following fall. The researchers named the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, PeeDee, after the campus mascot. Generally, 84% of students at ECU were in-state students, and over one-third (34%) received Pell grants. ECU is located in rural, coastal North Carolina, a region with lower-income counties compared with the rest of the state.

Study sample

Students in the sample were about 18 years old and over half were female (58%). Nearly two-thirds (66%) were White, 15% were Black, 3% were Asian, 1% were Native American, and 6% reported being multiracial. 8% of the sample were Hispanic and 18% were first-generation college students. Slightly more than the college average (87%) students were in-state.

Intervention Group

Throughout the summer preceding fall enrollment, intervention group students received text messages from the AI chatbot, PeeDee, with information and reminders about the logistical and administrative tasks they would need to complete in order to successfully matriculate in the fall. There were eight categories of messages that PeeDee sent: introduction (where PeeDee introduced their functionality), orientation (reminding students to register for the orientation sessions and including registration links and deadlines), course registration (reminders and offers of help), housing (information about moving into residence halls and steps required), financial aid messages, social involvement (social media and freshman events), academic exploration and enrollment help), and rapport-building such as trivia and encouraging messages. Messages were tailored to students’ needs so that, for example, students who had already applied for financial aid would not receive reminders about financial aid deadlines. Importantly, students could send text messages to PeeDee, such as requests for follow up information. On average, 26 messages were sent to students (ranging from 3-97 messages) and three were sent to PeeDee from students (ranging from 0-52 messages). Students could also opt out of receiving messages and about 6% opted out of receiving messages.

Comparison Group

Students in both the intervention and control groups received business-as-usual communications from the college on topics that included orientation, registration, housing, and setting up a university email account, academic opportunities on the ECU campus, tuition bill information and reminders, and other information intended to help students with social adjustment such as campus events and information about Greenville.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top