Finnie, R., Fricker, T., Bozkurt, E., Poirier, W., Pavlic, D., & Pratt, M. (2017). Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. https://heqco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Effects-of-Proactive-Interventions-FINAL.pdf.
Reviewed: September 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Leaving Rate |
Proactive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Aggregated sample;
|
14.03 |
16.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Leaving Rate |
Proactive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Group advising;
|
13.50 |
16.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Leaving Rate |
Proactive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
One-to-One Advising;
|
14.60 |
16.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Leaving Rate |
Proactive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Group Advising;
|
28.80 |
31.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Leaving Rate |
Proactive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Aggregated sample;
|
29.67 |
31.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Leaving Rate |
Proactive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
One-to-One advising;
|
30.60 |
31.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study is set in Mohawk College, Ontario, Canada. The college offers programs of varying lengths, ranging from certificate courses to four-year degree programs. The study focuses on first-year students, entering in fall of 2015.
In total, 4,715 students were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 1,614 were assigned to group advising, 1,524 were assigned to one-on-one advising, and 1,577 were assigned to a business-as-usual comparison condition. Just under half (49%) of the students were female and about one-quarter were 18 years old or younger, while about half were between 19-22 years old. Race, ethnicity, and financial status were not reported.
Six weeks before the start of fall classes, students in both treatment conditions received an email with information similar to the business-as-usual comparison condition. These emails mentioned advisers and services available, provided advising materials, and encouraged students to meet with their adviser. In the group advising condition, the email also strongly encouraged students to participate in an introductory group advising session within the six-week period before the start of classes. In the one-on-one advising condition, the email strongly encouraged students to participate in a one-on-one advising appointment prior to the start of classes. In both intervention groups, students who did not participate in the offered session/appointment were sent the email a second and third time, followed by a phone call from a student leader. Students who attended the advising sessions were given advising materials, a tip sheet for student success, a checklist of items to complete before the first day of classes, and copies of admissions information previously sent from the college.
Students in the business-as-usual comparison group received the same initial email as students in other groups, but while the email informed students about advising resources that would be available after the start of classes, the email did not encourage students to sign up for pre-matriculation advising.
The research team coordinated the advising sessions, and sessions were all facilitated in a single location on 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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube