Dobronyi, Christopher R.; Oreopoulos, Philip; Petronijevic, Uros (2019). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v12 n1 p38-66. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1212132
Reviewed: December 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment - 2nd year |
Online goal-setting vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
82.80 |
85.20 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year at the University of Toronto’s satellite campus in Mississauga, a commuter college in which about 80% of students live at home.
The study sample consists of students taking first-year introductory economics at a commuter college in which about 80% of students live at home. About half of students 49% were female, 57% had a native language other than English, and the average age of students was between 18 and 19 years old.
There were four related interventions: (1) goal setting + no-reminders condition, (2) goal setting + reminders condition, (3) goal setting + mindset message + no-reminders condition, and (4) goal setting + mindset message + reminders condition. The main intervention was a goal setting intervention in which students were asked to write about one thing that they could do better, things that they would like to learn in the near and distant future, and their current habits. Students were also asked to envision their future social life, future family life and career, and write about how they could maintain a balanced life. Students were then asked to identify and prioritize eight goals that could lead to their preferred futures, and identify steps that could lead to their goals and monitor these steps. The entire intervention was designed to take two hours. The second intervention, the goal-setting + mindset-message intervention, replaced the requirement for students to define eight future goals with material inspired by growth mindset theory, that aimed to discourage the belief that ability is innate and encourage them to recognize effort as an effective way to achieve success and to take on challenging learning experiences. Half of the students in each intervention group were also offered the opportunity to receive email and text reminders throughout the first year with academic tips and motivational supports (i.e., the reminders/no-reminders condition).
Students in the comparison condition were given a personality test measuring the “big five” personality traits. This exercise took a similar amount of time and effort as the interventions.
No information was provided about implementation support.
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