A new paper offers some encouraging evidence that low-touch forms of outreach from an instructor can make a difference in how students, especially those from marginalized groups, view the course — and help improve their academic performance.
The authors of the paper, Scott E. Carrell and Michal Kurlaender, both professors at the University of California at Davis, wanted to find ways to better support a specific student population: Black and Latino men, groups that tend to graduate at lower rates than their peers. The researchers began by conducting focus groups of such students in their first year at a regional public university to learn more about their college experiences and what would help them improve.
Two themes emerged: Students reported having little connection with their professors — especially in contrast with the relationships they had with teachers in high school — and students were not sure what actions to take to improve how they did in their courses.
Armed with this insight, as well as literature from behavioral economics and social psychology, the researchers decided to test whether having instructors send light-touch, personalized emails to students in their courses could move the needle on student performance in general, and for male students of color in particular. After a successful pilot experiment at a different university, they scaled it up at the same regional public university where the focus groups took place. This phase of the research included 22 instructors teaching large classes, and nearly 3,000 students.
The researchers thought that it was important that the messages came from students’ instructors, so they varied by course. The experiment just stipulated that the messages had to be personalized and give feedback on how students could improve their performance in a course and/or access additional support.
The emails had a positive, but statistically insignificant, impact on the full student population. But for underrepresented minority students — the group they especially hoped to help — the results were stronger: They were 4.9 percentage points more likely to get an A or B in the course. Not only that, but the researchers found the emails had a “spillover” effect. Students who got them performed better in other courses, too. And that stronger performance lasted for several semesters.
What accounts for these results? Was it the helpful information about how to succeed in the course or that a professor reached out? Probably both, Kurlaender says. The researchers asked students about their impressions of their professor and the course; those who got the emails were more favorable. “We have some evidence of the mechanisms being about connectedness and belonging,” Kurlaender said in an interview. “But I also believe students need information.”
There’s a lot more to learn about what made the emails effective, Kurlaender says — and how they could be more so. Future work could test adjustments to the language and frequency of the messages, among other things.
For professors who already send similar messages, the results of the experiment are probably encouraging. For anyone interested in trying it out, Kurlaender suggests looking first at who and what they’re teaching and picking a group of students to start with. It’s important not to single out students, based on their identities, to receive such messages, she points out, since that might suggest to students that the instructor expects them to struggle based on that characteristic. The idea is to target, say, students getting a B in a difficult course to encourage them to stick with a major, or those getting a C who are likely to do well if they follow a set of suggestions, and see if more guidance helps them succeed.
From there, messages can be adjusted — and expanded — as fits the needs of the class.
Do you send similar messages to your students? Have you seen it make a difference in their relationships with you? In their performance in your course? Share your experience with me at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com, and it may be included in a future issue of the newsletter.
Who’s it from?
I’ve long been interested in informational nudges meant to help students. I wrote about a number of these efforts back when I covered admissions and financial aid. But, as I reported in a Chronicle article, some promising early studies did not garner the expected results at scale, calling the benefits of this kind of approach into question.
As I reread my article, which also describes problems replicating some of the social-psychology interventions meant to support academic success, I realized one piece of it is encouraging when it comes to professors emailing students: The evidence suggests that one driver of whether low-touch nudges are effective is who they’re from. In my story, I contrast the results of an effort, conducted by College Board, to encourage low-income students to apply to selective colleges and a more-promising effort built on the same premise where Michigan residents received messages from the University of Michigan.
“As for reminder-style nudges, there’s emerging consensus that the context is really important. It seems to matter a lot, for instance, who’s doing the nudging,” I wrote.
It stands to reason that an email from their professor would matter more to students than one from a stranger or some faceless campus office.
Indeed, the study above describes students’ gratitude for the emails — and professors I’ve spoken with who send similar messages have heard similar feedback from their students. Students said those emails mattered. The reason, though, is pretty demoralizing: They were pleasantly surprised to hear from professors, because they usually don’t.
When grades go up
The Chronicle recently ran an essay by several economists linking the rise in college completion to a rise in student GPAs, which they argue is the result of grade inflation.
To explain the rise in grades, the authors write:
We amassed a variety of evidence to study these questions. Our clearest test came from a college, which, for research purposes, we were allowed to call “Public Liberal-Arts College.” At this college, final exams in certain courses are sometimes exactly the same in different years. We compared students who took the same class, got the same score on the exact same test, and asked if their grades would have been higher if they had taken the class in a later year. Amazingly, the answer was yes. Students with the same demonstrated proficiency got higher GPAs as time went on. This, along with other evidence, drove our conclusion: Grade inflation is causing an increase in GPAs — and that, in turn, drives the increase in graduation rates.
Beth and I wonder what our readers make of this explanation. Do you feel pressured — by students, administrators, or both — to give students higher grades for the same work, as the authors suggest? Or could there be other factors? We write frequently about efforts to improve undergraduate instruction. Is it possible that one driver of rising grades is better teaching? After all, this week’s newsletter focuses on research showing that personalized emails from professors can increase grades. Let me know what you think, at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com, and your comments may be featured in a future newsletter.
Thanks for reading Teaching. If you have suggestions or ideas, please feel free to email us at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com or beth.mcmurtrie@chronicle.com.
–Beckie
Learn more about our Teaching newsletter, including how to contact us, at the Teaching newsletter archive page.
