Robin R. LaSota, J. Polanin, Laura W. Perna, Melissa A. Rodgers, Megan J. Austin
{"title":"Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes","authors":"Robin R. LaSota, J. Polanin, Laura W. Perna, Melissa A. Rodgers, Megan J. Austin","doi":"10.3102/00346543241239955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The College Board reported that, in 2022–2023, about two thirds of $177 billion in U.S. financial assistance awarded to undergraduates through programs sponsored by the federal government, state governments, colleges and universities, philanthropic organizations, and other entities was in the form of grants. While researchers have examined the effects of individual grant aid programs on particular college student outcomes, results have indicated varied effects. Moreover, individual study findings have not been widely synthesized or examined to understand why some programs succeed where others do not. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to provide structure to this varied field and better understand programmatic effects. The results of the systematic searching and screening yielded 86 studies, across seven outcome domains, and the meta-analysis synthesized findings from 709 effect sizes from study samples representing 7,656,062 individuals. The meta-analytic results found small but meaningful positive average effects on college enrollment, credit accumulation, persistence, and completion. We cannot conclude from available studies that grant aid increased academic achievement or postcollege labor market outcomes. We also found that grants had larger positive effects on credit accumulation for studies with samples of students at 2-year institutions and studies that combined samples of 2- and 4-year students than for studies with samples of students at 4-year institutions only. Using a relatively new method called an evidence gap map, we illustrate where researchers should focus on producing new evidence.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241239955","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The College Board reported that, in 2022–2023, about two thirds of $177 billion in U.S. financial assistance awarded to undergraduates through programs sponsored by the federal government, state governments, colleges and universities, philanthropic organizations, and other entities was in the form of grants. While researchers have examined the effects of individual grant aid programs on particular college student outcomes, results have indicated varied effects. Moreover, individual study findings have not been widely synthesized or examined to understand why some programs succeed where others do not. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to provide structure to this varied field and better understand programmatic effects. The results of the systematic searching and screening yielded 86 studies, across seven outcome domains, and the meta-analysis synthesized findings from 709 effect sizes from study samples representing 7,656,062 individuals. The meta-analytic results found small but meaningful positive average effects on college enrollment, credit accumulation, persistence, and completion. We cannot conclude from available studies that grant aid increased academic achievement or postcollege labor market outcomes. We also found that grants had larger positive effects on credit accumulation for studies with samples of students at 2-year institutions and studies that combined samples of 2- and 4-year students than for studies with samples of students at 4-year institutions only. Using a relatively new method called an evidence gap map, we illustrate where researchers should focus on producing new evidence.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.