补助重要吗?助学金对大学生成绩影响的系统回顾和元分析

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.3102/00346543241239955
Robin R. LaSota, J. Polanin, Laura W. Perna, Melissa A. Rodgers, Megan J. Austin
{"title":"补助重要吗?助学金对大学生成绩影响的系统回顾和元分析","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

据美国大学理事会报告,2022-2023 年,美国通过联邦政府、州政府、高校、慈善组织和其他实体赞助的项目向大学生提供的 1770 亿美元资助中,约有三分之二是以助学金的形式发放的。虽然研究人员已经研究了个别助学金资助项目对特定大学生学习成绩的影响,但结果显示效果各异。此外,个别研究结果尚未得到广泛的综合或研究,以了解为什么有些项目取得了成功,而有些项目却没有。我们进行了一次全面的系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以便为这一变化多端的领域提供结构,并更好地理解项目效果。系统性搜索和筛选的结果是 86 项研究,涉及七个结果领域,荟萃分析综合了代表 7,656,062 人的研究样本中 709 个效应大小的结果。荟萃分析结果发现,助学金对大学入学率、学分积累、持续学习和完成学业的平均影响虽小,但意义重大。从现有的研究中,我们无法得出助学金能提高学习成绩或大学毕业后劳动力市场成果的结论。我们还发现,与仅以四年制院校学生为样本的研究相比,以两年制院校学生为样本的研究以及以两年制和四年制院校学生为样本的研究,助学金对学分积累的积极影响更大。我们使用了一种名为 "证据差距图 "的相对较新的方法,说明了研究人员在提供新证据时应关注的重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
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.
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature Studying the Effectiveness of Team Teaching: A Systematic Review on the Conceptual and Methodological Credibility of Experimental Studies Leveraging Physical Activities to Support Learning for Young People via Technologies: An Examination of Educational Practices Across the Field Robot-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1