Program Profile: GEAR UP – Academic Mentoring in Mathematics

This is a school-based mentoring program for low-income high school students designed to increase academic achievement and college attendance and success. The program is rated Promising. Program participants had a statistically significant increase in receiving a C grade or above in algebra I and in scores on a standardized state math exam, compared with the comparison group. However, there was not a statistically significant difference between groups in receiving a C grade or above in geometry.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

GEAR UP – Academic Mentoring in Mathematics was a tutoring and mentoring program for students at a high-poverty high school. The goals of the program were to raise students’ educational expectations, to improve their college readiness, and to positively affect their identity and social–emotional development.

Program Components

GEAR UP consisted of part-time academic mentors who sat in on freshman algebra, sophomore geometry, and junior year algebra II classes to assist students individually and in small groups. Mentors received copies of the teachers’ lesson plans and textbooks, and they met with teachers monthly to plan their tutoring sessions. At least one mentor was available before and after school, at lunch, and during Saturday tutoring. Teachers sometimes identified students who needed additional help or re-teaching from the mentors. In addition to helping with math skills, mentors formed relationships with students, to serve as role models and to expose them to coping strategies necessary to overcoming academic challenges. The program lasted for 3 years.

Key Personnel

Mentors comprised undergraduate university students, mostly psychology and education majors, who were Hispanic and from similar neighborhoods and backgrounds as the students they served. Four to six mentors who worked part time coordinated their schedules so that at least one mentor was always available to students. Mentors were recruited and supervised by GEAR UP coordinators and trained using a series of modules developed by Weber State University (Massen et al. 2009).

Program Theory

The theoretical framework that supports the use of academic mentors to improve students’ math achievement includes social–cognitive theory, attachment theory, identity theory, and developmental and socio-historical theory (Bandura 1977; Boyer et al. 2010; Germain 2013). Specifically, the coping model from social–cognitive theory and the possible-selves construct of identity theory are thought to drive the effectiveness of academic mentoring as provided in this program (Bandura 1977).

Study

Fetsco and Kain (n.d.) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the GEAR UP – Academic Mentoring in Mathematics program. The following outcomes were assessed: 1) obtaining a grade of C or above in algebra I, 2) obtaining a grade of C or above in geometry, and 3) passing a state-mandated math test (Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards, or AIMS). Grades were calculated by averaging numeric grades for each semester (a score above 2.0 was considered a C or above). AIMS scores were calculated as pass–fail based on meeting or exceeding the state standard. Study samples differed for each outcome assessment.

The treatment groups comprised all GEAR UP students who graduated in 2012 from a large urban high school in southwestern Arizona. The comparison groups for the algebra and geometry grade outcomes consisted of students who took the same math courses at the same school, but graduated in 2011, before the GEAR UP program was implemented. In addition, as a result of an unanticipated change in state testing, a separate comparison group from the class of 2012, who did not receive the GEAR UP program, was used to assess the AIMS math test scores outcome. However, this was a limitation to the study, as the comparison group students were not separated from the treatment group during the school day, and despite not having access to mentors, they may have experienced some diffusion of benefits.

For the algebra I grades outcome assessment, the treatment group consisted of 114 students who were 94.7 percent Hispanic and 55.3 percent female. Approximately 6.1 percent were English Language Learners (ELLs), and 6.1 percent had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). The comparison group consisted of 86 non-GEAR UP students who completed the same algebra I course the previous year without mentors. These students were 96.5 percent Hispanic and 51.2 percent female. Approximately 35.0 percent were ELLs, and 9.3 percent had IEPs. There were statistically significant differences between groups; the treatment group had higher Terra Nova Math and Language scores, whereas the comparison group had a greater number of ELLs. Propensity score analysis was conducted to account for these and a number of other covariates such as gender, race, ELL status, special education status, and Terra Nova Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) from the Math, Language, and Reading subtests.

For the geometry grades outcome, the treatment group consisted of 92 students who were 97.8 percent Hispanic and 58.7 percent female. Approximately 6.5 percent were ELLs, and 9.8 percent had IEPs. The comparison group consisted of 43 non-GEAR UP students who completed the same geometry course the previous year without mentors. These students were 97.7 percent Hispanic and 58.1 percent female, and 9.3 percent had IEPs. Of the comparison group, 27.9 percent of the students were ELLs, which was statistically significant. An ANCOVA was conducted to predict receiving a C or above, using Terra Nova Math NCEs as a covariate.

For the outcome regarding AIMS math test scores, the treatment group consisted of 197 GEAR UP students who were about 96 percent Hispanic and 52.8 percent female. About 2.5 percent were ELLs, and 6.1 percent had IEPs. The comparison group consisted of 211 non-GEAR UP students who were enrolled at the same time as the treatment group. These students were 27.4 percent Hispanic and 45.5 percent female. Of this comparison group, 8.1 percent were ELLs, and 9.0 percent had IEPs. Propensity score analysis was conducted to account for gender, race, ELL status, special education status, and Terra Nova NCEs from the Math, Language, and Reading subtests.

While not included in the CrimeSolutions review of this study, a survey measure was also used to assess confidence in passing a college-level algebra class and confidence in completing the college preparatory curriculum in high school math. These items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. These ratings were then dichotomized into students who agreed or strongly agreed versus those who did not (the results of the survey are discussed in the Other Information section). The two survey items assessing confidence in math were also assessed using a smaller subset of these groups (n = 149; treatment and n = 149; control). The survey items were administered by algebra II teachers during the third year of the program, and all students in participating classrooms took the survey. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Implementation materials included teacher lesson plans, teacher editions of textbooks to provide to the mentors, and training modules developed by Weber State University (Massen et al. 2009).

Additional Outcomes

Fetsco and Kain (N.d.) found that students who participated in GEAR UP – Academic Mentoring in Mathematics were 19 percent more likely to agree or strongly agree that they were confident they could pass a college-level algebra class. In addition, they found that 27 percent of the treatment group students were more likely to agree or strongly agree that they were confident that they could complete the college preparatory curriculum in high school math, compared with comparison group students. These differences were statistically significant.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Boyer, Kristy E., Nathan E. Thomas, Audrey Smith Rorrer, Deonte Cooper, and Mladan Alan Vouk. 2010. “Increasing Technical Excellence, Leadership and Commitment of Computing Students Through Identity Based Mentoring.” SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education,167–71.

Germain, Marie-Line. 2011. “Formal Mentoring Relationships and Attachment Theory: Implications for Human Resource Development.” Human Resource Development Review 10(2):123–50.

Massen, Alisha, Eric Amsel, Sheldon Cheshire, S. Mullins, and Brenda Marstellar Kowalewski. 2009. Mentor/Tutor Training Modules: Mentoring, Tutoring, Pre-College Programs, Cultural Competency, Ethics and Professionalism. Ogden, Utah: Weber State University.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and Ineffective in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?