Weissman, Evan; Butcher, Kristin F.; Schneider, Emily; Teres, Jedediah; Collado, Herbert; Greenberg, David (2011). National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED516646
Reviewed: November 2014
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Linked Learning Communities.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
End of program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
End of program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
End of program semester |
Women;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
End of program semester |
Women;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
End of program semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
End of program semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
College students;
|
12.40 |
11.80 |
No |
|
||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
College students;
|
4.70 |
4.70 |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
Female;
|
13.20 |
11.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
Female;
|
5.20 |
5.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
Male;
|
11.40 |
11.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
Male;
|
3.50 |
4.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed both required developmental math courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
|
Passed college math |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed both required developmental math courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college math |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed both required developmental math courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
4 semesters post-assignment |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college math |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 33% | |
| White | 8% |
| Hispanic | 45% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 55% |
The study took place at Houston Community College, a large community college system consisting of over 55,000 students attending six colleges located in and around Houston, TX. The learning communities project was conducted at three of the campuses around the city: Central, Northline, and Southeast.
To be eligible for participation in the learning communities study, students had to meet all of the following criteria: 1) first-year student status; 2) placed into developmental math, including students in the lowest levels of developmental math (primarily Fundamentals of Mathematics I or Fundamentals of Mathematics II); and 3) available to take the learning community classes at their scheduled times. All students were placed at one of two developmental math levels based on a placement test (COMPASS). The study initially enrolled students who were 18 or older, but later enrolled students under 18. Across four semesters, 1,273 students were eligible to participate; 761 were randomly assigned the intervention group and 512 to the comparison group. Demographically, 67% of the entire sample of study participants were female, 55% were Hispanic, 35% were Black, and 3% were White. Sixty-three percent of the students in the sample were between 17 and 20 years old at the beginning of the study. In addition, 28% reported having at least one child, 29% were financially dependent on their parents, 41% were currently employed, and 46% spoke a language other than English in their home.
The learning communities at Houston Community College were designed for students at the lowest level of developmental math offered by the college: Fundamentals of Mathematics I (Math I). After passing Math I, students must pass both Fundamentals of Mathematics II and Intermediate Algebra before they can take a college-level course. Math I was linked with a student success course called College and Career Planning for the learning communities program. The student success course was designed to introduce students to tools and strategies that would help them achieve their college and career goals; included lessons on time management, test-taking skills, and setting goals; and provided information on available campus resources such as tutoring. Math I is required for all students who place into it, but students are not required to take it during their first semester of enrollment. However, college policy does require all students to take the College and Career Planning course during their first semester. The key part of the learning community was the link between Math I and the student success course, and the linked courses included at least three integrated assignments. In addition, collaboration among faculty and connections to support services were reported by the study authors as salient aspects of the program.
Comparison group students were advised that they were required to take developmental math courses as a prerequisite to college-level math, but they were not required to do so during the first semester. College staff assisted students in both conditions with registration for all of their courses. All first-year developmental students at the college were required to take the College and Career Planning course.
The study authors gathered outcome data from transcripts provided by the college. The data were available at the end of the program semester and for one semester after the program. In addition, cumulative results at two semesters post-assignment were available. Participation in the learning communities began in spring 2008, fall 2008, spring 2009, and fall 2009. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The study authors reported that each campus had a faculty member coordinator who received course release time for their work on integrated curriculum planning. Faculty stipends varied from $200 to $400 per community taught. Campuses also varied in stipends for faculty planning for new joint courses (e.g., $200) and one-course release time for planning the learning community the semester before. Additional supports to students included: math tutoring, dedicated counseling, and development of online videos and PowerPoints into lessons accessed by students with purchased iPad touch devices. Field trips were supported by the campuses and incorporated into each class (one field trip per term).
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