Rutschow, Elizabeth Zachry; Cullinan, Dan; Welbeck, Rashida (2012). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531183
Reviewed: July 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative - Earned a 2.0 GPA or greater |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
39.70 |
43.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
in program semester-Term GPA- % with GPA >2.0 |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
32.10 |
34.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
first postprogram semester-Term GPA, % with GPA 2.0 or greater |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
29.70 |
33.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percentage of students who passed all courses during the program semester |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
31.70 |
35.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative - Registered for any course |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
90.60 |
90.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of semesters registered |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.40 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of regular credits earned |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
12.80 |
12.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
first postprogram semester-Registered for any course |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
63.60 |
61.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
in program semester-number of regular credits earned |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
3.00 |
2.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
first postprogram semester-Number of regular credits earned |
Student Success Course vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
3.20 |
3.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% | |
| Other or unknown | 13% | |
| White | 29% |
| Hispanic | 6% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 94% |
This success course was offered at three campuses of the Guilford Technical Community College located in in Guilford County, NC. The three campuses were Greensboro, Jamestown, and High Point. The course was offered in three different semesters to accommodate the college's capacity (Spring 2008, Fall 2008, and Spring 2009). Over those 3 semesters, the college offered 33 sections of the success course.
Among the full sample, 68.8% were female and the average age of students was 25.3 years old. About thirty percent (28.5%) of students were White, 58.5% were Black, and 12.9% were of another race. Moreover, 5.7% were Hispanic; 12.2% were married; 5.5% of students lived in households that received unemployment/dislocated worker benefits; 7.8% were in households that received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or disability benefits; 2.3% of students were in households that received TANF; and 23.3% of students were in households that received food stamps.
During the three semesters of the study, Guilford offered a two-credit student success course to intervention group students who were required to take one or more developmental education courses, either in reading, English, or math. This course was generally taught by two instructors and the activities engaged students in reflection about their experiences to develop students’ socio-emotional skills. The course also provided some instruction and practice in study and academic skills.
Students in the comparison group received the college’s standard services, excluding the student success course.
During the three semesters of the study, course instructors received varying levels of professional development.
Reviewed: April 2016
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 First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students who earned a GPA of "C" or better in nondevelopmental courses |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester to third post-program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Percentage of students who passed all courses during the program semester |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students registered for any course |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester to third post-program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of credits earned (regular, college-level courses) |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester to third post-program semester |
College students;
|
12.80 |
12.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed developmental math course |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester to third post-program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Passed developmental reading course |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester to third post-program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Passed developmental English course |
First Year Experience Courses for Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
Program semester to third post-program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 29% |
| Hispanic | 6% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 94% |
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