College Graduation Rates for Minority Students in a Selective Technical University: Will Participation in a Summer Bridge Program Contribute to Success?
Murphy, Terrence E.; Gaughan, Monica; Hume, Robert; Moore, S. Gordon, Jr. (2010). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v32 n1 p70-83. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ880616
-
examining2,222Students, gradePS
Summer bridge programs Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2016
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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 Summer bridge programs.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduation |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
College students;
|
0.70 |
0.67 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 33%
Male: 67% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 64%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a selective technical university in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The analytic sample included 770 students who participated in the summer bridge program and 1,452 students who did not enroll in the program. Demographically, 38% of the intervention group and 31% of the comparison group were female. The percentage of African-American participants was 80% in the intervention group and 56% in the comparison group. The median neighborhood household income for participants in the intervention group was $46,646 (in 2000 dollars) and $49,450 for those in the comparison group. Baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was established for the following student characteristics specified in the review protocol: students’ high-school grade point average and median household income.
Intervention Group
The summer bridge program was implemented in the summer before postsecondary enrollment and delivered over the course of 5 weeks in June and July. The program included an academic component and a social component. The academic component included short courses in calculus, chemistry, computer science, and English composition. This coursework was not credit-bearing but was equivalent to the content of freshman-level courses. Participants were graded on their coursework. The intervention also included peer educators or coaches. These were more advanced students who were leaders on campus and who made themselves available to the intervention participants. The social component of the intervention involved integrating families by having family support sessions and awards luncheons that included family members.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group did not participate in the summer bridge program, but received standard services as usual. Students were free to participate in any other standard university services.
Support for implementation
The researchers did not report any information on support for implementation.
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).