Breaking New Ground: An Impact Study of Career-Focused Learning Communities at Kingsborough Community College
Visher, Mary G.; Teres, Jedediah (2011). National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522631
-
examining917Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Career-Focused Learning Communities)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credits earned during program semester (excluding integrative seminar) |
Career-Focused Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
10.90 |
10.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated in first post-program semester |
Career-Focused Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
2.40 |
1.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
passed all courses |
Career-Focused Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
48.00 |
45.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
passed all courses |
Career-Focused Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
34.40 |
34.10 |
No |
-- | ||
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.
-
39% English language learners -
Female: 59%
Male: 41% -
Urban
-
- 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
New York
-
Race Asian 10% Black 36% Other or unknown 24% White 30% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study is part of a suite of studies of career-focused learning communities, but this particular study focuses on learning communities in Kingsborough Community College, one of six community colleges in the City University of New York (CUNY) system, located in Brooklyn. The Kingsborough learning communities spanned eight majors (business administration, accounting, allied health, mental health, early childhood education, tourism and hospitality, criminal justice, and liberal arts). The program entailed one single-credit course ("integrative seminar") with two courses required for the major.
Study sample
The study sample was reflective of the diversity of the Kingsborough student body: 35.6% Black, 29.9% White, 20.2% Hispanic, and 10.3% Asian or Pacific Islander. Nearly 40% of the students spoke a language other than English at home, and one-quarter were the first member of their family to attend college. Over half (52.2%) received financial aid during the semester of random assignment, and 36.6% were financially dependent on parents.
Intervention Group
This Career-Focused Learning Communities program enrolled students who were in their second semester (or beyond) and had already fulfilled any developmental requirements and declared a major. Participating students enrolled in three linked courses: two courses in their major and a third integrative seminar, intended to reinforce the interdisciplinary teaching in the other two courses. In addition, the integrative seminar aimed to raise students' awareness of career options within their major. The three courses emphasized project-based learning through integrative assignments, encouraging active, collaborative learning.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition met the same eligibility criteria as those in the intervention group, but they attended courses that were not part of the Career-Focused Learning Communities program and used more traditional lecture-based instructional techniques.
Support for implementation
The program includes a faculty development coordinator within each major who was responsible for meeting with faculty and guiding their course development and professional development, and creating faculty teams and pairs. Faculty were expected to spend about 25 hours per semester planning and coordinating, including visiting each other's classes and meeting with the faculty development coordinator. They worked to align syllabi (including those integrative assignments), synchronize readings, and develop long-term joint projects, connecting classes by an overarching theme. They were also intended to meet and reflect (including looking at student work) at the end of each semester. Not all of these supports were present during this implementation as it was rolled out over time.
Linked Learning Communities Intervention Report - Developmental Education
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2014
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.
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.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).