Commencement day: Six-year effects of a freshman learning community program at Kingsborough Community College.
Sommo, C., Mayer, A. K., Rudd, T., & Cullinan, D. (2012). New York, NY: MDRC.
-
examining1,534Students, gradePS
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
59.00 |
54.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
70.00 |
57.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
71.00 |
63.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
61.00 |
57.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
64.00 |
61.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
72.00 |
69.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
71.00 |
68.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
66.00 |
64.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
67.00 |
65.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
21.00 |
20.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
28.00 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
73.00 |
75.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
36.00 |
31.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Highest degree earned is Bachelor's |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
12.00 |
9.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
6.00 |
5.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
20.00 |
17.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
32.00 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
27.00 |
24.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
87.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
93.00 |
91.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
96.00 |
94.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
52.00 |
43.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
78.00 |
72.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Male;
|
62.00 |
54.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
76.00 |
69.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
57.00 |
49.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
94.00 |
92.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
92.00 |
90.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
2.80 |
2.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
88.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
87.00 |
84.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Male;
|
63.00 |
59.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
54.00 |
52.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
74.00 |
73.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
94.00 |
94.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
91.00 |
91.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
2.90 |
2.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
63.00 |
63.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
77.00 |
78.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
61.00 |
63.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
60.00 |
57.00 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
27.70 |
26.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
289.00 |
28.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of courses passed |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
3.60 |
2.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of courses passed |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
4.00 |
3.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed all courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
41.00 |
27.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of courses passed |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
3.80 |
3.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed all courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
43.00 |
33.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
3.30 |
2.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
5.70 |
4.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
11.50 |
10.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
20.30 |
18.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Continuous enrollment |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
55.00 |
48.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
31.60 |
27.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed all courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
45.00 |
38.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
3.50 |
2.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Continuous enrollment |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
32.00 |
27.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Continuous enrollment |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.00 |
25.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
59.00 |
53.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
5.20 |
4.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
5.40 |
4.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
5.70 |
5.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Continuous enrollment |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
78.00 |
74.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
53.00 |
48.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
95.00 |
94.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
91.00 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
8.30 |
7.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
5.60 |
4.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
7.20 |
6.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
26.40 |
23.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
3.60 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
33.20 |
30.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
48.10 |
44.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
52.80 |
49.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
56.30 |
52.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
5.50 |
4.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.00 |
3.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.80 |
4.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Continuous enrollment |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
39.00 |
35.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
74.00 |
71.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Male;
|
6.20 |
5.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
5.70 |
5.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
7.50 |
7.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
5.60 |
5.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total credits earned (includes developmental credits) |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
42.00 |
39.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.80 |
2.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
6.10 |
5.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
77.00 |
75.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Male;
|
6.70 |
6.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Male;
|
0.60 |
0.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
8.90 |
8.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
0.80 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
1.20 |
1.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
0.40 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
5.60 |
5.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
8.00 |
7.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
5.50 |
5.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
61.00 |
59.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.80 |
2.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
2.80 |
2.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
63.00 |
61.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
2.30 |
2.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
2.30 |
2.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
1.10 |
1.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
2.40 |
2.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
6.20 |
6.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
34.50 |
33.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
7.70 |
7.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.70 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of semesters enrolled |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
1.70 |
1.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever enrolled four year institution |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
42.00 |
42.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Male;
|
1.30 |
1.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
1.10 |
1.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
0.30 |
0.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
6.90 |
6.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
5.80 |
5.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1.10 |
1.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.50 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
0.60 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
7.40 |
7.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits attempted |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
1.00 |
1.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of equated credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Female;
|
0.50 |
0.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
6.60 |
6.30 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed both English tests |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
65.00 |
60.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed reading test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
85.00 |
79.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed reading test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
89.00 |
84.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed writing test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
47.00 |
38.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed writing test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
60.00 |
52.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed both English tests |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Male;
|
46.00 |
38.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed both English tests |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
60.00 |
52.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed reading test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
89.00 |
86.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed writing test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
53.00 |
47.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed both English tests |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
52.00 |
46.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed reading test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
84.00 |
81.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed writing test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
66.00 |
61.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed writing test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
58.00 |
55.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed writing test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
71.00 |
68.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed both English tests |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
57.00 |
54.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed both English tests |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
69.00 |
67.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed reading test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Female;
|
83.00 |
83.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed reading test |
Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
88.00 |
88.00 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
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 Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at the Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York--a large, urban college with a diverse student body.
Study sample
Students are first-time incoming freshmen who did not test into ESL and were ages 17-34.
Intervention Group
The learning community program placed groups of up to 25 incoming freshmen, who took three classes together during their first semester of college. In addition, students in the program received enhanced counseling and support, enhanced tutoring, and textbook vouchers to the college bookstore. The three courses that program participants attended with their learning community group were: (1) an English course, at the level determined by the student's pre-enrollment reading and writing skills assessment score; (2) an academic course in the student's major (e.g., in psychology, health, or history); and (3) a one-credit freshman orientation course that taught issues related to time management, study skills, college rules and procedures, learning styles, career exploration, and multicultural diversity. For the enhanced counseling and support component of the program, participants had access to an Opening Doors counselor (or "case manager") who also taught the freshman orientation course. This counselor sought to identify and resolve barriers to students' academic performance and attendance, and sometimes met with other faculty members involved in the program. For the enhanced tutoring component of the program, participants had access to tutors who were assigned to each learning community and attended English courses (and sometimes the core major content courses) along with participants. Students could visit a central lab to access tutors and get assistance with course work. Finally, participants were provided with a textbook voucher worth up to $150 at the university bookstore during the initial (12-week) program semester. Students who attended the 6-week winter or intersession semester after the initial program semester could also receive a second textbook voucher worth up to $75. (Note that the textbook vouchers were worth more during the first two cohorts of the study, at $200/$100 in the program and intercession semesters, respectively).
Comparison Group
Comparison condition participants received standard courses and services at Kingsborough Community College. Students enrolled in courses as usual, did not receive the ability to enroll in courses early, did not attend courses with any set group of incoming freshmen, had access to standard tutoring services, and had the opportunity to (but were not required to) enroll in the one-credit freshman orientation course.
Support for implementation
No information is provided on specific training for the faculty members who taught the learning community courses, nor the case managers who taught the orientation course/provided support, nor for the tutors involved.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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.
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.Linked Learning Communities Intervention Report - Developmental Education
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2014
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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 Linked Learning Communities.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in college |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in college |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in college |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree (with 6 years of randomization) |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Six years post randomization |
College students;
|
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 |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
College students;
|
27.70 |
26.20 |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Male;
|
26.40 |
23.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Female;
|
28.90 |
28.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed both developmental education tests |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
By the end of the second postprogram semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed both developmental education tests |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
By the end of the second postprogram semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed both developmental education tests |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
By the end of the second postprogram semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
Female: 55%
Male: 45% -
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 9% Black 38% Other or unknown 6% White 27% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at Kingsborough Community College, a large, urban community college in Brooklyn, NY, that is part of the City University of New York (CUNY) system.
Study sample
The Opening Doors Learning Communities program recruited students who met the following criteria: 1) first-time incoming freshmen who planned to attend college full time during the day; 2) tested into developmental English (but did not test into English as a Second Language); 3) planned to attend college full time; and 4) between 17–34 years of age. The study initially enrolled students who were aged 18 or older but later enrolled students who were 17 years old with parental consent. Students initially had to report a household income below 250% of the federal poverty level, but this income criterion was also subsequently removed. Students in four career majors (accounting, business, mental health, and early childhood education) were also excluded for the first year of the study because a separate learning community operated for them. After the 2003–04 academic year, students in those career majors could participate in the Opening Doors program because the career learning community program ended. Students who were eligible were given the opportunity to participate in the study; 1,534 students were eligible to participate. Students were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparision conditions. After random assignment, 769 students were in the intervention group and 765 were in the comparison group. Among students in the sample, 55% were female, 38% were Black, 20% were Hispanic, and 27% were White. Seventy-nine percent were between 17–20 years old, 91% reported having no children, 28% indicated that their household was receiving government benefits (such as food stamps or Supplemental Security Income), 74% indicated they were financially dependent on their parents, 36% reported being currently employed, and 47% reported speaking a language other than English in their home.
Intervention Group
The Opening Doors Learning Communities program was organized around an English course, where the course level was determined by the students’ scores on the CUNY reading and writing skills assessment tests administered before enrollment. The English course was linked with two additional courses: an academic course required for the student’s major and a one-credit freshman orientation course. The orientation course was available to all freshmen and teaches time management, study skills, college rules and procedures, and other topics relevant to new students. The three linked courses were taken together by groups of up to 25 students during their first semester in the study. The linked courses usually met one after the other. The Opening Doors Learning Communities operated only during a student’s first semester. Students in the learning communities were also offered other services, including 1) faculty collaboration and instructional practices, 2) enhanced counseling and support services offered by a counselor/case manager, 3) enhanced tutoring for the English course (and, in some cases, the subject matter course), and 4) textbook vouchers for the initial program semester and subsequent winter or summer intersession. Over four semesters, the program included 40 learning communities: 31 with developmental English courses and 9 with college-level English courses. Learning community class sizes varied from 6–25 students, with an average of 17 students per learning community.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group were enrolled in classes for which they were eligible or that were required, and they could receive the college’s standard services. In addition, similar to students in the intervention group, students in the comparison group were allowed to register for classes earlier than most freshmen, and they received advice on the registration process from Opening Doors staff.
Outcome descriptions
Researchers reported outcomes at nine points in time: the program semester (i.e., the semester in which students were enrolled in a learning community), the first semester after the program, the second semester after the program, the third semester after the program, 2 years after randomization, 3 years after randomization, 4 years after randomization, 5 years after randomization, and 6 years after randomization. Participation in the learning communities began in fall 2003, spring 2004, fall 2004, and spring 2005. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
According to the study authors, Kingsborough Community College provided 1 hour of reassigned time for faculty to meet about course integration and support for students in learning communities (i.e., each 3-hour course was treated as a 4-hour course for purposes of determing each faculty member’s teaching load). Each learning community also had an assigned tutor who attended the courses, and participating students received $150 textbook vouchers for the 12-week main session and a $75 textbook voucher for the subsequent 6-week winter or summer intersession for the campus bookstore.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Bloom, Dan; Sommo, Colleen. (2005). Building Learning Communities Early Results from the Opening Doors Demonstration at Kingsborough Community College. MDRC.
-
Scrivener, Susan; Bloom, Dan; LeBlanc, Allen; Paxson, Christina; Rouse, Cecilia Elena; Sommo, Colleen. (2008). A Good Start: Two-Year Effects of a Freshmen Learning Community Program at Kingsborough Community College. MDRC.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2012
- Grant Competition (findings for Opening Doors)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High GPA |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Full sample;
|
0.59 |
0.54 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any college |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Program semester |
Full sample;
|
0.87 |
0.85 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Program semester |
Full sample;
|
0.93 |
0.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Six years post randomization |
Full sample;
|
0.36 |
0.31 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Full sample;
|
27.70 |
26.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed both English tests |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Third postprogram semester |
Full sample;
|
0.65 |
0.60 |
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: 55%
Male: 45% -
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 9% Black 38% Other or unknown 6% White 27% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
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).