WWC review of this study

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.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    1,534
     Students
    , grade
    PS

Reviewed: December 2023

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Academic achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,409 students

59.00

54.00

Yes

 
 
5
 
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;
618 students

70.00

57.00

Yes

 
 
13

High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower)

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,377 students

71.00

63.00

Yes

 
 
9

High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower)

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
508 students

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;
1,142 students

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;
760 students

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;
510 students

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;
907 students

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;
634 students

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;
634 students

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;
776 students

28.00

28.00

Yes

 
 
0

High GPA (2.0-4.0 vs. lower)

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
429 students

73.00

75.00

No

--
Attainment outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

12.00

9.00

Yes

 
 
8

Earned a degree

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

6.00

5.00

Yes

 
 
5

Earned a degree

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

20.00

17.00

Yes

 
 
5

Earned a degree

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

32.00

28.00

Yes

 
 
5

Earned a degree

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

27.00

24.00

No

--
College Enrollment outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

87.00

85.00

No

--

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

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;
837 students

96.00

94.00

Yes

 
 
10

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

52.00

43.00

Yes

 
 
9

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
697 students

78.00

72.00

Yes

 
 
8

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Male;
697 students

62.00

54.00

Yes

 
 
8

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
697 students

76.00

69.00

Yes

 
 
8

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

57.00

49.00

Yes

 
 
8

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

94.00

92.00

Yes

 
 
7

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

92.00

90.00

No

--

Number of semesters registered

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

2.80

2.60

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

88.00

85.00

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

87.00

84.00

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Male;
697 students

63.00

59.00

No

--

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

54.00

52.00

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Female;
837 students

74.00

73.00

No

--

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Male;
697 students

94.00

94.00

Yes

 
 
0

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Male;
697 students

91.00

91.00

Yes

 
 
0

Number of semesters registered

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

2.90

2.90

Yes

 
 
0

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Female;
837 students

63.00

63.00

Yes

 
 
0

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Female;
837 students

77.00

78.00

No

--

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Female;
837 students

61.00

63.00

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

60.00

57.00

Yes

--
Credit accumulation outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

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;
837 students

289.00

28.50

Yes

 
 
50

Number of courses passed

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

3.60

2.90

Yes

 
 
20

Number of courses passed

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

4.00

3.40

Yes

 
 
16

Passed all courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

41.00

27.00

Yes

 
 
15

Number of courses passed

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

3.80

3.20

Yes

 
 
12

Passed all courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

43.00

33.00

Yes

 
 
10

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

3.30

2.10

Yes

 
 
9

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

5.70

4.70

Yes

 
 
8

Total credits earned (includes developmental credits)

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

11.50

10.40

Yes

 
 
7

Total credits earned (includes developmental credits)

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
1,534 students

20.30

18.20

Yes

 
 
7

Continuous enrollment

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

55.00

48.00

Yes

 
 
7

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Male;
697 students

31.60

27.60

No

--

Passed all courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

45.00

38.00

Yes

 
 
7

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

3.50

2.60

Yes

 
 
6

Continuous enrollment

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

32.00

27.00

Yes

 
 
6

Continuous enrollment

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

6 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

30.00

25.00

Yes

 
 
6

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

59.00

53.00

Yes

 
 
6

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Male;
697 students

5.20

4.10

No

--

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

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;
1,534 students

5.70

5.00

No

--

Continuous enrollment

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
1,534 students

78.00

74.00

Yes

 
 
5

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

53.00

48.00

Yes

 
 
5

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
1,534 students

95.00

94.00

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
1,534 students

91.00

89.00

Yes

 
 
5

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
697 students

8.30

7.40

No

--

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

5.60

4.70

No

--

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
697 students

7.20

6.30

No

--

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Male;
697 students

26.40

23.50

No

--

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

5.50

4.60

No

--

Number of semesters enrolled

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

4.00

3.80

No

--

Number of semesters enrolled

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

4.80

4.60

No

--

Continuous enrollment

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

39.00

35.00

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Full sample;
1,534 students

74.00

71.00

No

--

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Male;
697 students

6.20

5.60

No

--

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

42.00

39.40

No

--

Number of semesters enrolled

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

2.80

2.70

No

--

Number of semesters enrolled

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

6 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

6.10

5.90

No

--

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Full sample;
1,534 students

77.00

75.00

No

--

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Male;
697 students

6.70

6.10

No

--

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Male;
697 students

0.60

0.50

No

--

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Female;
837 students

8.90

8.50

No

--

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

0.80

0.70

No

--

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Female;
837 students

1.20

1.00

No

--

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

0.40

0.30

No

--

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Female;
837 students

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;
1,534 students

8.00

7.70

No

--

Number of semesters enrolled

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

5.50

5.30

No

--

Registered for any courses

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

61.00

59.00

No

--

Number of semesters registered

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

2.80

2.70

No

--

Number of semesters registered

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
1,534 students

2.80

2.70

No

--

Enrolled in any college

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

63.00

61.00

No

--

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Female;
837 students

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;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

1.10

1.00

No

--

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
697 students

2.40

2.30

No

--

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

6.20

6.10

No

--

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Female;
837 students

34.50

33.70

No

--

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Female;
837 students

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;
1,534 students

0.70

0.70

Yes

 
 
0

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

0.30

0.30

Yes

 
 
0

Number of semesters enrolled

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
1,534 students

1.70

1.70

Yes

 
 
0

Ever enrolled four year institution

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

6 Years

Full sample;
1,534 students

42.00

42.00

Yes

 
 
0

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Male;
697 students

1.30

1.30

Yes

 
 
0

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

1 Semester

Male;
697 students

1.10

1.10

Yes

 
 
0

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

0.30

0.30

Yes

 
 
0

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Female;
837 students

6.90

6.90

Yes

 
 
0

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

5.80

5.80

Yes

 
 
0

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

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;
1,534 students

0.50

0.60

No

--

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

0.60

0.70

No

--

Total number of credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Female;
837 students

7.40

7.70

No

--

Number of equated credits attempted

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Female;
837 students

1.00

1.40

No

--

Number of equated credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Female;
837 students

0.50

0.80

Yes

-8
 
 

Number of regular credits earned

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

6.60

6.30

Yes

--
Progress in developmental education outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

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;
697 students

85.00

79.00

Yes

 
 
10

Passed reading test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

89.00

84.00

Yes

 
 
10

Passed writing test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

47.00

38.00

Yes

 
 
9

Passed writing test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

60.00

52.00

Yes

 
 
8

Passed both English tests

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Male;
697 students

46.00

38.00

Yes

 
 
8

Passed both English tests

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Male;
697 students

60.00

52.00

Yes

 
 
8

Passed reading test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

89.00

86.00

Yes

 
 
7

Passed writing test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

53.00

47.00

Yes

 
 
6

Passed both English tests

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

52.00

46.00

Yes

 
 
6

Passed reading test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

84.00

81.00

Yes

 
 
5

Passed writing test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Full sample;
1,534 students

66.00

61.00

Yes

 
 
5

Passed writing test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

58.00

55.00

No

--

Passed writing test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

71.00

68.00

No

--

Passed both English tests

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

57.00

54.00

No

--

Passed both English tests

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

69.00

67.00

No

--

Passed reading test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

0 Semesters

Female;
837 students

83.00

83.00

Yes

 
 
0

Passed reading test

Learning community program—Sommo et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual

3 Semesters

Female;
837 students

88.00

88.00

Yes

 
 
0


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

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
    • 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%

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.

Reviewed: February 2016

Meets WWC standards without reservations


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

Reviewed: November 2014

At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Academic achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,409 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
4
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;
634 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
6

Proportion of students earning at least a C average

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Cumulative program through third postprogram semester

Female;
775 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Access and enrollment outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
3

Registered for courses

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Program semester

college students;
1,534 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
2
Show Supplemental Findings

Enrolled in college

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Program semester

Female;
837 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Enrolled in college

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Program semester

Male;
697 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Registered for courses

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Program semester

Female;
837 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Registered for courses

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Program semester

Male;
697 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Attainment outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
4
Credit accumulation and persistence outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

27.70

26.20

No

 
 
3
Show Supplemental Findings

Regular credits earned

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Cumulative program through third postprogram semester

Male;
697 students

26.40

23.50

Yes

 
 
6

Regular credits earned

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

Cumulative program through third postprogram semester

Female;
837 students

28.90

28.50

No

--
Progress in developmental education outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
4
Show Supplemental Findings

Passed both developmental education tests

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

By the end of the second postprogram semester

Male;
697 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
6

Passed both developmental education tests

Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual

By the end of the second postprogram semester

Female;
837 students

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.

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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    New York
  • Race
    Asian
    9%
    Black
    38%
    Other or unknown
    6%
    White
    27%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    20%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    80%

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.

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.

Reviewed: November 2012

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Academic achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,409 students

0.59

0.54

Yes

 
 
5
Access and enrollment outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

0.87

0.85

Yes

 
 
3
 

Registered for any courses

Opening Doors vs. Business as usual

Program semester

Full sample;
1,534 students

0.93

0.91

Yes

 
 
2
 
Attainment outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

0.36

0.31

Yes

 
 
5
Credit accumulation and persistence outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

27.70

26.20

Yes

 
 
3
 
Progress in developmental education outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,534 students

0.65

0.60

Yes

 
 
4
 


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    New York
  • Race
    Asian
    9%
    Black
    38%
    Other or unknown
    6%
    White
    27%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    20%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    80%
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top