An Examination of the Impact of Accelerating Community College Students' Progression through Developmental Education
Hodara, Michelle; Jaggars, Shanna Smith (2014). Journal of Higher Education, v85 n2 p246-276 Mar-Apr 2014. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1033963
-
examining7,148Students, gradePS
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
-
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty Practice Guide
(findings for Shortened developmental writing sequence – Hodara & Jaggars (2014))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design with cluster-level inferences, in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are shown to be equivalent.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned A.A. and/or B.A. within five years |
Shortened developmental writing sequence – Hodara & Jaggars (2014) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Propensity score matching sample participating in the study from fall 2001 to fall 2005;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits passed in three years |
Shortened developmental writing sequence – Hodara & Jaggars (2014) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Propensity score matching sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in college English within three years |
Shortened developmental writing sequence – Hodara & Jaggars (2014) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Propensity score matching sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed college English within three years |
Shortened developmental writing sequence – Hodara & Jaggars (2014) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Propensity score matching sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
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 6% White 9%
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place within the CUNY system. This system is comprised of 23 institutions, including the six community colleges used in this study. The colleges are located across the five boroughs of the New York City.
Study sample
For the developmental writing sample, the total sample includes 5 colleges and 11,430 students. The intervention group contains 2 colleges and 3,932 students. The comparison group contains 3 colleges and 7,498 students. For the propensity score matched sample there was a total of 7,148 students. Students were drawn from the same 5 colleges. The intervention and comparison groups each contained 3,574 students.
Intervention Group
The students in the intervention condition received shorter sequences for their developmental writing courses. Intervention students attend colleges that created shorter sequences for developmental education courses. Students are placed into these courses based on their COMPASS results. Students who scored below the cutoff of a 7 were placed into a developmental course one-level below the college-credit course. These colleges only have one level of developmental writing courses.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group were placed into developmental writing courses based on their COMPASS score. Students who scored in the 2 to 4 range were placed into a course 2 levels below the college-credit course. These students had to take and pass 2 developmental writing courses before making it to the college-credit course.
Support for implementation
Developmental sequences were established individually by each college and their English and math departments. These sequences were created based on perceived needs of their students. Students who score below the cutoff of a 7 are placed into the one developmental course offered by the intervention colleges. No further implementation information was 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).