Mapping Success: Performance-Based Scholarships, Student Services, and Developmental Math at Hillsborough Community College
Sommo, Colleen; Boynton, Melissa; Collado, Herbert; Diamond, John; Gardenhire, Alissa; Ratledge, Alyssa; Rudd, Timothy; Weiss, Michael J. (2014). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560262
-
examining1,075Students, 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 Mathematics Access Performance Scholarship)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled - first semester |
Mathematics Access Performance Scholarship vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
95.80 |
93.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits |
Mathematics Access Performance Scholarship vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
28.05 |
27.81 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed college level math |
Mathematics Access Performance Scholarship vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
32.00 |
26.00 |
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.
-
Female: 66%
Male: 34% -
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
Florida
-
Race Black 33% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69%
Study Details
Setting
This study is set in Tampa, Florida at multiple campuses of Hillsborough Community College, and the college targeted students meeting certain criteria (18 or years of age or older; low-income; and in need of beginning algebra) for randomization in the performance-based scholarship demonstration.
Study sample
All students were aged 18 or older, low-income, and placed into developmental mathematics. 65% were female, and 35% were male. The average age of the program group was 27.1 and the comparison group was 26.8 years, and these are equivalent. Differences between intervention vs. comparison group according to Appendix Table A.1 were the percentage of Black students and percentage of dependent students, and highest degree completed by the father being bachelor's degree or higher.
Intervention Group
The program period lasted three semesters plus one summer semester for each cohort. Students in the intervention group were eligible to earn performance-based scholarships up to $1800 for successfully completing a three-course sequence within three consecutive semesters plus a summer term. The three courses are Beginning Algebra, Intermediate Algebra, and a first level college math course. For each course, the MAPS scholarship was awarded in two payments. The Initial Payment, $100, was made after being enrolled in the specified math course at the end of the add/drop period (typically 2 weeks into the semester). The final payment, $500, was paid for successfully passing the specified math course and meeting the Math lab attendance requirements. Students in the intervention group vs. comparison group differed in their use of the learning assistance center (Table 3.4, pp. 41-42). A greater percentage of students in the intervention group used any learning assistance center, had a higher number of visits to the learning assistance center, spent more hours in any learning assistance center, spent more hours in Math Lab, - in all three semesters.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received standard college services. The only thing that deviated from "business-as-usual" is that study participants (whether in the treatment or comparison groups) were allowed access to reserved spaces in the mathematics courses which are not available to non-participants.
Support for implementation
According to the authors, the direct cost of MAPS was approximately $1,394 per intervention group member (p. 68). The majority of these costs were scholarship payments (57%) and textbook vouchers (7%). Program administration accounted for 26% of the per-student cost (22% of this was personnel and 4% was student tracking and other program expense), and 10% of the program cost was associated with staffing for the MathLabs. HCC provided administrative support, staff support, enrollment and grade verification, and math labs, scholarship payment administration, and tutoring (pp. 24-29). The MathLab was equipped with Who's Next software (which was a tracking software to track students' visits). Math Labs were staffed with tutors who worked with students either one-on-one or in groups (p. 27), and computers had software called MyMathLab installed, which provided students with online practice, course materials, and video lectures (p. 27). Most tutors were HCC or USF students, and tutors were certified with training (p. 29).
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).