Serving Community College Students on Probation: Four-Year Findings from Chaffey College's Opening Doors Program
Weiss, Michael; Brock, Thomas; Sommo, Colleen; Rudd, Timothy; Turner, Mary Clair (2011). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED526395
-
examining1,342Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Opening Doors Program)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative degree-applicable GPA >2.0 |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
29.90 |
30.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative degree-applicable GPA >2.0 |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample - Original Program;
|
31.90 |
36.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative degree-applicable GPA >2.0 |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
30.30 |
23.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative degree-applicable GPA >2.0 |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Original Program;
|
29.20 |
29.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned certificate |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
1.30 |
0.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received Associate's Degree or Higher |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
5.80 |
5.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever in good academic standing |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
30.40 |
15.90 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
|
Average number of semesters enrolled |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample - Original Program;
|
2.50 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
2.63 |
2.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ever in good academic standing |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample - Original Program;
|
38.80 |
37.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative degree-applicable credits earned |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
5.40 |
5.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative degree-applicable credits earned |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample -- Original Program;
|
10.70 |
11.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters enrolled at any college 4 years post randomization |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
4.18 |
4.06 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
In good academic standing |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
24.10 |
13.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
In good academic standing |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Original Program;
|
29.00 |
25.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative degree-applicable credits earned |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Original Program;
|
3.20 |
3.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Opening Doors Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Enhanced Program;
|
1.95 |
1.90 |
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: 60%
Male: 40% -
- 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
California
-
Race Asian 6% Black 14% Other or unknown 58% White 23% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 53% Not Hispanic or Latino 47%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was implemented at Chaffey College, a two-year public college about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, California. Chaffey College enrolls nearly 18,000 students at its three campuses in Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, and Fontana.
Study sample
More women (60%) than men (40%) participated in the program. The study population skewed younger, with 59% being 18-20 years old and another 31% being 21-25 years old. Over half (53%) of participants were Hispanic, 14% were non-Hispanic Black, 23% were non-Hispanic White, and 6% were classified as Asian or Pacific Islander. Over half (51%) were financially dependent on parents, and 70% were employed.
Intervention Group
There are two versions of the intervention. The Original Opening Doors Program consisted of a one-semester “College Success” course taught by a college counselor and designed to help probationary students clarify their personal goals, understand college rules and regulations, and develop better study skills. In addition to the College Success course, students were encouraged to visit the college’s Success Centers. The instructor of the College Success course met one-on-one with students outside of class as needed. The Enhanced Opening Doors Program consisted of a two-semester College Success course taught by a college counselor, which was similar in purpose and content to the Original Opening Doors Program College Success course. In addition to the College Success course, students were required to visit the college’s Success Centers nine times. The instructor of the College Success course met one-on-one with students outside of class as needed. The main difference between the Original and Enhanced Opening Doors program is that the attendance and activities were mandatory under the Enhanced Opening Doors program.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group were still allowed to enroll in the College Success class--and about 5% did--and use the Success Centers, but they were otherwise participating in college as usual. The College Success classes were generally popular on the three campuses, but students on probation tended to be students who were less likely to use these resources.
Support for implementation
There was no notable support for implementation, but the MDRC researchers worked with administrators, faculty, and counselors to try to design a version of Opening Doors that would fit the Chaffey College context.
First year experience courses Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
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 First year experience courses.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).