Making The Future: The Wisconsin Strategy.
Price, D., Sedlak, W., Roberts, B., & Childress, L. (2016). Indianapolis, Indiana: DVP-PRAXIS LTD, Philadelphia, PA: Equal Measure, and Chevy Chase, MD: Brandon Roberts and Associates.
-
examining6,300Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Making the Future consortium)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Community college credit accumulation |
Making the Future consortium vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.82 |
22.21 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
credential attainment rate |
Making the Future consortium vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
46.99 |
30.00 |
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: 6%
Male: 94% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Wisconsin
-
Race Black 8% White 82% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7%
Study Details
Setting
The study focuses on implementation of a TAACCCT Round 2 grant in sixteen technical college districts (49 campuses) serving every urban and rural community in Wisconsin.
Study sample
The sample was mostly White (82%) and male (94%) with some Black (8%) and Hispanic (7%) participants. About one-third (34%) received a Pell grant during their first term in the sample. About half had earned a high school diploma prior to program entry, and about 10% had earned a GED. In the overall treatment group, one-quarter of the students enrolled in an adult basic education class, while nearly one-third (31%) enrolled in developmental education. The average age was 27.
Intervention Group
The intervention, Making the Future, is a TAACCCT Round 2 consortium grant to develop, improve and expand career pathways, or more formally, stacked and latticed pathway programs, in advanced manufacturing. The program was meant to facilitate students' ability to earn short-term credentials, which typically can be earned in less than one year, and "stack" toward one-year and two-year technical diplomas. In some cases these diplomas were Associate’s degrees. The intervention included stacked and latticed manufacturing programs in welding (11 programs, 62% of treatment group participants), machine tool and computer numerical control (CNC - i.e., for 3D printing; 10 programs, 36% of treatment group participants), and industrial maintenance (2 programs, less than 10% of treatment group participants). Thirteen of the 16 community college districts offered at least one stacked and latticed pathway program.
Comparison Group
This study created a comparison group from administrative data. These data were collected from students attending manufacturing programs at the consortium technical colleges that were not supported by the TAACCCT grant.
Support for implementation
Credential offerings and student services were developed in consultation with area employers and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. College advising, counseling, and tutoring services were modified by grant-funded staff.
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).