Schudde, Lauren; Keisler, Katherine (2019). AERA Open, v5 n1. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1210499
Reviewed: May 2021
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 Dana Center Mathematics Pathways.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College-level credits earned: Cumulative (after 3 years) |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
DCMP vs. Two- or Three-Semester Sequence;
|
32.75 |
26.88 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College-level credits earned: Second semester |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
DCMP vs. Two- or Three-Semester Sequence;
|
5.23 |
3.33 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College-level credits earned: Second semester |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
DCMP vs. One-Semester Sequence;
|
4.57 |
3.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
DCMP vs. Two- to Three-Semester Sequence;
|
70.20 |
34.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
DCMP vs. Two- or Three-Semester Sequence;
|
13.00 |
12.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
DCMP vs. One-Semester Sequence;
|
17.00 |
17.90 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 15% | |
| Other or unknown | 52% | |
| White | 34% |
| Hispanic | 46% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 54% |
The study was conducted in 20 community colleges in Texas implementing Dana Center Mathematics Pathways (DCMP) in fall 2014. This sample includes all community colleges that were implementing DCMP at that time in the state.
After matching, the main analytic sample—which compared students in DCMP with students in the two-to-three semester developmental math sequence group—included 484 students in the intervention group and 9,268 students in the comparison group. The main analytic sample was comprised of 15% Black students, 34% White students, and race was not specified for 52% of students. Forty-six percent of students in the main analytic sample were Hispanic and 71% were female. In the analysis that compared DCMP students to the one-semester developmental math sequence group, there were 563 students in the intervention group and 5,947 students in the comparison group after matching. This sample was comprised of 19% Black students, 40% White students, and race was not specified for 41% of students. Thirty-five percent of students in the one-semester developmental math sequence group were Hispanic and 71% were female.
The DCMP math sequence began with an accelerated developmental math course designed to prepare students for entry-level college math in one semester. Colleges either used a DCMP-developed math curriculum, Foundations of Mathematical Reasoning, or their own curriculum that aligned with DCMP recommendations. Content was delivered using a student-centered approach and students learned to apply and interpret concepts by solving real-life math problems. DCMP recommended that the accelerated developmental math course be accompanied by a student success course aimed at helping students use the resources available on the college campus while building study skills and learning strategies that supported academic success. Once students successfully completed the accelerated developmental math course, they were encouraged to immediately enroll in credit-bearing college-level math courses specific to their program of study, including non-algebra options such as statistics or quantitative reasoning. DCMP courses applied a student-centered approach, featuring real-life problem solving and conceptual learning rather than rote memorization.
For the main analyses, comparison group students were enrolled in a two- or three-semester-long sequence of developmental math courses. After completing these courses, students were required to take college algebra. In the supplemental analyses, comparison group students were enrolled in a one-semester-long developmental math course. After completing this single course, students were required to take college algebra.
No additional information provided.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube