Early Outcomes of Texas Community College Students Enrolled in Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Prerequisite Developmental Courses. Research Brief
Schudde, Lauren; Meiselman, Akiva Yonah (2019). Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED597974
-
examining34,849Students, gradePS
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Intervention Report - Developmental Education
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2021
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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.
Findings
|
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 |
1 Semester |
Full sample: 2 cohorts;
|
22.00 |
14.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample: 2 cohorts;
|
28.00 |
22.00 |
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: 61%
Male: 39% -
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
Texas
-
Race Asian 2% Black 16% Other or unknown 52% White 30% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 49% Not Hispanic or Latino 51%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 24 community colleges in Texas in the fall of 2015 and in 27 community colleges in Texas in the fall of 2016.
Study sample
There were 34,849 unique students in the sample. Across both cohorts, 30% were White, 16% were Black, 2% were Asian, and race was not specified for 52% of students. Forty-nine percent of students were Hispanic and 61% were female.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group enrolled in DCMP which provided an accelerated developmental course that was delivered in one semester instead of two. Students who took the accelerated developmental course were typically in non-STEM majors. The authors noted that six community colleges implemented a co-requisite DCMP model, where students took their developmental coursework at the same time as a credit-bearing math course. Advisors and faculty had autonomy in determining students’ placement into DCMP.
Comparison Group
Students in the business-as-usual comparison group typically took the two-semester developmental math sequence, but the authors noted that other colleges may have been experimenting with accelerated developmental sequences.
Support for implementation
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).