Evaluation of Los Angeles City College's STEM Pathways program: Impacts of the Supplemental Instruction program on student outcomes
Caspary, K., Milby, A., Sosina, V., Wei, X., & Goetz, R. (2021). SRI International. https://collegecareerpathways.org/publications/evaluation-of-los-angeles-city-colleges-stem-pathways-program-impacts-of-the-supplemental-instruction-program-on-student-outcomes/.
-
examining2,177Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for STEM Pathways (STEMP) program)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course Pass Y/N |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Fall 2017 data;
|
0.87 |
0.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course Pass Y/N |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Fall 2018 data;
|
0.82 |
0.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course Pass Y/N |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Spring 2018 data;
|
0.89 |
0.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course Pass Y/N |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Fall 2019 data;
|
0.81 |
0.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course Pass Y/N |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Spring 2019 data;
|
0.75 |
0.63 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course grade |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Spring 2018 data;
|
2.88 |
2.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course grade |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Spring 2019 data;
|
2.48 |
1.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course grade |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Fall 2018 data;
|
2.52 |
2.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course grade |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Fall 2019 data;
|
2.49 |
2.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Course grade |
STEM Pathways (STEMP) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Fall 2017 data;
|
2.56 |
2.27 |
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: 39%
Male: 61% -
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
California
-
Race Asian 22% Black 5% White 74% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 48% Not Hispanic or Latino 53% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study occurred in Los Angeles City College (LACC), a 2-year Hispanic-Serving Institution.
Study sample
The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (53%), White (74%), and male (61%). About one-fifth of the sample was Asian (22%). Almost half (48%) were Pell Grant recipients.
Intervention Group
The intervention consisted of the provision of supplemental instruction/tutoring (SI) provided through Peer-Assisted Study Sessions (PASS). SI sessions were led by a peer who already succeeded in the course they were supporting. PASS leaders/students were responsible for attending all class sessions and completing coursework. The PASS leader was also expected to model strong academic habits, including note-taking, active listening, and test preparation. They also completed all assignments in the course and modeled effective study strategies such as active listening. PASS leaders scheduled regular (at least weekly) sessions to support students enrolled in the course. Sample activities for PASS sessions included reviewing concepts discussed in class, completing practice problems, and preparing for exams. Courses included math (Math240 and above), chemistry, biology, physics, and computer science.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. All students at LACC who were enrolled in focal STEM courses had access to the usual supports for students taking introductory and higher level STEM courses.
Support for implementation
PASS leaders/students and the instructors teaching the courses offering SI (also known as SI faculty) were each asked to participate in an initial orientation to the program. Throughout the semester, SI faculty were expected to share curricular resources with SI leaders, and to check in as needed to discuss how to support students.
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).