Weiss, Michael J.; Visher, Mary G.; Wathington, Heather (2010). National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510961
Reviewed: November 2014
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 Linked Learning Communities.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
First semester postprogram |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
First semester postprogram |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
College students;
|
5.30 |
4.90 |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
5.00 |
4.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
5.60 |
5.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed college preparatory reading |
Linked Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
Program semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed college preparatory reading |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Completed college preparatory reading |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 37% | |
| White | 25% |
| Hispanic | 32% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 68% |
The study took place at Hillsborough Community College (HCC), a large, urban community college in Tampa Bay, FL. The HCC has five campuses; three (Brandon, Dale Mabry, and Ybor City) participated in the Learning Communities Demonstration.
To participate in the learning communities study at Hillsborough, students had to meet all of the following eligibility criteria: 1) at least 18 years old; 2) first-time students; and 3) placed into developmental reading—either College Preparatory Reading 1 or College Preparatory Reading 2 (i.e., one or two levels below college level). This level of placement was determined by scores on a state-mandated placement test. Students who were eligible were given the opportunity to participate in the study (participation was voluntary). Randomization was done at the student level. At the start of the study, 1,071 students were eligible to participate in the study; 709 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 362 to the comparison group. Among students in the sample, 57% were female. Thirty-seven percent were Black, 32% were Hispanic, and 25% were White. Seventy percent of the students were between 17 and 20 years old at the start of the study, 81% reported having no children, 16% indicated that their household was receiving government benefits (such as food stamps or Supplemental Security Income), 25% indicated that they were receiving financial aid, 56% reported being currently employed, and 29% reported speaking a language other than English in their home.
Students registered in a learning community that linked a College Success course with either College Preparatory Reading 1 or College Preparatory Reading 2, depending on how the student was placed. Both reading courses emphasized vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, and writing to improve literacy development. The College Success course concentrated on a variety of academic and personal subjects, such as educational goals, planning, time management, study skills, health concerns, and career counseling. Students were also informed about other academic resources available to them. Students enrolled in the reading and College Success courses as a pair, creating the learning communities where the same small groups (cohorts) of students took the two linked courses together. Notably, however, the study authors reported that the linking of the curricula across the two courses did not occur until the study’s final semester.
Students assigned to the comparison group enrolled in any other classes for which they were eligible or that were required, and they could receive the college’s standard services. All students who require one or more developmental courses must enroll in a College Success course; therefore, comparison group students had the option of enrolling in the course as well. However, they were not required to enroll immediately
Researchers reported outcomes at three points in time: the program semester (i.e., the semester during which students were enrolled in a learning community), the first semester after the program, and the second semester after the program. Participation in the learning communities began in fall 2007, spring 2008, and fall 2008. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The learning community model was already in existence at Hillsborough when the study started. According to the study authors, HCC supported a “paid coordinator who managed the program, strong support from college leadership, solid buy-in from faculty, and a collaborative relationship between academic and student affairs divisions.” The paid coordinator’s work from the first semester of implementation included organization of events and meetings for faculty development (e.g., strategies for active, collaborative learning and curricular integration), coordination of workshops and monthly meetings, and oversight of random assignment activities.
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