Weissman, Evan; Cullinan, Dan; Cerna, Oscar; Safran, Stephanie; Richman, Phoebe (2012). National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED529251
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
College students: Baltimore;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
College students: Merced;
|
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 |
-- | ||
|
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: Baltimore;
|
5.90 |
6.00 |
No |
|
|
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
College students: Merced;
|
4.90 |
5.10 |
No |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed college English |
Linked Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
College students: Merced;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
|
Passed college English |
Linked Learning Communities vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
College students: Baltimore;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed college English |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college English |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college English |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college English |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 76% | |
| White | 24% |
The study took place at the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC), a community college located in Baltimore, MD, that has three campuses and three extension centers in suburban Maryland. Two campuses of CCBC participated in the Learning Communities Demonstration: Catonsville and Essex.
All new and returning students at CCBC were eligible to be included in the Learning Communities Demonstration study sample if they had placed into a developmental English course (either reading or writing) that was one level below college-level English (resources were directed toward those students who had the highest chance of getting to college level). This level of placement was determined by Accuplacer test scores. Students also had to be available for class during the times that the learning community classes were offered. The study initially enrolled students who were 18 or older, but later enrolled students under 18 with parental consent. Students who were eligible were given the opportunity to participate in the study. Randomization was done at the student level. Across four semesters, 1,083 students were eligible to participate; 650 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 433 to the comparison group. Demographically, 59% of the sample were female, 67% were non-White (predominately Black), and 77% were between 17 and 20 years old. Furthermore, 16% reported having at least one child, 17% indicated that their household was receiving government benefits (such as food stamps or Supplemental Security Income), 46% indicated that they were receiving financial aid, 53% reported being currently employed, and 8% reported speaking a language other than English in their home.
The CCBC learning communities were organized around a developmental English course (either reading or writing). Students coenrolled in the developmental English course; a collegelevel content course (that was selected from a range of subject areas, such as sociology, psychology, or computer information); and a master learner session. The master learner session lasted for 1 hour per week and was a non-credit-bearing class that provided support and guidance as students worked through their linked courses. The session concentrated on helping students make connections between the content from the linked courses in each learning community and was designed to reinforce the instruction from those courses.
Students assigned to the comparison group were allowed to enroll in any other classes for which they were eligible or that were required, and they could receive the college’s standard services. Many students in the comparison group enrolled in a credit-bearing student success course that was mandatory for all developmental reading students and that was, according to the study authors, similar in many respects to the master learner session taken by the learning community students in the intervention group.
Researchers reported outcomes at two points in time: the program semester (i.e., the semester in which students were enrolled in a learning community) and the first semester after the program. At CCBC, participation in the learning communities began in spring 2008, fall 2008, spring 2009, and fall 2009. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
According to the study authors, support for the learning communities provided by CCBC included: a cross-campus, lead program coordinator; support from a seasoned senior administrator; and an experienced learning community coordinator at each campus. Program support for faculty included professional development workshops on curricular integration and syllabi development. Faculty received a stipend of $750 or received a course load reduction equivalent to one credit hour for every learning community taught. Faculty who created new learning communities received an additional one-time stipend of $500 and $1,000, depending upon the degree of course integration. Faculty who taught master learner sessions received stipends of $2,250 or course load reductions of three credit hours.
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