Sommo, C., Mayer, A. K., Rudd, T., & Cullinan, D. (2012). New York, NY: MDRC.
Reviewed: February 2016
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.
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 |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Proportion of students earning at least a C average |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in college |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
|
Registered for courses |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
college students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in college |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Program semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in college |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree (with 6 years of randomization) |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Six years post randomization |
College students;
|
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 program through third postprogram semester |
College students;
|
27.70 |
26.20 |
No |
|
||
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Male;
|
26.40 |
23.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Regular credits earned |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Female;
|
28.90 |
28.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed both developmental education tests |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
By the end of the second postprogram semester |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
|
||
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed both developmental education tests |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
By the end of the second postprogram semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Passed both developmental education tests |
Linked Learning Communities vs. business as usual |
By the end of the second postprogram semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 38% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 27% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 80% |
The study took place at Kingsborough Community College, a large, urban community college in Brooklyn, NY, that is part of the City University of New York (CUNY) system.
The Opening Doors Learning Communities program recruited students who met the following criteria: 1) first-time incoming freshmen who planned to attend college full time during the day; 2) tested into developmental English (but did not test into English as a Second Language); 3) planned to attend college full time; and 4) between 17–34 years of age. The study initially enrolled students who were aged 18 or older but later enrolled students who were 17 years old with parental consent. Students initially had to report a household income below 250% of the federal poverty level, but this income criterion was also subsequently removed. Students in four career majors (accounting, business, mental health, and early childhood education) were also excluded for the first year of the study because a separate learning community operated for them. After the 2003–04 academic year, students in those career majors could participate in the Opening Doors program because the career learning community program ended. Students who were eligible were given the opportunity to participate in the study; 1,534 students were eligible to participate. Students were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparision conditions. After random assignment, 769 students were in the intervention group and 765 were in the comparison group. Among students in the sample, 55% were female, 38% were Black, 20% were Hispanic, and 27% were White. Seventy-nine percent were between 17–20 years old, 91% reported having no children, 28% indicated that their household was receiving government benefits (such as food stamps or Supplemental Security Income), 74% indicated they were financially dependent on their parents, 36% reported being currently employed, and 47% reported speaking a language other than English in their home.
The Opening Doors Learning Communities program was organized around an English course, where the course level was determined by the students’ scores on the CUNY reading and writing skills assessment tests administered before enrollment. The English course was linked with two additional courses: an academic course required for the student’s major and a one-credit freshman orientation course. The orientation course was available to all freshmen and teaches time management, study skills, college rules and procedures, and other topics relevant to new students. The three linked courses were taken together by groups of up to 25 students during their first semester in the study. The linked courses usually met one after the other. The Opening Doors Learning Communities operated only during a student’s first semester. Students in the learning communities were also offered other services, including 1) faculty collaboration and instructional practices, 2) enhanced counseling and support services offered by a counselor/case manager, 3) enhanced tutoring for the English course (and, in some cases, the subject matter course), and 4) textbook vouchers for the initial program semester and subsequent winter or summer intersession. Over four semesters, the program included 40 learning communities: 31 with developmental English courses and 9 with college-level English courses. Learning community class sizes varied from 6–25 students, with an average of 17 students per learning community.
Students assigned to the comparison group were enrolled in classes for which they were eligible or that were required, and they could receive the college’s standard services. In addition, similar to students in the intervention group, students in the comparison group were allowed to register for classes earlier than most freshmen, and they received advice on the registration process from Opening Doors staff.
Researchers reported outcomes at nine points in time: the program semester (i.e., the semester in which students were enrolled in a learning community), the first semester after the program, the second semester after the program, the third semester after the program, 2 years after randomization, 3 years after randomization, 4 years after randomization, 5 years after randomization, and 6 years after randomization. Participation in the learning communities began in fall 2003, spring 2004, fall 2004, and spring 2005. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
According to the study authors, Kingsborough Community College provided 1 hour of reassigned time for faculty to meet about course integration and support for students in learning communities (i.e., each 3-hour course was treated as a 4-hour course for purposes of determing each faculty member’s teaching load). Each learning community also had an assigned tutor who attended the courses, and participating students received $150 textbook vouchers for the 12-week main session and a $75 textbook voucher for the subsequent 6-week winter or summer intersession for the campus bookstore.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Bloom, D., & Sommo, C. (2005). Building learning communities. Early results from the Opening Doors demonstration at Kingsborough Community College. New York: MDRC.
Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C. E., & Sommo, C. (2008). A good start: Two-year effects of a freshmen learning community program at Kingsborough Community College. New York: MDRC.
Reviewed: November 2012
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High GPA |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Full sample;
|
0.59 |
0.54 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any college |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Program semester |
Full sample;
|
0.87 |
0.85 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Program semester |
Full sample;
|
0.93 |
0.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Six years post randomization |
Full sample;
|
0.36 |
0.31 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative program through third postprogram semester |
Full sample;
|
27.70 |
26.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed both English tests |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Third postprogram semester |
Full sample;
|
0.65 |
0.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 38% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 27% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 80% |
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