Rutschow, Elizabeth Zachry; Sepanik, Susan; Deitch, Victoria; Raufman, Julia; Dukes, Dominique; Moussa, Adnan (2019). Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED600649
Reviewed: May 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math credits earned (college-level) |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.90 |
0.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
College credits earned |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
11.90 |
11.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math credits earned (college-level) |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Black;
|
0.50 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Math credits earned (college-level) |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is 2 or 3 levels below college-level;
|
0.80 |
0.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Math credits earned (college-level) |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
1.10 |
0.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College credits earned |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
13.70 |
12.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Black;
|
9.90 |
11.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Math credits earned (college-level) |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is college-level or 1 level below;
|
1.10 |
1.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is college-level or 1 level below;
|
12.90 |
16.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is 2 or 3 levels below college-level;
|
11.70 |
10.10 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed developmental math sequence |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
57.00 |
33.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
25.30 |
18.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed developmental math sequence |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample (first semester);
|
47.40 |
11.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed developmental math sequence |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is 2 or 3 levels below college-level;
|
56.50 |
29.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed developmental math sequence |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample (second semester);
|
53.60 |
28.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed developmental math sequence |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
67.50 |
41.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Black;
|
16.70 |
6.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample (second semester);
|
19.50 |
8.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed developmental math sequence |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Black;
|
40.20 |
21.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is 2 or 3 levels below college-level;
|
24.30 |
14.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
31.60 |
25.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ever passed college-level math class |
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Placement test indicates math proficiency is college-level or 1 level below;
|
30.40 |
40.50 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 13% | |
| Other or unknown | 74% | |
| White | 14% |
| Hispanic | 54% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 46% |
The study was conducted in four community colleges in Texas. Two of the community colleges, Brookhaven and Eastfield, are single-campus schools located in suburban Dallas. El Paso Community College is a large, five-campus community college located in El Paso, a large city. Trinity Valley Community College is a small, rural community college serving five counties with three campuses. These colleges were selected in part because they had prior experience with the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways (DCMP), they could scale their DCMP program, and they also had a "business as usual" developmental math program that provided a strong contrast to DCMP.
The study sample included 1,411 students who enrolled in the study over four semesters—fall 2015, spring 2016, fall 2016, and spring 2017. The intervention group included 856 students and the comparison group included 555 students. Students were 23 years old on average. The majority of students were Hispanic (54%) and female (61%). About 14% were White, 13% were Black, and race was not specified for 74% of students. Sixty-nine percent of students had enrolled in college within a year of high school graduation. Thirty-one percent had failed at least one math class in high school, and 84% of sample members placed two or more levels below college-ready in math.
The DCMP math sequence began with an accelerated developmental math course, Foundations of Mathematical Reasoning, which combined two developmental math courses into one semester-long course. This course was centered on introductory algebraic, statistics, and quantitative literacy concepts, and content was delivered in a student-centered approach where larger mathematical concepts were presented in narrative form. Moreover, course materials incorporated themes from other academic disciplines such as science and literacy. Upon successful completion of the course, students entered either a one-semester course on (1) college statistics for students majoring in social and health sciences, (2) quantitative reasoning for students majoring in the humanities or liberal arts, or (3) a two-semester path to calculus for students majoring in STEM.
Students enrolled in the comparison group completed their college’s standard developmental math sequence, which typically began with Beginning Algebra in Semester 1, followed by Intermediate Algebra in Semester 2. These courses were typically taught in a lecture style, where a higher emphasis was placed on the memorization of formulas and algorithms with little to no real-world application or problem-solving.
All of the colleges had prior experience implementing DCMP. The Dana Center offered a three-day training on the DCMP curricula in three consecutive years (2013, 2014, and 2015). Nearly all of the DCMP faculty in the study had attended this training. Faculty may have attended this training well before the start of this study in fall of 2015. The Dana Center set up an online community for DCMP instructors where instructors could support one another. The Dana Center also organized in-person and virtual meetings where colleges with experience implementing DCMP could mentor and support others. Dana Center staff members visited each college to provide implementation support at least once. Faculty members had access to a mentor who was available for individual meetings.
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.
Zachry Rutschow, Elizabeth; Diamond, John. (2015). Laying the Foundations: Early Findings from the New Mathways Project. MDRC.
Rutschow, Elizabeth Zachry; Diamond, John; Serna-Wallender, Elena. (2017). Math in the Real World: Early Findings from a Study of the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways. Research Brief. Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness.
Zachry Rutschow, Elizabeth. (2018). Making It Through: Interim Findings on Developmental Students' Progress to College Math with the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways. Research Brief. Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness.
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