Barnett, Elisabeth A.; Bork, Rachel Hare; Mayer, Alexander K.; Pretlow, Joshua; Wathington, Heather D.; Weiss, Madeline Joy (2012). National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533824
Reviewed: July 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed college-level math |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
46.50 |
43.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed college-level math |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female;
|
47.20 |
43.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level math |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male;
|
45.90 |
42.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits earned |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
15.90 |
15.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average number of semesters enrolled |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
3.30 |
3.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Average number of semesters enrolled |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female;
|
3.30 |
3.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average number of semesters enrolled |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male;
|
3.30 |
3.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male;
|
16.60 |
16.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female;
|
15.70 |
15.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 7% | |
| Other or unknown | 84% | |
| White | 9% |
| Hispanic | 84% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 16% |
Eight community colleges or four-year universities in Texas participated in this study. Students were offered spots in a developmental summer bridge program in the summer of 2009. Two colleges were open-admissions 4-year institutions, and six were community colleges.
About 62% of the students were female and 38% were male. Seven percent (7%) were African American and 9% were White. About 84% were Hispanic, 78% were full-time students, and 22% were part-time students. To be eligible for the intervention, students had to need remediation in a subject offered by their college's summer bridge program, as measured by a college placement test. Students applied for admission to the developmental summer bridge program and agreed to participate in the study in order to be included in the sample. Most students graduated from high school in 2009, although one college allowed other students to apply.
The intervention is comprised of eight summer bridge programs implemented with high school graduates at six community colleges and two four-year colleges in the summer of 2009. In general, across the programs the intervention included accelerated developmental education, tutoring, mentoring, the use of learning labs and computer-based programs. The primary focus of the programs was on academic topics such as "study and test-taking strategies, time management, career assessment, learning styles, tours of the campus, introduction to college resources, financial aid, and course or degree plans" (p. 10). Students attended three to six hours of classes per day for 4-5 weeks and received instruction in at least one subject area (math, reading, or writing). They received guidance in "college knowledge" needed to navigate new subjects. There was no cost for students at 5 of the 8 colleges. One college charged students $150 from their earned $400 stipend, and the other two colleges charged tuition but offered financial aid. The sites all had to include accelerated instruction in math, reading, and/or writing, academic support, a college knowledge component, and the opportunity to earn a $400 stipend.
Comparison students were able to participate in other college services offered, but they were not admitted to the summer bridge program.
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