WWC review of this study

Bridging the Gap: An Impact Study of Eight Developmental Summer Bridge Programs in Texas

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

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    1,318
     Students
    , grade
    PS

Reviewed: July 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Academic achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
1,318 students

46.50

43.00

No

--
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Passed college-level math

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Female;
810 students

47.20

43.40

No

--

Passed college-level math

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Male;
489 students

45.90

42.60

No

--
Progressing in college outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
1,318 students

15.90

15.90

No

--
More Outcomes

Average number of semesters enrolled

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
1,318 students

3.30

3.40

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Average number of semesters enrolled

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Female;
810 students

3.30

3.30

No

--

Average number of semesters enrolled

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Male;
489 students

3.30

3.50

No

--

College credits earned

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Male;
489 students

16.60

16.70

No

--

College credits earned

Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Female;
810 students

15.70

15.20

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 62%
    Male: 38%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Texas
  • Race
    Black
    7%
    Other or unknown
    84%
    White
    9%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    84%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    16%

Setting

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.

Study sample

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.

Intervention Group

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 Group

Comparison students were able to participate in other college services offered, but they were not admitted to the summer bridge program.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top