Hemelt, Steven W.; Schwartz, Nathaniel L.; Dynarski, Susan M. (2020). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v39 n3 p686-719. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1257048
Reviewed: January 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment in any college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
60.50 |
61.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
35.60 |
33.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
White; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
35.70 |
33.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Black; Hispanic or Latino;
|
32.70 |
30.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment in any college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Black; Hispanic or Latino;
|
54.20 |
54.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment in any college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
White; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
62.50 |
63.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
23.60 |
27.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
White; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
25.60 |
29.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment - 2 year college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Black; Hispanic or Latino;
|
20.30 |
23.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduate from high school |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
92.80 |
93.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits earned |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
22.71 |
22.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College credits earned |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
White; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
23.63 |
23.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Pass any math course first year of college |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
51.00 |
50.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earned 30 or more credits |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
34.80 |
34.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
White; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
23.63 |
23.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Black; Hispanic or Latino;
|
18.15 |
18.10 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 80% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
The study took place in 103 high schools in Tennessee who offered a new dual-credit Advanced Algebra and Trigonometry (AAT) course.
In the full sample, half of the students were male, 80 percent were White, 12 percent were Black, one percent were Asian, and five percent were Hispanic. Six percent of the students were English language learners.
The intervention was a state-created dual-credit algebra course. Teachers in schools in the intervention group participated in a two-day summer training on a new set of college-algebra course standards developed by a team of secondary and postsecondary math instructors in the state. Teachers also received ongoing professional development through an online network of AAT educators who shared resources and lessons learned. The dual-credit course was taught during the 2013—2014 and 2014—2015 academic years. Students in the dual-credit course were required to take a centrally graded, standardized, end-of-course exam.
High schools in the comparison group historically offered an AAT course that covered many of the topics included in a typical college algebra course. However, offerings of and standards for this course differed between schools and there were no standardized assessments. Teachers in the comparison group schools did not receive additional training and professional development.
Teachers at intervention schools were provided with information and training on the standards for the dual-credit algebra course, as well as assistance in aligning their courses with them. The training consisted of two days of professional development in the summer targeting the alignment of the high schools’ AAT course with colleges’ College Algebra standards. Teachers also had access to an online network of AAT educators who shared resources and lessons learned with one another.
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