MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Unless otherwise noted, the results presented in this chapter are pooled across the twocolleges to present the program’s overall impact. Appendixes include college-specific impactsand estimates of whether the impacts are different across the two colleges. The chapter focuseson the pooled sample for several reasons: First, pooled results show, as simply as possible,whether the program worked overall. Second, although somewhat more intensive at Lorain onsome measures, the implementation of the program was generally quite similar across the twocolleges. Finally, there was very little detectable difference in impacts across the two colleges, soshowing both sets of results complicates the story while not changing the general conclusions.This chapter begins with a discussion of the program’s impacts on educational outcomes,such as registration and credits earned, during the six semesters following random assignment foreach sample member. This is followed by a discussion of analyses of educational outcomes byselected subgroups, including an assessment of whether the program’s impacts on educationaloutcomes were different by college and gender. The discussion then turns to more generaleducational outcomes, including enrollment at institutions beyond Lorain and Owens, during thesix semesters after random assignment. The final two sections of this chapter briefly discuss theprogram’s impacts on financial aid and social, psychological, and health outcomes.As described more fully in Box 3.1 in Chapter 3, the tables in this chapter present averageoutcomes for the students assigned to the program group and the control group, the differencebetween the two groups’ averages (which represents the estimated impact of the program),and the standard error of the difference. The average outcomes are adjusted for each student’scohort, which reflects the point at which the student was randomly assigned to the programgroup or control group, and his or her college. No other covariates are included. 2 A descriptionof the statistical model used in the impact analyses appears in an earlier MDRC report. 3Effects on Education Outcomes: Transcript MeasuresEnhanced student services and a modest stipend may be an effective strategy to improvestudents’ chances of achieving academic success at community colleges. Explored first inthis section is whether the program had positive impacts during the two semesters whenprogram group students were eligible to receive the enhanced student services and modeststipend (referred to as the “program semesters”). This is followed by analyses of whether theprogram had impacts during the four semesters after program group students were eligible forthe Opening Doors services (referred to as the “postprogram semesters”).2 Sensitivity analyses were conducted controlling for selected student baseline characteristics on whichprogram and control group students differed at baseline. The results presented in this chapter are substantivelythe same when the impacts are adjusted.3 Brock and LeBlanc (2005), Appendix A.44
Program SemestersTable 4.1 (page 47) shows some academic outcomes from the two program semesters.During the first program semester, program group students and control group students registeredfor courses at very similar rates; 89.9 percent and 88.6 percent, respectively, registered forat least one course. It is not surprising to observe nonsignificant differences in registration ratesduring the first program semester because registration occurred before the program groupstudents received a significant portion of, and oftentimes any, program services. In contrast, theprogram might be expected to positively affect the number of credits earned; however, nosignificant program impact was observed on the total number of credits attempted or earnedduring the first program semester.Whereas there was little evidence of meaningful program impacts during the first programsemester, during the second program semester there was strong evidence of positiveprogram impacts. Most notably, as shown in Table 4.1 during the second program semester,65.3 percent of program group students registered for at least one class compared with only 58.3percent of control group students. This difference reflects a 7.0 percentage point programimpact on registration. The program’s impact on second semester registration is likely primarilythe lagged effect of program services offered during the first program semester, since registrationusually occurs prior to the start of the semester.Table 4.1 also shows that the registration pattern held true for the average number ofcredits attempted and earned. During the first program semester, no impacts were observed onthe average number of credits attempted or earned, whereas during the second program semester,program group students, on average, attempted 0.7 more credit and earned 0.4 more creditthan did their control group counterparts. Where significant impacts on average credits attemptedand earned were observed, it is possible that the program’s positive impact on registrationwas driving these results. In fact, there is evidence supporting this hypothesis.One way to examine whether the program’s impact on registration was driving the program’simpact on average credits attempted and earned is to calculate the expected programimpact on average credits attempted and earned given the program’s impact on registration.Under the assumption that the program groups’ additional registrants attempted and earnedcredits at the same rate as control group registrants, the expected program impacts on averagecredits attempted and earned would be 0.75 and 0.42, respectively. 4 The actual observed4 The following calculation was made to obtain these numbers: Among the 58.3 percent of control groupstudents who registered during the second program semester, the average number of credits attempted was 10.8and the average number of credits earned was 6.1 (not shown in Table 4.1; tables present credits attempted andearned for the full sample, not just among those who registered). The program’s estimated impact on registrationwas 6.95 percentage points (rounded to 7.0 in Table 4.1), representing an additional 74.6 (0.0695 × 1,073)(continued)45
Page 1:
OPENING DOORSMORE GUIDANCE,BETTER R
Page 4 and 5:
Funders of the Opening Doors Projec
Page 7 and 8:
ContentsOverviewList of Tables, Fig
Page 9 and 10:
List of Tables, Figures, and BoxesT
Page 11:
PrefaceIf approved by Congress, the
Page 14 and 15:
guidance on the study. Thomas Brock
Page 16 and 17:
• The Ohio colleges successfully
Page 18 and 19: Program group members were assigned
Page 20 and 21: • For the most part, the program
Page 22 and 23: offered, but might also provide stu
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 1IntroductionOver the last
Page 27 and 28: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 29 and 30: sure that students complete the req
Page 31 and 32: While the mechanism through which s
Page 33 and 34: imately 1,700 to 1 in 2001. 22 Exac
Page 35: of literature exist on career couns
Page 38 and 39: The CollegeLorain County Community
Page 40 and 41: • Were beginning freshmen or cont
Page 44 and 45: Table 2.1 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 46 and 47: Lorain and Owens Financial Aid Data
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 3The Implementation of the
Page 51 and 52: Toward the end of each student’s
Page 53 and 54: meet with their counselor a minimum
Page 55: The Opening Doors DemonstrationTabl
Page 59 and 60: Appendix Table C.2 shows informatio
Page 61: Opening Doors counselors, and progr
Page 64 and 65: Program Control Difference Standard
Page 67: Chapter 4The Effects of Enhanced St
Page 77 and 78: Transcript Outcomes by GenderAssess
Page 83 and 84: correspond with the program’s imp
Page 85 and 86: Chapter 5Summary and ConclusionsLor
Page 87 and 88: The Opening Doors DemonstrationFigu
Page 89 and 90: An alternative interpretation of th
Page 91: Appendix ASupplementary Baseline In
Page 94 and 95: Full Program ControlCharacteristic
Page 96 and 97: Appendix Table A.1 (continued)Full
Page 98 and 99: Full Program ControlCharacteristic
Page 105: Appendix BSurvey Response Analysis
Page 108 and 109: Background Characteristics of Surve
Page 110 and 111: Table B.1 (continued)Characteristic
Page 112 and 113: The Opening Doors DemonstrationAppe
Page 114 and 115: Table B.2 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 116 and 117: Table B.3 (continued)Characteristic
Page 118 and 119:
The Opening Doors DemonstrationAppe
Page 120 and 121:
Table B.4 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 122 and 123:
Table B.5 (continued)Characteristic
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Table B.6 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 129 and 130:
Lorain OwensProgram ProgramOutcome
Page 131 and 132:
Lorain County Community CollegeOwen
Page 133:
Appendix DDescription of Scales Pre
Page 136 and 137:
4. I hardly ever expect things to g
Page 138 and 139:
Social Support and Civic Engagement
Page 140 and 141:
Psychological Distress (6-item summ
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Male SubgroupFemale SubgroupDiffere
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix Table E.7 (continued)SOURC
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix Table E.10 (continued)SOUR
Page 165 and 166:
ReferencesAdelman, Clifford. 2004.
Page 167 and 168:
EARLIER MDRC PUBLICATIONS ON OPENIN
Page 169:
About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonp
show all

MORE GUIDANCE, BETTER RESULTS?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?