1dOprzL

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) forDevelopmental Education StudentsAppendix Table B.3Characteristics of Program and Control Group Survey RespondentsThree-Year Impacts ReportNumber of All Survey Program ControlCharacteristic (%) Observations Respondents Group Group P-valueFemale 742 63.2 65.6 60.7 0.1674Earned a high school diploma or higher atbaseline a 742 75.6 74.4 76.8 0.4464Number of developmental coursesneeded at baseline 0.37980 660 2.3 1.5 3.11 660 40.6 42.7 38.42 660 49.7 48.8 50.63 or more 660 7.4 7.0 7.9Subject of developmental need 0.7348English 645 17.5 16.6 18.5Math 645 54.7 56.1 53.2English and math 645 27.8 27.3 28.2Response rate 894 83.0 85.2 80.8 * 0.0800Sample size 742 384 358SOURCE: MDRC calculations using Baseline Information Form (BIF) data and CUNY InstitutionalResearch Database (IRDB) test data.NOTES: A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between control group survey respondents andprogram group survey respondents for gender and dipomas/degrees earned. A chi-squared test wasapplied to differences between the groups for developmental courses and subjects needed. Levels forstatistically significant differences between program and control groups are indicated as: * = 10 percent;** = 5 percent; and *** = 1 percent.To analyze whether on average program and control group survey respondents differed from eachother, an omnibus F-test was performed, which yielded a p-value of 0.8117. This finding suggests thaton the baseline characteristics shown above, program and control group survey respondents do not differfrom one another.Estimates are adjusted by site and cohort.Missing values are not included in individual variable distributions.Distributions may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.aThis number includes high school diplomas, occupational and technical certificates, and unspecifiedother types of degrees. Not included are students who earned no degree, earned a GED and no otherdegrees, or who are missing degree information.108
2. Creation of Survey ScalesThis section of the appendix describes two scales reported in Chapter 3 from the MDRC studentsurvey. This section provides details on the Quality of Advising scale and the Integration andSense of Belonging scale, including questions that composed the scales and data processingconducted to calculate the values presented in Chapter 3.Quality of AdvisingThe quality of advising measures presented in Table 3.3 are derived from five questionsadministered in the MDRC student survey. These questions were adapted from the AcademicAdvising Inventory (AAI). Students were asked to indicate if they strongly agree (1); agree (2);disagree (3); or strongly disagree (4) with the following:1. You are satisfied in general with the academic advising you have received.2. You have received accurate information about courses, programs, and requirementsthrough academic advising.3. Academic advisers kept you informed about deadlines related to institutional policiesand procedures, such as drop/add periods, withdrawal deadlines, registrationperiods, etc.4. Academic advising has been available when you needed it.5. Sufficient time has been available when you met with academic advisers.Originally, for all questions, a higher value response indicates lesser quality advising.All five questions were recoded to change the direction of responses. 5 After the direction wasrecoded, a higher value response indicated higher quality advising.A scale was created as the unweighted average of a student’s responses to all five questions.Respondents had the option to skip or refuse any question in the scale; a small number ofstudents responded to some but not all of the five questions in the scale. If the student answeredonly one or two questions in the scale, the scale was not calculated. For students who answeredthree or four questions in the scale, the scale was calculated as the average of that student’sresponses to the questions that were answered.The table presents the percent of students rating the advising they received as high orlow quality. The low category included students whose calculated score is one or more standard5 For all five questions: 1 became 4; 2 became 3; 3 became 2; 4 became 1.109
Page 1:
DOUBLINGGRADUATIONRATESThree-Year E
Page 4 and 5:
The ASAP evaluation is supported by
Page 7 and 8:
ContentsOverviewList of ExhibitsPre
Page 9 and 10:
List of ExhibitsTableES.1 Key Diffe
Page 11:
PrefaceCommunity colleges provide r
Page 14 and 15:
ing students. Several ASAP staff wo
Page 16 and 17:
• Financial supports: Students re
Page 18 and 19:
Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
ed. ASAP provides enhanced student
Page 24 and 25:
public transportation. By the end o
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 1IntroductionPostsecondary
Page 29 and 30:
lation and graduation rates of any
Page 31 and 32:
The same may be said about the ASAP
Page 33:
Finally, MDRC examined the costs of
Page 36 and 37:
Random Assignment Process and the S
Page 38 and 39:
CharacteristicEvaluation of Acceler
Page 40 and 41:
tal courses, the characteristics of
Page 42 and 43:
the program. Transcript data prior
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
included the ASAP Assistant Directo
Page 48 and 49:
Advisers discussed both full-time e
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
participating in the program: conta
Page 54 and 55:
Table 3.3 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 56 and 57:
survey respondents, 49 percent comp
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Other Student ServicesASAP offered
Page 62 and 63:
equired to work with academic depar
Page 64 and 65:
Service contrast: In general, non-A
Page 66 and 67:
The average tuition waiver among pr
Page 68 and 69:
Box 3.4Javier and the Value of the
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Looking to the Next ChapterOverall,
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
52Enrollment rate (%)10090807060504
Page 80 and 81:
ASAP consistently increased student
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85: Table 4.2 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC c
Page 86 and 87: (See Table 4.3 for more details.) A
Page 88 and 89: Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 90 and 91: cohort (spring or fall). 16 A forma
Page 96 and 97: ASAP has had a dramatic effect on t
Page 98 and 99: $16,284 of additional investment in
Page 102 and 103: • Career and employment services
Page 104 and 105: college, which is not the case. 8 F
Page 106 and 107: cost is equal to the average cost p
Page 110 and 111: program group is $13,423 (11.4 perc
Page 112 and 113: credits than control group students
Page 114 and 115: Students in CUNY’s focus groups a
Page 116 and 117: tion’s Finish Faster initiative,
Page 118 and 119: least 6 percent were married. 11 AS
Page 120 and 121: college, the results will shed ligh
Page 125: Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 129 and 130: This appendix addresses two aspects
Page 133: and among survey respondents would
Page 137: A scale is created as the unweighte
Page 151 and 152: ReferencesAdelman, Clifford. 2005.
Page 153 and 154: Rutschow, Elizabeth Zachry, and Emi
Page 155: About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonp
show all

1dOprzL

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?