1dOprzL

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) forDevelopmental Education StudentsTable 3.9Students' First-Year Experiences: Engagement in CollegeThree-Year Impacts ReportSample Program ControlOutcome (%) Size Group Group Difference P-ValueRated educational experience good or 723 86.1 72.7 13.4 *** 0.0000excellentIntegration and sense of belonging at school aLow 723 9.1 16.4 -7.3 *** 0.0033High 723 18.7 17.2 1.5 0.6052Had a college employee to turn to for advice 722 86.9 57.7 29.2 *** 0.0000College faculty or staff often or very oftenmade student feel important/valued 721 74.3 43.8 30.5 *** 0.0000Had all or most services and supports neededto succeed 724 89.7 57.0 32.7 *** 0.0000Had a good friend at school 722 80.0 76.1 4.0 0.1990Highest degree student planned to earnNo degree 731 3.7 3.1 0.6 0.6565Associate's 731 8.5 9.3 -0.7 0.7270Bachelor's 731 31.9 32.4 -0.5 0.8909Master's 731 36.5 41.9 -5.4 0.1331Professional or doctorate 731 19.4 13.3 6.1 ** 0.0261Survey sample size 742 384 358SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the MDRC student survey.NOTES: Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in sums and differences.A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between research groups. Statistical significance levelsare indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.Estimates are adjusted by site and cohort.aThe scale is based on responses to nine questions about the sense of integration with and belongingto the school community. "Low" is the percentage of sample members scoring one standard deviationbelow the mean, indicating less integration and sense of belonging; "high" is the percentage of samplemembers scoring one standard deviation above the mean, indicating greater integration and sense ofbelonging. The questions are listed in Appendix B.46
As the first row of Table 3.9 shows, 86 percent of program group students rated theireducational experience as good or excellent after a year, compared with 73 percent of controlgroup students. The difference of 13 percentage points is notable, especially given the relativelyhigh level of satisfaction among control group students.The second outcome in Table 3.9 is a scale based on nine survey questions intended tomeasure a student’s feeling of integration and sense of belonging at school. Questions in thescale included “I feel that I matter to the college instructors, staff, and other students” and“College has the feeling of a community, where many people share the same goals and interests.”(See Appendix B for a full list of the questions and a description of how the scale wascreated.) ASAP decreased the proportion of students who reported having a low sense ofintegration and belonging, but it did not increase the proportion at the high end of the scale.Table 3.9 presents two outcomes that are focused on students’ perceptions of collegestaff. Many more program group members than control group members said that they hadsomeone at the college they could turn to for advice (87 percent, compared with 58 percent),and many more program group members said that they often or very often felt valued by collegefaculty or staff (74 percent, compared with 44 percent). These large differences likely reflect themore frequent and closer contact that program group students had with advisers and possiblycareer staff and tutors, compared with control group students. Almost all program groupstudents — 90 percent — reported that they had most or all of the services and supports theyneeded to succeed. Only 57 percent of control group members reported the same. This findingsuggests that ASAP, with its array of services, largely succeeded in meeting students’ perceivedneed for support.The survey also asked a question about sample members’ friendships. A total of 76percent of control group students said they had a good friend at school; ASAP did not significantlyalter that proportion. Given that most control group students said they had a good friend,it may not be surprising that the program did not have a measurable impact on student friendships.This finding, however, considered with the findings discussed earlier, suggests thatASAP altered students’ connections with college staff more than it altered their connectionswith other students.The final outcome in the table shows sample members’ responses to a question on thesurvey about the highest degree they intended to earn. At the start of the study, the programgroup and control group responded similarly to this question. After one year, more programgroup members than control group members said they intended to earn a professional ordoctoral degree. In other words, ASAP had an effect on students’ goals.47
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: Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 46 and 47: included the ASAP Assistant Directo
Page 48 and 49: Advisers discussed both full-time e
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 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 74 and 75: Looking to the Next ChapterOverall,
Page 78 and 79: 52Enrollment rate (%)10090807060504
Page 80 and 81: ASAP consistently increased student
Page 86 and 87: (See Table 4.3 for more details.) A
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 123 and 124:
Page 125:
Page 129 and 130:
This appendix addresses two aspects
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
and among survey respondents would
Page 135 and 136:
2. Creation of Survey ScalesThis se
Page 137:
A scale is created as the unweighte
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?