1dOprzL

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.6 (continued)SOURCE: MDRC calculations from CUNY Institutional Research Database (IRDB) and NationalStudent Clearinghouse data.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.A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences of impacts between subgroups. Statistical significancelevels are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. For the measures presented inthis table, no statistically significant differences between subgroups were observed.Estimates are adjusted by site and cohort.aStudents shown as not having a high school diploma include those who earned no degrees, thosewho earned a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, and those who are missing degreeinformation. Students shown as having a high school diploma are those who earned a high schooldiploma, an occupational or technical certificate, or another, unspecified higher degree.bThis group includes a small number of students who had no developmental need at baseline (about 5percent of the 331 students).cThis group includes a small number of students who needed three or more developmental courses atbaseline (about 14 percent of the 446 students).Might the Control Group Catch Up?The third panel of Table 4.7 is most relevant to the possibility that the control groupmight catch up to the program group with respect to degree attainment. The first row shows thatat the three-year mark 59.9 percent of program group members had not earned a degree, comparedwith 78.2 percent of control group members (a difference of 18.3 percentage points). Justover half of this effect (-9.3/-18.3) came from students who had not earned a degree and were notenrolled during the final semester of study. While it is theoretically possible that students whohad not earned a degree and did not enroll in the final semester could return to school and earn adegree, most likely they will not. Thus, it is probable that ASAP’s effect on earning an associate’sdegree will remain above 9 percentage points, at a minimum, in the long term.Important to the possibility of the control group catching up, 7.0 percentage points morecontrol group students without a degree were enrolled in a two-year college during the finalsemester of study. This gap may represent some potential for the control group to catch up sincethese students were continuing to make progress toward an associate’s degree. Of course, not allstudents who enrolled during the final study semester are equally likely to graduate in the shortterm. For example, it is reasonable to expect that only students with 48 college-level credits ormore are within reach of completing a degree in the next semester. In total, 12.6 percent of thecontrol group appeared to be within reach of earning an associate’s degree within one semester.This group included those students who had not yet earned a degree, were enrolled at a two-yearcollege during the final study semester, and had earned more than 48 college-level credits by theend of three years. In the program group, 8.7 percent of students met those same criteria. The68
Evaluation of Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) forDevelopmental Education StudentsTable 4.7Status at Three YearsThree-Year Impacts ReportProgram ControlOutcome (%) Group Group Difference P-ValueBachelor's degree earned 0.7 0.0 0.7 * 0.0832Associate's degree earned 39.5 21.8 17.7 *** 0.0000Enrolled in four-year (during final semester) 20.6 11.2 9.4 *** 0.0001Enrolled in two-year (during final semester) 8.9 5.8 3.0 * 0.0803Not enrolled (during final semester) 10.0 4.7 5.2 *** 0.0027Has not earned a degree 59.9 78.2 -18.3 *** 0.0000Enrolled in four-year (during final semester) 4.0 6.1 -2.1 0.1599Enrolled in two-year (during final semester) 17.3 24.3 -7.0 ** 0.0100Earned 48 college-level credits or more 8.7 12.6 -3.9 * 0.0583Earned 36-47 college-level credits 3.3 5.4 -2.1 0.1259Not enrolled (during final semester) 38.6 47.9 -9.3 *** 0.0049Sample size (total = 896) 451 445SOURCE: MDRC calculations from CUNY Institutional Research Database (IRDB) data.NOTES: A two-tailed t-test was applied to differences between research groups. Statistical significancelevels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.Estimates are adjusted by site and cohort.Enrollment is based on courses in which students are still enrolled as of the end of the add/dropperiod.Number of college-level credits includes credits earned before random assignment.3.9 percentage point difference suggests that the control group might have the potential to catchup slightly in the next semester. 18 Although it is possible that over time the control group willsignificantly catch up to the program group’s rate of degree attainment, it does not appear likelythat this scenario will occur in the next one or two semesters.18 Notably, using data from the first through fifth semesters, it is possible to apply a similar approach toproject graduation impact estimates in the second through sixth semesters, when the impact estimates areknown. Results from such projections are only moderately successful, and the projections are the least accuratewhen projecting from the fifth to sixth semester.69
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 125: Evaluation of Accelerated Study in
Page 129 and 130: This appendix addresses two aspects
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?