1 / 22

CC Baltimore County Accelerated Learning Program ALP Preliminary Analysis of Effectiveness

2. ALP accelerated English . Students placed into upper-level dev ed English (ENG 052)

emily
Download Presentation

CC Baltimore County Accelerated Learning Program ALP Preliminary Analysis of Effectiveness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. CC Baltimore County Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) Preliminary Analysis of Effectiveness Nikki Edgecombe and Davis Jenkins Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University Second Annual Conference on Acceleration June 25, 2010 Baltimore, MD

    2. 2 ALP accelerated English Students placed into upper-level dev ed English (ENG 052) “mainstreamed” into English 101 – 8 ALP students per 20-student ENG 101 section 8 ALP students take companion class taught by their same ENG 101 instructor ALP class designed to maximize success in ENG 101 If effective, ALP should increase rate / decrease time for developmental students to complete college-level English requirements

    3. 3 ALP alters the structure of ENG 101 enrollment for ENG 052 students

    4. 4 Sample CCBC students who took ENG 052 for first time in fall 2007, spring 2008, or fall 2008 (first 3 semesters ALP was offered) Compared ALP students to those who took regular ENG 052 Tracked for 1 year after the ALP / ENG 052 semester

    5. 5 Comparison groups

    6. 6 Comparison groups

    7. 7 Comparison groups

    8. 8 Outcome variables Passed ENG 101 ENG 101 grades Attempted ENG 102 Passed ENG 102 (separately for all who took ENG 052 and for subset who attempted ENG 102) Persisted to next term College-level credits attempted after ENG 052 College-level credits completed after ENG 052

    9. 9 Analytical models Actual outcomes Estimated outcomes controlling for student characteristics Estimated outcomes controlling for student characteristics + instructor identities and full- or part-time status

    10. 10 Multivariate model controls Age Sex Race/ethnicity Family income (Census tract + FAFSA EFC) Family size Dependent status Financial aid (type and amount) Earned credits prior to CCBC enrollment CCBC dual enrollment Full-time at first enrollment Credits attempted prior to ENG 052 Took ENG 051 (lower-level dev ed course) CPT placement test scores (English, reading, math)

    11. 11 Outcomes: Passed ENG 101 (not attempted within 1 year = not passed)

    12. 12 Outcomes: ENG 101 grades (if attempted ENG 101 within 1 year) (After controlling for instructor, the ALP kids did better, which to me might imply that the ALP teachers were grading the ALP students harder than they did their other 101 students? But then all the other teacher models show less-strong outcomes for ALP after controlling for instructor, which doesn’t really jibe with the idea that ALP teachers are taking a more ‘tough-but-supportive’ approach with their ALP students…?) In any case, I doubt the results of the teacher model are incredibly robust, given the small N of teachers who taught both types of courses. (After controlling for instructor, the ALP kids did better, which to me might imply that the ALP teachers were grading the ALP students harder than they did their other 101 students? But then all the other teacher models show less-strong outcomes for ALP after controlling for instructor, which doesn’t really jibe with the idea that ALP teachers are taking a more ‘tough-but-supportive’ approach with their ALP students…?) In any case, I doubt the results of the teacher model are incredibly robust, given the small N of teachers who taught both types of courses.

    13. 13 Outcomes: Attempted ENG 102 (within 1 year after ENG 052 / ALP)

    14. 14 Outcomes: Passed ENG 102 (if attempted ENG 102 within a year)

    15. 15 Outcomes: Passed ENG 102 (all students who took ENG 052)

    16. 16 Outcomes: Persisted to next term (after taking ENG 052) Could the lower persistence in the teacher model have something to do with increased transfer? But why would this be impacted by 101 teacher characteristics?Could the lower persistence in the teacher model have something to do with increased transfer? But why would this be impacted by 101 teacher characteristics?

    17. 17 College-level courses attempted (in first year after taking ENG 052)

    18. 18 Success rate in college-level courses (if took any courses in year after ENG 052)

    19. 19 Total college-level credits accrued (during the first year after ENG 052)

    20. 20 Conclusions Results indicate positive effects of ALP enrollment for ENG 052 students in terms of: ENG101 completion, ENG102 attempts and completion, and total college-level courses attempted (though not completed) in the year following ENG 052 We are unclear about how to interpret results of the teacher fixed models, given the small number of teachers who taught both ALP and traditional 052 in the sample; it is critical to continue examining teacher effects quantitatively and qualitatively This concern should be addressed as a higher proportion of instructors begin to teach ALP sections We recommend that a further examination of ALP be conducted after the program has scaled up to a larger proportion of CCBC students and faculty

    21. 21 Guidelines for evaluating Accelerated Learning Program effects Create database/warehouse to allow longitudinal tracking of cohorts of new students Compare students in accelerated courses (“treatment”) with similar students in regular courses (“control”) Use data on student demographics (including SES if possible), prior education, academic preparation, financial aid, and enrollment patterns to control for differences between treatment and control groups Ideally include instructor variables to control for instructor fixed effects

    22. 22 For more information: Please visit us on the web at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu, where you can download presentations, reports, CCRC Briefs, and sign up for news announcements.

More Related