Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | clemence-moore |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Enhancing Student ServicesResults from the Opening Doors Demonstration in California and
Ohio
Strengthening Student Success Conference
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sue Scrivener
Michael Weiss
MDRC
Ricardo Diaz
Chaffey College
Presentation Outline
2
1) Results from Ohio’s enhanced student services program
2) Results from Chaffey’s program for students on probation
3) Discussion
4) Q&A
The Problem: Many Community College Students Do Not Persist
Nearly half of all students who begin at community college do not complete a degree or transfer within 6 years.
Major obstacles:Competing work and/or family obligationsNot academically preparedAffordability (both real and perceived)
3
The Opening Doors Demonstration
MDRC conducted several randomized experiments to test four programs designed to improve academic outcomes of community college students
Programs tested one or more of the following:
1.Reforms in curriculum and instruction
2.Enhanced student services
3.Increased financial aid
4
Programs Evaluated Using a Random Assignment Design
5
Identify students in the target group
Invite to participate in study
Random assignment
Assigned to program
group
Assigned to control group
Informed consent signed
Baseline data collected
Enhanced Student Services and a Small Stipend:
OHIO
How Would Enhancing Student Services Help?
Students get more / better information
Increased interaction with college staff could lead students to feel more of a sense of belonging
Better informed, more integrated student will be more likely to persist
7
Study Sites
Two Colleges in Ohio:Lorain County Community College
Located in Elyria (midsized city, pop: 56,000)Serves 9,400 studentsMajority part time students, 2/3 women, 1/2 over 25,
predominantly non-Hispanic White
Owens Community CollegeLocated in Toledo, (Ohio’s 4th largest city, pop: 300,000)Serves 20,000 studentsMajority part time students, 1/2 women, 1/2 over 25,
predominantly non-Hispanic White 8
Study Participants (pooled)
Characteristic Full Sample
Female (%) 75.7
Average age (years) 24.3
Race (%)WhiteBlack, non-HispanicHispanic / LatinoOther
54.129.910.95.1
Married (%) 19.9
Has one child or more (%) 64.3
Employed at baseline (%) 55.9
1st in family to attend college (%) 35.9
Household receiving gov’t benefits (%) 48.3
Sample Size 2,139 9
Service Differential (as implemented)
Program GroupAcademic counselor with
smaller caseloads, ratio 160:1
Counseling was personalized, intensive, and comprehensive
Designated staff in financial aid office
Students eligible for $150 stipend in each of two program semesters
Control GroupAcademic counselor,
normal caseloads, ratio 1000:1
Short-term counseling, academic focus, as needed
Financial aid staff available
10
The StipendThe primary purpose of the stipend was to
provide an incentive for students to access the enhanced student services
Paid in two installments each semester, after scheduled counseling meetings
The vast majority (89%) of program group students received at least one payment
Nearly half (46%) of program group students received the full $300
Evidence of Receipt of Student Services
Program Control Difference StandardOutcome (%) Group Group (Impact) Error
Attended 3 or more times:
Academic advising 64.0 40.2 23.9 *** 2.3
Financial aid advising 49.2 40.4 8.8 *** 2.3
Tutoring on campus 34.4 28.8 5.6 ** 2.2
Career counseling 23.9 13.6 10.3 *** 1.8
Job placement assistance 14.3 9.0 5.3 *** 1.5
Advising about transferring credits 16.8 12.4 4.4 *** 1.7
12
Academic Impacts: Percent Registered, by Semester
13Program Semesters Postprogram Semesters
Academic Impacts: Cumulative Credits Earned, by Semester
Program Semesters Postprogram Semesters 14
Competing Interpretations of Findings
1. The program does not work Initially positive results disappeared and program
and control students were virtually indistinguishable by the 3rd postprogram semester
This program alone does not appear to have long term positive impacts
2. The program works The program was successful at boosting registration
during the time when services were provided The program is a first step towards longer term
academic success15
Possible improvements to the program
Same type of program, longer duration
More intensive student services that could focus more on other services (include tutoring, remedial assistance, time management study skills training, on-campus childcare, transportation assistance)
Combine student services with other programs to address more student needs
16
Enhanced Student Services CHAFFEY
18
Chaffey College Facts
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Enrollment fall 2008 20,102
Hispanic Serving Institution
Founded in 1883
Chaffey Student Body Demographics
Bridging the Gap Between Student Services and Instruction
Silos and kingdoms
Restructuring of Basic Skills 2000
Major initiatives following collaborative developmental process
1) 2004 MDRC research grant (Hewlett and Irvine foundations) supported development of Opening Doors
2) 2007 Hewlett Foundation grant supported development of Smart Start and Early Alert
19
Bridging the Gap Between Student Services and Instruction
Utilized grant resources to plan collaborativelyEstablished Core Planning Committee from both
Student Services and InstructionHired professional to guide strategic planning processRetreats, off-campus meetings, and regular on-campus
meetingsReviewed literature and analyzed student dataBrainstormed solutionsDeveloped modelsEstablished program structure and hired coordinator
and staffPiloted the programs
20
Percent of Students Experiencing Academic Probation
Fall Terms
Academic ProbationSpring Terms
Academic Probation
# N % # N %
2003/FA 3,264 17,750 18.4 2004/SP 3,525 17,968 19.6
2004/FA 3,253 18,379 17.7 2005/SP 3,289 17,469 18.8
2005/FA 3,164 17,708 17.9 2006/SP 3,239 17,480 18.5
2006/FA 3,147 18,381 17.1 2007/SP 3,386 17,690 19.1
Total 12,828 72,218 17.8 Total 13,439 70,607 19.0
21
22
Original Opening Doors Program
Operated Fall 2005
College Success/Guidance course (lecture and seminar) taught by counselor, 3 units/credits
Program group students could volunteer to take course
As part of course, students expected to complete 9 directed learning activities in Success Centers
Success Center assignments to build basic skills (based on assessment tests)
Course instructor supposed to counsel students inside and outside class
22
23
Enhanced Opening Doors Program
Operated Fall 2006 and Spring 2007
Same first-semester model as original program
Program group students told they were required to take course
Expected only five visits to the Success Centers
Success Center assignments integrated with course content
Added a second-semester College Success course 23
College Success/Guidance Course
Accepting personal responsibility
Mastering time management
Discovering their self motivation
Employing interdependence
Learning about college resources and services
Effective study skills
Gaining self awareness and developing emotional intelligence
Career and major exploration24
25
Participating Students at Chaffey
Target group
On academic or progress probation: attempted 12 or more credits and had GPA below 2.0 (C) or had not completed half or more of credits
Earned fewer than 35 credits toward a credential
Key characteristics
60 percent women53 percent Hispanic/LatinoAverage age 21, most between 18-20Almost all unmarried and not parents
25
26
Key Impact Findings for Enhanced Opening Doors
Impact findings based on two semesters of transcript and probation data for each sample member
Approximately three-fourths of program group took College Success course
Program improved student outcomes
Increased average credits earned
Increased average cumulative GPA
Moved some students off probation26
27
Cumulative Average Number of Credits Earned, Enhanced Opening Doors
27
***
28
Percentage with Cumulative GPA 2.0 or Higher, Enhanced Opening Doors
28
***
29
Percentage Ever in Good Academic Standing, Enhanced Opening Doors
29
***
30
Some Implications
Targeting services to probationary students can be worthwhile, but the design and implementation matter
Greater success of Enhanced Opening Doors may be driven by higher participation rate, message of requirement
Other program implementation factors may have mattered as well
For Discussion
Think about student services at your own college. How might requirements and/or incentives be used to improve the effectiveness of one or more of the services/programs?
How might the target population or service/program influence your options?
What concerns might you or others have about requirements or incentives?
31
32
Contact Information
Michael Weiss, Research Associate, [email protected]
Sue Scrivener, Senior Research Associate, [email protected]
Ricardo Diaz, Opening Doors to Excellence Coordinator, [email protected]
See www.mdrc.org to download MDRC’s publications
32