Upload
jessie-marsh
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Learning CommunitiesA review of the National Research &
evidence from Cañada College
Gregory M StoupOffice of Planning, Research & Student Success
Cañada College
Brief background on Learning Communities
Have a long history• first initiatives in 1960s• Community College movement in 1980s
Little rigorous research on the effectiveness of learning communities on academic outcomes
A body of research is emerging on the impacts of learning communities on students at the developmental level
• The Effects of Learning Communities for Students in Developmental Education (MDRC, July 2012)
• Learning Better Together: The Impact of Learning Communities on Persistence of Low Income Students (Cathy Engstrom & Vincent Tinto, 2008)
MDRC Study
First large-scale randomized study
Longitudinal study of 174 Learning communities offered at 6 community colleges* involving 6,974 students
Colleges in MDRC Study: the Community College of Baltimore County, in Maryland; Hillsborough Community College, in Tampa, Fla.; Houston Community College; Kingsborough Community College, in Brooklyn, N.Y.; Merced College, in California, and Queensborough Community College, in Queens, N.Y. Kingsborough and Queensborough are part of the City University of New York
Nearly all learning communities in the study included a course in developmental English or developmental math
Typical model studied involved linking the developmental course with either a college level course, another developmental course and/or a student success course
Components of the Learning Community Model
Components
Degree of Implementation
Basic Midrange Advanced
1. Linked courses and student cohorts
Students are a mix of LC students and students taking the course as a stand alone
Most (but not all) students in the linked courses are in the LC
All students are in the LC; Courses are selected to promote integration
2. Faculty collaboration
Teacher teams rarely communicate about curriculum or students
Teacher teams communicate periodically throughout the semester
Teacher teams plan before, during & after the semester; Curriculum tightly integrated
3. Instructional Practices
Courses taught as if they were stand alone
Teachers assign at least one joint project during the semester
Syllabi are fully aligned; joint projects, joint grading rubrics; joint assessment
4. Student Support No additional student support is offered
Additional support offered but not integrated into the classroom
Extra support fully integrated into classroom & often required for students
Source: Effects of Learning Communities for Students in Developmental Education, page 5.
The overall conclusion from the MDRC report is that learning communities as typically operated in community colleges, on average, should not be expected to produce more than a very modest impact on credits earned (+0.5 on average) and that this intervention, by itself, will not likely lead to higher rates of reenrollment and completion for academically underprepared students.
Findings from the MDRC Study
00
However, the evidence also suggests that a learning community program with substantially enhanced supports for students, such as ongoing or extra advising and tightly integrated curriculum across all courses in the LC, may lead to greater benefits than the average learning community program*.
* This finding is generally consistent with those reported in Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges (The Poppy Copy).
A review of evidence on Cañada College Learning Communities
Special thanks to Bart Scott for outstanding data collection and
quality control
A Profile of Cañada College Learning Communities
• LC activity & performance difficult to track systematically
• First LC offered in Fall 2004 (Freshman Success)
• Slightly better record keeping since Fall 2008
• Small sample sizes hamper more thorough analysis
Some background information
Overview of Learning Communities (Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
• Over this period we offered 44 courses from 14 different departments
• In 2011/12 we offered 18 courses from 8 departments
• Growth in LC course offerings has outpaced overall college offerings
• Significant variety of LC approaches; this is not an homogenous group
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/125060708090
100110120130140150160170180190200
+20%
+79%
+41%
+8% +3% +1%
Percent Growth in Student Headcount Since 2008/09
Learning Community Cañada College
Headcount
LC
College
386 465 690 545
10,753 11,595 11,044 10,840
Perc
ent C
hang
e fr
om 2
008/
09 L
evel
Base Year
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/125060708090
100110120130140150160170180190200
+18%
+92%
+56%
+0%-11%
-5%
Percent Growth in Number of Sections Offered Since 2008/09
Learning Community Cañada College
Section Count
LC
College
39 46 75 61
1,475 1,471 1,314 1,401
Perc
ent C
hang
e fr
om 2
008/
09 L
evel
Base Year
Dept Course Title 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12ACTG Accounting Procedures 20
ACTG Quickbooks 20
ANTH Indians Of North America 15
ASTR Astronomy Laboratory 27
BUS. Business Writing/Presentation 20
CBOT Computer Applications, Part I 201 57
CBOT Computer Applications, Part II 157 51
CRER College Success 167 290 200 140
CRER Exploring Careers & Majors 101 178 134 150
CRER Math Success 38
ECE. Child Development 34 26
ECE. Child, Family, & Community 17 25 41 27
ECE. Early Childhood Ed Curriculum 17 25 17
ECE. Early Childhood Ed Principles 40 40
ECE. Handling Behavior 13
ECE. Infant Development 21
Learning Community offerings over last four years
Student Headcount
Dept Course Title 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
ENGL Basic Reading/Composition 117 219 171 142
ENGL Writing Development 91 93 120 120
ESL Adv. Vocabulary Development 20 35
ESL Comp. for Non-Native Speakers 9 91 118
ESL Content-Based Lang. Skills I 35 54
ESL Intmdt. Vocabulary Development 41 26
ESL Lang. Skills Workforce Cars. I 216 80
ESL Listening/Speaking II 15
ESL Writing III 22 32
ESL Writing IV 26 35
HIST History of Latinos in the U.S. 9
HIST Race, Ethnicity & Immigration 52 63
HIST U.S. History through 1877 69
Learning Community offerings over last four years
Student Headcount
Dept Course Title 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
LIBR Intro. to Information Research 96 118
MATH Elementary Algebra 14
MATH Elementary Algebra I 37
MATH Elementary Algebra II 15
MATH Intermediate Algebra 12 26
PLSC American Politics 28
PLSC American Politics - Honors 1
PLSC Calif State & Local Govt 11
READ Academic Reading Strategies 78 141 162 147
READ Reading Improvement 82 164 121 95
Learning Community offerings over last four years
Student Headcount
Student Populations(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
61%
37%
1%
Learning Community
Female Male Not Reported
63%
35%
2%
Cañada College
N = 1,874 N = 28,453
Student Populations(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community
Less than 18 Yrs Old 18 & 19 Yrs Old 20-24 Yrs Old
Cañada College
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
25-29 Yrs Old 30-39 Yrs Old 40+ Yrs Old
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1400032%
22%
26%
22%
14%16%
N = 1,874 N = 28,453
Student Populations(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community
Native American Asian Black Non-Hispanic
N = 1,874 N = 28,453
Cañada College
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Filipino
Hispanic Multi Race Pacific Islander White Non-Hispanic
02000400060008000
1000012000140001600018000
10%
40%
36%
71%
12%
Course Performance(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community Cañada College Overall*
% receiving A grades 33%
% receiving A or B grades 54%
% receiving A, B or C grades 66%
% receiving Ws 19%
% receiving A grades 36%
% receiving A or B grades 54%
% receiving A, B or C grades 66%
% receiving Ws 15%
N = 1,874 N = 28,453
One benchmark for evaluating overall performance is the college average. However, this is a crude benchmark and doesn't properly account for the unique course taking patterns of students in Learning Communities
* Does not include PE courses or students taking a single course during a term.
Course Performance(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community Control Group*
% receiving A grades 33%
% receiving A or B grades 54%
% receiving A, B or C grades 66%
% receiving Ws 19%
% receiving A grades 28%
% receiving A or B grades 50%
% receiving A, B or C grades 65%
% receiving Ws 17%
N = 1,872 N = 10,993
A more appropriate benchmark might be to look at students taking the same courses during the same terms as those in the Learning Community but offered outside the Learning Community format.
But ideally a benchmark should also account for some of the student characteristics associated with enrollment in Learning
Communities
We isolate three characteristics and control for their effects
1. Ethnicity2. Age3. Unit Load
Summary of findings from analysis of these three factors
Learning Communities are associated with slightly higher success in terms of the % of “A” Grades awarded for:
• Hispanic students• Students 18 or 19 Yrs Old• Student taking less than 12 units
But, are also associated with lower levels of success ( in this case, higher withdraw rates) for:
• African-American students• Students 20 - 24 Yrs Old
Course Performance(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community Control Group**
% receiving A grades 33%
% receiving A or B grades 54%
% receiving A, B or C grades 66%
% receiving Ws 19%
N = 1,872
Expected Performance controlling for
ethnicity, age and unit load
% receiving A grades 27%
% receiving A or B grades 52%
% receiving A, B or C grades 64%
% receiving Ws 17%
So given that our Learning Communities attract different distributions of students in terms of ethnicity, age & unit load and seeing that those groups succeed at different rates, we ask: what performance would we expect in a control group that had the same ethnicity, age and unit load distribution as our Learning Communities?
So muchvariation
* Control Group is unique for each course. It’s composed of the same course offered the same term but not using the learning community format.
Course pass rates for 16 individual Learning Communities offered in 2010/11
Course LCControl Group Net Change
CBOT430 51% 66% -15%CBOT431 51% 75% -24%CRER401 72% 27% 45%CRER407 62% N/A N/AECE201 88% 74% 14%ECE210 95% 73% 22%ECE212 96% 73% 23%ENGL826 61% 60% 1%ENGL836 69% 57% 12%ESL400 83% 73% 10%ESL837 58% N/A N/AESL901 58% 60% -2%HIST245 55% N/A N/ALIBR100 75% N/A N/AREAD826 68% 38% 30%READ836 66% 67% -2%TOTAL 65% 63% 1%
* Control Group is unique for each course. It’s composed of the same course offered the same term but not using the learning community format.
Persistence rates for 16 individual Learning Communities offered in 2010/11
Course LCControl Group Net Change
CBOT430 52% 53% -1%CBOT431 60% 53% 6%CRER401 78% 73% 5%CRER407 72% N/A N/AECE201 77% 64% 13%ECE210 65% 72% -7%ECE212 75% 75% 0%ENGL826 78% 74% 4%ENGL836 76% 76% 0%ESL400 83% 64% 19%ESL837 77% N/A N/AESL901 59% 40% 19%HIST245 74% N/A N/ALIBR100 78% N/A N/AREAD826 77% 67% 10%READ836 72% 81% -9%TOTAL 70% 67% 2%
Basic Skills Student
Sequence Completion
Learning Community
A simple model. Why so much variation?
Basic Skills Student
Sequence Completion
Learning Community
Learning communities have many moving parts that interact in dynamic ways and vary from setting to setting.
Sequence of course material
Synthesis of course content
Work group oversight
Counseling supportLinkages to library
Coordination between faculty & counselors Timeliness of
feedback on progress
Classroom technology
Examples in lesson plan
Protocols for making group assignments
Illustrative purposes only (not actual properties of the
learning communities researched in this study )
Learning Community
Case Analysis: Basic Skills
English 826 & Reading 826
Effects of Learning Communities on Sequence Completion Rates in Basic Skills
Linked Courses in Learning Community
Control Group*
ENGL 826ENGL 836
ENGL 100READ 826READ 836
CRER 401
LC = 60
------- Traditional Stand-Alone Courses ------
Learning Community
Control = 40
Fall 2010 Cohort
*Control Group consists of students enrolling in both Engl 826 & Reading 826 courses offered outside the Learning Community format (Fall 2010)
34 23No. of Students
No. of Students
21 13
57% 38%
53% 33%
Of those in the starting cohort those that Enroll & Pass ENGL 836 & READ 836
Of those in the starting cohort those that Enroll
& Pass ENGL 100
ExampleENGL 100 Section A ENGL 100 Section B
Class size = 45 students Class size = 54 students
No. of A Grades Received = 4 No. of A Grades Received = 28No. of B Grades Received = 14 No. of B Grades Received = 10No. of C Grades Received = 18 No. of C Grades Received = 5No. of D Grades Received = 7 No. of D Grades Received = 8No. of F Grades Received = 2 No. of F Grades Received = 3
Success Rate = 80% Success Rate = 80%
Course GPA = 2.24 Course GPA = 2.97
Effects of Learning Communities on Grade Performance in Basic Skills Courses
New Aggregate Performance Metric
Course GPA
We pool all the final grades received by all students in that classroom and calculate a GPA for the course. Unlike success rates, course GPA allows us to incorporate the effect of the number of A & B grades received by students.
Effects of Learning Communities on Grade Performance in Basic Skills Courses
Linked Courses in Learning Community
Control Group*
ENGL 826ENGL 836
ENGL 100READ 826READ 836
CRER 401
------- Traditional Stand-Alone Courses ------
ENGL = 2.04
READ = 2.152.76
Learning Community
ENGL = 2.78
READ = 2.24
ENGL = 2.41
READ = 1.312.82
Fall 2010 Cohort
Fall 2010 Cohort
ENGL = 2.60
READ = 2.98
Salient Findings
1. The college has been offering a growing number of learning communities over the last few years
2. Learning Communities tend to attract a slightly larger number of Hispanic and younger students
3. Learning communities are not an homogenous group; there is wide variety in both the models used and in student performance.
Salient Findings
5. Within the English & Reading Basic Skills domain there is some evidence that LCs are associated with slightly higher sequence completion rates.
4. There is some evidence that Learning Communities create an improved “Mastery” effect. Further research needed.
6. Students in Learning Communities have slightly higher performance rates during the semester they are offered, but experience a return to the mean once they leave the LC.
7. Because of the wide degree of variation in performance across all Cañada’s Leaning Communities, generalizations about the relative success of Learning Communities is difficult to make.
DISCUSSION
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
Course Performance by Ethnicity(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community Control Group*
Ethnicity Group Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws
Asian 45% 77% 9%
Black - Non-Hispanic 19% 41% 39%
Filipino 38% 74% 15%
Hispanic 34% 67% 18%
Multi Races 31% 62% 23%
Pacific Islander 23% 58% 23%
White Non-Hispanic 34% 65% 20%
Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws
46% 80% 9%
16% 49% 25%
32% 70% 15%
24% 62% 18%
25% 61% 20%
20% 52% 23%
35% 69% 15%
N = 1,872 N = 10,993
Better than Control Worse than Control90% confidence level 90% confidence level
Course Performance by Age Group(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community Control Group*
Age Group Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws
Less Than 18 30% 55% 20%
18 & 19 Yrs Old 31% 69% 18%
20-24 Yrs Old 22% 57% 27%
25-29 Yrs Old 37% 66% 19%
30-39 Yrs Old 37% 66% 17%
40+ Yrs Old 42% 73% 13%
Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws
29% 70% 8%
19% 59% 18%
21% 58% 20%
34% 68% 18%
39% 72% 16%
44% 74% 14%
N = 10,993N = 1,872
Better than Control Worse than Control90% confidence level 90% confidence level
Course Performance by Unit Load(Fall Terms Only; 2008 – 2011)
Learning Community Control Group*
Units Attempted Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws
4 or fewer Units
4 to less than 8 Units 32% 64% 17%
8 to less than 12 Units 33% 66% 20%
12 to less than 16 Units 34% 69% 19%
16 or more Units
Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws
29% 60% 21%
28% 63% 19%
27% 64% 18%
34% 66% 18%
32% 71% 22%
N = 4,449N = 1,289
Better than Control Worse than Control90% confidence level 90% confidence level