learning communities

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 2011/12ENGL 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


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


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


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


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 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.


Learning Community Control Group*




% receiving Ws 19%




% 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


Learning Community Control Group**




% receiving Ws 19%

N = 1,872

Expected Performance controlling for

ethnicity, age and unit load




% 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)


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)


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%


29% 70% 8%

19% 59% 18%

21% 58% 20%

34% 68% 18%

39% 72% 16%

44% 74% 14%

N = 10,993N = 1,872


Course Performance by Unit Load(Fall Terms Only; 2008 – 2011)


Units Attempted Pct As Pct ABCs Pct Ws

4 or fewer Units

4 to less than 8 Units 32% 64% 17%



16 or more Units


29% 60% 21%

28% 63% 19%

27% 64% 18%

34% 66% 18%

32% 71% 22%

N = 4,449N = 1,289


learning communities

Documents