Learning Communities
A review of the National Research &
evidence from Cañada College
Gregory M Stoup
Office 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
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
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
Components of the Learning Community Model
Degree of Implementation
Components
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
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
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
3. Instructional
Practices
4. Student Support
No additional student
support is offered
Additional support
offered but not
integrated into the
classroom
Source: Effects of Learning Communities for Students in Developmental Education, page 5.
All students are in the
LC; Courses are
selected to promote
integration
Extra support fully
integrated into
classroom & often
required for students
Findings from the MDRC Study
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.
However, the evidence also suggests that a learning community
program with substantially enhanced supports for students,
00 and tightly integrated
such as ongoing or extra advising
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
Some background information
• 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
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
Percent Growth in Student Headcount Since 2008/09
Percent Change from 2008/09 Level
Learning Community
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
Cañada College
+79%
+41%
+20%
Base Year
2008/09
+8%
+3%
+1%
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
465
690
545
Headcount
LC
College
386
10,753
11,595
11,044
10,840
Percent Growth in Number of Sections Offered Since 2008/09
Percent Change from 2008/09 Level
Learning Community
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
Cañada College
+92%
+56%
+18%
Base Year
-5%
+0%
-11%
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
39
46
75
61
Section Count
LC
College
1,475
1,471
1,314
1,401
Learning Community offerings over last four years
Student Headcount
Dept
Course Title
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
ACTG
Accounting Procedures
20
ACTG
Quickbooks
20
ANTH
Indians Of North America
ASTR
Astronomy Laboratory
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
ECE.
Early Childhood Ed Curriculum
17
25
17
ECE.
Early Childhood Ed Principles
ECE.
Handling Behavior
13
ECE.
Infant Development
21
15
27
40
27
40
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
91
118
ESL
Content-Based Lang. Skills I
35
54
ESL
Intmdt. Vocabulary Development
ESL
Lang. Skills Workforce Cars. I
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
HIST
U.S. History through 1877
9
41
69
26
216
80
52
63
Learning Community offerings over last four years
Student Headcount
Dept
Course Title
2008/09
LIBR
Intro. to Information Research
MATH
Elementary Algebra
14
MATH
Elementary Algebra I
37
MATH
Elementary Algebra II
15
MATH
Intermediate Algebra
12
PLSC
American Politics
28
PLSC
American Politics - Honors
1
PLSC
Calif State & Local Govt
11
READ
Academic Reading Strategies
78
READ
Reading Improvement
82
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
96
118
141
162
147
164
121
95
26
Student Populations
(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community
Cañada College
2%
1%
35%
38%
61%
63%
N = 1,874
Female
N = 28,453
Male
Not Reported
Student Populations
(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community
700
32%
14000
600
500
Cañada College
26%
12000
400
22%
10000
22%
16%
8000
300
6000
200
4000
100
2000
0
0
N = 1,874
14%
N = 28,453
Less than 18 Yrs Old
18 & 19 Yrs Old
20-24 Yrs Old
25-29 Yrs Old
30-39 Yrs Old
40+ Yrs Old
Student Populations
(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Cañada College
Learning Community
20000
1600
71%
1400
40%
36%
15000
1200
1000
10000
800
600
5000
400
10%
12%
200
0
0
N = 28,453
N = 1,874
Native American
Hispanic
Asian
Multi Race
Black Non-Hispanic
Filipino
Pacific Islander
White Non-Hispanic
Course Performance
(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Learning Community
Cañada College Overall*
N = 1,874
N = 28,453
% receiving A grades
33%
% receiving A grades
36%
% receiving A or B grades
54%
% receiving A or B grades
54%
% receiving A, B or C grades
66%
% receiving A, B or C grades
66%
% receiving Ws
19%
% receiving Ws
15%
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*
N = 1,872
N = 10,993
% receiving A grades
33%
% receiving A grades
28%
% receiving A or B grades
54%
% receiving A or B grades
50%
% receiving A, B or C grades
66%
% receiving A, B or C grades
65%
% receiving Ws
19%
% receiving Ws
17%
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. Ethnicity
2. Age
3. 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**
N = 1,872
% receiving A grades
33%
% receiving A grades
27%
% receiving A or B grades
54%
% receiving A or B grades
52%
% receiving A, B or C grades
66%
% receiving A, B or C grades
64%
% receiving Ws
19%
% receiving Ws
17%
So given that our Learning Communities attract different
distributions of students in terms of ethnicity,
& unit load
Expected age
Performance
and seeing that those groups succeed at controlling
different rates,
for we
ask: what performance would we expect
in a control
ethnicity,
age andgroup
unit
that had the same ethnicity, age and unit loadload
distribution as
our Learning Communities?
So much
variation
Course pass rates for 16 individual Learning Communities offered in
2010/11
Course
CBOT430
CBOT431
CRER401
CRER407
ECE201
ECE210
ECE212
ENGL826
ENGL836
ESL400
ESL837
ESL901
HIST245
LIBR100
READ826
READ836
TOTAL
LC
51%
51%
72%
62%
88%
95%
96%
61%
69%
83%
58%
58%
55%
75%
68%
66%
65%
Control
Group
66%
75%
27%
Net Change
-15%
-24%
45%
N/A
N/A
74%
73%
73%
60%
57%
73%
14%
22%
23%
1%
12%
10%
N/A
N/A
60%
-2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
38%
67%
63%
30%
-2%
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
CBOT430
CBOT431
CRER401
CRER407
ECE201
ECE210
ECE212
ENGL826
ENGL836
ESL400
ESL837
ESL901
HIST245
LIBR100
READ826
READ836
TOTAL
LC
52%
60%
78%
72%
77%
65%
75%
78%
76%
83%
77%
59%
74%
78%
77%
72%
70%
Control
Group
53%
53%
73%
Net Change
-1%
6%
5%
N/A
N/A
64%
72%
75%
74%
76%
64%
13%
-7%
0%
4%
0%
19%
N/A
N/A
40%
19%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
67%
81%
67%
10%
-9%
2%
* 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.
A simple model. Why so much variation?
Basic Skills
Student
Learning
Community
Sequence
Completion
Learning communities have many moving parts that interact
in dynamic ways and vary from setting to setting.
Learning Community
Sequence of course
material
Learning
Synthesis of course
Community Work group
content
oversight
Basic Skills
Student
Sequence
Completion
Counseling support
Linkages 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 )
Case Analysis: Basic Skills
English 826 & Reading 826
Effects of Learning Communities on Sequence
Completion Rates in Basic Skills
Linked Courses in
Learning Community
ENGL 826
READ 826
CRER 401
------- Traditional Stand-Alone Courses ------
ENGL 836
READ 836
ENGL 100
Fall 2010 Cohort
Learning Community
No. of Students
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
LC = 60
57%
34
38%
23
53%
21
33%
13
Control Group*
No. of Students
Control = 40
*Control Group consists of students enrolling in both Engl 826 & Reading 826 courses offered outside the Learning Community format (Fall 2010)
Effects of Learning Communities on Grade
Performance in Basic Skills Courses
Example
New Aggregate Performance Metric
ENGL 100 Section A
Class size = 45 students
No. of A Grades Received = 4
No. of B Grades Received = 14
No. of C Grades Received = 18
No. of D Grades Received = 7
No. of F Grades Received = 2
ENGL 100 Section B
Course GPA
Class size = 54 students
No. of A Grades Received = 28
No. of B Grades Received = 10
No. of C Grades Received = 5
No. of D Grades Received = 8
No. of F Grades Received = 3
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
Success Rate = 80%
Success Rate = 80%
allows us to incorporate the effect of the
Course
GPAof= A2.24
Course
= 2.97 .
number
& B grades received
byGPA
students
Effects of Learning Communities on Grade
Performance in Basic Skills Courses
Linked Courses in
Learning Community
ENGL 826
READ 826
CRER 401
------- Traditional Stand-Alone Courses ------
ENGL 836
READ 836
ENGL 100
Fall 2010 Cohort
Learning Community
ENGL = 2.60
ENGL = 2.04
READ = 2.98
READ = 2.15
2.76
Control Group*
ENGL = 2.41
ENGL = 2.78
READ = 1.31
READ = 2.24
Fall 2010 Cohort
2.82
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
4. There is some evidence that Learning Communities create an
improved “Mastery” effect. Further research needed.
5. Within the English & Reading Basic Skills domain there is some
evidence that LCs are associated with slightly higher sequence
completion rates.
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)
Control Group*
Learning Community
N = 1,872
Ethnicity Group
N = 10,993
Pct As
Pct ABCs
Pct Ws
Pct As
Pct ABCs
Pct Ws
Asian
45%
77%
9%
46%
80%
9%
Black - Non-Hispanic
19%
41%
39%
16%
49%
25%
Filipino
38%
74%
15%
32%
70%
15%
Hispanic
34%
67%
18%
24%
62%
18%
Multi Races
31%
62%
23%
25%
61%
20%
Pacific Islander
23%
58%
23%
20%
52%
23%
White Non-Hispanic
34%
65%
20%
35%
69%
15%
Better than Control
Worse than Control
90% confidence level
90% confidence level
Course Performance by Age Group
(Fall 2008 – Spring 2012)
Control Group*
Learning Community
N = 1,872
Age Group
N = 10,993
Pct As
Pct ABCs
Pct Ws
Pct As
Pct ABCs
Pct Ws
Less Than 18
30%
55%
20%
29%
70%
8%
18 & 19 Yrs Old
31%
69%
18%
19%
59%
18%
20-24 Yrs Old
22%
57%
27%
21%
58%
20%
25-29 Yrs Old
37%
66%
19%
34%
68%
18%
30-39 Yrs Old
37%
66%
17%
39%
72%
16%
40+ Yrs Old
42%
73%
13%
44%
74%
14%
Better than Control
Worse than Control
90% confidence level
90% confidence level
Course Performance by Unit Load
(Fall Terms Only; 2008 – 2011)
Control Group*
Learning Community
N = 1,289
Units Attempted
Pct As
Pct ABCs
N = 4,449
Pct Ws
4 or fewer Units
Pct As
Pct ABCs
Pct Ws
29%
60%
21%
4 to less than 8 Units
32%
64%
17%
28%
63%
19%
8 to less than 12 Units
33%
66%
20%
27%
64%
18%
12 to less than 16 Units
34%
69%
19%
34%
66%
18%
32%
71%
22%
16 or more Units
Better than Control
Worse than Control
90% confidence level
90% confidence level