The Promise of Developmental Summer Bridge Programs Elisabeth Barnett, Thomas Bailey, and the NCPR Team IES Conference June 2010

About the Center The National Center for Postsecondary Research focuses on measuring the effectiveness of programs designed to help students make the transition to college and master the skills needed to advance to a degree. Primary funding from IES of the U.S. Dept. of Education Housed at CCRC, Teachers College, Columbia University Partners MDRC Curry School of Education, University of Virginia

Developmental Education Evidence suggests that the current developmental education system does not work well (Bailey, 2009; Pusser & Levin, 2009) Most students do not complete their developmental sequences (Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, & Davis, 2007) Students placed into developmental education are less likely to complete college (Adelman, 2006)

Placement into developmental education in community colleges From NELS ( ) 58 percent—at least one course 44 percent—1 to 3 courses 14 percent—more than 3 courses From ATD ( ) 59 percent—at least one course

Summer Bridge Programs Long history in higher education (Kezar, 2000) Little research on efficacy. Design is grounded in literature on acceleration (Wlodkowski & Kasworm, 2003), social know-how (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003), college knowledge (Conley, 2005), and contextualization (Perin, 2007).

Developmental Summer Bridge Study Eight colleges and universities around Texas Three programs funded in part by THECB grants All contribute some college funds and received NCPR funding Students Most just completed high school All need remediation

Bridge Programs in the Study Four to six weeks Accelerated instruction in developmental math, English, and/or reading Academic and student services support “College knowledge” component Student cohorts Student stipend for completers

Potential Benefits of Developmental Summer Bridge Programs Reduced need for developmental education Exposure to college and academic expectations Contact with college faculty and administrators Small cohorts of students Stipends to reduce need for summer jobs.

The Research Qualitative (data source: interviews, classroom observations, focus groups, surveys) What do the programs and students look like? What are the challenges in implementation? What program design elements show promise? Quantitative (data source: student data from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010) Do summer bridge programs reduce the need for developmental education and improve other college- related outcomes?

SUMMER 2009 BRIDGES: Students in the Sample

About the Students 84% Hispanic 62% Female Mean age % qualified for free/reduced lunch 40% heard about DSB from counselor; 21% from a flyer Motivations for applying to DSB: attaining college level standing, improving skills, experiencing college

SUMMER 2009 BRIDGES: Contact Hours

SUMMER 2009 BRIDGES: Subjects Studied

Subjects Studied 3 offered math; 5 offered both OR either math and English. Some course-based; some not. Taught by regular faculty. Curriculum generally based on existing developmental education. Some classes were “leveled;” others were not. Both approaches were seen as viable.

SUMMER 2009 BRIDGES: College Knowledge

College Knowledge 3 used abbreviated student success courses 4 offered presentations Faculty, mentors, and tutors played a role Topics included: College applications and financial aid Help seeking in college Managing stress Understanding college culture

SUMMER 2009 BRIDGES: Student Support

Student Supports 4 colleges used mentors. Amount of training varied Some mentoring was 1-1; some in groups Mentors were older students All programs offered tutoring Lab time had different degrees of structure. Mentors and tutors were generally impressive, but sometimes stretched thin. Students received stipends.

Preliminary Implementation Findings College knowledge- provided formally and informally- is important for connecting and engaging students. Course-based vs. non-course-based formats provided different experiences. The accelerated format was important, yet challenging to implement.

Random Assignment Design Targeted students invited to participate in study Program group Enrolled in enhanced programs and services Control group Received regular courses and services Baseline data collected Students give consent Random Assignment

Outcomes of Interest College enrollment rates Need for developmental coursework Credit accumulation Persistence Enrollment status (FT, PT) Financial aid utilization Subgroup analyses will also be done (income status, prior achievement)

Preliminary Impact Findings A first look at early findings: Program impacts on college enrollment in the fall of 2009, to be presented at the IES conference. Additional outcomes and longer follow-up will be presented in future reports.

For more information: Please visit us on the web at to learn more about our latest research and to sign up for electronic announcements. National Center for Postsecondary Research Teachers College, Columbia University 525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY Telephone: (212) NCPR is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education