Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention?

Last registered on December 20, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003671
Initial registration date
December 14, 2018

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
December 20, 2018, 9:51 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
university of california, riverside

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
claremont graduate university
PI Affiliation
university of california, riverside

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2010-07-01
End date
2012-06-15
Secondary IDs
U.S. Department of Education grant number P116B0808112
Abstract
In this paper, we (1) utilize a randomized control trial (RCT) to estimate the impact of a learning community on first year college retention; (2) introduce simple tests for the external validity of RCT results, and apply these tests to our data; and (3) compare observational estimates to those from the RCT, considering the internal and external validity of both approaches. Intent-to-treat and local average treatment estimates reveal no discernable programmatic effects, whereas observational estimates are significantly positive. The experimental sample, though negatively selected on observed characteristics, is positively selected on unobserved characteristics implying limited external validity of the RCT.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
azzam, tarek, michael bates and david fairris. 2018. "Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention?." AEA RCT Registry. December 20. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3671-1.0
Former Citation
azzam, tarek, michael bates and david fairris. 2018. "Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention?." AEA RCT Registry. December 20. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3671/history/39305
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The basic structure of the intervention is a year-long, theme-driven sequence of courses, structured study sessions, peer mentoring, and extra-curricular activities designed to foster academic achievement and socialization, and thereby to increase retention rates for freshmen participants. The FYLC is modeled after coordinated studies learning community programs in which two or more courses are linked around a specific theme. The general format may vary across institutions – for example, the courses may all take place in the first term of freshman year as opposed to being spread out over the entire year, as is the case with the FYLC – but the basic idea is similar and the intention is the same: that students will better engage with course material, support one another socially and academically, and thereby enhance academic success, first year retention, and ultimately graduation.
Intervention Start Date
2010-10-01
Intervention End Date
2012-06-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
First to second year retention rates of freshman students
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The first to second year retention rates of freshman students indicated the percent of students who enrolled at the university in their first year as freshman and then returned to the university during the start of their second year.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Grade point average
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
An indicator of academic performance was their grade point average (GPA)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The random assignment feature was institutionalized in the following way: Program staff solicited intent to participate commitments from incoming freshmen, following communications about the program to both parents and students prior to freshman orientation. Every entering freshman student received the same information about the program and was encouraged to enroll in the lottery to be in the program. Participants were then randomly assigned from the self-selected population. The control group was notified that they had not been chosen to participate in the program.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization was done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Randomization at the individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
no clustering
Sample size: planned number of observations
One retention point observation (data) for each of the 1000 students in treatment One retention point observation (data) for each of the 1000 students in control
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Actual numbers include the following:

824 in treatment condition
741 in control condition
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The goal was to receive expressions of interest by 1000 incoming freshmen each year, 450 of whom would then be randomly assigned to the available program seats and the others would be assigned to the control condition. This would allow us to detect an effect of about 0.05 change in first year college retention at a power of 0.9.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Study has received IRB approval. Details not available.
IRB Approval Date
Details not available
IRB Approval Number
Details not available

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials