1. AVID College Completion Project
Year 1 Evaluation Findings:
Fall 2014 Student Cohort
Joseph Shields
Marshall Garland
February 19, 2016

2. AVID for Higher Education Program Evaluation
Nine Participating Institutions in the MSDF-Funded AVID College Completion Grant Program
Four-Year Colleges and Universities:
California State University-San Marcos (California),
Fort Valley State University (Georgia)
Tougaloo University (Mississippi)
Texas Wesleyan University (Texas)
University of North Carolina-Asheville (North Carolina)
Washington State University, Tri-Cities (Washington)
Two-Year Colleges:
Atlanta Technical College (Georgia), Saddleback College (California), and Butler Community College (Kansas)

3. AVID for Higher Education Program Evaluation
Program began in Fall 2013 with the planning year
First AVID cohort was served in fall 2014
Study will follow three cohorts of first-time, full-time students (Fall 2014, Fall 2015, and Fall 2016) through Fall 2018
Student outcomes to be examined include student persistence rates, course passing rates, transfer rates, and degree completion rates (for the 2014 cohort and their matched comparison group)
Annual evaluation reports will be issued

4. Overall Study Objectives
To what extent did participating institutions implement AHE with fidelity, and what is the relationship between the fidelity of AHE implementation and changes in student outcomes over time?
What is the relationship between students’ exposure to AVID- based content and pedagogy in identified freshman courses, and perceptions that the course(s) impacted their skills and confidence, and their willingness to utilize institutional resources that can help them be successful in college?
To what extent did academic outcomes differ for students in AHE when compared to those of students in matched comparison groups?

5. Primary Data Sources
Student surveys regarding targeted first year course
Onsite interviews and classroom observations
Faculty and staff surveys
Student-level data

6. Saddleback Findings Fall 2014 AVID Student Profile:
Total AVID Cohort Students Included in the Analyses = 114
Mean Age of AVID Cohort Students = 20
Mean High School GPA for AVID Cohort Students = NA
Gender: Female: AVID=49%, Non-AVID=44%
Percent of AVID Cohort Students Pell Grant Recipients = NA

7. SADDLEBACK Findings

8. SADDLEBACK Findings

9. SADDLEBACK Findings

10. SADDLEBACK Findings Student Survey Results:
Results based on 221 completed surveys
77 completed surveys from AVID cohort students
144 completed surveys from comparison group students
79% response rate for AVID group and 66% response rate for comparison group students

11. SADDLEBACK Findings Student Perspectives on FYE Course Sections
Students were asked to:
“Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about your Freshman Seminar course”.
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)

12. SADDLEBACK Findings

13. SADDLEBACK Findings

14. SADDLEBACK Findings

15. Related Broad Study Finding
Why Does This Matter?
Students in sections with higher degrees of student-centered pedagogy and skill-building activities/content were significantly more likely to feel that the course improved their skills and their confidence that they will be successful in college. This implies that instruction emphasizing research-based, student-centered pedagogy matters, and resonates with college freshmen.

16. Related Broad Study Finding
Why Does This Matter?
When the AVID-based content and pedagogy are present and students’ confidence levels are higher, they are more likely to make meaningful connections to other students in class and indicate a willingness to lead or participate in peer study groups, visit their professors during office hours, and make use of the campus tutoring centers (i.e., higher attachment to the college or university).

17. Research Design – Measurement of Student Outcomes
Regression-adjusted results for the Fall 2014 AVID student cohort are compared to two comparison groups for 4-year institutions, and to only a within-year comparison group for 2-year institutions:
Cohort 0 (Fall 2013): Non-participating students from the school year prior to the implementation of the AHE program (e.g., 2013/14) were compared to participating students from the first year of implementation (2014/15).
Captures both the impact of being part of the AVID cohort (and receiving instruction and services that non-AVID students did not receive), as well as the impact of broader AHE services that all students may have benefited from in 2014 (e.g., improved tutoring services, institutional focus on student success).
Cohort 1 (Fall 2014): Non-participating students from the first year of implementation (2014/15) were compared to participating students within the same school year (2014/15).
Captures only the impact of being part of the AVID cohort (and receiving instruction and services that non-AVID students did not receive). It is assumed that the broader AHE services that all students may have benefited from in 2014 (e.g., improved tutoring services, institutional focus on student success) impacted 2014 AVID and non-AVID students equally.

18. Student Outcome Measures
Fall-to-Spring Persistence
Fall-to-spring persistence is an important near-term outcome for the AVID FYE program since at most institutions, the FYE course is provided in students’ first fall semester. Each institution provided student-level enrollment and course-taking records for each school year and semester. Fall-to-spring persistence was determined by identifying students who were enrolled and took at least one course in the fall semester, and who also were enrolled and took at least one course in the spring semester of the same school year.

19. Student Outcome Measures
Fall-to-Fall Persistence
Institutions provided enrollment records for fall 2015 for the 2015/16 school year in order to identify students from Cohort 1 who returned to the same institution in their second year.

20. Student Outcome Measures
Course Outcomes
Institutions provided all course records for AVID and non-AVID students for each semester for the and the school year. The outcome for this measure is the percentage of three or four hour credit-bearing courses in which a student earned a C or better (or, for some courses without letter grades, earned a satisfactory or passing score).

21. SADDLEBACK Findings

22. SADDLEBACK Findings

23. Comparisons to Other 2-Year Institutions in the AVID Study

24. Comparisons to Other 4-Year Institutions in the AVID Study

25. Comparisons to Other 4-Year Institutions in the AVID Study

26. Comparisons to Other 4-Year Institutions in the AVID Study

27. Questions

28. Contact Information
Joseph Shields, Principal Investigator Marshall Garland, Senior Research Scientist AVID College Completion Project Gibson Consulting Group