Syracuse University SURFACE Instructional Design, Development and School of Education Evaluation - Dissertations 8-2012 The Effect of Participation in Syracuse University Project Advance and Advanced Placement on Persistence and Performance at a Four-Year Private University Kalpana Srinivas Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.edu/idde_etd Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Srinivas, Kalpana, "The Effect of Participation in Syracuse University Project Advance and Advanced Placement on Persistence and Performance at a Four-Year Private University" (2012). Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation - Dissertations.edu/idde_etd/57 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation - Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact surface@syr.
Abstract Concurrent enrollment programs (CEPs) are an important source of academic preparation for high school students. Along with Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate, CEPs allow students to challenge themselves in high school and prepare for the rigor of college. Many researchers and practitioners have claimed that, when high school students participate in such programs, they become more successful in college, having better retention rates and better grades. Based upon their knowledge about the many students who have participated in CEPs, Marshal and Andrews (2002) note that “there is scarcity of research on dual credit aka concurrent enrollment programs.” The claims for the effectiveness of CEPs must be substantiated.
Syracuse University’s concurrent enrollment program, Project Advance (PA), was implemented in 1972 at the request of six local Syracuse high schools. The current study is an empirical investigation of the effects of student participation in Syracuse University Project Advance (SUPA) and/or Advanced Placement (AP) on desired student outcomes such as persistence and performance, determined as follows: 1. Short-term persistence i. Student dropout in the first year of college; ii.
Student dropout in the second year of college b. Long-term persistence i. Student graduation in four years ii. Student graduation in six years 2.
Student performance in subsequent courses on the main Syracuse University campus. First year cumulative grade point average (freshman GPA) ii. Fourth year cumulative grade point average (degree GPA) The sample consists of Syracuse University undergraduates (23,398) from fall 1997 to fall 2008, both inclusive. Students who participated in SUPA and AP in high school are tracked by college enrollment and completion, and then compared with their peers of similar demographics and achievement who had not taken such courses.
This study attempts to evaluate the effect of both AP and SUPA on college persistence and performance, with and without controlling for confounding variables such as demographic, financial need, and precollege entry student characteristics. The researcher also examined other significant determinants of persistence and whether the effects varied by gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The effects were examined using statistical tests for differences in means as well as multiple regression analysis. The findings of this study were mixed.
No cause and effect claims were made, as this is a correlational study. Regarding short-term persistence, the findings were in favor of both AP and SUPA. Regarding long-term persistence and performance (cumulative GPA for the first and fourth year), the findings were in favor of AP. When student performance in the subsequent course was examined, participation in SUPA was not significant in predicting the grade in the subject specific postcourse grade.
The findings also suggest grade inflation in six out of the eight SU courses offered through PA. However, the findings for both math and writing were illuminating. The overall results point to some positive effects of concurrent enrollment programs, but also call for improvements to increase their effectiveness. Dual-credit outcomes: A second visit.
Community College Journal of Research and Practices, 26, 237–242. Keywords: dual credit, concurrent enrollment, Project Advance, SUPA, student persistence, student performance. The effect of participation in Syracuse University Project Advance and Advanced Placement on Persistence and Performance at a Four-Year Private University By Kalpana Srinivas B. Syracuse University, 2005 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation in the Graduate School of Syracuse University August 2012 Copyright © Kalpana Srinivas 2012 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people, beginning with my dissertation committee members: Dr.
Edmonds, dissertation chair, for his guidance and support in helping me understand the complexity of the Project Advance Program at Syracuse University. He helped me stay calm and take it “one step at a time.” Every time I got discouraged or overwhelmed he saw me through to the next step. Smith, program/department advisor, for all his counsel and patience. I had the privilege of taking five courses with him.
His questions, such as “Who Cares?”and “So What?” not only challenged me in class, but also helped me clarify my thoughts through the dissertation process. Donald Dutkowsky, dissertation advisor, for his vision and encouragement. Without his thoroughness and patience there would be no dissertation. He reached out to me and offered to be my advisor when he found out about my research topic, and he has been there for me every step of the way, sometimes even to crack the whip on my methodology.
My external readers, Dr. Timothy Eatman and Dr. Jeffrey Mangram, for volunteering their time to read, critique, and provide invaluable feedback in the midst of their very busy schedules. James Bellini, Associate Professor of Education, whose insights and advice regarding the research design expanded my thinking and refined my skills as a researcher.
Timothy Wasserman, my statistician guru, who taught me how to be “statistically accurate and statistically literate.” Charulata Chawan, my friend, who was always there in the library whenever I needed a book or an article. She helped me find articles over weekends and holidays and helped reduce some of the “research jitters.” Linda Tucker, my colleague in the Instructional Design, Development, and Evaluation (IDDE) program in School of Education, for her colleagiality, steadfast friendship, and caring attitude, which helped me fulfill all my requirements for graduation. My family, for their words of encouragement in keeping me going even during times when I was convinced I had embarked on an impossible journey: My daughter Nina, who constantly reminded me that I was her role model and that dropping out was not an option; my special needs son, Ajay, who at times demanded all of my time and energy, but who nevertheless kept reminding me to “stay focused and do my homework”; my husband, Vijay, who has been the biggest critic my work, for his encouragement throughout the whole journey and for keeping me in the “PhD completion mode. Robert Duffy, who shared his methodology and references and offered invaluable advice on how to move forward in my journey.
viii Report Organization This is a multiple-paper format (4 independent papers) dissertation. From the inception of the project four research designs were created. This created a “roadmap” that was needed to collect the appropriate data from the Syracuse University Student Records System. Paper 1 was a pilot study.
Although there is overlap in the set of independent variables used, each paper has uniquely different dependent variables. This dissertation has conceptual coherence and includes: 1. Paper 1 is an initial investigation of the role of Syracuse University Project Advance (SUPA), SU’s concurrent enrollment program (CEP) in terms of student persistence and performance at Syracuse University, a private, 4-year institution. This study was done as a pilot study, comparing means of SUPA and non-SUPA students, and did not control for any of the confounding variables.
Paper 2 examined if there were any significant differences in the three groups of students: Syracuse University Project Advance (SUPA), Advanced Placement (AP), and the non- SUPA/AP group in terms of short- and long-term persistence. This study used hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis when controlling for all known and available variables in the Syracuse University Student Records System (SRS). Paper 3 examined the effect of student enrollment in a Project Advance course and its impact on students’ performance in the subsequent level course in college and compares their performance to the students who took the introductory and subsequent level course on main campus when controlling for confounding variables. Paper 4 examined if there were any significant differences in the three groups of students: Syracuse University Project Advance (SUPA), Advanced Placement (AP), and the non- SUPA/AP group in terms of cumulative GPA Spring Year 1 (first-year) and cumulative GPA Spring Year 4 (degree GPA) among the three groups of students.
This study used hierarchical linear regression analysis controlling for all known and available variables in the Syracuse University Student Records System (SRS). Summary document that summarizes methods and findings. ix Table of Contents 1. The Effect of Syracuse University Project Advance on College Outcomes.6 Limitations of the study .2 Extraction/Querying of Data .1g High School GPA .1h GPA at Syracuse University (based on a 4.12 Relevance for theory/practice.
Syracuse University Project Advance and Advanced Placement: Relationship to Short-Term and Long-Term Persistence .1 What is Syracuse University Project Advance (SUPA)? .2 What Is Advanced Placement (AP)? .3 Differences between SUPA and AP .3 Motivation for the Study .4 Model and Theory .5 Significance of this Study .6 Purpose of the Study. 71 Dropout by Fall Year 2. 75 Dropout by Fall Year 3. 77 Graduation in four years.
81 Graduation in six years .1 Summary of Key Findings (Dropout in Year 1 and Year 2): .2 Summary of Key Findings (Graduation in four or six years): .12 Strengths of the study .13 Limitations of the study. Syracuse University Project Advance: How well does the program prepare students for the subsequent course at Syracuse University? .7 Limitations of this Study.1 The Means Procedure. 115 Results and Discussion .2 The Frequency Procedure. 123 Results and Discussion .3 T-test for differences in means .10 Summary of Results .11 Discussion and Conclusion.
The Effect of Participation in SUPA and AP on Student Performance at Syracuse University….3 Purpose of the Study .5 Limitations of the Study.1 Cum GPA Spring Year 1 (aka freshman GPA) .2 Cum GPA Spring Year 4 (aka degree GPA). Summary of dissertation. Suggestions for future research. 207 List of Figures Figure 1 High Schools Offering SU Courses through Project Advance………………………….4 List of Tables Table 1: List of Student Characteristic Variables (IV and DV).
21 Table 2: Comparison Institutions: Six-Year Graduation Rate (%). 45 Table 3: SUPA and AP Enrollment at SU (1997–2008). 48 Table 4: Summary of Related Studies. 60 Table 5: Predictor (IV) Variables.
65 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics: Gender. 66 Table 7: Descriptive Statistics: Race/Ethnicity. 66 Table 8: Descriptive Statistics: Financial Need. 67 Table 9: Descriptive Statistics: Dropout.
68 Table 10: Logistic Regression: Dropout by Fall Year 2. 73 Table 11: Logistic Regression: Dropout by Fall Year 3. 77 Table 12: Logistic Regression: Four-year graduation. 82 Table 13: Logistic Regression: Six-year graduation.
86 Table 14: Dropout: International Students. 91 Table 15: Syracuse University International Undergraduate Student Enrollment. 91 Table 16: Typical Two-Course Sequences. 112 Table 17: Economics ECN 203 (Economic Ideas and Issues).
115 Table 18: Public Affairs: PAF 101 (Introduction to the Analysis of Public Policy). 116 Table 19: Sociology: SOC 101 (Introduction to Sociology). 117 Table 20: English and Textual Studies: ETS 142 (Introduction to Issues of Critical Reading). 118 Table 21: Mathematics: Calculus I.
119 Table 22: Psychology: PSY 205 (Foundations of Human Behavior). 120 Table 23: Chemistry: CHE 106/107 (General Chemistry). 120 Table 24: Writing: WRT 105 (Practices of Academic Writing). 121 xiii Table 25: Summary of Mean Grade Comparison.
123 Table 26: Ranges for Grades. 123 Table 27: ECNCampusPre by ECNPost. 124 Table 28: ETSCampusPre by ETSPost. 124 Table 29: MATCampusPre by MATPost.
125 Table 30: PAFCampusPre by PAFPost. 126 Table 31: PSYCampusPre by PSYPost. 127 Table 32: SOCCampusPre by SOCPost .