Retention Studies
Studies validated by the Department of Education have shown that compared with other interventions Learning to Learn achieves:
- 50% improvement in retention through graduation at 2-year colleges and universities
- 20% improvement in retention through graduation at 4 year colleges and universities
Roxbury Community College (2 year public open enrollment)
Studies conducted on seven successive cohorts of students documented that 70 - 80% of Learning to Learn trained students persisted to graduation (70% in the first year's cohort and approximately 80% in each of the subsequent six years' cohorts) as compared with 40% persistence in the seven cohorts of students who received either no intervention or a non- Learning to Learn intervention.
Shorter College (2 year private open enrollment)
Sophomore year retention improved 38% when the freshman seminar changed from Becoming a Master Student to Learning to Learn .
University of New Hampshire (4 year public)
Students enrolling in LTL were three times less likely to leave the university after their freshman year than were non-LTL students. (The withdrawal rate for Learning to Learn students was 3% between freshman and sophomore years, as compared with 9% for the non- Learning to Learn control group.)
State University of New York at Buffalo (4 year public)
A 3-year study of 1,000 students funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), concluded that Learning to Learn ¨had "significant impacts" on the grade point averages, academic motivation, and retention of average college freshmen.
Boston College (4 year private)
Learning to Learn ¨students at Boston College, although significantly more disadvantaged than the college's normally-admitted students, persisted to graduation at a significantly higher rate. Studies conducted on seven successive cohorts of students documented that Learning to Learn ¨students persisted at a 100% rate in the first year's cohort (see table below) and 98 percent in each of the six subsequent years' cohorts. Normally- admitted BC students maintained an 80% retention rate in the same seven years' cohorts.
Retention of LTL Students and Non-LTL Students Three Semesters After LTL Program Ended
| Subjects |
Percent Minority |
Combined Sat |
Percent Retention at B.C. |
| Educationally disadvantaged LTL students |
75 |
812 |
100 |
| All other B.C. students |
10 |
1060 |
80 |
Grade Point Average Studies
Learning to Learn ¨has been found to improve the academic performance of both educationally/ economically disadvantaged and normally admitted students.
Learning to Learn ¨Helps Students Regardless of their Level of Preparation for College.
At the Universities of Wisconsin and New Hampshire, studies were done of normally-admitted freshmen enrolled in four-week, non-credit LTL courses. Experimental and control groups were statistically equated on a number of variables thought to predict their college performance, including high school rank, college entrance test scores, and types and levels of college courses attempted. They then were divided into three levels of "preparation for college work": low, average, and high. In all three groups, the experimental treatment was students' attendance in a four-week LTL class. Study results showed that experimental groups' grade-point averages were higher at all three preparation levels. P oorly prepared students made greater gains with LTL than did well prepared students, but all groups benefitted.
First Semester Grade Point Averages of LTL and Non-LTL Students
(by Students' Preparation Levels - U. Wisconsin )
|
Students' Preparation |
LTL students |
Non-LTL students |
|
Low |
1.72 |
1.00 |
|
Average |
2.54 |
2.00 |
|
High |
3.125 |
3.00 |
The statistical significance of these differences was .01.
Learning to Learn ¨Clearly Enhances the Academic Performance of Disadvantaged Students
The U.S. Department of Education has approved LTL for national dissemination based on its review and validation of studies conducted at Boston College and Roxbury Community College. At both colleges, the target population was a group of students who were educationally and economically disadvantaged relative to the college population as a whole. For example, at Roxbury Community College, the treatment group entered the program reading at the sixth grade level. At Boston College the treatment group's mean combined SAT was 812, as contrasted with a mean SAT score of 1060 for normally-admitted freshmen at the university. Experimental and control groups were matched on college entrance test scores, previous semester's grade point average, race, sex, year in school, and number of credits taken. The dependent variable was grade point average. The LTL grade was not included in the data analysis, and content course instructors were not aware that some of their students were receiving LTL instruction.
GPA and Credits Completed By Experimental Subjects (LTL Students)
and Control Subjects (Non-LTL Students)
| Boston College |
Roxbury Community College | |
| Mean GPA of . . . |
2.44 |
2.89 |
| ||
|
1.97 | 2.22 |
| Credits completed by. . . |
15.10 |
10.45 |
| ||
|
12.60 | 7.40 |
| F-test significance | .001 N-74 |
N-62 |