|
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a College Access Program for Latino High School Students: Lessons Learned From Using a Matched Pair Design
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Catherine Batsche, University of South Florida, cbatsche@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Teresa Nesman, University of South Florida, nesman@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Mario Hernandez, University of South Florida, hernande@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Abstract:
Reducing the barriers to higher education for Latinos has received national attention for more than 25 years. As a result, a growing number of college access programs for Latinos have been implemented. The evaluation of these programs has, for the most part, focused on pre and post testing, attitudinal surveys, and follow-up tracking of students. This presentation will describe the evaluation of a college access program called ALAS (Awareness, Linkages, And Support) that used a matched pair design to compare ALAS students and non-ALAS students on selected measures of academic performance at the end of their sophomore and senior years in high school. Students were matched based on ethnicity, language spoken in the home, gender, grade level, GPA, school of attendance, and course of study . This session will discuss the evaluation approach that was used, its limitations, and recommendations to improve upon the evaluation design.
|
|
A Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluating Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) Partnerships
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Watson Scott Swail, Educational Policy Institute, wswail@educationalpolicy.org
|
| Patricia Moore Shaffer, Educational Policy Institute, pshaffer@educationalpolicy.org
|
| Abstract:
While GEAR UP is an excellent federal program that helps children around the country, evaluations of partnership programs have been uneven at best. For many programs, collection of APR data is the end-all goal of their evaluation effort. This paper presents a model for a mixed methods evaluation of a GEAR UP partnership, including stakeholder surveys and focus groups and school site visits in addition to the collection of quantitative data on program participation and student outcomes.
|
| |