Dr. butcher avid postsecondary article published

This article was downloaded by: [Karen M. Watt]
On: 03 April 2013, At: 08:22
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Latinos and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjle20
Advancement Via Individual
Determination (AVID) at a Postsecondary
Institution: Support for First-Generation
College-Goers
Karen M. Watt
a
, Jennifer Butcher
b
& E. Fidel Ramirez
a
a
Educational Leadership, The University of Texas Pan American
b
Educational Leadership, Lamar University
To cite this article: Karen M. Watt , Jennifer Butcher & E. Fidel Ramirez (2013): Advancement Via
Individual Determination (AVID) at a Postsecondary Institution: Support for First-Generation College-
Goers, Journal of Latinos and Education, 12:3, 202-214
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2013.765804
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Latinos and Education, 12: 202–214, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1534-8431 print / 1532-771X online
DOI: 10.1080/15348431.2013.765804
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
at a Postsecondary Institution: Support
for First-Generation College-Goers
Karen M. Watt
Educational Leadership
The University of Texas Pan American
Jennifer Butcher
Lamar University
E. Fidel Ramirez
The University of Texas Pan American
This study examines how a selected Hispanic-Serving Institution is implementing Advancement Via
Individual Determination as a strategy for improving retention and time to graduation for 1st-genera-
tion Hispanic college students. A quasi-experimental design approach was used in which the retention
rates and 1st-semester grade point averages of a freshman cohort enrolled in a paired set of courses
were compared to those of a control group and a similar intervention group. Focus group data were
also used. Though few statistically signiﬁcant differences were found between the intervention groups
with regard to grade point average and retention, students beneﬁtted from the support received in the
paired classes.
Key words: postsecondary education, Advancement Via Individual Determination, developmental
mathematics, retention, Hispanic-Serving Institution, learning community
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID; www.avid.org) emphasizes rigor while
balancing it with support, consistent with the concept of scaffolding, which has been used
in constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and in studies of AVID programs in sec-
ondary schools (Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). Recently, AVID for Higher
Education (AHE)1
was described by Cuseo (2010) as an “integrated, research-based, college-
preparatory-and-success system designed primarily for underrepresented students who have the
1AVID in higher education is new; it was originally conceived of as AVID Postsecondary and has been renamed AVID
for Higher Education.
Correspondence should be addressed to Karen M. Watt, The University of Texas Pan American, 1201 West University
Drive, EDCC 2.504, Edinburg, TX 78539. E-mail: watt@utpa.edu
Downloadedby[KarenM.Watt]at08:2203April2013

AVID AT A POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTION 203
determination to succeed and for campuses committed to promoting their students’ success”
(p. 1). Postsecondary scaffolding utilizing AHE includes an academic and social support elective,
collaborative tutoring, a cross-divisional campus team, and extensive professional development
for instructors (Cuseo, 2010).
OBJECTIVES OR PURPOSES
This study examines how a selected Hispanic-Serving Institution is implementing AVID as a
strategy for improving retention and time to graduation for first-generation Hispanic college stu-
dents. The initiative is partially funded by a grant from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board. By supporting students through their first year of college, the intent of AHE is to increase
the selected institution’s first- and second-year retention rates (72.5% and 62.6% respectively)
and graduation rates, which are 17.6% for 4-year graduation and 35.5% for 6-year graduation.
More than 18,700 students are enrolled at this institution, 4,264 of whom are freshmen, and more
than 90% of the undergraduates are of Hispanic origin (“Stats at a Glance,” n.d.).
In Year 1 of the project (2010–2011), AHE was delivered through an existing freshman-level
Learning Frameworks (UNIV 1301) course, allowing students to be taught academic support
strategies by AVID-trained instructors. This course for credit served more than 2,500 freshmen in
their first year of college. The AHE project is designed to support students in the Frameworks
courses in using organizational strategies, collaboration, and additional required note taking.
Other components are tutorials and professional development for faculty, staff, and tutors (“AVID
Postsecondary,” n.d.).
In Year 2 of the project (2011–2012), a more specific approach was designed. Because there
were multiple freshmen retention interventions and varied levels of training among the UNIV
1301 faculty at the institution under study, it was difficult to isolate the effects of AHE in the
first year of implementation. Year 2 used a quasi-experimental design in which an experimental
cohort of students was examined and compared to (a) a control group and (b) a similar inter-
vention group. The experimental group consisted of two paired sets of classes (UNIV 1301 and
Elementary Algebra [MATH 1300]; UNIV 1301 and Intermediate Algebra [MATH 1334]) involv-
ing 57 students. UNIV 1301 and Reading and Vocabulary (ENG 1310) were also paired, as were
UNIV 1301 and Basic Writing (ENG 1320); however, these paired classes were not examined in
this study.
Researchers chose to focus on the paired mathematics courses because of similar successful
interventions with MATH 1300 and MATH 1334 in previous years (Ramirez, Watt, & Wang,
2010, 2011). These interventions were the result of the institution’s Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP); therefore, one of the comparison groups in this study was the QEP intervention group.
Research Questions
1. Is there a significant difference in the retention rates of first-semester freshmen enrolled
in the paired UNIV 1301/MATH 1300 class, a control group of freshmen, and a QEP
intervention group?

204 WATT ET AL.
2. Is there a significant difference in the grade point averages (GPAs) of first-semester fresh-
men enrolled in the paired UNIV 1301/MATH 1300 class, a control group of freshmen,
and a QEP intervention group?
3. Is there a significant difference in the retention rates of first-semester freshmen enrolled
in the paired UNIV 1301/MATH 1334 class, a control group of freshmen, and a QEP
intervention group?
4. Is there a significant difference in the GPAs of first-semester freshmen enrolled in
the paired UNIV 1301/MATH 1334 class, a control group of freshmen, and a QEP
intervention group?
5. What do instructors, student support center directors, and tutors report to be the benefits
of AHE?
PERSPECTIVES
Currently, the selected institution is implementing several initiatives to address the issues of stu-
dent retention and time to graduation. One of these initiatives, which has been in place since
2004 as a result of Title V funding, is the UNIV 1301 course required of all qualified enter-
ing freshmen (“Learning Framework Course,” n.d.). The course focuses on the psychology of
learning, cognition, and motivation and supports students in applying this knowledge to their
coursework and personal lives. Collaborative learning is an instructional method used in the
UNIV 1301 course and is also enhanced through the use of AHE curriculum and strategies.
In 2007, the selected institution implemented its QEP in an attempt to improve the passing
rates of students in developmental mathematics courses. Among the QEP interventions imple-
mented were professional development sessions for tutors and instructors focused on AVID
methodologies, which eventually led to the training of tutors in all of the student support cen-
ters across campus (Ramirez et al., 2010, 2011). The AVID tutorial model uses collaborative
learning and inquiry to further student learning (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2000).
AVID is a college preparatory program established in middle and high schools that provides
students with access to and support for rigorous curricula. AVID is well documented in previous
studies on secondary school implementation. Administrative support (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2000;
Watt, Huerta, & Cossio, 2004), advocacy of the AVID teacher (Watt, Johnston, Mendiola, Huerta,
& Alkan, 2008), focus on preparation for 4-year college (Martinez & Kloppott, 2005; Mehan
et al., 1996), and building self-confidence in students (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002) are
some examples of this documentation.
The AHE system is composed of the following six features. It is (a) holistic: AVID engages
the whole student and campus; (b) systematic: AVID creates a comprehensive, cross-divisional
infrastructure; (c) sustained: AVID provides a systematic plan for campus involvement that is
ongoing and that incorporates follow-up support and assessment; (d) transformative: AVID drives
the development of a student-centered, learning-focused campus culture; (e) empirical: AVID is
built on research-based evidence that tracks student progress; and (f) customized: AVID is tailored
for campuses that are committed and determined to implement its features (Cuseo, 2010). These
features support AHE’s five essentials: administrative leadership and support, the AVID Campus
Planning Team, professional development, the AVID Freshman Experience, and data collection
and research (“AVID Postsecondary,” n.d.).

A high-quality undergraduate experience exposes students to new ideas and ways of think-
ing and actively engages them in exploring and discovering new knowledge (Association of
American Colleges and Universities, 2002; Boyer Commission, 1998; Stewart, 2010). Every col-
lege and university has the potential to improve the quality of its undergraduate education through
acquiring and sustaining institutional commitment to continual improvement focused on student
success (Seifert, Pascarella, Goodman, & Salisbury, 2010). Research suggests that implementing
successful targeted interventions to enhance student learning, success, and persistence takes the
time, willingness, and commitment of student affairs educators, academic administrators, faculty,
and policymakers at all levels (Whitt, Kinzie, Schuh, & Kuh, 2008).
With more and more Hispanic students entering college today, institutions are beginning
to focus on initiatives aimed at improving the education of this rapidly growing population.
From 2007 to 2008 the freshman enrollment of Hispanics at postsecondary institutions grew
by 15% (Taylor, Fry, Velasco, & Dockterman, 2010). By 2011 there were almost 3.5 million
Hispanic undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary study in a 4-year institution; nearly a quarter
of a million degrees were awarded to Hispanics in 2011, less than 8% of all degrees conferred
(Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2012). However, Hispanics fall behind all other ethnic groups in
the rate at which they earn a bachelor’s degree (Fry, 2002): Less than 50% of those attending a
4-year institution will complete their degree within 6 years (Pappamihiel & Moreno, 2011; Perna,
Li, Walsh, & Raible, 2010). Although 32% of all young Hispanics matriculate to a program of
postsecondary study, the result is less than 13% of Hispanics of working age graduating from a
4-year institution (Boden, 2011; Fry, 2011). Institutions need careful and ongoing assessment of
the effectiveness of their efforts to improve the student outcomes of persistence and graduation
(Hossler, Ziskin, & Gross, 2009).
The first-year experience for most college students is one rife with difficulties of adjustment;
it is further complicated for minority students (Gloria & Castellanos, 2012; Hernandez, 2002;
Ojeda, Navarro, & Morales, 2011). These students often contend with being first-generation
students, having financial deficiency, and lacking college knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the col-
lege culture; Boden, 2011; Cavazos, Johnson, & Sparrow, 2010; Gloria, Castellanos, Lopez, &
Rosales, 2005; Nuñez, 2009; Saenz & Ponjuan, 2009; Tym, McMillion, Barone, & Webster,
2004). To compound the challenges these students face, more than half of Mexican American
students matriculating in institutions of higher education have parents with only a high school
education (Hurtado, Saenz, Santos, & Cabrera, 2008).
Among many factors, the success of first-year Latino students has been attributed to faculty
utilization of culturally relevant teaching (Pappamihiel & Moreno, 2011). Culturally relevant
teaching is a pedagogical approach that empowers students and recognizes faculty engagement
with students in knowledge development (Rendón, 2009). One factor in the success of minority
students is institutional support, often in the form of campus activities (Arana, Castañeda-Sound,
Blanchard, & Aguilar, 2011). A recent study by Easley, Bianco, and Leech (2012) reported that
student success is a result of ganas.
The U.S. Department of Education report Status and Trends in Hispanic Education (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2003) pointed out that in 1998, approximately one fourth of
Hispanic, Black, and American Indian/Alaska native students (26%, 30%, and 27%, respec-
tively) completed advanced mathematics courses, whereas approximately one half of White and
Asian/Pacific Islander students (45% and 56%, respectively) did so. Data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress reflect the fact that despite the efforts of No Child Left
Behind, the Hispanic–White achievement gap in mathematics remains unchanged (Lee, 2006).

206 WATT ET AL.
Racial disparities in mathematics preparation and achievement may be attributed to socioeco-
nomic inequality. Hispanic students often enter school with several academic risk factors that can
hinder their initial academic achievement and may translate to slower mathematics growth rates
over time (Rathbun, West, & Walston, 2005). Other factors, such as prior exposure to mathematics
and lack of adequate resources, may influence the rate at which these students master mathematics
skills and concepts (Capraro, Young, Lewis, Yetkiner, & Woods, 2009). Disadvantages in math
achievement have been identified for Hispanics beginning as early as kindergarten and continuing
through 12th grade (Bali & Alvarez, 2003; Riegle-Crumb, 2006). By the end of 12th grade, only
20% of Hispanics are prepared for college-level math, compared with 39% of Whites (Rose &
Betts, 2001).
Postsecondary remediation has two broad objectives. The first objective is to provide the
minimum levels of reading, writing, and math skills deemed essential for functional participa-
tion in a democratic society and individual sustainability in a free economy (McCabe, 2003;
Roueche, Roueche, & Ely, 2001). The second objective is to open the door to educational and eco-
nomic advancement by resolving deficiencies that obstruct access to postsecondary credentials
(McCusker, 1999). Although most of the postsecondary educational system serves to catego-
rize individuals into levels of attainment, remediation is designed as a lifeline for educationally
marginalized populations (Bahr, 2010).
METHODS, TECHNIQUES, OR MODES OF INQUIRY
A quasi-experimental design approach was used in which two cohorts of freshmen enrolled in a
paired set of courses served as the experimental group (Group A), two randomly selected cohorts
served as the control group (Group B), and two other groups served as an additional compar-
ison group (Group C). Group A consisted of a cohort of students enrolled in a paired set of
UNIV 1301 and MATH 1300 classes and a cohort of students enrolled in a paired set of UNIV
1301 and MATH 1334 classes. Instructors of Group A had been trained in AVID methodolo-
gies, and Group A had access to AVID-trained tutors. Group B was a cohort of students enrolled
in nonpaired UNIV 1301 and MATH 1300 classes and a cohort enrolled in nonpaired UNIV
1301 and MATH 1334 classes. Group B’s instructors had not been trained in AVID methodolo-
gies. Group C included a cohort enrolled in QEP MATH 1300 and a cohort enrolled in MATH
1334, both of which consisted of a fourth contact hour, modular design, and several other inter-
ventions (Cardenas, 2007). Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to address the four
research questions. In addition to the quantitative analyses, three focus groups of AVID-trained
tutors, mentors and student assistants, and a focus group of UNIV 1301 instructors and student
support center staff were conducted in the spring of 2011 and again in the spring of 2012. Data
gathered from focus group interviews allowed for a deeper investigation into the AVID imple-
mentation process and how the instructors, tutors, and student support center directors perceived
the effectiveness of the initiative.
DATA SOURCES AND EVIDENCE FROM YEAR 1
Table 1 illustrates the performance of UNIV 1301 students in the fall of 2010, Year 1 of AVID
implementation. UNIV 1301 served as the AVID Freshman Seminar, though few modifications

TABLE 1
Fall 2010 UNIV 1301 Cohort Performance
UNIV Status No. % of Cohort First-Term Grade Point Average Spring 2011 Retention
Took UNIV first time Fall 2010 1,320 48.5 2.347 93.5
Took UNIV before Fall 2010 142 5.2 2.284 95.8
No UNIV taken 1,259 46.3 2.656 94.6
Total 2,721 100.0 2.488 94.1
Note. UNIV 1301 = Learning Frameworks.
were made to the structure of the course or curriculum during that time. A z test (z = 1.027,
p > .05) showed that there was no significant difference in the retention rate between those who
took UNIV 1301 and those who did not. Preliminary analyses also suggested no significant dif-
ferences in GPAs between the groups. These interesting findings from Year 1 prompted the AHE
team to focus specifically on a set of paired courses in Year 2 to determine whether additional pro-
fessional development, tutoring, and/or collaboration between the two faculty members would
yield differences in student GPAs and retention rates.
DATA SOURCES AND EVIDENCE FROM YEAR 2
In Year 2 of implementation, paired classes (UNIV 1301/MATH 1300, UNIV 1301/MATH
1334) served as the experimental groups, whereas students enrolled in QEP MATH 1300 and
QEP MATH 1334 served as comparison groups, and control groups consisted of students enrolled
in MATH 1300 and MATH 1334 without interventions. GPAs and retention rates were compared.
Fall 2011 GPAs were examined, and retention rates were derived for students who entered in Fall
2011 and returned in Spring 2012.
In order to answer Research Questions 2 and 4, we conducted a one-way analysis of vari-
ance to examine whether the GPAs of the three MATH 1300 groups differed significantly; a
similar analysis was conducted for the three MATH 1334 groups. Findings indicated no statisti-
cally significant differences in GPA between any of the groups; however, the mean GPA for the
UNIV/MATH 1300 group and the mean GPA for the UNIV/MATH 1334 group were higher than
for the other groups (see Tables 2 and 3).
TABLE 2
Fall 2011 MATH 1300 Mean GPA
Course n % of Cohort Fall-Term GPA
UNIV 1301/MATH 1300 28 10.8 2.15
QEP 1300 58 22.4 1.99
MATH 1300 (control) 173 66.8 2.04
Total 259 100.0 2.04
Note. MATH 1300 = Elementary Algebra; GPA = grade point average; UNIV 1301 = Learning Frameworks;
QEP = Quality Enhancement Plan.

208 WATT ET AL.
TABLE 3
Fall 2011 MATH 1334 Mean GPA
Course n % of Cohort Fall-Term GPA
UNIV 1301/MATH 1334 29 3.2 2.36
QEP 1334 237 26.1 2.03
MATH 1334 (control) 643 70.7 2.00
Total 909 100.0 2.02
Note. MATH 1334 = Intermediate Algebra; GPA = grade point average; UNIV 1301 = Learning Frameworks;
QEP = Quality Enhancement Plan.
With regard to retention rates, the same groups were compared using the chi-square test of
independence to determine whether students in UNIV/MATH 1300 were more likely to return
to college the following semester. Statistically speaking, there was no significant relationship
between the courses (UNIV/MATH 1300, QEP 1300) and whether or not students returned the
following semester (p = .08). Similarly, no significant relationship (p = .26) was found when
UNIV/MATH 1300 and the control group were compared. However, it is worth mentioning
that students in UNIV/MATH 1300 had a greater retention rate than the other two groups (see
Table 4).
When data from the MATH 1334 courses were examined, there was no significant relationship
between the courses (UNIV/MATH 1334, QEP 1334) and whether or not students returned the
following semester (p = .08). However, when the retention rate of the UNIV/MATH 1334 group
was compared to that of the MATH 1334 control group, a significant relationship was found:
χ2
(1, N = 672) = 4.658, p = .03. Students in UNIV/MATH 1334 were significantly more likely
than students in the control group to return to college the following semester (see Table 5). The
effect size (phi coefficient) was .08, fairly small.
As an alternative way of viewing the effect of an intervention (Ingersoll, 2010; Sokal &
Rohlf, 1995; Valentine & Cooper, 2003; Warner, 2008), in this case UNIV/MATH 1300 and
UNIV/MATH 1334, odds ratios are presented. The students enrolled in UNIV/MATH 1300 were
2.30 times more likely to return the next semester than those in the MATH 1300 (control) group
(and 3.76 times more likely than those in QEP 1300). The students enrolled in UNIV/MATH
1334 were 6.76 times more likely to return the next semester than those in the MATH 1334
(control) group (and 5.18 times more likely than those in QEP 1334). Caution is needed when
interpreting these findings, as the intervention and control group sizes were very different.
TABLE 4
Fall 2011–Spring 2012 Retention Rates, MATH 1300
Course n % of Cohort Spring 2012 Retention Rate
UNIV 1301/MATH 1300 28 10.8 92.9
QEP 1300 58 22.4 77.6
MATH 1300 (control) 173 66.8 85.0
Total 259 100.0 85.17
Note. MATH 1300 = Elementary Algebra; UNIV 1301 = Learning Frameworks; QEP = Quality Enhancement Plan.

TABLE 5
Fall 2011–Spring 2012 Retention Rates, MATH 1334
Course n % of Cohort Spring 2012 Retention Rate
UNIV 1301/MATH 1334 29 3.1 96.6
QEP 1334 237 26.1 84.4
MATH 1334 (control) 643 70.7 80.6
Total 909 100.0 87.2
Note. MATH 1334 = Intermediate Algebra; UNIV 1301 = Learning Frameworks; QEP = Quality Enhancement
Plan.
Focus Group Findings
Focus group interviews were conducted in the spring of 2011 and the spring of 2012 with
instructors, student support center directors, students, and tutors. Themes that emerged from the
group interviews included AVID training and professional development, building relationships,
struggles/challenges, program success/strengths, and recommendations for improvement.
Professional development. Instructors participating in AVID professional development
had mixed feelings about their experiences. Some felt that the techniques that were introduced
during the trainings were strategies they had already been using for years in their classrooms.
Others embraced the new knowledge, whereas still others stated that the “review” or “reinforce-
ment” helped them: “It [AVID training] strengthened some of the existing knowledge that we
have had . . . a better understanding of Cornell Notes” (UNIV instructor). AVID training “helped
formalize and strengthen that knowledge base that had already been developed through other past
trainings” (nonteaching AVID team member).
Building relationships. Though the training and utilization of AVID strategies were a large
portion of the AVID implementation, the relationships built throughout the process were more
important:
More emphasis should be placed on the role of the faculty members—building of a relationship.
Things to consider include the willingness of the faculty to make him/herself available, to make the
material relevant, to get to know the students and to listen to the students. (UNIV instructor)
Also, “If you build rapport with them [students], they start coming back to you, and the students,
they see you, and you are their tutor . . .” (AVID tutor).
One UNIV/MATH student explained the importance of these relationships:
My parents left in September—they went up north to work and I stayed by myself . . . I felt so alone
‘cause well, I’m really attached to my family. Sometimes I just like broke down; I miss them so much
that I didn’t want to study . . . but the friends I made here became my family.
Challenges. AVID implementation did not come without its challenges. One AVID team
member explained the “hit-or-miss” type of training provided in the ﬁrst 2 years of implementa-
tion:

210 WATT ET AL.
First, a high number of adjunct faculties who teach English, mathematics, history or political science
have not been trained. Second, a high turnover rate among mentors, tutors, and advisors who have
been trained is reported. Third, the training that is available is appropriate for the tutors but inadequate
for the mentors. Faculty training is strong but inappropriate for student affairs, administrators and
other personnel.
Another team member explained,
The big picture is not clear enough for us to see where it fits within what we’re doing. Each department
appears to grasp the strategies that are unique to his/her department but lack the understanding of how
the overall AVID concept fits in with the team’s responsibility to reach all 2000 students.
Successes. Tutors who had attended AVID trainings were especially vocal about the
successes they had seen in their own work with students. One experienced math tutor stated,
I think, that helping out a group of students, it’s a great way to be more efficient because you’re
helping more than one people at the same time for the same problem . . . don’t just give them the
answer because you want them to know. You want them to be able to come up with the answer
themselves.
Another AVID tutor said, “I think the trainings were useful in helping to get the students to
participate when you know you are asking them questions and trying to get them involved in the
problems and trying to relate to them . . .”
Recommendations. Students were asked about program recommendations. One
UNIV/MATH student explained, “Maybe the notes. . . . Maybe like make us actually do
the Cornell notes . . . Go to a different class and do Cornell notes for this class and you bring
them back printed up.” Regarding the UNIV class, another UNIV/MATH student expressed that
he wanted “less psychology based and more actual life or application to college . . .”
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Results of first-year AHE implementation are worth noting; however, second-year findings are
the focus of this study. As shown already, measuring first-year AVID and non-AVID student
performance revealed no statistically significant differences. When interpreting these results, one
must be mindful of the level of AVID implementation; the AVID class itself was still “under
construction” in 2010–2011. These data indicate that AVID’s full potential was not realized in
Year 1.
Selection processes for the paired UNIV 1301/MATH 1300 or 1334 courses (AVID inter-
vention classes) and for QEP MATH 1300 or 1334 courses may inhibit interpretation of Year
2 findings. Incoming freshmen are provided information about the interventions prior to enrolling,
then choose which courses to take in their first year of college. It is possible that the more
motivated students choose courses with interventions such as the AVID paired course learning
community; hence, GPA and retention rates are higher among these students (Moore & Shulock,
2009; Reed et al., 2009).

Though few statistically significant differences were found between intervention groups with
regard to GPA and retention, it appears that there is some benefit to the support students received
in the paired classes (Andrade, as cited in Moore & Shulock, 2009; Engstrom, 2008; Price, 2005).
As stated by Andrade (2007, as cited in Moore & Shulock, 2009), “Though the research is weak-
ened by self-selection issues, most studies demonstrate a positive impact of learning communities
on academic achievement as measured by GPA, credit accumulation or self-reported learning”
(p. 7). Participation in paired courses has been associated with increased interaction with faculty,
better academic integration, and greater satisfaction with the college experience (Zhao & Kuh,
2004). Several other studies (Engstrom & Tinto, as cited in Visher, Wathington, Richburg-Hayes,
& Schneider, 2008; Minkler, 2002; Scrivener et al., 2008; Tinto, 1997) have found that students
enrolled in paired courses or the learning community earned better grades, had higher retention
rates, and accumulated more credits than students who were not enrolled in paired courses.
SCHOLARLY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Much of the previous research on AVID programs has been conducted in secondary education
settings (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2000; Mehan et al., 1996; Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, 2004; Watt,
Yanez, & Cossio, 2002). Several findings from this AVID for Higher Education study somewhat
corroborate previous secondary AVID research and a recent study of AVID for Higher Education
in a community college (Watt, Huerta, & Alkan, 2012). The paired course structure (learning
community) allows for more peer bonding than the traditional college course schedule. This
bonding has been an identified phenomenon in studies of AVID at the middle and high school
levels. Students in the AVID class form an academic and social support group that is necessary
to navigate through their college preparatory curriculum (Mehan et al., 1996; Mendiola, Watt, &
Huerta, 2010; Watt et al., 2008).The paired course structure also allows for more faculty–student
interaction as well as faculty–faculty interaction, also a feature of AVID secondary programs
(Watt et al., 2008).
Though student performance data in this study did not reveal many statistically significant
differences, for the most part students receiving the AVID intervention had higher GPAs and
retention rates than the comparison groups. Similar comparisons of AVID and non-AVID students
have been made at the secondary level, with AVID students outperforming the non-AVID students
(Lozano, Watt, & Huerta, 2009; Watt, Huerta, & Alkan, 2011; Watt, Huerta, & Lozano, 2007;
Watt, Powell, Mendiola, & Cossio, 2006).
Though AHE is in its infant stages, this study provides a springboard for additional research on
AVID in higher education. Upcoming focus groups should shed light on program implementation
and student success. Continued examination of this cohort of students through their second year
of college may also give a better picture of the long-term effects of AHE.
REFERENCES
Arana, R., Castañeda-Sound, C., Blanchard, S., & Aguilar, T. E. (2011). Indicators of persistence for Hispanic
undergraduate achievement: Toward an ecological model. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10, 237–251.
doi:10.1177/1538192711405058

212 WATT ET AL.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation
goes to college. Washington, DC: Author.
AVID Postsecondary. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.avid.org/sta_avidpostsecondary.html
Bahr, P. R. (2010). Preparing the underprepared: An analysis of racial disparities in postsecondary mathematics
remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 209–237.
Bali, V. A., & Alvarez, R. M. (2003). Schools and educational outcomes: What causes the “race gap” in student test
scores? Social Science Quarterly, 84, 485–507.
Boden, K. (2011). Perceived academic preparedness of first-generation Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 10, 96–106. doi:10.1177/1538192711402211
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate educa-
tion: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching.
Capraro, R., Young, J., Lewis, C., Yetkiner, Z., & Woods, M. (2009). An examination of mathematics achievement
and growth in a midwestern urban school district: Implications for teachers and administrators. Journal of Urban
Mathematics Education, 2(9), 46–65.
Cardenas, B. (2007). Quality enhancement plan: Enhancing learning for Mexican American students in gatekeeper
mathematics courses. Unpublished manuscript.
Cavazos, J., Johnson, M. B., & Sparrow, G. S. (2010). Overcoming personal and academic challenges: Perspectives from
Latina/o college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9, 304–316. doi:10.1177/1538192710380744
Cuseo, J. (2010). Distinctive features of AVID’s postsecondary system: The significant six. Unpublished paper.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform from one school to many. London, England:
Routledge/Falmer.
Easley, N., Bianco, M., & Leech, N. (2012). Ganas: A qualitative study examining Mexican heritage students’ motivation
to succeed in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 11, 164–178. doi:10.1177/1538192712440175
Engstrom, C. M. (2008). Curricular learning communities and unprepared students: How faculty can provide a foundation
for success. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008, 5–19. doi:10.1002/tl.322
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fry, R. (2011). Hispanic college enrollment spikes, narrowing gaps with other groups. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic
Center.
Gloria, A. M., & Castellanos, J. (2012). Desafíos y bendiciones: A multiperspective examination of the educational
experiences and coping responses of first-generation college Latina students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
11, 82–99. doi:10.1177/1538192711430382
Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., Lopez, A. G., & Rosales, R. (2005). An examination of academic nonpersistence decisions
of Latino undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 202–223. doi:10.1177/0739986305275098
Guthrie, L. F., & Guthrie, G. P. (2000, June). Longitudinal research on AVID 1999–2000: Final report. Burlingame, CA:
Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training in Education.
Hernandez, J. C. (2002). A qualitative exploration of the first-year experience of Latino college students. NASPA Journal,
40(1), 69–84.
Hossler, D., Ziskin, M., & Gross, J. (2009). Getting serious about institutional performance in student retention: Research-
based lessons on effective policies and practices. About Campus, 13(6), 2–11.
Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Santos, J. L., & Cabrera, N. L. (2008). Advancing in higher education: A portrait of Latina/o
college freshmen at four-year institutions: 1975–2006. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Higher
Education Research Institute.
Ingersoll, G. M. (2010). Analysis of 2×2 contingency tables in educational research and evaluation. International Journal
for Research in Education, 27, 1–14.
Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Ginder, S. A. (2012). Postsecondary institutions and price of attendance in 2011-12,
degrees and other awards conferred: 2010-11, and 12-month enrollment: 2010-11 (NCES Publication No. 2012-289).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Learning framework course now required for all freshmen. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.utpa.edu/news/index.
cfm?newsid=2736
Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national
and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Lozano, A., Watt, K. M., & Huerta, J. (2009). A comparison study of 12th grade Hispanic students’ college anticipations,
aspirations, and college preparatory measures. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 92–110.

Martinez, M., & Kloppott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access and success for low-income
and minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.
McCabe, R. H. (2003). Yes we can! A community college guide for developing America’s underprepared. Phoenix, AZ:
League for Innovation in the Community College.
McCusker, M. (1999). ERIC review: Effective elements of developmental reading and writing programs. Community
College Review, 27, 93–105.
Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking
low-achieving students. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mendiola, I. D., Watt, K. M., & Huerta, J. (2010). The impact of Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) on
Mexican American students enrolled in a four-year university. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(3), 209–220.
Minkler, J. E. (2002). Learning communities at the community college. Community College Review, 30(3), 45–59.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2009). Student progress toward degree completion: Lessons from the research literature.
Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in Hispanic education (NCES Report No. 2003-008).
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/hispanics/Section9.asp
Nuñez, A. M. (2009). A critical paradox? Predictors of Latino students’ sense of belonging in college. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 2, 46–61. doi:10.1037/a0014099
Ojeda, L., Navarro, R. L., & Morales, A. (2011). The role of La Familia on Mexican American men’s college persistence
intentions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 216–229. doi:10.1037/a0020091
Pappamihiel, N. E., & Moreno, M. (2011). Retaining Latino students: Culturally responsive instruction in colleges and
universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10, 331–344. doi:10.1177/1538192711410602
Perna, L. W., Li, C., Walsh, E., & Raible, S. (2010). The status of equity for Hispanics in public higher education in
Florida and Texas. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9, 145–166.
Price, D. V. (2005). Learning communities and student success in postsecondary education. New York, NY: MDRC.
Ramirez, O., Watt, K. M., & Wang, X. (2010, May). The impact of interventions on Hispanic student achievement in an
elementary algebra course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Denver, CO.
Ramirez, O., Watt, K. M., & Wang, X. (2011, April). The impact of interventions on Hispanic student achievement
in an intermediate algebra course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Rathbun, A., West, J., & Walston, J. (2005, April). Relationships between family risks and children’s reading and math-
ematics growth from kindergarten through third grade. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Reed, M. J., Kennett, D. J., Lewis, T., Lund-Lucas, E., Stallberg, C., & Newbold, I. L. (2009). The relative effects of
university courses and individualized interventions for students with learning disabilities. Higher Education Research
& Development, 28, 385–400. doi:10:1080/07294360903067013
Rendón, L. I. (2009). Sentipensante (sensing/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness, social justice and liberation.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Riegle-Crumb, C. (2006). The path through math: Course sequences and academic performance at the intersection of
race-ethnicity and gender. American Journal of Education, 113, 101–122.
Rose, H., & Betts, J. R. (2001). Math matters: The links between high school curriculum, college graduation, and
earnings. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute.
Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Ely, E. D. (2001). Pursuing excellence: The Community College of Denver. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 517–537.
Saenz, V. B., & Ponjuan, L. (2009). The vanishing Latino male in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 8, 54–89. doi:10.1177/1538192708326995
Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C. E., & Sommo, C. (2008). A good start: Two year effects of
a freshman learning community program at Kingsborough Community College. New York, NY: MDRC.
Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Goodman, K. M., & Salisbury, M. H. (2010). Liberal arts colleges and good
practices in undergraduate education: Additional evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 1–22.
doi:10.1353/csd.0.0113
Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry. New York, NY: Freeman.
Stats at a glance, Fall 2010. Retrieved from http://oire.utpa.edu/publications/minifactbook2010.pdf

214 WATT ET AL.
Stewart, D. W. (2010). The purpose of a university education. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13, 244–250.
doi:10.1080/10887156.2010.522480
Taylor, P., Fry, R., Velasco, G., & Dockterman, D. (2010). Minorities and the recession-era college enrollment boom.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of
Higher Education, 68, 599–623.
Tym, C., McMillion, R., Barone, S., & Webster, J. (2004). First-generation college students: A literature review. Round
Rock: Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation.
Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines: Issues in the interpretation of
effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse.
Visher, M. G., Wathington, H., Richburg-Hayes, L., & Schneider, E. (2008). The learning communities demonstration:
Rationale, sites and research design. New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Alkan, E. (2011). Identifying predictors of college success through an examination of AVID
graduates’ college preparatory achievements. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(2), 120–133.
Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Alkan, E. (2012, August 2). Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) in a commu-
nity college setting: A case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 752–760. doi:10.1080/
10668920903182583
Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Cossio, G. (2004). Leadership and AVID implementation levels in four south Texas border
schools. Catalyst for Change, 33(2), 10–14.
Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Lozano, A. (2007). A comparison study of AVID and GEAR UP 10th-grade students in two
high schools in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(2), 1–29.
Watt, K. M., Johnston, D., Mendiola, I. D., Huerta, J., & Alkan, E. (2008). Retention of ﬁrst-generation college-going
seniors in the college preparatory program AVID. American Secondary Education, 36(4), 17–40.
Watt, K. M., Powell, C. A., & Mendiola, I. D. (2004). Implications of one comprehensive school reform model for
secondary school students underrepresented in higher education. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
9(3), 241–259.
Watt, K. M., Powell, C. A., Mendiola, I. D., & Cossio, G. (2006). School-wide impact and AVID: How have selected
Texas high schools addressed the new accountability measures? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
11(1), 57–74.
Watt, K., Yanez, D., & Cossio, G. (2002). AVID: A comprehensive school reform model for Texas. National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 19(3), 43–59.
Whitt, E., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Kuh, G. (2008). Assessing conditions to enhance student success: How six campuses
got started. About Campus, 13(3), 9–18. doi:10.1002/abc.253
Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher
Education, 45(2), 115–138.

Dr. butcher avid postsecondary article published

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Dr. butcher avid postsecondary article published

Similar to Dr. butcher avid postsecondary article published (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dr. butcher avid postsecondary article published