Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Adams, G. (2013). A comparison of student outcomes and overall retention between a 10-week accelerated and a 15-week traditional curriculum in a postsecondary apprenticeship training program (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Accession No. 3575536).
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of compressed delivery of a World Class Shipbuilding apprenticeship program on program retention.
- The Apprentice School of Newport News Shipbuilding compressed its delivery of program instructional hours from 75 weeks (five 15-week terms) to 40 weeks (four 10-week terms) in January 2009. The author compared administrative data on program completion for all apprentices who enrolled at the school from January 2004 to December 2008 (the comparison group) with those who enrolled from January 2009 to June 2012 (the treatment group).
- The study found that students who enrolled in the 40-week program were 17 percentage points more likely to be retained in the program than students who enrolled in the 75-week program, a statistically significant finding.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the treatment and comparison groups were not equivalent before the intervention, and the author did not adjust for these differences during analysis. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the compression of the apprenticeship program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Compression of the curriculum delivery time from 15-week terms to 10-week terms in the World Class Shipbuilding apprenticeship program at The Apprentice School of Newport News Shipbuilding
Features of the Intervention
The World Class Shipbuilding Curriculum is one of three programs offered at the Apprentice School of Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia. It is an academic apprenticeship that trains and develops students for careers in shipbuilding. Students split their time between academic courses (for example, technical mathematics, business processes, or drafting and design) and working in trade-related areas. They are paid for both their on-the-job training and education.
Features of the Study
In January 2009, the Apprentice School of Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia, compressed its World Class Shipbuilding curriculum from five 15-week terms (75 weeks total) to four 10-week terms (40 weeks total). The total hours of instruction (625) remained the same between the two groups, with the treatment group experiencing longer instruction days. Apprentices who enrolled at the school before this change (from January 2004 to December 2008) formed the comparison group; the treatment group consisted of apprentices who enrolled from January 2009 to June 2012. The author used school administrative data on program termination to compare program retention between the treatment and comparison groups.
Findings
Training
- The study found that students in the treatment group were 17 percentage points more likely to be retained in the program than students in the comparison group, a statistically significant finding.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors did not test for similarity of groups at baseline or account for any baseline differences between the treatment and comparison groups. According to CLEAR calculations, the treatment and comparison groups differed significantly on high school grade point average, math placement scores, and race/ethnicity. In addition, the treatment and comparison groups were enrolled in the program during different time periods and may have experienced other changes at the school or in the labor market that influenced their outcomes. For these reasons, the estimated impact may reflect the effects of differences between the groups in addition to any effects of the compressed program.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the treatment and comparison groups were not equivalent before the intervention, and the author did not adjust for these differences during analysis. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the compression of the apprenticeship program; other factors are likely to have contributed.