Can low-cost online summer math programs improve student preparation for college-level math? Evidence from randomized experiments at three universities
Abstract
Every year many students enter college without the math preparation needed to succeed in their desired programs of study. Many of these students struggle to catch up, especially those who are required to take remedial math courses before entering college-level math. Increasing the number of students who begin at the appropriate level of math has become an important focus for educators and policymakers. We conducted randomized experiments of low-cost online summer math programs at three universities to test whether this type of intervention can increase access to math preparation, improve placement and enrollment in fall math classes, and improve performance in first-year math courses. Students who received the intervention engaged with the platform, though at relatively low rates, and were more likely to retake the placement test and improve their scores than students in the control group. However, these improved scores did not translate into enrolling in higher level math courses, obtaining more math credits, or improving grades in math-related courses during the first year of college. Thus, providing students access to this online tool did not improve their math skills.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Among two experimental studies on online SBPs, Chingos et al. (2017) reported that SBP did not improve math skills.
“Similarly, among two experimental studies on online SBPs, one reported that SBP did not improve math skills (Chingos et al., 2017)”
From Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Chingos et al., 2017
The only two studies that used an experimental design were fully online (Dockter et al., 2017; Chingos et al., 2017).
“For this review, the only two studies that used an experimental design were fully online (Dockter et al., 2017;Chingos et al., 2017).”
From Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Chingos et al., 2017
Chingos et al. (2017) also evaluated placement into higher-level courses as an academic outcome.
“Interestingly, Chingos et al. (2017) also evaluated placement into higher-level courses as an academic outcome.”
From Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Chingos et al. (2017)
The experimental study conducted by Chingos et al. (2017) included a rather equal proportion of participants and non-participants.
“The same is true for the experimental study conducted by Chingos et al. (2017).”
From Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Chingos et al. (2017)
Cites
Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from a Six‐Campus Randomized Trial
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.21728 · Cited by 403 · see citing works
Self-citationXu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.08.001 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
A Randomized Assessment of Online Learning
Alpert, W. T., Couch, K. A., & Harmon, O. R. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.p20161057 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Castleman, B. L., Page, L. C., & Schooley, K. (2014) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.21743 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review
Caballero Díaz, D., Amin, A., Musa, P., & Leung, V. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16020220
- Authors
- Chingos, M. M., Griffiths, R. J., & Mulhern, C.
- Affiliations
- Urban Institute (US)
- SRI International (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mulhern, Christine
- ORCID
- Mulhern, Christine
- Venue
- Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-04-14
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 794-816
- ISSN
- 1934-5739 (ISSN-L)
- 1934-5747
- OpenAlex
- W2606167248
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematics Education and Programs
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Keywords
- higher education access
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review