Thematic Pathway for Reaffirmation (TPR): Institutional Reaccreditation

10-21-21

​

Linda Adler-Kassner and Mike Gordon

​

​

UCSB current accreditation: 2013-2023

Thematic Pathway for Reaffirmation (TPR):

Current reaffirmation pathway

Pathway available (by application to WASC) for institutions at low risk of not being reaccredited

​

UCSB approved because of robust, ongoing 3 year cycle of PLO assessment (among other things)

TPR: benefits

Deep dive into themes selected by the institution and approved by WASC

​

(Also requires evidence of compliance with WASC standards)

TPR themes

• High level/relevant to the campus
• Established/pursued with broad consultation
• Aligned with institutional mission and commitments
• Aspirational, but not too aspirational

You might ask:

​

“Does this mean that PLO assessment is suspended?”

No. :-)

​

All programs will continue to undertake regular PLO assessment (3 year cycle; mid-cycle progress reports)

​

Reminder:

Group 1 PLO assessment kickoff workshop: October 28, 1-3pm

New assessment website

assessment.ucsb.edu

​

​

Proposed theme:

Designing for Access, Designing for Success

March-September, 2021: Theme developed with broad consultation (faculty/Senate; staff; students)

September 2021: Thematic proposal forwarded to Senate for review

​

October 2021: Thematic proposal forwarded for EVC/Chancellor approval

​

November 1: Thematic proposal due to WASC

Key terms: Access and Success

Access = entrance into and navigation through program

​

​

Success = completion; student’s experience of relevance of program/completion for their commitments

Designing for Access, Designing for Success

Two types of data to answer several questions

Quantitative

​

Institutional data

Focus dept data

Surveys

Qualitative

​

Interviews/focus groups

Textual analysis

Designing for Access

1. As students enter majors (UG) or prepare for qualifying exams (G) and navigate programs (UG/G):

​

1. What are pathways to and bottlenecks impeding successful access?

​

1. Are qualitative and quantitative perceptions aligned?

Designing for Success

2. Near the time students are completing majors (UG) or PhDs:(G)

​

1. Can we see trends in quantitative data that indicate more/less successful pathways to degrees?

Are these trends aligned with qualitative data?

​

1. How have students found that their majors/degrees have been relevant for their commitments/goals?

​

Quantitative: Institution-wide questions

Over the last 8 years (2013-2021), what patterns do we see in disaggregated institutional data at three different points in time:

​

1. Admissions

​

1. Just before entrance into majors [first yr/transfer]/just prior to qual exams (grad)

​

1. Graduation

Institutional data to be gathered/analyzed

Admission rates; changes in applicant/accept pools

Enrollment patterns

Degree pathways

Student influx/efflux for declared/premajor students

Pathways for undeclared students

Probation rates

Completion rates

Quantitative: Case studies

Selected departments with programs that are illustrative of larger campus phenomena:

​

• Departments that have higher rates of students leaving sequence/major after initial declaration:
• Biology [MCDB/EEMB]; Economics; Chem/Biochem

​

• Departments that have overall higher rates of students entering the major from other majors:
• Global Studies; Religious Studies; Sociology

Quantitative: Case study questions

1. Over the last 8 years (2013-2021), looking at year-to-year flow, what patterns do we see in disaggregated quantitative data associated with access and movement through majors:

​

• Undergraduates (first year, transfer)
• entrance into major
• movement into/out of major
• probation rates
• completion rates

​

• Graduate students
• entrance into/movement out of program
• success at candidacy
• matriculation, time to degree, employment stats

​

1. Same as (1), but 2014-2019 (pre-COVID) looking at flow quarter by quarter
2. Same as (1), but last 2 years (2019-2021)

Qualitative: Interviews/Focus groups

Access:

​

Near the time students are entering degree programs (UG)/time of qualifying exams:

​

What do students, faculty, and staff perceive as pathways and bottlenecks associated with successful entrance into/navigation through programs?

Qualitative: Interviews/Focus groups

Success:

Near the time students are completing degree programs:

​

• What do students, faculty, and staff perceive as pathways and bottlenecks associated with degree completion?

​

• How do students perceive the relevance of their degrees for their goals, especially:
• courses, (co)curriculum, instruction, advising (“learning environment”)
• requirements and policies (“institutional structures and practices”)?

​

Qualitative: Textual analysis

What trends/patterns can be identified regarding access/success in textual materials?

​

• PRP/PLO reports
• DEI plans/activities
• Student-facing department, division, college materials (websites, advising information, program manuals, etc.)
• Policies (department, division, college, Senate)

Primary Data Wranglers

Linda Adler-Kassner (Writing/CITRAL) * co-chair

Mike Gordon (Chemical Engineering) * co-chair

Amanda Brey (Academic Program Review) * co-chair

​

​

In the weeds: Who/how we’ll do it

Faculty/staff teams to gather data/conduct research

​

Regular consultation with administration, Senate, AS, GSA, case study departments

​

​

Less weedy: When we’ll do it

Data collection: now-June 2022

​

Drafting: Summer 2022-Fall 2022

​

Draft to reviewing agencies: Late 2022-spring 2023

​

Draft due to WASC: sometime spring/summer 2023

​

WASC review team visit: Fall 2023

Questions? Want to learn more?

Linda Adler-Kassner * Co-chair/ALO/Prof, Writing (ladler@ucsb.edu)

​