Thematic Pathway for Reaffirmation (TPR): Institutional Reaccreditation

Linda Adler-Kassner

Associate Vice Chancellor of Teaching and Learning

Faculty Director, CITRAL

WASC Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO)

​

Accreditation: why?

As an educational institution, it is our privilege and our responsibility to:

​

• Create pathways for student learning: an educational environment (in and out of the classroom) where students learn to think, practice, and contribute to knowledge-making in the interest of the public good

​

• Study and learn: Are we creating an environment where all students can meet expectations for learning? If not, what changes can we make to our environment?

​

WASC Standards of Accreditation

Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purpose and Ensuring Educational Outcomes

Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions

Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability

Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement

Learn more (seriously!)

https://www.wscuc.org/handbook/#part-ii--the-core-commitments-and-standards-of-accreditation-overview

​

Ongoing assessment

SA assessment

Program/PLO assessment (undergrad/grad) - 3 year cycle

assessment.ucsb.edu

UCSB current accreditation: 2013-2023.

Thematic Pathway for Reaffirmation (TPR): Current reaffirmation pathway

Pilot pathway available by application to WASC

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

(Also requires evidence of compliance with WASC standards, including and not limited to ongoing assessment processes)

​

TPR themes

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

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 three questions

Quantitative

Institutional data

Surveys

Qualitative

Interviews/focus groups

Textual analysis

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

​

Success, continued

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

​

RQ1: What helps students enter, navigate, and complete majors/programs (grad) successfully?

Hypotheses/analysis focusing on:

Clear/conflicting information

Affirming/not affirming language and practices

More/less programmatic flexibility

Formal/informal mentorship

​

Data sources: textual analysis (program documents, websites, admissions materials, grad program manuals), interviews, survey

​

RQ2: Near the time of degree completion, do students find the degrees that they complete relevant for their commitments/goals?

Hypotheses/analyses focusing on:

Major change

Co-curricular activities

More/less programmatic flexibility

Formal/informal mentorship

​

Data sources: interviews, surveys

Who/how we’ll do it

Faculty/staff teams to gather data/conduct research

​

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

​

​

Primary Data Wranglers

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

Mike Gordon (Chemical Engineering) * co-chair

Amanda Brey (Academic Program Review) * co-chair

​

​

Quantitative Team

Mike Gordon, ChE, coord.

Mike Wilton, MCDB

Kelly Bedard, Economics

Aashish Mehta, Global Studies

Darby Feldwinn, Chem/Biochem

Tengiz Bibilashvili, CCS Physics

Tarek Azzam, Education

Donna Coyne, Admissions

Steven Velasco, IR

Laurel Wilder, IR

Robin Nabi, Communications (quant->qual)

​

Qualitative Team

Linda Adler-Kassner, AD UG Ed, coord.

Amanda Brey, Dir. Prog Review, coord

Jin Sook Lee, AD Grad Div., Edu.

Carlos Nash, Diversity, Grad. Div.

Laurel Wilder, IR

Joaquin Becerra, AD, Student Affairs

Joe Blankholm, Religious Studies

​

Cuca Acosta, Admissions

Lisa Berry, ID

Malaphone Phommasa, Academic Success Initiatives (UG ED)

Robert Hamm, AD Grad. Div.

Josh Kuntzman, Assessment, CITRL

​

Timeline

Data collection: now-June 2022

Drafting: Summer 2022-Fall 2022

Draft to reviewing agencies: Late 2022-spring 2023

Draft due to WASC: sometime spring 2023

WASC review team visit: Fall 2023

Questions? Want to learn more?

Linda Adler-Kassner * ladler@ucsb.edu