Date: May 31, 2023
The Access working group is pleased to present the following summary of our AY22-23 work related to the Provost’s charge letter of 10 November 2022.
The working group process took place in three main phases: 1) collecting baseline data and establishing working definitions; 2) identifying barriers to access; and 3) scoping and beginning project work towards alleviating access barriers. The group identified nearly two dozen potential projects for consideration and made substantive progress on five such projects before the end of Spring quarter 2023 (described in more detail below). In addition, we presented these five projects to a range of faculty and leadership groups, including Faculty Senate Committee Chairs, the UW Tacoma Board of Deans, and academic leaders from UW Bothell.
Our hope is that this work will energize existing groups with institutional authority in relevant areas or be taken up by appropriate shared governance bodies to continue forward progress.
Identify and alleviate functional bottlenecks
One of the barriers to access identified by the working group are the ability for students to get into the classes they need to progress towards their major goals in a timely manner. The University of Washington collects information about the path students take through classes to reach the completion of their degree program. Courses identified as bottlenecks or gateways are currently flagged for students in DawgPath, to help them in their degree planning. A proactive step would be to identify those courses that are acting as a barrier to progress that would be an efficient target for expansion, either for in-person sections or to incentivise faculty to develop hybrid or asynchronous components, to improve access to a wider array of students and student schedules. While the current definitions of bottleneck and gateway may be useful for students, they are not necessarily capturing the most efficient targets for seat number or modality expansion.
Our goal is to refine the definitions used to flag these “barrier” courses, for purposes of a proactive intervention. Rather than just warning students about barriers, we propose to take steps to actively reduce existing barriers. Depending on the courses identified, the proposed interventions can vary from small investments (e.g., identifying conflicting classes and adjusting schedules) to larger investments (e.g., developing online sections or adding instructors). We propose focus group meetings with relevant chairs, deans, and faculty to identify support and incentives to expand student access to barrier courses.
Next steps and stakeholders
Our group has created a narrowed list of factors we consider to be the most important features of a bottleneck for access purposes and are in discussion with key players in the DawgPath group (Henry Lyle and Peter Seibel) to adjust the filter and the weight of various features in identifying barrier courses. We intend for this effort to remain tri-campus focus, which means that exact barrier reduction interventions will vary from campus to campus, with the barrier course definitions sharing common features. We see three primary steps in this work.
Refine barrier course definitions
After initial identification of barrier courses, we expect some revision of criteria to capture the courses with the largest impact (perhaps identifying 3-4 courses across different disciplines for each campus). This step will require some key missing information. A crucial piece of information that is missing from UW’s central database is degree requirements (i.e., the courses students need to complete before receiving a particular degree). In conversations with UW-IT, we have learned that degree requirements (which are presently in a vendor system) can be added to UW’s central database if leadership makes this a priority.
Focus group discussions with stakeholders
After course identification, it is important to understand the complexities of creating change within the current system. Small focus groups with Chairs, Faculty, and students, as well as appropriate leadership, would be useful in creating a dialogue between parties responsible for the resources required to address this issue. It is important to identify faculty volunteers for mitigation schemes as well as to identify resources to support faculty embarking on reform attempts. These would likely include training, incentives, service release, and/or clear plan for recognition of their efforts in promotion and merit reviews. It is also critical for leadership to determine how important these reforms are to the university, including in financial terms.
Collect outcomes
We are assuming that some amount of degree or university attrition can be attributed to stagnation in a degree program, or frustration with a system that blocks students from taking courses they deem as important for their careers. A key part of this project is collecting data about both short and long term outcomes. We envision collecting data about the amount of seats newly offered and filled, student perceptions of access, and time-to-degree in affected majors.
Accessible course design barriers
Accessibility creates a feeling in students and instructors that they are supported, especially for disabled students and instructors. When environments and spaces are accessible, people’s emphasis and energy go toward creation, learning, and engagement rather than toward dismantling inaccessible structures and practices. Working toward and designing with accessibility requires instructors and all members of the campus community to make investments of time and labor, and thus accessibility needs to be robustly supported through institutional resources and structures. A search of UW websites reveals numerous resources and materials available with which teachers might engage. Significant work is also taking place in educational accessibility, including Universal Design for Learning, but faculty are largely left to navigate this terrain alone in designing their courses and instructional environments.
We intentionally center disability while recognizing the many dimensions of accessibility, as conversations about access have implications beyond disabled students and faculty. We need to recognize intersectional and disability justice perspectives; queer, trans, BIPOC and multiply-minoritized disabled students and faculty; commutes and caregiving responsibilities, and more. We need to consider the full campus community, attending to supports and impacts for disabled students as well as disabled faculty and staff.
The first goal of this project is to gather in one place existing data about accessibility barriers, gaps, and challenges around teaching and learning at UW. A second goal is to identify what additional data is needed to get a fuller picture of accessibility gaps and barriers beyond existing data already generated or in the process of being generated. These data should then inform specific projects, initiatives, and resource allocations across the tri-campus university community. Some initial project ideas are suggested below based on early conversations and engagement with initial data collation.
Next steps and stakeholders
Numerous units across the UW are taking on accessibility work of different kinds. Despite this, faculty remain unclear where responsibilities and resources are allocated, how different units and cross-campus entities are coordinating, and what data are collected by each unit. While there are larger ongoing diversity efforts on campus, like our diversity blueprint (Diversity Blueprint – Diversity at the UW (washington.edu)) and Diversity Council (Diversity Council – Diversity at the UW (washington.edu)), this group recommends a specific set of actions related to disability access, while still acknowledging that diversity includes disability and that broader campus diversity goals should continue to include our disabled colleagues and students.
Data collection
We suggest that the group undertaking this project determines what data needs to be collected from the relevant parties. In 2019 the DIsability Services Office collected data regarding compliance. Data from the DRS should be collected to understand the highest-demand and most challenging accommodations as well as ways to more closely partner with faculty and/or academic units. This data may inform the University about the population of students requesting accommodations and learning about the high-demand accommodations and begin the conversation for expectations from all parties. The Faculty Council for Teaching and Learning is working on a survey specifically related to disability and instruction, and we encourage ongoing collaboration on the survey to make sure that it has a broad enough scope to provide necessary information for both working groups.
Liaison pilot program
We suggest a pilot a departmental disability liaison program that includes UW Seattle, Bothell, and Tacoma. A starting point is to reach out to large services courses (e.g., chemistry, biology, English) and include a faculty/staff liaison as the contact point for communication between the instructor and the DRS. This could be based off of a previously developed pilot project idea in the Chemistry department at UW Seattle to have DRS and faculty explicitly engaging to support students and faculty. There is also a framework for this through IT Accessibility Liaisons (IT Accessibility Liaisons – Accessible Technology (washington.edu)). Increased adoption of this liaison model may require material support to add staff or re-assign staff duties at a departmental or unit level. We also envision the liaison model as a stepping stone to stronger communication between faculty and DRS staff as accommodation needs are developed and ideally codified into some aspects of universal design at the department and individual course level. A long range goal is to create a culture of accessibility in units, and we see a path to this through faculty empowered to make accessible-focused changes to their courses, supported by dedicated staff.
Tri-campus advisory group
Disability law and standards of practice will change over time, as will modes of instruction. Looking forward, we propose to establish a tri-campus advisory committee that brings all stakeholders/representatives together: DRS, DSO, ADA Compliance, faculty, and. This Council on Accessibility could work in conjunction with the diversity council to improve access, with a lens towards disability, across the tri-campuses. It is important to remember that there is a difference between providing legally required services and creating a true culture of belonging for our disabled community. We feel our current process for supporting disabled students, staff, and faculty are not meeting our shared goals of inclusion and empowerment. While we must meet the legal standards for access, we should design a leadership council that represents broad faculty and student interests and provides a consistent voice for forward-looking, equitable policy and work towards a culture of inclusion at UW.
Revise online course policies
Current UW policies for online and distance education tend to make it more difficult for faculty members to provide flexible course options to students. The most visible of these policies is the Distance Learning approval policy (or DL policy), though several other policies impact what kinds of courses can be offered. Schools, departments, and faculty members are also unclear about how UW policies for online and hybrid courses interact with departmental and school decision making structures.
Next steps and stakeholders
Initial conversations with Associate Deans and the Tri-Campus Registrars revealed a willingness to engage in substantive dialogue about process change. Building on this momentum, we recommend forming a new working group made up of members from relevant faculty councils (e.g., Faculty Councils on Academic Standards and Teaching & Learning) and other relevant individuals to analyze the current policy landscape and craft revisions that will provide access to more flexible course options for students and clarify the locus of decision making regarding distance learning courses. In addition, we recommend that this group either directly overhaul the existing approval processes for DL designation or delegate another group (like the Tri-Campus Digital Learning Alliance) to revise this process on their behalf. In addition, we also recommend that the Tri-Campus Digital Learning Alliance produce a definition of HyFlex in order to alleviate confusion between it and hybrid learning.
Improve major information resources
Undergraduate students, particularly first-generation students, lack information about the value of different majors offered at the University of Washington and the life and career opportunities provided by a range of majors. Students often think there is only one degree program that leads to a specific set of outcomes, with the result that the UW loses a sizable number of students who are not admitted to their chosen capacity-constrained major. In order to keep students at UW, reduce pressure on capacity-constrained majors, and increase the number of students in their “first choice” majors, we propose three goals for this project: 1) increasing student awareness of wide range of majors available at UW campuses; 2) increasing student awareness of the nuances of different departments and majors; and 3) increasing interaction between departments/degree granting programs and the information guides utilized by students and advising.
Next steps and stakeholders
We are cognizant of campus-specific needs and differing circumstances across the three campuses, so we have met with a wide array of stakeholders across the three campuses and central units. After much discussion and consultation, we propose several potential end products to reach our goals: 1) web-based guides for students about alternative majors with similar career outcomes and that are persistently accessible; 2) more utility for the new Dawgpath system, including keyword and boolean search functionality for majors, not just courses; and 3) the development of an interactive tool or perhaps a mobile app for students that includes an interest inventory and greater exposure to a range of major options across the university.
Additional discussions with students and other stakeholders
A critical next step is to plan focus groups with a wide range of undergraduate students across the three campuses, as well as those who decided to transfer out of UW after not being admitted to their chosen major. It will also be important to integrate Admissions officers, both in general admissions and direct-to-major application contexts to understand how they discuss majors with prospective students. UWIT, Academic and Student Affairs, and a variety of Vice Chancellors and Vice Provosts also need to be brought into conversation in order to plan the best way to proceed.
Implement alternative information model
The information provided by these discussions should then be incorporated into the development of three end products described above. Heads of academic units will need to be consulted to describe and delineate their specializations and the career options for majors. In addition, we propose making data regarding program acceptance rates available to students directly in web-based guides to help alleviate anxiety, stress, and misconceptions about “competitive” majors. We intend the resources developed through this project to support multiple touch points for students, including pre-enrollment, transfer planning, orientation, and second year advising, because student experience on campus and in the classroom tends to affect ideas about viable majors and careers. We also recommend incorporating these tools into events like Orientation and Dawg Daze and as an important part of advisor communication with students throughout their college career.
Central room reservation system and policies
Students participating in a mix of remote, hybrid, and on-ground courses need better access to spaces in which to join online class sessions while physically on campus. Fortunately, a variety of spaces already exist that could be considered for this purpose and are currently used in a sub-optimal fashion. Furthermore, as UW continues to use modality agnostic approaches to instruction, the demands on technology equipped rooms are likely to increase in volume and complexity. The goal of this project is to coordinate space inventories with UW-IT and others to find existing spaces that could serve to support student learning but are absent from current directories/lists, then create “open door” policies or tie these spaces into existing room reservation tools. There are two clear products that would be generated by this work: a more inclusive space inventory made available via reservation tools; and policy examination/clarifications regarding the “ownership” of space and parameters around who may book/utilize it. Safety considerations regarding open door policies must be kept firmly in mind through the development of these policies.
Next Steps and Stakeholders
Data Collection
The group has begun conversions with stakeholders by gathering existing instructional space use policies and ownership guidelines. Additional data is needed. Specifically, we will need data on space utilization rates to identify underused spaces. We also would like to think broadly about potential for space, and including office spaces that have been freed up due to permanent remote/hybrid staff working schedules.It will be important to look specifically at rooms that have classroom characteristics amenable to remote instruction and survey their current utilization rates and to develop scheduling policies that improve room utilization. We also need to survey existing space reserving tools to identify the best existing tool to facilitate the wide-scale adoption of small space reservations by the student population.
Conversations with stakeholders before policy changes
Conversations with owners of existing reservation systems for pros/cons and utility specific to needs have begun, but will require additional work. There are many units that have ownership or have assumed control over space and it is critical to start with a clear understanding of current practices is critical, especially as conversations involve spaces not typically deemed “instructional.” Once small spaces and ownership have been identified, data on usage should inform a modernized space use policy and some potential restructuring of space control. Additionally, since many of these conversations have the potential to be unsettling to stakeholders, it is especially important that the group be sensitive to the wide variety of stakeholders in space use around campus while seeking to understand the pros, cons, and restrictions, on reorganization of space control. As policy is developed, these conversations should include the division of campus community safety, UW Academic Technologies, the Time Schedule office, Deans or Chairs, departmental schedulers, building coordinators, and relevant UW facilities voices. It will also be important to identify existing space policies and memoranda of understanding between units for space use. In addition, to support remote or hybrid instruction, the classroom scheduling process may need to be clarified or adjusted to allow for more granular instructor requests regarding room technology required to support their chosen and approved instructional modality.
Pilot projects for room use improvements
There are three areas for potential concurrent pilot projects, in addition to general changes in space use policies. Once we have identified buildings/spaces that would be appropriate for small room reservations and broader student access, it will be important to roll out those spaces to students using existing technology frameworks (i.e., Scout or 25 live) and training for students. Ideally we would start with a small number of rooms but use a system that is designed to be scalable as we add more physical resources to the tool. Buy-in from space-owning units may require incentives for space upgrade or participation. Additionally, the time schedule and room assignment office has created training materials for departmental classroom schedulers to reduce conflicts around room requests and improve room scheduling outcomes. It will be important to update those trainings with new information as this project moves forward and to support widespread adoption of the existing training. Finally, that office is also working on a pilot system for small space scheduling, so it will be important to follow up with their office and include them in planning.
Conclusion
We want to thank all the members of this working group and the large number of other university faculty, staff, and students who contributed to our work. Our hope is that these recommendations serve to catalyze disparate conversations around long-discussed access challenges and move the UW towards action.