How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level

Version 2024.1

Program-level assessment of student learning is a cyclic process in which departments or programs gather direct information about the extent to which students are achieving the goals or learning outcomes the program is designed for them to meet and then modify the program based on the assessment results. This section provides guidance for departments on how to conduct assessment of student learning in undergraduate physics programs using a process consistent with typical requirements of institutions and institutional accreditors, as well as how to ensure that this assessment supports improvement of your department. This process includes evaluating attainment of

Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes

Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:

  • Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
  • Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
  • Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
  • Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings

Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

through

Assessment Measures

Student assignments or tasks used to assess program-level or course-level student learning outcomes by gathering information about aggregate student performance in your program. Examples include presentations; projects; and designated in-class conceptual questions, homework, and exam questions chosen for their relevance to the particular outcome being assessed. Assessment measures are designed to help you understand how well your program is achieving its overall objectives, with information about performance of individual students redacted from the final results. There are two main types of assessment measures: direct and indirect. Direct assessment measures provide for the direct examination or observation of student knowledge or skills relative to specific learning outcomes. Examples of direct measures include homework problems, exam questions, presentations, and projects. Indirect assessment measures are not tied to specific learning outcomes and should not be used to assess these outcomes, but can provide more nuanced information about overall student performance, success, and/or self-perception of learning. Examples of indirect measures include faculty reports of student learning, records of student success such as post-graduation employment, and grades.

Artifacts of student work based on these measures are evaluated (often against a rubric) to determine how well your program is meeting its objectives. Grading and learning assessment are related but distinct. Grading measures student performance against a rubric that evaluates overall performance, whereas learning assessment uses a rubric tied to attainment of a specific learning outcome. For example, a rubric for grading a lab report might include factors such as correct use of physics for analysis, units, and error analysis. A standardized rubric for assessing the learning outcome of written communication, by contrast, would assess exclusively the written component of the same lab report. Performance relative to this rubric is not used to evaluate individual student achievement, but is instead analyzed in aggregate to evaluate how well the program is helping students attain the assessed outcome and what changes could improve the program.

tied to one or more specific outcomes. This is done by evaluating selected pieces of student work (known in the assessment literature as artifacts) based on these measures, often against a

Rubric

A tool that identifies criteria for performance and different levels of performance within each of those criteria. A rubric may be used to articulate the expectations of student achievement for an assignment or key performance indicator (KPI) as defined by instructional staff or by a department. Rubrics provide a consistent, impartial evaluation of an assignment or performance indicator by defining explicit, developmentally appropriate criteria for different levels of performance. Rubrics come in many forms, from a checklist of required items to a detailed matrix with succinct, explicit descriptions of performance levels for each criteria. See the section on How to Select and Use Various Assessment Methods in your Program for details on how to use departmental rubrics and rubrics of student performance. For examples of rubrics for program-level student learning outcomes, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning.

, to determine how well students in your program are meeting the program’s learning outcomes.

Learning assessment is one important part of an overall evaluation of a program’s health, which one might do for a complete program review, as discussed in the section on How to Undertake an Undergraduate Program Review, or for other reasons. Healthy departments use learning assessment to identify areas of quality and areas for growth and improvement. Learning assessment is a process for improving overall student learning in your program, not for measuring the performance of individual

Instructional Staff

Faculty, instructors, adjuncts, teaching staff, and others who serve as instructors of record for courses. This term does not include instructional support staff who support the teaching of courses.

members or departmental quality.

This section provides a brief primer on assessment of student learning at the program level for department chairs and faculty. Outcomes-based assessment of aggregated student learning is a dynamic process with three important stages:

  1. Defining the most important goals, commonly known as student learning outcomes, for students to achieve as a result of completing your program.
  2. Evaluating how well students are meeting those outcomes by developing and implementing an

    Assessment Plan

    A plan for assessing student learning at the program level that includes:

    • defined program-level student learning outcomes
    • a curriculum map that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
    • a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
    • periodic reflection on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions
    for student learning.
  3. Using the assessment results to improve your program, also known as

    Closing the Loop

    Using meaningful, effective assessment to improve a program through a continual, cyclic process embedded in the program’s practices and culture, rather than as an occasional activity that serves only to produce a required report. Such a process includes analyzing and reflecting on the results of assessments of program-level student learning outcomes, changing the curriculum to improve student learning, and subsequently re-assessing outcomes to determine the effect of your changes.

    , a critical step.

The essential elements of a plan for assessment of student learning at the program level include defining

Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes

Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:

  • Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
  • Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
  • Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
  • Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings

Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

; creating a

Curriculum Map

A document used for curricular design that identifies the learning opportunities designed to address each program-level student learning outcome. An assessment plan typically includes a simplified version of a curriculum map, which shows only when and where in the curriculum (typically in courses) each program-level student learning outcome is assessed. Program-level student learning outcomes may be addressed and/or assessed in curricular and co-curricular activities, including courses, laboratory experiences, seminars, internships, research, and capstone experiences. Robust curricular design and student learning assessment plans don’t merely address or assess an outcome at one point in the curriculum; rather, each outcome is addressed at different levels (introduction, emphasis, reinforcement) throughout the curriculum and assessed in several places and at different degrees of mastery (emerging, developing, proficient). Consult your office of assessment for institution-specific recommendations. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level.

that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed; creating a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed; and periodically reflecting on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions. This section addresses each of these elements.

For examples of how to implement the guidance in this section, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning. This section provides a glossary of many assessment-related terms, which you can see by hovering over underlined terms. Readers of this section may find it helpful to review the glossary terms before reading the section. The section on Implementing Research-Based Instructional Practices provides general pedagogical guidance as well as guidance on how to design and assess courses based on

Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes

Statements describing what students should be able to do as a result of completing a particular course. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “solve,” “describe,” and “calculate”) rather than “understand.” Course-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as course-level SLOs and are also known as course-level learning goals. Examples include:

  • Solve the Schroedinger equation in one dimension for commonly encountered simple potentials
  • Describe physical situations that correspond to simple potential energy curves
  • Calculate the electric field or potential due to a system of charges using Coulomb’s law

Course-level student learning outcomes are generally specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses, in contrast to program-level student learning outcomes, which focus on overall program outcomes. For instructional staff, these learning outcomes clarify what the course will deliver and unite course content with course-level assessments. Specifying course-level learning outcomes in individual course syllabi is often a requirement for accreditation of your institution, or of the institution itself. Assessment of course-level student learning outcomes through course assignments or examinations should be aligned with assessment of program-level learning outcomes, when possible. See the section on Implementing Research-Based Instructional Practices for guidance on how to design and assess courses based on program-level and course-level student learning outcomes. For examples, see the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

.

Benefits

Student learning assessment is a deliberate, reflective, spiral process designed to increase student learning and support

Accreditation

A “process of self-review and peer review for improvement of academic quality and public accountability of institutions and programs. This quality review process occurs on a period basis, usually every three to ten years.” (Definition from CHEA.) The EP3 Initiative takes the position that physics programs should use the program-level assessment of student learning required for accreditation as an opportunity to engage in a cyclic process of program improvement and to design learning assessments that support goals for improving your program while satisfying accreditation requirements, avoiding duplicating efforts or doing busywork that doesn’t support your department. Nearly every college or university in the U.S. is accredited by one of the seven major accreditation agencies for four-year colleges and universities, and you need to know which one is your accreditor. Requirements vary among agencies, but all are concerned with learning assessment. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is an association of degree-granting colleges and universities in the US that recognizes institutional and programmatic accrediting organizations. The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) is an association of accreditation agencies. Physics programs also need to ensure that physics courses for engineering and chemistry majors meet, respectively, the requirements of ABET, the accrediting body for most engineering programs in the U.S. (including some engineering physics and physics programs), and the American Chemical Society (ACS), which approves chemistry degree programs in the US.

requirements. By dynamically aligning student learning outcomes with how your program supports student learning, you can more clearly articulate what you want students to learn and improve student achievement of your articulated outcomes. This ongoing, collaborative effort to strengthen your program to help students succeed can support a sense of shared vision, effort, and achievement among your department members.

Assessment activities can lead to improved student learning and growth; inspire

Instructional Staff

Faculty, instructors, adjuncts, teaching staff, and others who serve as instructors of record for courses. This term does not include instructional support staff who support the teaching of courses.

conversations on how, what, and why they teach; identify issues in your program, curriculum, and/or individual courses; help instructional staff see how courses link together; ensure that your program is cohesive, well-structured, and focused on thoughtfully constructed, institution-specific

Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes

Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:

  • Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
  • Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
  • Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
  • Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings

Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

; inform resource allocation decisions; and provide a rationale for programmatic changes. The information gathered while conducting learning assessment can be used to support program reviews and is required for accreditation of your institution.

The Cycle of Reflection and Action

Effective Practices

Effective Practices

  1. Engage your program or department in assessment of student learning

  2. Design a plan for assessment of student learning

  3. Conduct assessment of program-level student learning outcomes

  4. Use assessment results to inform programmatic change (“close the loop”)

Resources within the EP3 Guide

  • See the section on How to Select and Use Various Assessment Methods in your Program for guidance on selecting and using tools such as surveys, inventories, and classroom observation to measure progress and drive future action.
  • See the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning for examples of essential assessment documents, including

    Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes

    Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:

    • Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
    • Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
    • Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
    • Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings

    Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

    ,

    Curriculum Map

    A document used for curricular design that identifies the learning opportunities designed to address each program-level student learning outcome. An assessment plan typically includes a simplified version of a curriculum map, which shows only when and where in the curriculum (typically in courses) each program-level student learning outcome is assessed. Program-level student learning outcomes may be addressed and/or assessed in curricular and co-curricular activities, including courses, laboratory experiences, seminars, internships, research, and capstone experiences. Robust curricular design and student learning assessment plans don’t merely address or assess an outcome at one point in the curriculum; rather, each outcome is addressed at different levels (introduction, emphasis, reinforcement) throughout the curriculum and assessed in several places and at different degrees of mastery (emerging, developing, proficient). Consult your office of assessment for institution-specific recommendations. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level.

    ,

    Rubric

    A tool that identifies criteria for performance and different levels of performance within each of those criteria. A rubric may be used to articulate the expectations of student achievement for an assignment or key performance indicator (KPI) as defined by instructional staff or by a department. Rubrics provide a consistent, impartial evaluation of an assignment or performance indicator by defining explicit, developmentally appropriate criteria for different levels of performance. Rubrics come in many forms, from a checklist of required items to a detailed matrix with succinct, explicit descriptions of performance levels for each criteria. See the section on How to Select and Use Various Assessment Methods in your Program for details on how to use departmental rubrics and rubrics of student performance. For examples of rubrics for program-level student learning outcomes, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning.

    , and

    Assessment Plan

    A plan for assessing student learning at the program level that includes:

    • defined program-level student learning outcomes
    • a curriculum map that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
    • a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
    • periodic reflection on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions
    , that you can use as a starting point for developing your own plan for assessment of student learning.

External Resources

  • R. Miller and A. Leskes, “Levels of Assessment from the Student to the Institution,” Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005): A short paper describing assessment at the course, program, and institution level.
  • National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA): Provides resources for both program-level and course-level assessment of student learning.
  • National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT), Program Assessment: A broadly useful discussion of program assessment in a STEM context, with many references and resources. From the “Building Strong Departments” initiative in the geosciences at Carleton College.
  • Assessment Institute: A series of conferences on assessment and improvement in higher education.
  • ABET, Assessment Planning: An overview of the model of assessment used by

    ABET

    A nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that accredits STEM programs at colleges and universities. Website

    , which has long promoted the value of program-level assessment to improve engineering programs.
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Indicators for Monitoring Undergraduate STEM Education”, The National Academies Press (2018): Identifies a set of national-level indicators to measure the status and quality of undergraduate STEM education over multiple years. While this report focuses on indicators of quality at the institution level, many of the indicators discussed also have relevance to department-level health and success.
  • National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT), Degree Programs: Design, Development, and Assessment: A resource with guidance and examples for designing and assessing degree programs, including creating

    Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes

    Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:

    • Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
    • Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
    • Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
    • Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings

    Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

    ,

    Curriculum Map

    A document used for curricular design that identifies the learning opportunities designed to address each program-level student learning outcome. An assessment plan typically includes a simplified version of a curriculum map, which shows only when and where in the curriculum (typically in courses) each program-level student learning outcome is assessed. Program-level student learning outcomes may be addressed and/or assessed in curricular and co-curricular activities, including courses, laboratory experiences, seminars, internships, research, and capstone experiences. Robust curricular design and student learning assessment plans don’t merely address or assess an outcome at one point in the curriculum; rather, each outcome is addressed at different levels (introduction, emphasis, reinforcement) throughout the curriculum and assessed in several places and at different degrees of mastery (emerging, developing, proficient). Consult your office of assessment for institution-specific recommendations. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level.

    , and

    Assessment Plan

    A plan for assessing student learning at the program level that includes:

    • defined program-level student learning outcomes
    • a curriculum map that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
    • a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
    • periodic reflection on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions
    .
  • S. Chasteen, How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?, PhysPort (2021): A PhysPort expert recommendation on how to develop

    Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes

    Statements describing what students should be able to do as a result of completing a particular course. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “solve,” “describe,” and “calculate”) rather than “understand.” Course-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as course-level SLOs and are also known as course-level learning goals. Examples include:

    • Solve the Schroedinger equation in one dimension for commonly encountered simple potentials
    • Describe physical situations that correspond to simple potential energy curves
    • Calculate the electric field or potential due to a system of charges using Coulomb’s law

    Course-level student learning outcomes are generally specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses, in contrast to program-level student learning outcomes, which focus on overall program outcomes. For instructional staff, these learning outcomes clarify what the course will deliver and unite course content with course-level assessments. Specifying course-level learning outcomes in individual course syllabi is often a requirement for accreditation of your institution, or of the institution itself. Assessment of course-level student learning outcomes through course assignments or examinations should be aligned with assessment of program-level learning outcomes, when possible. See the section on Implementing Research-Based Instructional Practices for guidance on how to design and assess courses based on program-level and course-level student learning outcomes. For examples, see the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?

    .
  • A. Lahiff and C. O’Farrell, Writing Learning Outcomes, CAPSL: The Centre for Academic Practice, Trinity College Dublin (2009): A useful overview of how to write learning outcomes.
  • Association of American Colleges and Universities, Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) (2009): An initiative that provides rubrics for many common learning outcomes, available to download and adapt under a Creative Commons license.
  • ASSETT (Office of Information Technology) and TRESTLE (Center for STEM Learning), CU Boulder, Curricular Alignment: An overview of how to create curricular alignment in your program.
  • S. Sweet and S. Ferguson, Curriculum Mapping Toolkit for Sociology: Provides a framework for using curriculum mapping to assess and improve STEM departments in the context of sociology, though much of the discussion is relevant to any STEM department.

There is little scholarly research on the impact that assessing student learning at the program level has on program improvement. However, references 1–3 provide frameworks for the importance of such assessment, reference 4 provides short articles on the principles of good practice underlying assessment of student learning, and reference 5 provides an explanation of the importance of assessment of student learning for

Accreditation

A “process of self-review and peer review for improvement of academic quality and public accountability of institutions and programs. This quality review process occurs on a period basis, usually every three to ten years.” (Definition from CHEA.) The EP3 Initiative takes the position that physics programs should use the program-level assessment of student learning required for accreditation as an opportunity to engage in a cyclic process of program improvement and to design learning assessments that support goals for improving your program while satisfying accreditation requirements, avoiding duplicating efforts or doing busywork that doesn’t support your department. Nearly every college or university in the U.S. is accredited by one of the seven major accreditation agencies for four-year colleges and universities, and you need to know which one is your accreditor. Requirements vary among agencies, but all are concerned with learning assessment. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is an association of degree-granting colleges and universities in the US that recognizes institutional and programmatic accrediting organizations. The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) is an association of accreditation agencies. Physics programs also need to ensure that physics courses for engineering and chemistry majors meet, respectively, the requirements of ABET, the accrediting body for most engineering programs in the U.S. (including some engineering physics and physics programs), and the American Chemical Society (ACS), which approves chemistry degree programs in the US.

and accountability.

  1. P. Maki, Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment Across the Institution, 2nd Edition, Stylus Publishing (2010).
  2. L. Suskie, Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons (2018).
  3. R. M. Diamond, Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A Practical Guide, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons (2008).
  4. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA), Viewpoints.
  5. L. Suskie, Five Dimensions of Quality: A Common Sense Guide to Accreditation and Accountability, John Wiley & Sons (2014).
Stay Informed with Updates
Our quarterly newsletter keeps you in the loop about events, ways to get involved, and the latest EP3 Guide content.
By signing up, I agree to the APS Privacy Policy.
EP3 Logo

Brought to you by


Funding provided by

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1738311, 1747563, and 1821372. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

This site is governed by the APS Privacy and other policies.

© 2024 The American Physical Society
CC-BY-NC-ND