How to Serve as an Undergraduate Program Reviewer

Version 2021.1

This section provides step-by-step guidance for individuals serving as

External Reviewers

Individuals brought in for their expertise and experience within a particular area to consult with a department and provide feedback. Reviewers’ primary role is advising your department and administrators about the current state of affairs and plans for improvement in the context of common disciplinary practices. Reviewers also provide advice, guidance, and suggestions on your department’s strategic objectives  and proposed actions. Other names used to describe those from outside the institution who contribute to a program review include external visitors, external advisers, external evaluators, and external consultants. For more details, see the section on How to Serve as an Undergraduate Program Reviewer.

who contribute to a review of an undergraduate physics program. Such individuals advise departments and administrators about their current status,

Strategic Objectives

Statements describing what a department wants to achieve in a way that progress can be measured within a specific time frame.

, and potential

Departmental Actions

Activities a department undertakes to achieve strategic objectives.

. Along with advice on deciding whether to accept an invitation, the section includes guidance on preparing for and conducting a site visit and developing a written report. For examples and templates, see the resources on Template for an External Reviewers’ Report, Program Review Timeline, Topics a Department Might Explore in a Program Review, Template for a Self-Study Report, Sample Agenda for an External Reviewers’ Site Visit, and Sample MOU for Engaging an External Reviewer for Program Review. For advice for departments undertaking a program review, see the section on How to Undertake an Undergraduate Program Review. Institution-specific requirements for program review vary widely, so not all recommendations will apply to all program reviews. Unlike most other sections of the EP3 Guide, this section describes a sequential process, and the effective practices should be studied and implemented in order.

Benefits

External Reviewers

Individuals brought in for their expertise and experience within a particular area to consult with a department and provide feedback. Reviewers’ primary role is advising your department and administrators about the current state of affairs and plans for improvement in the context of common disciplinary practices. Reviewers also provide advice, guidance, and suggestions on your department’s strategic objectives  and proposed actions. Other names used to describe those from outside the institution who contribute to a program review include external visitors, external advisers, external evaluators, and external consultants. For more details, see the section on How to Serve as an Undergraduate Program Reviewer.

contribute to a department’s self-assessment and planning by providing (1) perspectives, feedback, and analyses of issues and (2) a peer review of departmental programs, policies, and strategies for advancement. They help share effective practices that benefit students, departments, institutions, and the wider physics community. Reviewers benefit by expanding their knowledge of community practices, learning how to apply effective practices in other contexts, and preparing for their own department reviews.

The Cycle of Reflection and Action

Effective Practices

Effective Practices

  1. Respond to an invitation to serve as an external reviewer

  2. Prepare for the visit

  3. Conduct the visit

  4. Develop the written report

Resources within the EP3 Guide:

External resources:

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