Supplement: Template for a Self-Study Report

For more on program review, see the sections on How to Undertake an Undergraduate Program Review and How to Serve as an Undergraduate Program Reviewer.

This template reflects a subdivision between analysis and data that support and inform the analysis. Other template models may be required by your institution or more appropriate to your departmental context. We recommend keeping Part I to no more than 20 pages, to keep the workload manageable.

Below is an example template for a self-study report if your institution does not have an existing report format.

Part I: Analysis and narrative.

This part should reflect key findings of data reported in Part II.

  1. Executive summary (max 2 pages)

  2. Description of the

    Review Process

    A process encompassing all elements of a periodic review of your undergraduate physics program. The review process includes holding conversations with members of the department and other stakeholders, gathering and analyzing data, writing a self-study report, identifying and hosting external reviewers, and creating or revising a strategic plan (or informally identifying strategic objectives with departmental actions whose progress can be assessed through measurable outcomes). Terms commonly used for this process include external review, external evaluation, academic quality improvement program, self study, comprehensive review, and strategic planning. Each term may be used differently by different institutions and only partially describes the intended process. Consequently, each carries some potential for misinterpretation. For more details, see the section on How to Undertake an Undergraduate Program Review.

    (max 1 page)

  3. Critical analysis of departmental data (see Part II) and questions for

    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.

    to address; some groups find a

    SWOT Analysis

    A framework for evaluating a program based on perceived Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Such an analysis helps bring into focus critical elements that may impact the program’s future development and sustainability.

    or

    SOAR Analysis

    A framework for evaluating a program based on perceived Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results. This analysis focuses on positive measures.

    useful (max 4 pages)

    1. Summary and implications obtained by analyzing student learning outcome reports

    2. Key findings from analysis of data and potential implications, e.g., degree completion, persistence, course

      DFW Rates

      The percentage of students enrolled in a course who received a grade of D, F, or W (withdrew from the course). This is often used as an inverse measure of how well the course supports student success.

      , summary of programmatic and curricular assessment and any relevant curricular changes, rationale for degree tracks

    3. Discussion and relevance of questions posed to

      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.

  4. Context (max 4 pages)

    1. Institution

      1. Short history, institutional focus (paragraph)

      2. Mission and/or vision statements

      3. Brief summary of strategic priorities

      4. Organization chart of your institution as relevant to your department, e.g., academic administration, study abroad, student life, instructional resources, advising, career services, human resources, diversity and equity

    2. Department

      1. Short history, departmental focus (paragraph)

      2. Mission and vision statements

      3. Chair details: Selection process, current term, list of past three chairs and terms (not to extend past 15 years)

      4. Faculty and staff breakdown by departmental category, e.g., tenured and tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, teaching and learning assistants, graders, technicians, administrative support staff

      5. Sharing and delegation of administrative responsibilities, e.g., program assessment, recruiting, advising, faculty mentoring

      6. Regularly scheduled meetings and description of how decisions are made

  5. Peer and aspirant departments (max 3 pages)

    1. Selection process

    2. Comparison data

    3. Discussion

  6. Executive summaries, recommendations, and follow-on actions (initiatives and outcomes) from departmental or programmatic reviews from last five to seven years, e.g., last department review, diversity review, sub-field review (max 4 pages)

  7. Draft of departmental future objectives and potential actions to achieve them

  8. Pre-site visit questions for reviewers from the

    1. Department

    2. Administration (dean and/or provost)

Part II: Data.

Analysis of data should appear in Part I.

  1. Students (max 6 pages)

    1. Number of graduates in each degree/major offered over past five years

    2. Breakdown of graduates by demographic categories, and comparison to institutional and regional breakdowns and those of peer and aspirant departments. For guidance on how to collect and analyze demographic data respectfully and protect anonymity, see the Guidelines for Demographic Questions in the supplement on How to Design Surveys, Interviews, and Focus Groups.

    3. Post-graduation education and employment

    4. Other data to consider: persistence (from e.g., first to second introductory physics course, introductory to intermediate physics course sequence), time to degree (for e.g., high school teacher certification pathways, three-year completion pathways), points of entry into the major (e.g., algebra or calculus-based introductory physics courses, transfer from another STEM major, two-year college entry), students’ research experiences, internships, study abroad, and other curriculum-related activities. See the section on How to Select and Use Various Assessment Methods in Your Program for guidance on how to track department metrics.

  2. Degree tracks (max 5 pages)

    1. 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.

    2. Sample student course sequences for various degree tracks within and outside your department

  3. Courses offered (max 5 pages)

    1. Enrollments for each course using metrics relevant to your institution, e.g., credit hours, head count, student-to-faculty ratio

    2. DFW Rates

      The percentage of students enrolled in a course who received a grade of D, F, or W (withdrew from the course). This is often used as an inverse measure of how well the course supports student success.

      in critical courses by demographic, particularly first-year and courses required for entry into the major, calling out courses with high

      DFW Rates

      The percentage of students enrolled in a course who received a grade of D, F, or W (withdrew from the course). This is often used as an inverse measure of how well the course supports student success.

      for any demographic

    3. List of instructors for each course for past four years

  4. Summary of programmatic and curricular assessment (max 5 pages)

    1. Student learning outcomes and description of assessment processes

    2. Annual assessment reports from the last three years

  5. Faculty (max 3 pages)

    1. Teaching workload (courses, labs, enrollments) over the past four to five years

    2. Other areas of faculty workload pertinent to this review, e.g., research publications, grant funding, supervision of research groups and students, faculty and student accomplishments, advising, additional service undertaken as a member of a

      Marginalized Groups

      People of color and others with marginalized ethnicities, women and others who experience misogyny, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, and others who have traditionally been marginalized in society and in physics. According to the TEAM-UP Report, marginalized groups are “groups of people defined by a common social identity who lack adequate social power or resources to design, build, or perpetuate social structures or institutions that reflect the centrality … of their identities, proclivities, and points of view. … They need not be underrepresented or numerical minorities, but often are.” We use the term marginalized groups, rather than minorities, underrepresented groups, or other commonly used terms, because people in these groups are not always minorities or underrepresented, and in order to convey that underrepresentation is the result of marginalization rather than a statistical accident. Another common term is minoritized groups. While we use this general term for brevity and readability, it is important to recognize that the many different groups encompassed by this term face different challenges and have different needs that should be addressed individually whenever possible, to learn the terms that people ask to be called, and to recognize that these terms may change over time.

      , service on committees, leadership in research and service activities

    3. Tenure and promotion criteria and processes

    4. Hiring plans for additional or replacement faculty members, e.g., strategy for getting a search approved, diversity aspirations, area of emphasis, recruiting plan, start-up funds

  6. Budgets (max 4 pages)

    1. Amounts in major departmental budget categories, e.g., non-salary operating budget, instructional laboratory budget

    2. Other institutional sources of funding, e.g., summer fellowships, conference travel, grant incentive funds, gifts, endowment income

    3. Trends over the past five to seven years

  7. Description of physical spaces and equipment (max 3 pages)

    1. Overview of fit of existing space and equipment to departmental mission, with attention to goals related to teaching, student collaboration, and research opportunities

    2. Prioritized list of space and equipment needs

  8. Faculty CVs (max 2 pages per person)

    1. Include grants and publications (indicate student collaborators) in the past five years

    2. Schedule of sabbaticals taken and outcomes

  9. Other departmental documents and information, e.g., bylaws, recipients of departmental scholarships and awards and their demographics

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-SA