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.
This part should reflect key findings of data reported in Part II.
Executive summary (max 2 pages)
Description of the
(max 1 page)Critical analysis of departmental data (see Part II) and questions for
to address; some groups find a or useful (max 4 pages)Summary and implications obtained by analyzing student learning outcome reports
Key findings from analysis of data and potential implications, e.g., degree completion, persistence, course
, summary of programmatic and curricular assessment and any relevant curricular changes, rationale for degree tracksDiscussion and relevance of questions posed to
Context (max 4 pages)
Institution
Short history, institutional focus (paragraph)
Mission and/or vision statements
Brief summary of strategic priorities
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
Department
Short history, departmental focus (paragraph)
Mission and vision statements
Chair details: Selection process, current term, list of past three chairs and terms (not to extend past 15 years)
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
Sharing and delegation of administrative responsibilities, e.g., program assessment, recruiting, advising, faculty mentoring
Regularly scheduled meetings and description of how decisions are made
Peer and aspirant departments (max 3 pages)
Selection process
Comparison data
Discussion
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)
Draft of departmental future objectives and potential actions to achieve them
Pre-site visit questions for reviewers from the
Department
Administration (dean and/or provost)
Analysis of data should appear in Part I.
Students (max 6 pages)
Number of graduates in each degree/major offered over past five years
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.
Post-graduation education and employment
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.
Degree tracks (max 5 pages)
Sample student course sequences for various degree tracks within and outside your department
Courses offered (max 5 pages)
Enrollments for each course using metrics relevant to your institution, e.g., credit hours, head count, student-to-faculty ratio
List of instructors for each course for past four years
Summary of programmatic and curricular assessment (max 5 pages)
Student learning outcomes and description of assessment processes
Annual assessment reports from the last three years
Faculty (max 3 pages)
Teaching workload (courses, labs, enrollments) over the past four to five years
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
, service on committees, leadership in research and service activitiesTenure and promotion criteria and processes
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
Budgets (max 4 pages)
Amounts in major departmental budget categories, e.g., non-salary operating budget, instructional laboratory budget
Other institutional sources of funding, e.g., summer fellowships, conference travel, grant incentive funds, gifts, endowment income
Trends over the past five to seven years
Description of physical spaces and equipment (max 3 pages)
Overview of fit of existing space and equipment to departmental mission, with attention to goals related to teaching, student collaboration, and research opportunities
Prioritized list of space and equipment needs
Faculty CVs (max 2 pages per person)
Include grants and publications (indicate student collaborators) in the past five years
Schedule of sabbaticals taken and outcomes
Other departmental documents and information, e.g., bylaws, recipients of departmental scholarships and awards and their demographics