Guide to How to Undertake an Undergraduate Program Review

Version 1. May 14, 2021

Contributors and Reviewers

Editorial Director

Sarah "Sam" McKagan, McKagan Enterprises

Courtney Lannert*, Smith College and University of Massachusetts Amherst

Contributors

Neal B. Abraham, Mount Holyoke College

Theodore Hodapp*, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Michael Jackson*, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Synthesis Committee

Neal B. Abraham, Mount Holyoke College

Theodore Hodapp*, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Michael Jackson*, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Reviewers

Kate Alley, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

Mario Diaz, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Evangeline J. Downie, George Washington University

A. Gigi Fansler, Higher Learning Commission

Ken Krane, Oregon State University (retired)

Jamie Stanesa, Higher Learning Commission

Linnea A. Stenson, Higher Learning Commission

Richard T. Roca, Olin College

Quinton L. Williams, Howard University

Review Committee

David Craig*, Oregon State University

Michael Jackson*, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Gubbi Sudhakaran*, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

This section provides step-by-step guidance for a department chair and department members to conduct a periodic review of their undergraduate program and accompanying development of strategic goals with specific initiatives. This material can inform and augment existing practices, and guide the building of a process when needed. Guidance is provided on a

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.

that includes holding conversations with members of your department and other stakeholders, gathering and analyzing data, writing a self-study report, identifying and hosting

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.

, identifying

Strategic Objectives

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

and mechanisms by which they can be implemented and monitored. For examples and templates see the resources on 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, Sample MOU for Engaging an External Reviewer for Program Review, and Template for an External Reviewers’ Report. For advice 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.

conducting program reviews, see the section on How to Serve as an Undergraduate Program Reviewer. For guidance on developing and implementing a more formal document such as an action or strategic plan, see the section on How to Create and Use a Strategic Plan. Processes outlined here follow recommendations of many institutional accreditors, thus streamlining departmental workload. Institution-specific requirements for program review vary widely, so not all recommendations will apply to all departments. A small department or a department undertaking its first review may want to be selective in choosing which parts of these guidelines to adopt. While the EP3 Guide does not explicitly address a department’s graduate or research programs, much of the advice given here can be generalized to those programs. 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

Completing a periodic (optimally every five to seven years) review of your undergraduate physics program, as required for institutional accreditation, will provide your department with a summary of what was accomplished during the prior period and how it was accomplished, identification of potential initiatives to undertake or issues to address in a future action or strategic plan, stronger rationales when advocating for resources from your administration, a context for supporting such requests, and the ability to demonstrate to your administration and other stakeholders a commitment to proactive planning and ongoing improvement. 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.

described here, including garnering advice from

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.

, facilitates discussions that help guide a department in reaching consensus on strategic directions and specific initiatives. Upper-level administrators benefit from receiving an independent, authoritative review of your department, enabling them to work collaboratively with you to improve the physics program.

The Cycle of Reflection and Action

Effective Practices

Effective Practices

  1. Engage your department and institution in developing a plan for the review process

  2. Develop a self-study report

  3. Plan and host a site visit

  4. Enact subsequent planning actions

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.

© 2023 The American Physical Society
CC-BY-NC-ND