Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Academic Auditor Guide 2012-2013
Academic Auditor Guide 2012-2013
2012-2013 Cohort
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION …...................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES …..………………………………….…………………………………...........................…27
Page 2
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
INTRODUCTION
Which way to quality assurance in higher education? (Through) a new, mutually reinforcing
system of institution-based quality assessments of teaching and learning and a coordinated
regional system of external academic audits (Dill, 1996).
The commitment to quality assurance in higher education through the continuous improvement of
teaching and learning processes lies at the heart of the Academic Audit initiative in the Tennessee Board
of Regents (TBR) system. The 2012-2013 academic year marks the ninth cycle of the Academic Audit
initiative in the TBR. Since its inception during the pilot year of 2004 – 2005, over 300 academic
programs in TBR institutions have undergone the Academic Audit process. In support of the Academic
Audit process, more than 400 faculty members and academic leaders from all 19 TBR campuses and
other institutions have served as members of Academic Auditor Teams.
The importance of the auditor in the Academic Audit process cannot be overstated. Reasons cited by the
director of the Academic Audit Unit in New Zealand for the acceptance of the academic audit process
throughout its university system include:
Thoroughness of the auditor training;
Commitment and professionalism of the auditors leading to a rigorous but fair audit process;
The tone of the reports, with commendations as well as recommendations (Meade).
Auditor training has been a foundational element of the Academic Audit process from its inception, and
the TBR is committed to conducting a thorough course of preparation for academic auditor team
members and team leaders.
The Academic Audit, like more traditional program review process, is an academic auditor process
including a self-study and a site visit by peers from outside the institution. The Academic Audit process
emphasizes self-reflection and self-improvement rather than compliance with predetermined standards.
The purpose of an academic audit is to encourage departments or programs to evaluate their “education
quality processes” – the key faculty activities required to produce, assure, and regularly improve the
quality of teaching and learning. An academic audit asks how faculty approach educational decision-
making and how they organize their work, using the resources available to them and working collegially
to provide a quality education in the best interests of the discipline and student learning.
OVERVIEW OF THE ACADEMIC AUDITOR TEAM PROCESS
The TBR Academic Audit program issues a handbook, updated annually, that provides the following
description of the academic auditor team review process:
Academic auditors are volunteers (primarily faculty) who receive training on education quality
processes and academic audit methodology.
Academic Auditor Teams (2-4 members) most likely but not exclusively come from other TBR
institutions.
All departments are given the opportunity to nominate peers for service on their Academic
auditor Teams.
Because the academic auditors will be focusing on quality processes, they do not have to come
from the academic discipline of the department being audited although TBR strives to have
faculty from the discipline or a closely related discipline on the team.
Page 3
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Academic auditor team visits are typically one day per department.
Academic auditors meet with campus and departmental leadership, faculty, and students.
Academic auditors ask questions similar to the self-study questions.
Academic Auditors write a report:
o highlighting examples of exemplary practice,
o noting areas for improvement, and
o evaluating a department’s approach to educational quality practices.
The purpose of this training document is to further explore and explain these processes and functions.
PART 1: FORMATION OF THE ACADEMIC AUDITOR TEAM
Academic Auditor Team selection process
Each Academic Auditor Team is assembled by the TBR Academic Audit coordinator. The Team
consists of a team leader and usually two team members for a total of three members. For some small
programs, a two person team is appointed; for a few very large programs or a discipline that issues
degrees at more than one level, a four person team may be formed. The TBR Academic Audit
Coordinator will assign the team leader (chair) for each academic auditor team. Up to two team
members may be nominated by the program undergoing review. These nominees should be from other
institutions and not necessarily from the same discipline as the program undergoing review. Also, the
nominees need NOT have previously served as members of an academic audit site review team.
Training is provided to all members of Academic auditor Teams. If nominations are not made or if a
nominee is unable to serve, the TBR Academic Audit Coordinator will identify team members from the
pool of auditors.
Discipline-specific or not?
Every effort is made to identify one auditor from the discipline or from a closely related discipline for
each program undergoing the academic auditor team review process. As the focus of the academic audit
is on the processes - both in place and planned - to continuously improve the quality of teaching and
learning, interdisciplinary participation is of great value. Educators share the common challenge of
reaching, teaching and assessing students as they aspire to attain their educational goals. A precept of the
academic audit process is that such a challenge is not discipline specific and that we can all learn from
our colleagues who demonstrate the very best practices of teaching and learning in higher education:
“…auditors need not be expert in any particular academic discipline. Disciplinary knowledge is not a
prerequisite for conversations about education quality processes. Indeed, too much disciplinary
knowledge tempts auditors to advocate their own preconceived views about how things should be done.”
(Massy, 2003)
Characteristics of academic auditor team members
Academic auditor team members should be recognized as dedicated and talented faculty members and
academic leaders. They may be subject matter experts whose discernment is highly valued, or they may
be learning leaders who are prized for their insights into quality teaching and learning processes.
Regional/distance considerations should not be the most important criterion for selecting team members.
Partnerships and previous associations are acceptable as long as objectivity is not compromised. Also
desirable are the abilities to:
Work cooperatively with team members,
Page 4
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Page 5
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
program, its self-study procedure, and the processes it identified that are either in place or are
planned to assure continuous quality improvement in teaching and learning.
4. Team members should also review the appendices for further perspective on the program.
The self-study is limited by design to 20 pages for undergraduate programs. Additional
information may be included in an appendix as well as via web page links.
5. All team members should clearly understand if the program being reviewed is using the
academic audit process as its means to meet the program review requirement by THEC for
Performance Funding credit. If so, team members should review the appropriate Performance
Funding Summary Sheet (undergraduate or graduate) to prepare for discussions on those
criteria with fellow team members.
6. During a second reading of the program’s self-study, each team member should make notes
and draft questions that could be used at the site visit.
7. Communication between team members is essential. Organization of these communications
will come from the team leader and may be in the form of teleconferences, email exchanges,
web postings, etc. Each team member will likely be assigned specific focal areas on which to
concentrate.
8. The academic auditor team should develop a proposed site visit schedule which the team
leader will finalize with the academic audit campus coordinator at the program’s campus.
9. The team will collectively prepare questions for each set of conversations that will be held on
the day of the site visit. These questions should address areas that may have been unclear, not
fully explained or not discussed at all in the self-study document.
10. Team members must each make arrangements with their home institution for travel and any
missed teaching assignments or other responsibilities for the time period spent on the site
visit experience.
PART 3: THE SITE VISIT EXPERIENCE
“The site visit by the audit team sets in motion the academic auditor process…The role of the audit team
is to set the tone for a collegial, supportive dialogue” (Massy, 2007). The site visit experience is a very
full immersion in the academic auditor process beginning with the gathering of the academic auditor
team at an area hotel the evening prior to the site visit date and ending the following afternoon with a
report to the program. The success of the site visit is predicated upon preparation both by the academic
auditor team and the program itself. Both parties agree upon a schedule well in advance. A sample
schedule is included in Appendix A, but the actual schedule will be customized according to the specific
nature of the program undergoing the site visit. Key elements of a successful site visit include the
following actions by the academic auditor team and its leader:
1. On the evening before and/or the morning of the site visit day, the team should meet together
off campus in order to cement collegiality; clarify each individual’s responsibilities; and
share any lingering concerns regarding the self-study, appendices, or auxiliary materials
referenced in the self-study (for example, postings on a program’s website). Team members
should review the site visit schedule [see Appendix A for a sample schedule].
2. From arrival on campus on the morning of the site visit date and throughout the day, the team
should make every effort to adhere to the schedule.
Page 6
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
3. During all conversations (meetings) with faculty, students, and/or other stakeholders, each
team member should maintain the role of auditor meaning “listener.” Questions should be
succinct without lengthy framing or anecdotal embellishment.
4. An effective way to validate responses is by repeating a question to other participants and/or
at another session. For example, if faculty members are asked this question: “How do you
determine if your web-based assessments measure student learning?”, then during the session
with students, a few students could be asked, “How effectively do the web-based assessments
measure what you are supposed to have learned?”
5. Each team member should take good notes. These will be invaluable at two pivotal junctures:
a) that afternoon when the team prepares the lists of Commendations, Affirmations, and
Recommendations; and b) when each team member writes a part of the academic auditor
team report.
6. The host program may provide additional information on site that the team members should
also review.
7. After all meetings are over, the team needs to complete the Academic Audit Onsite
Evaluation Checklist [see Appendix B] and come to consensus regarding Commendations,
Affirmations, and Recommendations [see Appendix C]. If there is a need to ask for
information or to hold an additional conversation, this is permissible.
8. When the Performance Funding Summary Sheet is required for the program, the team must
make decisions regarding the criteria and complete the Summary Sheet. The Summary Sheet
asks for the name, title, institution, and signature of each team member, which should be
issued on the form prior to departure [see Appendix D].
9. At the end of the day, the team collectively makes a presentation of about 15 minutes in
length to the program faculty, administrators, and guests at which the Commendations,
Affirmations, and Recommendations are given.
10. The team leader provides the original, signed copy of the Academic Audit Onsite Evaluation
Checklist and, when necessary, the Performance Funding Summary Sheet to the program’s
representative. [Note: the team leader and members keep copies one of which is subsequently
included in the team’s report sent to the TBR.]
11. Before departing, team members should complete the travel forms and provide receipts for
costs incurred related to the site visit to the host institution as team members will be
reimbursed by the host institution.
12. Team members should depart with a plan and timetable for completing the written response
by the academic auditor team. In several cases, academic auditor teams are able to draft a
significant part of the final written report during the early afternoon work session prior to the
oral presentation to the program.
PART 4: POST-SITE VISIT RESPONSIBILITIES
While the campus site visit marks the zenith of activity for the academic auditor team, several very
important tasks remain. These require the cooperation of all team members.
1. First and foremost, the final written report of the Academic auditor Team needs to be
completed in a timely manner but no later than May 17, 2013. While the team leader usually
Page 7
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
drafts the final document, team members will be expected to submit write-ups of assigned
sections.
2. It may also be necessary for team members to participate in a follow-up conference call to
address particular points that need clarification and consensus. The team leader may ask team
members to review the final draft of the report for accuracy and completeness.
3. When the report is finalized, the team leader sends it to the Academic Audit Coordinator at
the Tennessee Board of Regents along with a copy of the Summary Sheet when relevant. The
TBR Coordinator will forward the final report to the host campus.
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something you've understood all your life, but in a
new way.
Doris Lessing
Page 8
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Flexible Meeting and Work Time 1:30pm – 3:30pm ABC Bldg. Room 2
Academic Auditor Team
-Possible time for materials review, tours, or additional meetings with faculty or students
-Time for group to discuss observations and work on reports
Logistics Information
Campus Contact for Academic Audit– Name, Position, Phone (office, cell), E-mail
Hotel Accommodations – Hotel Name, Address, Phone
Page 9
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Institution: _______________________________________________________________
Program: ________________________________________________________________
CIP Code: ________________________________________________________________
Degree Level: Certificate Associate Baccalaureate Master’s Doctoral
Instructions for Audit Chairs and Teams
Part I: Academic Audit Visiting Team Report -- Record of Commendations, Affirmations, and
Recommendations
This form must be completed by each audit review team prior to concluding the visit. The original will be
forwarded to TBR but a copy must be left with the department prior to departure. All observations included on
this form should be represented as commendations, affirmations, or recommendations. Please be concise in your
descriptions as you will have opportunity to expand upon your justification for each item in your written report
due to TBR by May 17, 2013.
Part II: Academic Audit Summary Sheet (only for use if program is being reviewed for Performance
Funding purposes)
This form is only to be completed if the program review is serving as the performance funding review.
Using the Academic Audit Summary Sheet complete the 25 elements on the evaluation results checklist (marking
“met” or “not met’). This exercise must be completed and signed by the team prior to the Exit Session. The
original will be forwarded to TBR but a copy must be left with the department prior to departure.
Part III: Narrative Evaluation and Written Report
The Audit Chair and Team will use their evaluations indicated on the Audit Visiting Team Report and
Academic Audit Summary Sheet (if used for Performance Funding purposes) as the basis of a written report.
Summarized findings from the self-study report and on-site visit will represent a narrative report of the team’s
conclusions and the final responsibility of the visiting team. The template for completing this report (limited to
10 pages) is attached. This report is due to TBR on May 17, 2013.
The Audit Evaluation will become part of the record of the academic program review and will be shared with
the academic department/unit, the college, and the central administration, as well as the Tennessee Higher
Education Commission. Each department/campus will be provided opportunity to respond and comment on the
written report.
Audit Chair’s name, title, and institution: ______________________________________
Audit Chair’s signature: ___________________________ Date_____________________
Names, titles, institutions, and signatures of other Audit Team members:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Page 10
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
******************************************************************
Page 11
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
General Report Outline [NOTE: The report must be limited to ten (10) pages.]
I. Introduction -- Briefly describe the unit/program evaluated, the date of the Audit, the
protocol observed by the auditors, and other relevant information.
II. Overall Performance - What is the team’s overall summary conclusion about the state
of the unit/program?
III. Performance in the Focal Areas – How does the unit/program’s work in each focal area
measure up against the quality and evidentiary principles?
A. Learning Objectives
B. Curriculum and Co-Curriculum
C. Teaching and Learning Methods
D. Student Learning Assessment
E. Quality Assurance
IV. Conclusions. Briefly indicate the team’s conclusions regarding the following by
providing each in bulleted or numbered sequence:
Page 12
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
It is important for respondents to observe the following suggestions when developing the Audit
Report.1
1. The purpose of the report is to summarize findings from the self-study report and the visit.
2. Keep the tone of the report developmental – focus on how the department can improve on its
own. Address what it will work on as a result of the review.
3. The report is the synthesis of the teaching and research focal areas pulled together by the
team leader.
4. Provide feedback on all five themes in focal areas in summary form and give overview
perceptions.
5. Reports are written by the audit team and assignments are made at the visit, and members
provide bullet-type comments.
6. Use the debriefing time to gather ideas from members and create an overview of the report.
7. At the visit, agree on a report format and how long each section should be. Find some
consensus from the group and develop a strategy for the report (e.g. bullet comments only).
8. At the visit there is an oral debriefing with the department/unit before the team arrives. The
team decides on overall points. Use these themes to provide the context for the report and
the executive summary.
9. Ask for evidence as you gather impressions. Don’t build summary points around comments
from one faculty member or one small group of students – look for confirming evidence.
10. Keep it simple and tell them what they did well as well as what processes they may want to
address to facilitate continuous improvement.
NOTE: Write the report so that it is helpful for the department, but also write it as if others will read
it (i.e., be sensitive to language and tone of comments).
1
Key themes taken from materials provided by Dr. Bill Massy during work with Tennessee Board of Regents in the 2004-05
Pilot Phase of Academic Audit.
Page 13
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
1) Pre-Site Visit
Status
a) With the Campus Coordinator of the host site…
i) Decide upon hotel selection and related details
(restaurants nearby, directions to campus, parking on
campus, etc.)
ii) Share contact information including multiple contact
numbers
iii) Set up the specific schedule for the site visit day
Page 14
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Page 15
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
.
For additional information contact:
Page 16
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Name, Title, and Institutional Affiliation of Academic Audit Team Leader (s):
______________________________________ ____________________________________
Name Name
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Title Title
______________________________________ ____________________________________
Institution Institution
______________________________________ ____________________________________
Signature Date Signature Date
Page 17
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Not
1. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Met
Met
The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of their process for
1.1 developing learning objectives for the program, considering measurability, clarity
and what students need to know.
1.2 The faculty documented or proposed a process for developing learning objectives
that are based on realistic and appropriate evidence.
1.3 The faculty documented or proposed specific plans to take best practices and
appropriate benchmarks into account in the analysis of learning objectives.
Not
2. CURRICULUM AND CO-CURRICULUM Met
Met
2.1 The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of the extent to which they
collaborate effectively on the design of curriculum and planned improvements.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan for analyzing the content and
2.2
sequencing of courses in terms of achieving program learning objectives.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan for the ongoing review of curriculum
2.3 and co-curriculum based on appropriate evidence including comparison with best
practices where appropriate.
Not
Met
3. TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES Met
The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of their process for guiding
3.1
and improving teaching and learning throughout the program.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan that promotes the effective use of
3.2 instructional methods and materials for achieving student mastery of learning
objectives.
3.3 The faculty analyzed the extent to which there is true, ongoing collaboration in the
design and delivery of the teaching and learning processes of the program.
Not
4. STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT Met
Met
The faculty documented or proposed indicators of student learning success that are
4.1
keyed to the learning objectives of the program.
4.2 The faculty documented or proposed assessments of student learning that are
grounded in best practices and appropriate comparisons.
4.3 The faculty documented or proposed a plan for using student learning assessments
that leads to continuous improvements in the program.
The faculty documented or proposed a continuous improvement plan that
4.4
incorporates multiple measures to assess student learning and program
effectiveness.
Page 18
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Not
5. QUALITY ASSURANCE Met
Met
There is an evident commitment to making continuous quality improvements in
5.1
the program a top priority.
The faculty documented or proposed a continuous improvement plan that
5.2 incorporates multiple measures to assess student learning and program
effectiveness.
Not
6. OVERALL ASSESSMENT Met
Met
Not
7. FOLLOW-UP OF PREVIOUS AUDIT * Met
Met
7.1 An action plan was developed as a result of the previous Academic Audit.
There is documented evidence that recommendations made by the Academic
7.2 Audit Team have been considered and, when feasible and appropriate,
implemented and tracked.
There is documented evidence that the program has implemented and tracked the
7.3 progress of and use of results from improvement initiatives cited by the faculty its
self study.
8. SUPPORT (Note: The Support category is NOT included in the Performance Funding Not
calculation. If the Academic Audit process did not address these criteria, they should be marked Met
Met
“NA.”)
The program regularly evaluates its library, equipment and facilities, encouraging
8.1
necessary improvements within the context of overall college resources.
8.2 The program's operating budget is consistent with the needs of the program.
The program has a history of enrollment and graduation rates sufficient to sustain
8.3
high quality and cost-effectiveness.
* Criterion only included in the performance funding calculation for programs undergoing the Academic Audit
during the 2010-2015 cycle that also used the Academic Audit in the 2005-10 cycle. Note: please be sure that
the “Second Academic Audit” is checked on page 1.
Page 19
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
The criteria used to evaluate a program appear in the following "Academic Audit Summary Sheet.” The Summary
Sheet lists 55 items grouped into 14 categories. THEC will use the criteria in categories 1 – 13 to assess
Performance Funding Standard 1C when the Academic Audit process is used for programs undergoing the
Academic Audit process for the first time. For programs undergoing the Academic Audit for the second time,
criteria in category 14 will also be used to assess Standard 1C.
These criteria have been selected based on the Academic Audit Focal Areas to be consistent with the spirit and
process of the Academic Audit. The program faculty has provided a self-study document that includes
information for each criterion within the Focal Areas. Supporting documents will be available as specified in the
self study. As the Academic Audit Team Leader, you should assess this and other evidence observed during the
site visit to determine whether the process has met each criterion within a category. A checkmark should be
placed in the appropriate box to indicate whether you believe that a program has “met” or “not met” each criterion
in the table. If a particular criterion is inappropriate or not applicable to the program, the criterion should be
marked “NA”.
The Academic Audit Summary Sheet will be sent to the appropriate campus official for inclusion in the Annual
Performance Funding Report. When combined with the self-study and the written report prepared by the visiting
team, the Summary Sheet will facilitate institutional development of a program action plan to ensure continuous
quality improvement.
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Name Name
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Title Title
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Institution Institution
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Signature Date Signature Date
Page 20
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Academic Audit Status: ______ First Academic Audit _____ Second Academic Audit
Not
1. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Met
Met
The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of their process for
1.1 developing learning objectives for the program, considering measurability, clarity
and what students need to know.
1.2 The faculty documented or proposed a process for developing learning objectives
that are based on realistic and appropriate evidence.
The faculty documented or proposed specific plans to take best practices and
1.3
appropriate benchmarks into account in the analysis of learning objectives.
The faculty clearly communicates program objectives to current and potential
1.4 students, employers or other stakeholders.
Not
2. CURRICULUM AND CO-CURRICULUM Met
Met
The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of the extent to which they
2.1 collaborate effectively on the design of curriculum and planned improvements
which will reflect attained competencies in the outcome data.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan for analyzing the content, format and
sequencing of courses in terms of achieving program learning objectives with
2.2
appropriate breadth and depth for the degree offered which allows for attainment of
the degree in a timely manner.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan for determining the soundness of and
rationale for curriculum and co-curriculum based on appropriate evidence,
2.3
including comparison with best practices where appropriate, and communicate
these views to the student body.
Not
3. TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES Met
Met
The faculty examined the extent to which there is focus on and periodic, systematic
3.1
review of the actual process of teaching and learning throughout the program.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan that promotes the effective use of
3.2 instructional methods and materials for achieving student mastery of learning
objectives.
The faculty analyzed the extent to which there is true, ongoing collaboration in the
design and delivery of the teaching and learning processes of the program with
3.3
reliance on best practices and resources beyond the confines of the program or
department.
3.4 There is a critical mass of faculty and students to promote a scholarly community
and assure an appropriate group of peers.
Faculty/graduate student ratio, average course load, average thesis/dissertation load
3.5 per faculty and distribution across department, and teaching evaluations evidence
support of graduate teaching and learning processes.
Page 21
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
Page 22
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
The department takes active steps to support both junior and senior faculty in
7.3
remaining vital in their respective research areas.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan to ensure that departmental processes,
7.4 policies and procedures positively influence faculty research activities and
program competitiveness.
The faculty documented or proposed a plan that engages graduate students in
7.5
inquiry and research in collaboration with faculty.
Not
8. SYNERGY WITH EDUCATION Met
Met
Page 23
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
outcomes congruent with the department’s purpose and the university mission.
The faculty clearly state and embrace appropriate admission standards, completion
11.3 standards and graduation rates which are readily available to prospective and
current students.
Not
12. OVERALL ASSESSMENT Met
Met
12.1 The Academic Audit process was faculty driven.
The Academic Audit process (self-study and visit) included descriptions of the
12.2
program’s quality processes.
The process resulted in a candid description of weaknesses in program processes
12.3
and suggestions for improvements.
Overall, the visiting team affirms the openness and thoroughness of the program
12.4
faculty in completing the academic audit of this program.
Not
13. SUPPORT Met
Met
The program regularly evaluates its library, equipment and facilities, encouraging
13.1
necessary improvements within the context of overall college resources.
13.2 The program's operating budget is consistent with the needs of the program.
The operating budget is sufficient to attract quality students and provides adequate
13.3
support without substantially delaying progress toward the degree.
The program has a history of enrollment and graduation rates sufficient to sustain
13.4
high quality and cost-effectiveness.
The operating budget is sufficient to allow faculty regular opportunities for
professional development including travel and presentation of research findings,
13.5
participation in professional organizations, workshops and other learning
activities.
Not
14. FOLLOW-UP OF PREVIOUS ACADEMIC AUDIT Met
Met
14.1
An action plan was developed as a result of the previous Academic Audit.
There is documented evidence that Recommendations made by the Academic
14.2 Auditor Team have been considered and, when feasible and appropriate,
implemented and tracked.
There is documented evidence that the program has implemented and tracked the
14.3 progress of and use of results from Improvement Initiatives cited by the faculty in
its self study.
Page 24
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
During the 2010 – 2015 Strategic Planning and Performance Funding cycles, many academic
programs will undergo the Academic Audit process for the second time. The expectation of a program
undergoing the Academic Audit process for the second time is that it has acted upon the Initiatives for
Improvements that it set for itself after its first Academic Audit Self Study. Also, that it has responded to
the Recommendations made by the Academic Auditor Team that reviewed the program in its first
Academic Audit experience. Following is the text from the Academic Audit Handbook that provides
guidance to programs undergoing the Academic Audit process a second time regarding reporting its
follow-up processes and activities:
6. Follow-up of Previous Academic Audit [Only for programs undergoing the academic audit process for
the second and subsequent times. Not to exceed 5 pages.]
This section of the self-study reflects upon two outcomes of the previous academic audit process: 1)
Initiatives for Improvement that were generated by the program itself; and 2) Recommendations by the
Academic Auditor Team. The expectation is that the program will have acted in a number of ways to
advance improvement in these areas. Thus, a brief discussion of the process that the program followed to
develop and enact its action plan is appropriate here.
It is expected that the Initiatives for Improvement that were generated by the program itself have
been implemented and that progress on that initiative has been tracked. Further, it is expected that the
results of those implementations have been considered and used to further improvement in the program.
If the program has a detailed summary report for each initiative or a series of annual reports for each
initiative, these do not need to be reiterated in the self-study report. Rather, those reports may be
included as appendices. However, a brief narrative describing the process followed by the program to
initiate and follow through with its initiatives would be appropriate in the self-study as would be a
summary of the effectiveness of the initiatives.
Regarding Auditor Team Recommendations, the self-study report should address how each
recommendation was considered by the faculty. If a recommendation was not pursued, then a brief
explanation why it was not pursued should be included. If it was pursued as written or pursued in a
modified manner, a similar narrative about its inception, follow-through, and effectiveness would be
appropriate in the self-study. As with Initiatives for Improvement, if the program maintained detailed
annual, periodic or summary reports regarding the implementation of a Recommendation, then these
reports could be provided in the Appendix.
Page 25
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
The Academic Auditor Team is responsible for reviewing and assessing the processes and activities
of the program regarding its Initiatives for Improvement as well as its responses to the initial Academic
Auditor Team’s Recommendations. As noted above, “It is expected that the Initiatives for Improvement
that were generated by the program itself have been implemented and that progress on those initiatives
have been tracked. Further, it is expected that the results of those implementations have been considered
and used to further improvement in the program.” Auditor Team members should carefully review the
self study report and appendices for evidence that these expectations Initiatives for Improvement have
been addressed.
For Recommendations made by the initial Academic Auditor Team, the program may have acted
upon these. If the program has implemented a Recommendation, that implementation should be
documented in a fashion similar to the documentation of an Initiative for Improvement. If a
Recommendation has not been acted upon, it is expected that, “a brief explanation why it was not
pursued should be included.”
For programs undergoing the Academic Audit for the second time and are using the Academic
Audit to meet Performance Funding requirements, the Academic Auditor Team must complete Section 7
of the Undergraduate Summary Sheet for undergraduate programs or Section 14 of the Graduate
Summary Sheet for graduate programs. The three criteria in these sections provide guidance for the
overall review of the program’s follow-up of its previous Academic Audit.
Page 26
A Guide for the Academic Auditor 2012-13...
REFERENCES
Dill, D. (2000). Designing academic audit: lessons learned in Europe and Asia. Quality in Higher
Education, 6, 187.
Dill, D., Massey, W., Williams, P. & Cook, C. (1996, September-October). Accreditation and academic
quality assurance: can we get there from here? Change, September-October, 16.
Jennings, J. (2002). Academic audit manual for use by the New Zealand universities academic audit
unit. Wellington, New Zealand: Wet Bock Education House.
Massy, W. (2003, June 20). Auditing higher education to improve quality, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, B16.
Massy, W., Graham, S. & Short, P. (2007). Academic Quality Work: A Handbook for Improvement.
Bolton, MA: Ankar Publishing Company.
Meade, P. & Woodhouse, D. (2000), Evaluating the effectiveness of the New Zealand academic audit
unit: Review and outcomes, Quality in Higher Education, 6 (1).
Tennessee Board of Regents. (2007). Educational Quality Improvement: A Handbook for the Academic
Audit. Nashville, TN: Author.
Page 27