Academic Audit

*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. 

1.  LEARNING OBJECTIVES             
                                    
                  Met                                      Not Met                                         
1.1 The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of their process for 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.     
2. CURRICULUM AND CO-CURRICULUM    
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.    
2.2 The faculty documented or proposed a plan for analyzing the content and sequencing of courses in terms of achieving program learning objectives.    
2.3 The faculty documented or proposed a plan for the ongoing review of curriculum an co-curriculum based on appropriate evidence including comparison with best practices where appropriate.     
3.  TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES    
3.1  The faculty completed a thorough and candid analysis of their process for guiding and improving teaching and learning throughout the program.     
 3.2  The faculty documented or proposed a plan that promotes the effective use of 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.    
4 .  STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT    
4.1 The faculty documented or proposed indicators of student learning success that are 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.     
4.4  The faculty documented or proposed a continuous improvement plan that incorporates multiple measures to assess student learning and program effectiveness.     
  5.  QUALITY ASSURANCE    
 5.1   There is an evident commitment to making continuous quality improvements in the program a top priority.    
5.2 The faculty documented or proposed a continuous improvement plan that incorporates multiple measures to assess student learning and program effectiveness.     
6.  OVERALL ASSESSMENT    
6.1 The Academic Audit process was faculty driven.    
6.2 The Academic Audit process (self-study and visit) included descriptions of the program's quality processes including all five focal areas.     
6.3 The process resulted in a candid description of weaknesses in program processes and suggestions for improvements.     
 6.4  Overall, the visiting team affirms the openness and thoroughness of the program faculty in completing the academic audit of this program.     
 6.5  The Academic Audit process included involvement of and inputs from stakeholder groups identified by the program's faculty.     
7.  FOLLOW-UP OF PREVIOUS AUDIT*    
7.1 An action plan was developed as a result of the previous Academic Audit.     
7.2 There is documented evidence that recommendations made by the Academic Audit Team have been considered and, when feasible and appropriate, implemented and tracked.     
7.3 There is documented evidence that the program has implemented and tracked the progress of and use of results from improvement initiatives cited by the faculty in its self-study.     
  8.  SUPPORT  (Note:  The Support category is NOT included in the Performance Funding calculation.  If the Academic Audit process did not address these criteria, they should be marked "NA.")    
 8.1  The program regularly evaluates its library, equipment and facilities, encouraging necessary improvements within the context of overall college resources.    
 8.2  The program's operating budget is consistent with the needs of the program.    
 8.3  The program has a history of enrollment and graduation rates sufficient to sustain high quality and cost-effectiveness.