Use of the Criteria by Programme Evaluators by monkey6


More Info
									                                P . A . B
                                   Proffessiionall Accrediitatiion Body
                                   Pro ess ona Accred tat on Body
The criteria below are based largely on the NSB Regulations (RSA, 1998a), and reflect in particular the
formats in which programmes are submitted to embody these Regulations.

The format of programmes is important, but in order to achieve the objectives of the NQF, the quality of
programmes and courses lies in the:

• Fitness and suitability of the programme for its intended purpose
• Achievement of the principles of the NQF
• Relationship between the elements of the programme and registered qualification and / or unit standard
• Relationship of a programme to other qualifications in the field or sub-field and to programmes at
different levels.

Evaluators should, therefore, exercise discretion in the degree of importance, which they attach to format
issues. Merely conforming to the required format does not guarantee quality.

The ultimate quality of a programme will only become apparent after it has been used and been through
the full quality cycle as outlined in "Criteria and Guidelines: ETQAs" (SAQA, 1999). The continuous
improvement process will result in a better understanding of criteria for evaluating programmes.

The criteria outlined in this document are not in the form of a checklist. They are designed to help the
various people involved in the evaluation process to probe and interrogate the quality of the applications.
The criteria are, therefore, in the form of questions.

Each question is followed by a comments box that provides:
• examples of the type(s) of evidence required; and
• space for evaluators to write their comments.

The completed evaluation documents can, therefore, form a part of the evaluation records and be used
for review purposes.

What Evaluators must look for when evaluating a programme
It should be emphasized that evaluators of programmes should exercise caution in attempting to ensure
that every aspect of every programme meets every criterion in this guide: the criteria embody the
guidelines for good evaluation, and should not necessarily be followed to the letter. In this sense, there
are no “right answers”. The evaluator must use the provider Self-evaluation as well as syllabus and
curriculum submission as information to extract answers to the questions in the evaluator‟s document

What is important is to establish:
   whether the programme is likely to issue in the kind of transformation for which the NQF stands,
       and which the critical cross-field outcomes attempt to address – especially the issues of

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                                2005/01/0
     responsible citizenship, cultural and aesthetic sensitivity, and effective use of science and
     technology; and
    whether the programme not only prepares learners for a particular job but also facilitates entry to
     a career path, which opens up opportunities for lifelong learning.

The overarching question, then, is this: Will the achievement of this programme contribute towards
the full personal development of the learner and to the social and economic development of the
nation at large?

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                              2005/01/0

In the SAQA “Criteria and Guidelines for Short Courses and Skills Programmes”, policy document,
provisional accreditation may be granted while there are no Unit Standards available if the programme
can be benchmarked against a current NQF registered outcomes based qualification.

Evidence required
Does the programme contain:
A.1. Title;
A.2. Rationale;
A.3. Level, total credits required credits and learning components assigned to the programme.
   (Minimum credits required at specific levels or maximum credits when these exceed the minima
   specified in the components indicating fundamental, core and elective competencies);
A.4. Access to the programme;
A.5. Field and sub-field of the programme;
A.6. A statement of the purpose of the programme;
A.7. Assumptions of learning already in place before the programme commences;
A.8. Exit level outcomes, the associated assessment criteria and critical cross-field outcomes;
A.9. International comparability;
A.10. Integrated assessment appropriately incorporated to ensure that the purpose of the programme is
A.11. Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL);
A.12. Articulation possibilities with related programmes / qualifications (either generic or specific
   arrangements for articulation);
A.13. Moderation and assessment options including
     a. Criteria for the registration of moderators;
     b. Criteria for the registration of assessors;

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                            2005/01/0
Is the language used in the syllabus and sample of the curriculum:

• simple and accessible to the learner for whom it is intended, and
• appropriate to the level at which it is pegged on the Framework.

Evidence required
B.1. Is the programme written in short, simple sentences;
B.2. Is the sentence structure used accessible to the learner (e.g., straightforward with few dependent
   clauses; in the active form rather than in the passive);
B.3. Is the vocabulary accessible to the learner (e.g., avoids the use of jargon);
B.4. Is the language precise and consistent with normal usage in the sub-field, yet able to be generally

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                              2005/01/0

C.1. Title of the programme
Evidence required
   1. Is the title of the programme unique - i.e., different from any other title registered on the NQF;
   2. Is there an NQF level indicator after the title;
   3. Does the title provide a pointed indication of the contents of the programme.

C.2. Rationale for the programme
Evidence required
   1. Has the range of typical learners been clearly identified;
   2. Have the occupations, jobs or areas of activity in which the qualifying learners will operate been
      clearly identified;
   3. Is there sufficient proof that there is a demand for holders of this programme by communities or
   4. Is there evidence of a planned combination of learning outcomes which have a defined purpose
      and will provide qualifying learners:
      • with applied competence, and
      • a basis for further learning.
   5. Is there evidence of providing added value to the qualifying learner;
   6. Is there evidence of providing benefits to the society and the economy.

C.3. Level, credits, minimum credits required at specific level and learning components
   assigned to the programme
Evidence required
   1. Has a level (1-8) been assigned to the programme;
   2. Does the number of credits assigned to the programme comply with the specified minima
       assigned to qualification types in the NSB Regulations (a National Certificate where it has 120
       (one hundred and twenty) or more credits with 72 (seventy-two) credits at or above the level at
       which the certificate is pitched. A National Diploma where it has a minimum of 240 (two
       hundred and forty) credits, of which at least 72 (seventy-two) credits shall be at level 5 or above).
   3. Is a minimum of 72 of the credits assigned to the programme pegged at or above the level at
       which the qualification is pegged;
   4. Is the programme composed of Fundamental, Core and Elective learning components:
        What motivation has been provided for the number of credits assigned to each of these
            learning components.
   3. Is the level assigned to the programme appropriate in terms of the complexity of learning (as
        described in SAQA's Level Descriptors) which the specific outcomes embody;
   4. Is the level linked to a clear progression on a learning pathway;
   5. Does the credit value assigned to the programme seem appropriate in terms of the definition of a
        credit (1 credit = 10 notional hours of learning) - i.e., does the credit assignment reflect the
        average length of time the average qualifying learner might take to be ready for assessment for
        the programme;
   6. Does the motivation provided for assigning credit values to each of the learning components
        (i.e., fundamental, core and elective) seem appropriate in terms of:
             the definitions of these terms (NSB Regulations), and
             the extent to which the combination of learning components achieves the purpose(s) of
                 the programme.

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                                 2005/01/0
C.4. Access to the programme
Evidence required
   1. Are there restrictions placed on learners, which may prevent them from gaining access to this
   2. Are the reasons for such restrictions justified in terms of the objectives of the NQF;
   3. Are the reasons advanced free from any overt or covert discrimination against learners or classes
      of learners.

C.5. Field and sub-field of the programme
Evidence required
   1. Does the programme clearly belong within the sub-field and organizing field indicated;
   2. If there is more than one sub-field or organizing field to which the qualification or components
      of it might apply:
       has this been clearly indicated; and
       Is there sufficient justification for this, either here or in the brief of the SGB, which generated
           the programme.

C.6. Purpose of the programme
Evidence required
   1. Are there concise statements of the contextualized purpose(s) of the programme and what its
      usage is intended to achieve:
           for the individual;
           for the field or sub-field, and
           for social and economic transformation.
   2. Does each purpose statement succinctly capture what the qualifying learner will know and be
      able to do on achievement of the programme;
   3. Is there sufficient evidence of how the purpose of the programme achieves the objectives of the

C.7. Learning assumed to be in place
Evidence required
   1. Have the statements confused competence required to achieve a learning outcome with “pre-
      requisites” for entry to a learning programme or institution;
   2. Do the statements capture and reflect the “building blocks” of knowledge, skill and
      understanding which are assumed to be in place and which support the achievement of the
      programme under consideration.

C.8. Exit Level Outcomes, Associated Assessment Criteria and Critical Cross-field Outcomes
Evidence required
   1. Are the outcomes specified in terms of a combination of specific and critical cross-field
   2. Are there assessment criteria associated with the outcomes;
   3. Does the format of outcomes follow on from the statements:
            I have learned to
            I will have learned to
            Qualifying learners can and are these statements phrased as:
              Verb + noun + modifying phrase(s)?
           Example: “Demonstrate the ability to work effectively as a member of a multicultural
                     health care delivery team”

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                                2005/01/0
   4. Does this category contain one or more outcomes, which reflect preparation for further learning?
       In other words, are the further learning or articulation possibilities clear;
   5. Are there criteria for the registration of internal and external assessors in the sub-field;
   6. Are there any exit points for learners who do not complete a programme;
   7. Is there evidence to show how the learning outcomes meet the purposes of the programme;
   8. Do the outcomes represent a planned combination of specific and critical cross field learning
       outcomes that are required for competent and applied performance at the particular level of the
       programme. (In other words, do the outcomes show to what extent and in what ways the
       outcomes represent the performance of a competent practitioner at this level);
   9. Do the outcome statements focus on the qualifying learner‟s competence? In other words, do
       they avoid describing specific procedures or methods used in the demonstration of competence?
       Do the statements ensure that the programme:
             have a broad and inclusive applicability
             do not require frequent review and overhaul because of procedural, technical or
               methodological shifts; and
             represent competence outcomes for learning and performance, not descriptions of tasks or
   10. Do the assessment criteria require the qualifying learner to apply his/her learning in an integrated
       way, which reflects the acquisition of the required expertise;
   11. Does the expertise required reflect:
             applied competence;
             enhanced critical sub-field outcomes; and
             enhanced theoretical and applied knowledge.
   12. Are assessors provided with sufficient guidelines for developing particular assessment tasks at
       learning programme level (i.e., to develop formative and summative methods of assessment
       appropriate to the situation and context of the learners);
   13. Do the criteria capture the requirements for assessment procedures that:
             are fair, valid and reliable; and
             make use of tools and methods appropriate to the organizing field, sub-field, level, and
               programme being evaluated.
   14. Are the statements of the assessment criteria
             specific and particular;
             transparent (i.e., not clouded by jargon); and
             understandable across a range of providers and learners.
   15. Is there an indication of how learners who do not complete the programme obtain credit for those
       outcomes which they have achieved.

C.9. International Comparability
Evidence required
   1. Is there a statement indicating the international comparability of the programme;
   2. If not, is there an adequate response to indicate why such a comparison has not been made.
   3. Does the statement of international comparability indicate:
            the specific qualification(s) with which this programme has been compared;
            the ways in which a comparison has been made of:
                     o outcomes and assessment criteria;
                     o degree of difficulty; and
                     o notional learning time.

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                                2005/01/0
              the status and/or international recognition accorded to institutions on the African
               continent or abroad offering the qualification(s) with which this one has been compared.

C.10. Integrated assessment
Evidence required
   1. Is the integrated assessment appropriately incorporated into the programme to ensure that the
      purpose of the programme is achieved? In other words, are there clear relationships between the
      purpose statement(s) in Section C6 above, the exit level outcomes in Section C8 above and the
      integrated assessment statements(s);
   2. Does the assessment process indicate adequately how a combination of formative and summative
      assessments is used to assess qualifying learners;
   3. Does the range of formative and summative assessments adequately cover a range of assessment
      approaches? (Do they, amongst other things, adequately assess applied competence);
   4. Is the assessment process also capable of being applied to recognition of prior learning? (See
      Section C11).

C.11. Recognition of prior learning (RPL)
Evidence required
   1. Is there an indication that the programme may be achieved in whole or in part through the
      recognition of prior learning (which includes learning outcomes achieved through formal,
      informal and non-formal learning and work experience).
   2. Does the approach to recognition of prior learning reflect the objectives and principles of the

C.12 Articulation possibilities with related qualifications/ programmes (either generic or specific
arrangements for articulation)
Evidence required
   1. Have the articulation possibilities for learners who achieve this programme been supplied;
   2. Do the articulation opportunities provided meet the requirements for movement between
      components of the delivery system and career paths:
           vertically;
           horizontally; and
           improve the general employability of the qualifying learner.

C.13. Moderation options and criteria for the registration of assessors
Evidence required
   1. Have the mechanisms and bodies for internal and external moderation of learner achievements
      and of providers providing the learning opportunities, been adequately indicated;
   2. Have the criteria for the registration of assessors assessing against this programme clearly been
   3. Do the mechanisms and bodies for internal and external moderation of learner achievements and
      of providers providing the learning opportunities meet the requirements for:
           Transparency;
           Affordability; and
           Development of the field, sub-field and the Framework.
   4. Can the moderation options be accommodated within the regulatory framework for quality
      assurance as outlined in the ETQA Regulations (RSA, 1998b) and in Criteria and Guidelines:
      ETQAs (SAQA, 1999).

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                             2005/01/0

D.1. Title page
Evidence required
   1. Is the title page of the programme completed with certifying signatures;
   2. Is there a table of contents and page numbers supplied;
   3. Does the programme summary correspond with the programme submitted.

D.2. Evaluation criteria: Preamble
Evidence required
   1. Are there any constraints to the provider in terms of the evaluation criteria that need to be
   2. Are there any constraints to the provider in terms of the quality assurance criteria that need to be
   3. Are there constraints to the provider in terms of the requirements for entrance to the programme
      that need to be considered;
   4. Are details of External Examiners or other arrangements for obtaining external input/monitoring
      of the training programme provided;
   5. Is an outline the assessment procedures for the training programme provided in terms of the
          a. the contribution of APL/APEL to the assessment - APL(Applied Practical
               Learning)/APEL (Applied Practical Experiential Learning);
          b. the contribution of work based learning and integration of addressing current practice and
               emerging issues;
          c. the mix of types of assessment (e.g. self-assessment, peer assessment and assessment by
          d. different assessment methods used.
   6. Are the assessment criteria and/or associated marking scheme provided;
   7. Are there any additional guidance for teaching and learning included.

D.3. Evaluation criteria: Applicability/Eligibility
Evidence required
   1. Is the programme eligible for evaluation;
   2. Is the programme within the domain of the PAB;
   3. Are dates of first admission and first graduation of learners for the programme supplied.

D.4. Evaluation criteria: Duration of Approval
Evidence required
   1. Is the application for approval linked to a request for re-approval.

D.5. Evaluation criteria: Categories of Approval
Evidence required
   1. Is the category of approval the programme is applying for indicated.

D.6. Evaluation criteria: “Standards”
Evidence required
   1. Is information about the following supplied:
           a. the programme objectives;
           b. the academic level of the programme;

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                               2005/01/0
            c. the practical application of the programme;
            d. the criteria used to establish the relevance of the programme.
   2. Is the setting, the historical development of the provider, the growth in enrolment and lecture size
       and other significant developments in the provider since its origination supplied;
   3. Is the educational philosophy and mission statement supplied and discussed;
   4. Is the programme‟s environment and the elements that are important and relevant discussed;
   5. Is the population of learners and the types of learners described;
   6. Are strengths, weaknesses, distinctive competencies, innovations, problems and constraints in
       the programme opportunities identified;
   7. Has the processes used to develop the programme‟s mission statement and the types of
       involvement that different people and groups had in its development been supplied;
   8. Are any deviations from Evaluation Criteria supplied and justified based on mission;
   9. Is multidisciplinary achieved in the programme;
   10. Is adequate training of practical skills achieved in the programme;
   11. Is the purpose of the experiential experience, integration with other parts of the curriculum, the
       duration of activities and kinds of activities explained;
   12. Is the experiential learning voluntary or required in the programme;
   13. Are there any prerequisites for participation in experiential learning;
   14. Is the basis (formula) for granting recognition of hours for the experiential learning supplied and
       is it explained how credits are determined when experiential learning credit is given;
   15. Is supervision provided by the lecturers and by experiential site personnel;
   16. Are regular site visits to experiential sites by programme staff required;
   17. Is the experiential learning programme co-ordinated;
   18. Are criteria used for matching learners with available locations and is it indicated who does the
   19. Is any arrangements for remuneration of learners, including who makes the payments to the
       learners explained;
   20. Is the number of student placements over the last two years indicated according to length of
       placement, hours per week, and credit earned.

D.7. Evaluation criteria: Curriculum
Evidence required
   1. Is it explained how the purpose of the curriculum is to “prepare learners for professional
      academic and applied level roles in the economic sector”;
   2. Does curriculum components, required courses (common curriculum components), elective
      courses (additional curriculum components), general competencies, minimum competency
      requirements and experiential learning correlate with the programme‟s mission;
   3. Is the following background information supplied:
           a. Credit system;
           b. Length of term;
           c. Number of terms;
           d. Hours of work;
           e. Full-time status;
           f. Time limitation;
           g. Class contact hours.
   4. Are the prerequisites for entrance to the programme reported in terms of the following criteria:
           a. the general prerequisites;
           b. the programme specific requirements;
           c. any other prerequisites.

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                               2005/01/0
   5. Is the distribution of programme hours among the various categories in the different years
   6. Is it explained how the core, fundamental and elective curriculum components “are assessed as to
       their quality and consistency with the stated mission of the programme”;
   7. Is the core, fundamental and elective curriculum programmes listed and does the training
       programme develop learners‟ understanding of the areas of activity in learning and teaching, core
       knowledge and professional values. Are the above elements addressed in the programme;
   8. Does the curriculum address the following components:
            a. provide a thorough teaching of the basic concepts, theories, methods of the programme;
            b. provide concepts, theories and research methods from the disciplines of the field.
   9. Does the curriculum components produce professionals capable of intelligent, creative analysis
       and communication, and action in the economic sector;
   10. Does the curriculum components provide proof that learners are able to work independently on
       „real‟ problems or research questions in the economic sector;
   11. Does the curriculum components enhance the student's values, knowledge, and skills to act
       ethically and effectively;
   12. Are details of the modes of delivery for the training programme supplied with the library
       resources and equipment to support it;
   13. Is mentoring or other forms of support offered to learners;
   14. Does an analysis of learners on the training programme in the previous three years or two intakes
            a. the number of learners who started on the training programme;
            b. the number of learners who successfully completed the training programme (with award
               classifications where relevant);
            c. the number of learners who failed the training programme;
            d. the number of learners withdrawing from the training programme;
            e. the number of learners who have yet to complete.
   15. Is the following supplied:
            a. Delivery process;
            b. Details on the training programme if run previously, i.e. when established and how many
               times it has been run, along with a summary of the evaluations received on the training
            c. Literature and Handouts;
            d. Details on materials and equipment used; location of training programme and the
               preferred number of delegates on each training programme;
            e. Rationale behind the training methods used;
            f. Detailed training programme structure and content;
            g. Provider quality assurance procedures and philosophy;
            h. Attendees evaluation forms from previous training programme;
            i. Full information on training staff used in this training programme including external
               providers where appropriate.
   16. Is the specializations listed with the following information:
            a. describe the specific objectives for the specialty;
            b. the main categories of learners to be served;
            c. the number of learners enrolled in each specialty area;
            d. how the curriculum provides an understanding of the specialty;
            e. course title, hours, recent dates offered (to show availability) and responsible lecturer;
            f. identify the elective courses taught within the programme being evaluated and those
               offered by other persons outside of full-time employed lecturers;

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                              2005/01/0
            g. clearly identify the fundamental courses taught within the programme being evaluated
               and those offered by other persons outside of full-time employed lecturers.
   17. In terms of other components, is the following supplied:
            a. other curriculum courses (title, hours);
            b. the objectives for the other components of the curriculum;
            c. the rationale for the other components of the curriculum in the light of the mission of the
            d. evidence that key courses in the specialisation or concentration are offered on a regular
               basis by qualified lecturers and that these are not substitutes for the core curriculum
   18. Is the curriculum length in accordance with the approval category that is applied for.

D.8. Evaluation criteria: Quality Improvement and Innovation
Evidence required
   1. Does the programme assesses its accomplishments and how this information is used to direct and
      revise programme objectives, strategies, and operations regularly;
   2. Is there evidence of an adequate process of curriculum development;

D.9. Evaluation criteria: Programme development
Evidence required
   1. Does the programme innovate and what information from which sources are used in this process;
   2. Are the programme, teaching methods, course content, and innovative curricula development

D.10. Evaluation criteria: Student Assessment
Evidence required
   1. Does the provider assess individual performance of learners, and how these relate to the
      programme objectives.

D.11. Evaluation criteria: Programme Jurisdiction
Evidence required
   1. Is a diagram and description of the organization of the programme being evaluated within the
      administrative structure of the provider supplied. Are there relationships and joint agreements
      between the provider and other academic units at the LSP or other providers supplied.
   2. Is a diagram and description of the internal organization of the programme, including the title of
      the head and the number of full-time staff administratively and professionally assigned to or
      rostered in it supplied. Is a report on the administration of the programme at the level of provider
      organization supplied.
   3. Is there an indication of who is responsible for administration of the programme. Are
      organizational arrangements within the provider and its constituent elements described. Is the
      nature and degree of consultation in appointment of the staff described.
   4. Is the authority, participation, “initiative and substantial determining influence” that the provider
      and lecturer nucleus have in decisions involving the following aspects supplied:
          a. general provider policy and planning;
          b. competency requirements;
          c. new courses and curriculum changes;
          d. admissions (if applicable);
          e. certification of learners;
          f. course scheduling and teaching assignment;

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                                2005/01/0
           g. use of financial and other resources;
           h. appointment, promotion, and tenuring of lecturers (if applicable).

D.12. Evaluation criteria: Lecturers
Evidence required
   1. Is a “sufficient number of lecturers” available. Are factors such as the lecturer course load, the
      depth and breadth of professional interest represented by the lecturer, the opportunities for
      professional interaction among the lecturers, and the opportunities for learners to be exposed to
      the appropriate range of content areas within programmes of study discussed.
   2. Is a summary listing for the lecturers employed by the provider who have primary responsibility
      for the programme being evaluated supplied.
   3. Are the sections of required and elective courses taught in the programme during the Self-
      Evaluation year and the preceding year supplied for each lecturer.
   4. In terms of lecturer qualifications and quality, are the following supplied:
          a. a lecturer data sheet for each lecturer indicating lecturer quality in instruction, research,
              experience and service in addition to the information provided.
          b. the provider and programme criteria for promotion and tenure of lecturers described. Are
              the procedures for promotion and tenure and report on recent experience of lecturers
          c. scholarly productivity, research, development of student notes/ guides by the provider
              and lecturers described. Is summary data on class notes, books, reports, and funded
              projects and so forth for the last two years reported.
          d. the experience and service of lecturers in the programme and the possibility of continual
              learning and upgrading of knowledge.
          e. the number and percent of core, fundamental and elective components for the programme
              taught by lecturers during the past two years, including the Self-Evaluation year. Is a
              summary listing of all lecturers who taught for the programme being evaluated during the
              Self-Evaluation and preceding year supplied.
          f. the procedures for promoting and maintaining quality of instruction of lecturers
   5. Is data on the percentage of women and ethnic groups among the staff supplied.

D.13. Evaluation criteria: Admission of Learners
Evidence required
   1. In terms of mission, assessment and guiding performance is the following addressed:
          a. admission goals and standards, and admission factors correlate with programme mission.
          b. elements relevant to admission and subsequent progress of learners in the mission
             statement, matters evaluated in the assessment process, and the use of the information in
             guiding provider operation.
          c. the use of the mission process and any findings or outcomes related to admissions
   2. In terms of the admission process:
          a. is the admission process for the programme discussed and does it indicate any differences
             with respect to full-time or part-time learners, RPL or Learnership.
          b. are special admission practices, such as for learners with non-traditional backgrounds,
             transfers, minorities, women and individuals with disabilities discussed.

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                               2005/01/0
D.14. Evaluation criteria: Supportive Services and Facilities
Evidence required
   1. Is the budget process, including by whom and when the budget is prepared and the participation
      by the head of the programme being evaluated discussed.
   2. Is the budget support that has been provided over the past two years for the programme being
      evaluated supplied and does the programme have “financial resources sufficient to support its
      stated objectives”.
   3. Are the services provided by the library to learners and lecturers described and is information on
      the adequacy of the library collection relevant to the programme being evaluated, such as the size
      of collection relevant to the field, list of relevant reading matter, access to internet, etc.
      discussed. Is access is facilitated.
   4. Is the degree and methods of co-ordination between the library and lecturers in areas of
      acquisition, instruction and research described.
   5. Are adequate secretarial personnel available to enable the programme to meet its educational
      objectives and is secretarial assistance available to lecturers on an administration level. Are other
      non-faculty support personnel discussed.
   6. Do lecturers and learners have access to appropriate equipment for coursework and research,
      including computer facilities, visual aid devices, audio and videotapes. Are computer facilities,
      services and equipment, for both learners and lecturers described. Is audio-visual support and
      instructional equipment, including audio and visual equipment, tapes and films, visual aid
      devices, and distance learning arrangements described.
   7. Do the offices for lecturers provide adequate space and privacy for student counselling, course
      preparation, and other lecturer responsibilities. Are office arrangements for lecturers primarily
      responsible for the programme described.
   8. Are appropriate classrooms available for the courses being offered. Is the adequacy of total
      overall classroom space and types of classrooms available for the programme described.

D.15. Evaluation criteria: Student Services
Evidence required
   1. Is the process used to advise and counsel learners, particularly with respect to programme
      advisement, course selection, and academic progress discussed and related to the mission of the
   2. Is the record of student attrition and provider efforts at retention supplied.
   3. Are the career guidance and job placement services available through the provider to the learners
      by the programme being evaluation discussed.

D.16. Evaluation criteria: Public Relations
Evidence required
   1. Is information on the adequacy of the information about the programme to future learners and
      others supplied.

D.17. Evaluation criteria: Additional Criteria
Evidence required
   1. Are other criteria to be applied in the evaluation.

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                                2005/01/0

E.1. Title page
Evidence required
1. Is a table of contents and numbered pages supplied.

E.2. Lecturer Data Sheets
Evidence required
1. Is a lecturer data sheet for all lecturers supplied.
2. Does lecturer data sheets include the following information:
       a. Name, academic rank and title, date of appointment.
       b. Academic qualifications:
       c. Name of qualification;
                 i. Institution obtained at;
                ii. Date obtained;
               iii. Major field of study.
       d. Primary teaching areas and teaching experience.
       e. Academic work.
       f. Research.
       g. Significant practitioner experience, with organizations, titles, dates, and duties.
       h. Involvement in academic and professional associations, including selected programme and
            workshop appearances.
       i. Selected involvement in economic service activities.
       j. Selected discussion activities with nature of assignment and dates.

E.3. Programme abstracts
Evidence required
1. Is a programme abstract for all programmes listed supplied with reference to:
        a. Required competencies in numerical order;
        b. Elective competencies offered primarily for learners in the programme being evaluated in
           numerical order.
2. Is the content for programme abstracts supplied under the following headers:
        a. Programme title, and hours;
        b. Programme instructors during Self-Evaluation year and site visit year;
        c. Prerequisites for the programme;
        d. Programme objectives in relation to total curriculum;
        e. Programme description;
        f. Major topics covered;
        g. Typical textbooks and readings.

USE OF THE CRITERIA BY PROGRAMME EVALUATORS                                         2005/01/0

To top