Evaluation criteria for NZDipBus prescriptions

Rationale

• Is the rationale for introducing the new prescription fully explained?
• Does the rationale clearly indicate that the new prescription will fill a need that is not currently met by a national prescription (and that is considered important by the Academic Committee in the context of the NZDipBus qualification)?

Consistency with and contribution to the graduate profile

• Do the prescription learning outcomes and elements adequately cover requirements of the NZDipBus graduate profile, as appropriate to the nature and level of the prescription?
• Does any part of the prescription conflict with the graduate profile, or suggest a level of overall achievement that is lower or higher than expected?

Industry and stakeholder endorsement

• Have all relevant stakeholders been identified within the application?
• Has evidence of stakeholder support, including NZDipBus local advisory committee support, been included?
• If a new prescription, has NZQA received adequate indication from the providers that the intended up-take of the new prescription warrants further development?

Level and fit within NZDipBus

• Is the suggested prescription level appropriate, given the stated learning outcomes and expected evidence from the key elements?
• Are the level of the prescription and learning outcomes complementary to other approved papers within the NZDipBus (and within the subject area)?
• Do learning outcomes or key elements overlap significantly with other approved papers?

Design

• Coherence – does the prescription provide an outline of a coherent course of learning?
• Aim - does the aim reflect the overall intent of the prescription – i.e. does it define what the candidate will know or be able to do on successful completion?
• Learning outcomes – do the learning outcomes contribute to the aim?
• Key elements – is the relationship of key elements to learning outcomes, and of element subsets to key elements, clear?
• Clarity – are learning outcomes, elements and element subsets worded clearly enough to ensure consistency of interpretation?
• Is there enough assessment guidance provided for assessors?
• Industry relevance – are all statements of learning outcomes and key elements consistent with current industry practice?
• Manageability – do the quality, breadth and depth of content, learning outcomes and key elements allow for the course to be adequately assessed within the stated course length/credit allocation?
• Assessability – can the key elements be validly assessed by relevant activities and within a provider context?
• Is the proposed assessment regime manageable by providers? Consideration must be given to the learning required prior to assessment.
• Flexibility – does the prescription allow for varying delivery mechanisms, continuous changes to technology and the external environment and, if a national prescription, the regional variations in industry requirements?
• Treaty considerations – is the prescription compatible with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?