The Academic Committee of the NACBS uses the following evaluation criteria when considering a proposed prescription submitted by TEOs.
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?
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?