New Zealand Diploma in Business prescription information
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? |
Page updated: 16 December 2008
