Guidelines for Biomedical Technology

CapePeninsulaUniversity of Technology Quality Management Directorate

Appendix F: Programme Self-Evaluation And Review

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS FOR CHAIR AND PANEL MEMBERS ONLY

RETURN ALL DOCUMENTATION TO THE QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE

______

GUIDELINES FOR THE SELF EVALUATION OF

ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES

______

CPUT Quality: Providing a footprint of excellence in Teaching &Learning, Research, Technology and Community Engagement

Airey/pol/cputdiagn 12/8/2018 1

CapePeninsulaUniversity of Technology Quality Management Directorate

Appendix F: Programme Self-Evaluation And Review

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS FOR CHAIR AND PANEL MEMBERS ONLY

RETURN ALL DOCUMENTATION TO THE QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE

______

Criteria 1: PROGRAMME DESIGN
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)
1.1a
Is the Programme registered, approved?
1.1b
Do Do Departmental /programs vision, mission, goals and priorities exist?
1.2
Are the Institutional vision, mission, goals and priorities reflected in the Department’s documentation? /
1.3
Is the mission translated into a strategic plan with clear timeframes and resources to achieve goals and priorities?
1.4
Is there evidence of regular monitoring and review of goals and priorities?
1.5
Is proper learning material developed?
1.5.1
Are there study guides for each subject?
1.5.2
Are there Handbooks and are they relevant to the programme?
1.5.3
Does the programme have additional material for students e.g. practical guides, student handouts etc
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation for Criterion 1:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 2: STUDENT RECRUITMENT, ADMISSION AND SELECTION
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)
2.1
How are students recruited for the programme?
Describe process:
2.2
What are the minimum criteria applied for selection?
Outline criteria
2.3
Is the number of studentsadmitted to the programme controlled?
Explain how?
2.4
Are mechanisms in place to ensure that numbers are not exceeded?
Describe mechanisms
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
2.5
Are the facilities and infrastructure capable of accommodating the student numbers?
2.5.1
Is the professional board’s entry requirements reflected in the entry requirements of the programme?
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation for Criterion 2:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 3&4: STAFFING
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)
3.1
Are criteria applied to recruit academic and support staff?
Describe criteria
3.2
Is equity addressed in the appointment of staff
3.3
Is the programme adequately staffed with:
3.3.1
Lecturers
3.3.2
Support staff (laboratory assistant, student assistants)?
3.3.3
Administrative staff (secretary, student assistants, academic administration support)?
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
3.4 Do the staff have adequate infrastructure in terms of:
3.4.1
Offices?
3.4.2
Communication tools (telephone, work station – internet and e-mail)?
3.5
Are staff given opportunities to develop themselves (improve qualifications, conferences)?
3.6
Are staff involved in the related industry they teach in?
3.7
Does the Department have a performance appraisal system in place for managing the performance of staff?
3.8
Are lecturers registered with the Professional Board (where applicable)
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation for Criterion 3 & 4:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 5: TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGY
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)
5.1
Are diverse teaching methods used by the lecturers to lecture?
Describe themethods:
5.2
What modes of delivery are implemented?
5.2.1
Do lecturers keep themselves up to date with the latest teaching methodologies?
Describe the process
5.2.2
Is outcomes based education reflected in the Departments’ teaching strategy?
5.3
Is the programme reviewed with respect to:
5.5.1
Internal peer review
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
5.5.2
External peer review
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
5.5.3
Inclusion of graduate tracking survey results
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
5.5.4
Inclusion of employer survey results
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
5.6
Are study guides reviewed to include new trends in the respective subjects (verify revision status on study guides)
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
5.7
Are new trends in the profession included in practicals:
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
5.8
Are Laboratory techniques included in thepracticals
Identify how often and comment on effectiveness
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation of Criteria 5:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 6: STUDENT ASSESSMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)
6.1
Are the assessment procedures (examination and moderation) followed in assessment of students?
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation of Criterion 6:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 7: INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIBRARY RESOURCES
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

7.1 Library/Resource Centre

7.1.1 Are textbooks referenced in study guides?

7.1.2 Are textbooks prescribed in study guides?

7.1.3

Are the textbooks prescribed applicable to the subject/module concerned?

7.1.4

Visit the library and confirm:

7.1.4.1

Is the library adequately stocked with applicable textbooks?

7.1.4.2

Are librarians available to assist students?

Criteria 7: INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIBRARY RESOURCES
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

7.1.4.3

Confirm that the library is adequately used by students?

7.1.4.4

Confirm with librarians that students utilise the librarians for assignments?

1 / 2 / 3 / 4
7.2 Learning material

7.2.1

Does the student receive study guides for each subject?

7.2.2

Do study guides containadequate study objectives?

7.2.3

Are study objectives in line with the Exit Level Outcomes?

7.2.4 Is the student given adequate guidance on the learning process?

7.2.4.1

In the study guides?

7.2.4.2

In Handbooks and other resource material?

7.2.4.3

On how the student will be evaluated / assessed?

7.2.4.4

In laboratory manual for practical work?

7.2.4.5

On consulting hourswith the lecturer?

7.3.1

Do the students receive computer literacy training?

7.3.2

Do the students have access to computer workstations?

7.3.3

Are they required to apply computer skills during training e.g. assignments and literature search (internet and e-mail)?

Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation on Criterion 7:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 8: PROGRAMME ADMINISTRATION
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)
8.1
Are lines of accountability clearly defined (Head of Department/program, Dean etc)?
8.2
Is there academic leadershipi.e. locus standi of HOD/program leader in the profession?
8.3
Are there clearly defined procedures, time frames, reporting and communication arrangements for the administration and management of the programme?
8.4
Is infrastructure available to ensure proper academic record keeping?
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

8.5

Are “at-risk” students identified and managed?

Describe process:

8.6

Is student diversity managed in the Department?

Describe how:

8.7

How is integrity of certification quality assured?

Comment:
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation of Criterion 8:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 9: POSTGRADUATE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

Are appropriate policies procedures and regulations implemented for:

9.1

Admissions and selections

9.2

Selection and appointment of supervisors

9.3

Roles and responsibilities of supervisors and students

Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation of Criteria 9:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 10: PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATION
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

10.1

Is the programme co-coordinated?

Describe the coordination process:

10.2

Are student inputs recognised in the delivery of the programme?

How?

10.2.1

Is there a functioning student liaison committee?

10.2.2

Are there regular Programme meetings?

10.2.3

Are there regular Advisory Board meetings?

Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overal Evaluation of Criteria 10:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 11: ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

11.1

Does a performance appraisal system for staff exist to identify and manage developmental areas?

11.2

Is academic support available to students?

Describe the types and processes:

11.3

Does the curriculum ensure the transfer of cutting edge technology and knowledge?

Describe how the curriculum is developed:
Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation of Criterion 11:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 12: TEACHING AND LEARNING INTERACTIONS
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

12.1.1

Are methods implemented by Lecturers to guide students to integrate programme outcomes?

Describe:

12.1.2

Are teaching methods balanced?

Explain:

12.3

Do students actively participate in the teaching and learning process?

Comment and Evaluation of Criterion:
Comment:
Overall Evaluation of Criteria 12:
1.
Does Not Comply (DNC) / 2.
Needs Improvement (NI) / 3.
Meets Minimum Standards (MMS) / 4.
Commend (C)
Do you have any suggestions for change? Please give brief details.
Criteria 13 &14: STUDENT ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
Indicators of Quality for the Standard / Self-evaluation Rating / Motivation for Rating / Sources of Evidence/Verification / Corrective action / Person responsible for correction / Action Date
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
1 Does not comply (Did not comply with minimum standards specified in the criterion)
2 Needs Improvement (Problems/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time)
3 Meets minimum standards (Minimum standards as specified in the criterion were met)
4 Commend (All minimum standards specified in the criterion were fully met and good practices and innovation were identified in relation to the criterion)

13.1

Are the internal student assessment practices (levels I and II) suitable?

Describe what these are:

13.2

Are the external student assessment practices (levels III - VI) suitable?

Describe what these are:
1 / 2 / 3 / 4

13.3

Is timeous feedback given to learners on the outcomes of assessment?

13.4

Is the depth of cognitive levels evaluated applicable to the level examined (1st, 2nd, 3rd year)

13.5

Is applied knowledge also assessed (especially on 3rd level)

13.6

Is practical work integrated into assessment (e.g. lab work, field trips and assignments)

13.7

Are staff experienced and competent to assess on the respective levels

13.8

Is security managed during all assessment?

Describe the process
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
13.9
Is recognition of prior learning (RPL) managed?
Describe the process, roles and responsibilities of all concerned:

13.10