Programme Validation

Self-Evaluation Report

Foreword:

Following 12 December 2016, all applications for validation under QQI’s 2013 policy will require that an additional document be prepared and submitted. The new requirement is a self-evaluation report on the proposed programme. A template for the self-evaluation report is provided. The purposes for seeking this report areto help the applicant to:

Ensure that the presentation of proposed programme takes all of the validation criteria into account and that sufficient information is provided with the application.
Reflect on the application from the perspective of QQI’s evaluators—the format for the self-evaluation report is very similar to that of the report that QQI requires evaluators to prepare.
Present their opinion on whether and how the proposed programme meets the validation criteria.

We think that applicants will benefit from preparing this report. It should also help evaluators better understand the proposed programme.

Please note that QQI has adopted new policies and criteria for validation. The new policies and criteria apply to apprenticeship programmes (FET and HET) and all higher education programmes. They will be introduced during 2017 for programmes leading to other FET awards. QQI will contact providers with further information about the transition process. While this self-evaluation form is not compatible with the new policy, self-evaluation is a required by the new policy and the introduction of this form might assist with the transition.

1Provider Information

Provider name
Date of this report
Programme title
Compound Award Title(Major or Special Purpose) / NFQ level / NFQ award-class / FET credits
Places where the programme will be provided
Membership of the group that conducted the self-evaluation
Name / Role / Job title

With reference to your programme documentation, your quality assurance procedures and your programme descriptors part 1 and part 2, please give an objective evaluation of the readiness of the programme as described for validation.

The sections of this report follow (i) the descriptor templates Parts 1 and 2 and (ii) the criteria to be applied by independent evaluators appointed by QQI to evaluate the submission.

You might wish to use this self-evaluation iteratively to help identify how the programme descriptors might be enhanced prior to applying for validation. Only the final versions need be submitted. You don’t need to describe the iterative construction process.

1.1Description by provider of the background and the context in which it operates

Does the information being supplied give an accurate and full description of the provider context? Would someone not familiar with the provider have sufficient information to relate any proposed programme to the context in which the provider is operating.

1.2Scope of provision

Does the proposed programme fit well with the existing provision of the provider or is this a new venture i.e. into new discipline areas, different NFQ levels, different modes of delivery e.g. blended learning, larger award types etc? If it is a significant change, what impact would this have on the provider in terms of resources and quality assurance?

1.4Second provider details

If a second provider is involved in the programme, how have the various responsibilities and roles been formally agreed between both parties? Is there a memorandum of agreement? Is it clear that as the first provider the responsibility for the programme and its quality assurance rests with you?

2Programme details

Have the Guidelines for Preparing Programme Descriptors for FET Programmes (revised October 2013) been referred to in the development of this programme? If so, how have they assisted in documenting the programme, if at all?

Is the programme as described ready to start now (with all requirements in place)?

Are all the necessary course materials in place?

Is the equipment, learning materials and other resources in place?

Are staff already in place or, if not, is it clear what is the profile of staff required to be recruited?

If the programme has blended learning is the VLE in place and is the programme built into it?

What remains to be done before the programme could be started if and when validated?

2.1Programme title

Does the programme title reflect the content of the programme and the field of learning?

Is it accurate meaningful to learners? Could it be misconstrued?

Does it accurately reflect the levels of the framework and the award type.?

2.2Major or Special Purpose Awardsto be offered (Compounds)

Has this been accurately completed in the descriptor? is it consistent with the list of components that follows?

2.3Selection of minor awards to be offered (Components)

Has this selection been accurately completed in the descriptor? Is the selection consistent with the relevant compound award specification(refer to the QQI website) and, specifically, its certificate requirements?

2.4Programme profile

How well does the information supplied in the descriptor meet the guideline given in the descriptor template? What extra could be supplied to improve it so that an independent person would have a better understanding of what the programme is about and why you are proposing to offer it at this time?

2.5Programme objectives

2.6Learner profile

Would it be possible to use this profile to identify who the programme is not suitable for?

2.7Entry criteria

How well does the information supplied in the descriptor meet the guideline supplied? Do the entry criteria allow the intended learner profile above to be adhered to?

2.8Delivery mode(s)

How well does the information supplied in the descriptor meet the guideline given in the descriptor template? Is the informationsupplied fully complete and accurate?

If blended learning is planned, is everything already in place i.e. VLE, programme related content, assessment, quality assurance etc.?

2.9Delivery Methodology

Is the information fully complete and accurate? If blended learning is planned, have the access details (to enable QQI to evaluate the e-learning materials) been supplied as requested? Have they been tested?

2.10Programme duration and learner effort

Has the programme duration been specified accurately and in accordance with the guidelines provided in the descriptor template?

How well does the information supplied in the descriptor regarding directed and self-directed learning, per week and overall meet the guideline given above? Is the information fully complete and accurate?

Where there is significant deviation between the notional duration as calculated wrt to FET credit value and what you as provider estimate is required, please give a rationale as to why this should be justified.

2.11Staff resources

How well does the information supplied in the descriptor meet the guideline given in the descriptor template? Is the information fully complete and accurate? Given the high importance of staff to the potential success of any programme, has enough information been given to assure independent evaluators that the programme would be properly resourced in terms of expertise, experience considering any other demands on those resources (e.g. staff availability to the particular programme)?

2.13Programme review schedule

Does the information supplied confirm that the programme will be subject to timely review by the provider, particularly in the early stages?

2.14Transfer and progression

Has evidence been supplied to support transfer or progression arrangements put in place for this programme?

2.15Facilities, equipment, materials, information sources and resources

Is the information supplied sufficient to assure an independentevaluator that all resources required to deliver the programme are either already in place or identified? Is there supporting evidence that can be supplied e.g. photographs, websites, testimonies etc.

2.16Learner supports

How well does the information supplied in the descriptor meet the guideline given in the descriptor template? Is the information consistent with the programme and learner profiles / entry criteria set out? Is there supporting evidence that can be supplied?

2.17Specific validation requirements

Have all the certificate and component specifications been checked for specific validation requirements? Have any specific validation requirements been fully met?

2.18Protection of enrolled learners

Has someone verified that proposed PEL arrangements, where required, are in compliance with legislation and QQI policy?

2.19Engagement with prospective learners and employers

Is this narrative comprehensive and persuasive? Is it consistent with the programme profile and objectives and the learner profile?

3Evaluation against the validation criteria

The following are the relevant criteria being used by evaluators appointed to the task by QQI. Building on the review of the descriptors summarised above, apply the validation criteria yourself to your programme and come to your own judgement.

Where satisfied that a particularcriterion is met, direct the independent evaluator acting on behalf of QQI to where supporting argument andevidence can be found in the descriptors or in other supporting documentation. Provide specific references (e.g. page and section numbers). Note that it is not enough to present raw evidence without making the argument that the presented evidence does indeed support that the criterion is met.

Where you find that there is an issue, then record this and address it prior to submitting the programme for validation.

3.1Consistency with the award being sought

The structure of the proposed programme meets the award requirements at the relevant level within the framework of qualifications.

Are you satisfied this criterion is met? If yes, refer evaluators to where in the programme descriptor this evidence can be found or attach supporting evidence. If no, indicate what needs to be doneand address this prior to making an application.

There is consistency between the programme and the provider’s quality assurance policies and procedures.

Explain how your quality assurance procedures would support the quality assurance of this programme e.g. in terms of planning, self-evaluation (this exercise), learner admission, programme review etc. Provide access to your written quality assurance procedures (file or URL). If there are programme specific QA procedures, supply a copy to assure the evaluators of their suitability.

3.2The provider’s proposed programme is coherent in respect of its

stated objectives,
content,
learner profile and
assessment activities

3.3The provider has the capacity in human and physical resources to deliver the programme to the proposed level.

3.4The provider is compliant with relevant legislation

Compliance with the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 in relation to access, transfer and progression and protection for learners as appropriate and compliance with any special conditions attached to the award specification e.g. legislation, specialist resources etc.

3.5The programme has the potential to meet award standards

The programme’s potential to enable the learner to meet the standards of knowledge, skill and competence for the awards based on the specified learner profile and the standards for the award.

Checklist / Y/N / Where you answer Y or N, an explanation in each case.
Where appropriate refer the evaluator to the section in the programme descriptor supporting your finding or attach supporting evidence.
Are the QQI awards selected appropriate?
Is the programme title appropriate?
Is the programme profile appropriate?
Is the learner profile appropriate?
Are the entry criteria appropriate?
Is the duration of the programme related appropriately to the learner profile and the credit values of the award (certificate and components)?
Are the programme objectives appropriate?
Is the programme duration appropriate?
Is the delivery mode appropriate?
Are the delivery methodologies appropriate?
Is the schedule for programme review appropriate?
Are the transfer and progression arrangements appropriate or is a date given for implementation?
Are the learner supports appropriate?
Have the specific validation requirements been met (are the specific resources appropriate).
Are the staffing and resources appropriate?
Is the programme structure and assessment plan appropriate?
Does the programme meet the requirements of the certificate/component specification?
Does the overall programme package provide the learner, as specified in the learner profile, with the opportunity to meet the standards of knowledge, skill and competence for the named award/s.

Programme findings - complete the checklist below in light of the review of the programme descriptors and other material

Programme Module findings(repeat table for each module)

Module title / Y/N / For this module what evidence is there to answer each question? Refer to where in the programme descriptor part 2, this evidence can be found or attach supporting evidence
Checklist / Comments where there are deficiencies.
Is the Programme Module Title appropriate?
Is the Programme Module Status appropriate?
Is the Programme Module Duration appropriate?
Are the Programme Module Aims and Objectives appropriate?
Are the Indicative Programme Module Content and Programme Outcomes appropriate?
Does the indicative programme module content reflect (match) the learning outcomes of the QQI components?
Does the assessment meet the requirements of the component specification and is it appropriate to the learners?
Are the selected Component awards appropriate?
Are the Assessment Tasks and Activities appropriate?
Is the Programme Module Assessment appropriate?

4Overall finding

Do you think this programme is ready to be submitted for validation? Yes or no?
Reviewer / Reviewer
Date: / Date:
If your answer above is No then state clearly what needs to be done first