Assessment frameworks Clause Samples

An assessment frameworks clause establishes the criteria and processes by which performance, compliance, or outcomes are measured within an agreement. Typically, it outlines the standards, benchmarks, or methodologies that parties must use to evaluate deliverables or services, such as referencing industry standards or specifying particular metrics. This clause ensures that all parties have a clear, objective basis for assessment, reducing ambiguity and potential disputes over whether obligations have been met.
Assessment frameworks. Both EAPAA and NVAO accredit at programme level and the contents of the frameworks they apply are to a very large extent overlapping. This is the case for NVAO's limited as well as extensive programme assessment. The main difference between the accreditation frameworks is the level of detail: the EAPAA framework is specifically focused on the discipline of public administration. In order to ensure workable conditions, the NVAO framework is used as a starting point, with further and more detailed specifications regarding the following topics: a) NVAO standard 1: addition; b) NVAO standard 2: expansion; c) One additional standard; d) Additional information. a) NVAO standard 1: addition In addition to addressing NVAO standard 1, the programme should elaborate on its educational mission and how this mission translates into learning outcomes. b) NVAO standard 2: expansion In the presentation of the teaching-learning environment, the programme should address the following topics from the EAPAA framework (standards referred to between brackets): - Entry into the programme (2) - Curriculum structure (3) - Curriculum content (4) - Didactic approach (5) - Faculty (10) c) One additional standard The additional standard addresses the following topic from the EAPAA framework: - Diversity (11). d) Additional information The programme should make the following information available: background information on the programme management and the structure of the institute, faculty data sheets, course abstracts, and a list of theses from the last three years. If deemed necessary, the SVT may ask for additional, existing, documentation. EAPAA will provide the SVT with general information on the institutional background of the programme. It should be noted that the NVAO framework requires programs to justify their choice for the teaching language if a program is taught in a language other than Dutch. This also applies if the program uses a foreign language name. The program should also demonstrate that teachers have a sufficient command of the language in which they are teaching. In addition, the extensive assessment framework of NVAO requires programs to demonstrate that staff policy is conducive in this respect.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Assessment frameworks. The main difference between the assessment frameworks of AACSB and NVAO is their perspective: AACSB accredits at institutional level and the NVAO accredits at program level. The following paragraphs discuss the combining of the assessment frameworks. An important principle in the cooperation is that both levels (institutional and program) are assessed by the panel in order to ensure valid decision-making processes for both accreditation organizations. The AACSB assessment framework for the initial accreditation is an extended framework that covers, among other standards, the first three standards of the limited program assessment of the NVAO. The fourth standard of the latter mentioned framework, concerning achieved learning outcomes, is not covered in the AACSB framework. The panel will assess this standard according to the procedures described in the NVAO framework. Workable conditions (the number of theses1 the panel needs to assess) will be determined per audit. Following discussion with the review team the organization under review may decide to outsource the assessment of theses to a third party. In principle, the panel will assess at least 15 theses for each program. A reduction of this number can only be considered if programs share an Examination Board and if there is a demonstrable overlap of courses between the programs of at least one year or 60 EC for a bachelor’s program and 20 EC for a master’s program. In that case the panel will assess a minimum of 8-10 theses per program. NVAO must agree before the start of the assessment to the reduction in the number of theses to be assessed. The extensive program assessment of the NVAO is also mostly covered by the AACSB initial accreditation framework. Standard 11 of the NVAO framework, concerning achieved learning outcomes, is the only standard that is not covered in the AACSB initial accreditation framework. The panel will assess this standard according to the procedures described in the NVAO framework. Workable conditions (the number of theses2 the committee needs to assess) will be determined per audit. Following discussion with the review team the organization under review may decide to outsource the assessment of theses to a third party. The same rules pertaining to the possible reduction of the number of theses to be assessed that are stated above for the limited program assessment apply to the extensive program assessment. In addition to the assessment of achieved learning outcomes, the NVAO f...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Assessment frameworks. Both EAPAA and NVAO accredit at programme level and the contents of the two frameworks are to a very large extent overlapping. This is the case for NVAO’s limited as well as extensive programme assessment. The main difference between the accreditation frameworks is the level of detail: the EAPAA framework is specifically focused on the discipline of public administration. In order to ensure workable conditions, the NVAO framework is used as a ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ point, with further and more detailed specifications regarding the following topics: a) NVAO Standard 1: addition; b) NVAO Standard 2: expansion; c) two additional standards; d) appendices; e) summary of the institutional audit report (only in case of NVAO limited programme assessment). a) NVAO Standard 1: addition In addition to addressing NVAO Standard 1, the programme should elaborate on its educational mission and how this mission translates into learning outcomes. b) NVAO Standard 2: expansion In the presentation of the teaching-learning environment, the programme should address the following topics from the EAPAA framework (standards referred to between brackets): - multidisciplinary character of the programme (5.1); - core components (5.5.1.1); - other components and specialisations (5.5.1.2); Page 3 of 4 - curriculum length (5.5.2); - relationship to practice and internships (5.4); - structure and didactics of the programme (5.5.1.3); - admission of students (5.10); - intake (5.5.1.4); - faculty qualifications (5.9.2). c) Two additional standards The additional standards address the following topics from the EAPAA framework: - external input regarding curriculum development and review (5.6.2 and 5.6.3); - diversity (5.9.3). d) Appendices The programme should add the following information in the appendices to the self- evaluation report: background information on the programme management and the structure of the institute, faculty data sheets, an overview of the curriculum, course abstracts, graduation / dropout rates, the teacher-student ratio and a list of theses from the last three years. If deemed necessary, the SVT may ask for additional, existing, documentation. e) Summary of the institutional audit report For programmes from institutions whose institutional quality assurance assessment (ITK) by NVAO has produced a positive result, EAPAA’s standards 5.6.1 and 5.11 to 5.13 can be covered by providing a summary of the audit report. EAPAA’s standards 5.6.1, 5.11 to 5.13 are addressed in NVAO’s extens...
View Source

Related to Assessment frameworks

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • Diagnostic Assessment 6.3.1 Boards shall provide a list of pre-approved assessment tools consistent with their Board improvement plan for student achievement and which is compliant with Ministry of Education PPM (PPM 155: Diagnostic Assessment in Support of Student Learning, date of issue January 7, 2013). 6.3.2 Teachers shall use their professional judgment to determine which assessment and/or evaluation tool(s) from the Board list of preapproved assessment tools is applicable, for which student(s), as well as the frequency and timing of the tool. In order to inform their instruction, teachers must utilize diagnostic assessment during the school year.

  • Ergonomic Assessments At the request of the employee, the College will ensure that an ergonomic assessment of the employee’s work station is completed by a person trained by the Department of Labor and Industries or comparable trainer to conduct ergonomic assessments. Solutions to identified issues/concerns will be implemented within available resources.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.