ASSESSMENT AND AWARDS

The University has adopted a range of quality assurance procedures designed to ensure that its practices meet high standards and that the University’s distinctive vision is sustained. To this effect CAU’s Executive Governor General Governing Body has given the full authority and responsibilities of Assessment, Examination and Verification to the university’s Assessing board.Although quality assurance is fundamentally different functions and CAU itself charged with responsibility for its own quality assurance processes. This responsibility is exercised at the University through Assessing board which is empowered at the highest level to ensure quality delivery of the University’s functions and awards. The International Standardization Organization (ISO) is the only quality assurance system recognized by intergovernmental agreement between 148 different countries, and is based on the principles of stakeholder satisfaction and continual improvement through quality management systems. Many universities around the world have implemented the internationally recognized ISO 9001:2000 standard, and the ISO encourages institutions to adopt the standards in both self-certification and external audit processes. AIPS has this approval from the ISO with the Standard and Guideline of BS-EN-9001:2008 with certification number GB-14390.

All the candidates are assessed under the following roles.

• Accreditation for Career Progress Development

  This scheme is dedicated to the individual with basic education, but who does not have any formal higher academic or professional qualifications or training since employment, but has sufficient work experience to confirm the area specialisation.

• Affirmation for Prior Experience & Learning

  This scheme is dedicated to the individual who does have formal academic & professional qualification, but does not possess with higher academic education but has work training since employment with sufficient work experience to confirm the area specialisation.

• Academic Route Training

  This scheme is dedicated for the matured individual who wishes to progress their career advancement by following class room workshop and seminar or on a distance learning methods to achieve their respective qualifications.

Oral Examination

Every candidate have to face without fail oral examination to gain any award from CAU. Examination for all schemes is principally undertaken as assessment of written work along with by submitting detailed curriculum vita and other supporting credential for their eligibility of the award. The assessment Board is responsible to verify the ability of the candidate by way of requesting to participate in an oral examination which up to three hours duration. This will take place usually by the regional TRUSTED BOARD OF ASSESSORS .

The Oral examination is compulsory because CAU qualification are Knowledge oriented. In order to verify eligibility, oral examination is important. The standard required oral examinations are three.

Candidate duties and procedures

The candidate must ensure that the documentation or assignments, desertion or thesis is submitted in accordance with the procedures established and communicated through this and other documents and guidelines.

The submission of the documentation must be at the sole discretion of the research degree candidate concerned. The appointed mentor(s), University staff and administration will be assisting the candidate to do the best of their knowledge; Mentors are thus not able – nor should they be willing – to make any form of guarantee of the success. The candidate must have no formal contact with the Examiner(s) whilst the assessment in progress.

The candidate must confirm, by a declaration bound into the assignments that has not been submitted for any comparable award.

A candidate shall not be excluded from incorporating in a assignments, covering a wider field, work which has already been submitted for a degree or comparable award. The candidate must ensure that the documentations is bound and formatted in accordance with University requirements, failure to comply will lead to rejection and appeals procedure will not consider cases of rejection on the basis of failure to comply.

Awards Grading

EXCELLENT (70 and above)

Enthusiastic understanding and sound scrutiny of the material established by the writing of a well-planned paper. Wide-ranging research along with suitable use of literature. Awareness of where and how issues could receive further action. The candidate is aware of learning something new in the process of completing the paper, and has made a creative contribution to the understanding of the material rather than merely absorbing and rehearsing existing work. Well presented, with a good writing style, with references well done.

GOOD (60-69)

The candidate is on top of the material and has a good grip of what is at issue. Good use of source texts and relevant literature. Sound assessment of the reading material with the knowledge gained being expressed in an entirely acceptable way, but not so as to raise new issues or find especially noteworthy insights. The candidate has performed knowledgeably falling a little way short of making a personal creative contribution to the thoughtful of the material. Well presented, with a good writing style.

AVERAGE (50-59)

Appreciates normally what is at issue. Incorporates the benchmark key in a routine way. Fair use of source texts and applicable literature, but almost certainly does not use sources and literature as fully as possible to understand and articulate a clear explanation. Not much substantiation of insight. Adequate writing style. Fair presentation.

FAIL/RETURN (30-49)

Has not really understood what is at issue. Little use of source texts and relevant literature. No confirmation of learning. Exposition muddled. Pathetic description and no analysis. Struggle with writing style and some grammatical errors. Very poor presentation.

BAD FAIL (less than 30)

No substantiation whatever of trying to understand what is at issue. Grave errors in presenting topics and themes from source texts and secondary literature. Exposition very muddled and largely irrelevant. Distinctive problems with writing style including grammatical errors. Extraordinarily poor presentation. (Plagiarism not necessarily present: but plagiarism results automatically in paper receiving zero marks).