Wolaita Sodo University

Graduate Studies Directorate

Graduate Studies Curriculum Development and Revision

Guideline

March 2021
Wolaita Sodo
 Team members

1. Fanuel laekemariam (PhD): Chairman

2. Wondimeneh Taye (PhD): Secretary
3. Ashebir Bezabih (PhD): Member
4. Asrat Worku (Associate Prof) : Member
5. Abrham Kebede (Associate Prof.) : Member
6. Zewde Zema (Associate Prof.) : Member

i
 Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................iii

Preface........................................................................................................................................................iv

Article 1. Short Title....................................................................................................................................1

Article 2. Issuing Authority.........................................................................................................................1

Article 3. Definitions...................................................................................................................................1

Article 4. Need Assessment (Pre-need and National)..................................................................................2

Article 5. Curriculum Design......................................................................................................................5

Article 6. Curriculum Evaluation and Approval..........................................................................................8

Article 7. Program Approval.......................................................................................................................9

Article 8 Quality Assurance and Re-accreditation.......................................................................................9

Article 9. Revision of the Existing Curriculum........................................................................................10

Article 10. Evaluation and Approval of the Revised Curriculum..............................................................11

Annex........................................................................................................................................................12

ii
 List of Abbreviations

AC -Academic Commission

CDC -Curriculum Development Committee

DGC- Department Graduate Council

GSD- Graduate Studies Directorate

HERQA- Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency

MOSHE-Ministry of Science and Higher Education

WSU- Wolaita Sodo University

iii
Preface

Currently, the University has been categorized as University of Applied Sciences by the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education (MOSHE) of Ethiopia. With this differentiation, the university
sets strategies to be technologically driven center of agricultural Excellence by 2030. In line with
this, the post graduate programs will comprise 15% of the students’ enrollment with strong,
demand driven, practical oriented and problem solving curricula. Therefore, the purpose of this
guideline is to provide some general instructions and obligation to academic units to develop or
revise their curriculum.

This guideline provides an overview of the curriculum development process and suggests a
series of steps to follow in creating curriculum documents. Developing of an effective
curriculum is a multi-step, ongoing and cyclical process. The process progresses from evaluating
the existing program available elsewhere, to designing an improved program, to implementing a
new program and back to evaluating the revised program are indicated in this guideline.

iv
Article 1. Short Title
This guideline may be cited as “Graduate Studies Curriculum Development and Revision
Guideline of Wolaita Sodo University, 2021”.

Article 2. Issuing Authority

This Guideline is issued by the Senate of Wolaita Sodo University pursuant to the powers vested
in it by Article 49 of the Higher Education Proclamation No. 1152/2019.

Article 3. Definitions
1. Curriculum: is the combination of instructional practices, learning experiences, and
students' performance assessment that are designed to bring out and evaluate the target
learning outcomes of a particular course. 
2. Curriculum development is defined as planned, a purposeful, progressive, and
systematic process to create positive improvements in the educational system.
3. Need assessment: is a process for determining an organization’s needs.
4. Pre-need assessment (The academic unit level need assessment): It refers to the
investigation of the felt and anticipated need of the society for the specific program. At
this stage, the economic and national feasibility of the program is checked by preparing
detailed business plan.
5. Credit hour shall mean a measure of workload at a university; it is (roughly) equivalent
to spending 1 hour per week in class for one term (usually a semester).
6. Curriculum revision means the process to update existing curriculum in order to
improve and address the society’s needs and is called curriculum revision.
7. Learning outcomes shall mean statements that describe essential learning that learners
have achieved, and can reliably demonstrate at the end of a course or program. In other
words, learning outcomes identify what the learner will know and be able to do by the
end of a course or program
8. University shall mean a Higher Education Institution as defined by Higher Education
Proclamation No. 1152/2019.

1
 Article 4. Need Assessment (Pre-need and National)

4.1. Need Assessment

4.1.1. It is a process for determining an organization’s needs. It usually consists of three

main parts: Initiation, Data Collection & Analysis and Final Curriculum Development.
4.1.2. Needs assessment shall be carried out at two levels: pre-need assessment (i.e.
relevant academic unit level) and the national level need assessments. Both assessments
shall be conducted to understand the general needs and expectations of the stakeholders
/society. Information obtained at these levels can be used as input for launching new
programs and/or revising the existing ones;
4.2. Pre-need assessment (The academic unit level need assessment): It refers to the
investigation of the felt and anticipated need of the society for the specific program. At this
stage, the economic and national feasibility of the program is checked by preparing detailed
curriculum development proposal. Depending on the results of pre- need assessment, the need
for initiating a program may be accepted or rejected.

4.2.1 Initiation of developing new program curriculum could be raised from individual
instructor or group of instructors from the department and the head of the
department shall form curriculum developing committee.
4.2.2 It is mandatory (for any department) to have at least one permanent local staff
having a PhD degree with a rank of associate professor and above in order to
design and run PhD program; and a permanent local staff with a PhD degree in
order to design and run Master’s program. Note that the requirements shall be
changed following the update in senate legislation and graduate studies guideline.
4.2.3 Any graduate program should be designed and guided by local Senior PhD holders
in the area of study;
4.2.4 A Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) shall be organized. The committee
will consisting primarily of instructors in the subject area of the proposed program
and one senior staff of the department that have experience in curriculum
development.

2
4.2.5 Curriculum development committee members should examine what is currently
being taught in the curriculum elsewhere and they should also examine national
and international standards in the proposed discipline as desk review.
4.2.6 In the pre-need assessment, the document prepared by the committee should state a
brief description of the factors which have contributed to the development of the
newly proposed curriculum, with reference to how the program fits into the
Strategic Plans of the department and college in particular and the University at
large. Also highlight any crossover and/or collaboration across Schools or Colleges
in the University.
4.2.7 The pre-need assessment rationale shall clearly describe:
i. Award type of proposed program (MSc, MA, PhD, Specialty, Subspecialty)
ii. Institute/College/School/Department associated
iii. Rationale for the proposed new programme. This shall include
a. Brief description of the factors which have contributed to the
development of this proposal, with reference to how the programme fits
into the relevant School/College/University/Country Strategic Plans and
Societal needs. Also highlight any crossover and/or collaboration across
Schools or Colleges.
b. The presence of any other program with similar competency and what
additional competency shall this program contribute.
4.2.8 The pre-need assessment shall clearly describe the availability and sufficiency of
the following resources for the successfully implementation of the proposed new
program at the School, College and University:
a. Human resource (teaching and advisory services)
b. Laboratories/ Demonstration sites/ workshops/ farms
c. Class room/ Lecture hall
d. Library and ICT services
e. Research fund availability
f. Evidence supported industry linkage

3
 4.2.9 The pre-need assessment shall clearly outline Proposed Need Assessment Strategy.
This includes:

a. The methodological approach to be used while conducting the need

assessment of the program e.g. questioner, workshop, discussion forum
with stakeholders etc....
b. Checklists
4.2.10 The pre-need assessment result shall be presented to the respective department
/school council and must get approval to carry out the national level need
assessment or not (see the attached format in the appendix).
4.2.11 Proposed new programs shall be accepted by the respective Department,
College/School and Vice President Office for Academic Affairs to proceed to the
national level need assessment.
4.3. National level Need assessment
4.3.1. It refers to market demand analysis for the proposed new program.
4.3.2. National level need assessment shall be conducted to market research and analysis to
ascertain:

a. The existing national and international competitors;

b. The points of difference of this program over those competitors (i.e. why will
a student choose this over another option);
c. The likely market of the proposed program;
d. How this program is designed to meet the circumstances of those potential
students;
4.3.3. The national need assessment shall target candidates, graduates, experts, research,
universities, and laboratories.

4
 Article 5. Curriculum Design

5.1. Curriculum design part shall have two sections: program overview, and academic
program structure
5.2. Program overview of designed curricula shall clearly state the following information. The
information shall base on the university legislation and graduate studies directorate guideline.
a. Initiating Department (s)/ School (s): Indicate name of the Department (s),
School(s)/Institute primarily responsible for this programme.
b. Full title of Program: (e.g., Master of… or MSc in…, PhD …, etc.)
c. Award Type: (MA, MSc, PhD, Speciality and subspecialty)
d. Total Credit hour of Program for the course work, research and total.
e. Student work hours: state the proportion of student work hour from the total
time per course (case studies, reading assignment, lab/field work, group work,
presentations, attachment on service learning program, etc.).
f. Program Duration/Year of study
g. Options available: Full time/Part time (or both)
h. Nature of Mode of Delivery: e.g. Face to face, online, or blended
i. Modality: Regular, Weekend, Summer, Evening, Online
j. Entry Requirements for Admission in accordance to WSU Senate Legislation;
k. Admission capacity (number)
l. Proposed Programme Start Year/Semester
m. Rationale for the Proposed New Program: it is a brief description of the factors
which have contributed to the development of the program, with reference to how
it fits into the relevant School/College/University Strategic Plans. It shall also
highlight any crossover and/or collaboration across Schools or Colleges.
n. Proposed Review Date: Indicate a proposed date for the first program review
(minimum of 4 years or after three batches)
o. Proposed reviewers for newly designed curriculum shall be a PhD with rank of
associate professor and above for reviewing a PhD curriculum; and PhD with
Assistant Professor and above for reviewing master’s curriculum.

5.3. The newly designed curriculum shall include the following detailed activities:
5.3.1. Program Learning Outcomes: It is a brief description of the learning outcomes of the
proposed program which is expressed as professional and graduate profiles
(detailed job and task analyses);
5.3.2. Developing acceptable evidence to assure the desired results are achieved
(outcome is obtained);
5.3.3. Develop course list, course distribution over the study period (course profile) and
descriptions, course outline for each course including learning and assessment
strategies;
5.3.4. Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategies: it shall provide information
regarding the delivery of the proposed program including a brief description of the

5
 teaching, learning and assessment strategies used, an indication of what, if any,
blended learning or e-learning tools will be used and the options available for
distance learning, part-time study or any other alternative mode of delivery.
5.3.5. Grading System: it shall provide information regarding grading system for the
proposed programme based on the university legislation.
5.3.6. Graduation requirements in accordance to WSU Senate Legislation;
5.3.7. Program Structure/ detailed content of the programme structure. This shall clearly
indicate
a. Summary of Program Credit Structure per Year

Year Core courses Elective Total

1
2
3
4
5
Total
b. Course coding system
c. Course code, Course Lists/title, expected competences, and credit value, and
whether the course is Core (C) or Elective (E)
d. A brief description of course
e. Summary of Course list: the curriculum shall summarize as follows:
.

Course Course Core Credit Year Semeste Remark

subject code title (C) or s r
Electiv
e (E)

f. List of Adjunct and Visiting Staff (with supportive evidence): If the

delivery of the programme involves contributions from adjunct staff, details of
their involvement and responsibilities in relation to the program should be
provided. In addition, letter stating the willingness, short Curriculum Vitae
for any adjunct staff associated with the program should be appended.

6
g. Resource availability to run the proposed program: outline the availability and
sufficiency of the following resources for the successful implementation of the
proposed new program.
i. Human resource (teaching and advising)
ii. Laboratories/Demonstration sites/ workshops/ farms
iii. Class room/ Lecture hall
iv. Library and ICT services
v. Industry Linkage
vi. Project/research partnership
vii. Others (if any, specify)
h. Before the review workshop, the proposed program must get minute based
confirmation by department graduate council (DGC), academic commission (AC),
and CGS, and vice president for academic affairs using the format in Appendix 2.

7
 Article 6. Curriculum Evaluation and Approval

6.1. In relation to curriculum, evaluation is the process of making valid judgment

about the merit or worth of a part or the whole of the curriculum.
6.2. For the curriculum, review workshop shall be centrally organized to evaluate the
overall contents. It is a forum where a completed draft curriculum is presented to internal
and external stakeholders for further scrutiny, feedback and enrichment.
6.3. The curriculum shall be evaluated by subject expert(s) (external professional(s)),
curriculum professional and relevant stakeholders. Curriculum professional from the
university shall evaluate the overall curriculum structure.
6.4. The newly designed curriculum evaluation shall consider the following points
a. Impact of curriculum from view point of:
i. Individual student, their needs, level of engagement and their performance
ii. On society, including the appropriateness of values communicated and
attitudes fostered and the level of public satisfaction
iii. On the economy including labor market as indicator of economic
development
b. Process through which the curriculum was developed
c. Content and design of the curriculum compared with
i. Recent social, technological, economic or scientific changes
ii. Recent advances in educational paradigms
d. Possible future direction for curriculum change

6.5. Evaluators shall provide their written judgement on the new curriculum as
follows: accepted as it is, accepted with modification, or not accepted.
6.6. The accepted curriculum by evaluators shall be handled as per the graduate
studies guideline before the final approval of the university senate.
6.7. The evaluation process of the review shall be supported by a minute.
6.8. During curriculum evaluation industries specific to curriculum under development
have to be invited and shall take part in the evaluation process. The number of
participants from the industries shall be decided at college/school levels.

8
9
 Article 7. Program Approval

7.1. After the review workshop, the DGC/SGC/CGC shall incorporate the comments and submit
the revised document including with evaluators assessment result and workshop minute to
college/school for AC approval.
7.2. The acceptable program by college/school AC shall be submitted to the GSD and later to
AVP which in turn shall present it to the Senate for approval before implementation.

Article 8 Quality Assurance and Re-accreditation

The quality of the program shall be audited by Directorates of Institutional Quality Assurance,
and Institutional Quality Enhancement in accordance with the guidelines set by Higher
Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA). This shall also apply during the revision
of existing curriculum.

10
Article 9. Revision of the Existing Curriculum

9.1 Curriculum revision means to give it a new position or direction alteration to its philosophy
by way of its aims and objectives, reviewing the content included, revising its methods and re-
thinking its effectiveness.

9.2. Curriculum Revision Forms (Major/Minor)

9.2.1 Major: It includes:

i. Revision or addition of 25% or more of course credits in Field of Study or

Program/Degree
ii. Award name change
iii. Any other major changes that affects the core competences with the approval of
department council and academic commission approval.

9.2.2 Minor: it includes

i. Less than 25% of course credit changes in Field of Study/Program

ii. Change in course sequencing
iii. Change in course title, pre-requisite/co-requisite, contact hours and/or catalog
description
iv. Course addition/deletion
v. Changes to admission requirements for selective programs

9.3 The Curriculum Review and Development Processes

Step 1: The program objective, competencies and course/module competencies shall be

analyzed based upon alumni survey. It shall clearly show strength, weakness and
comments for future improvement.

Step 2: Needs of students, instructors, policy makers, employers and stakeholders shall be
assessed with Situational Analysis

Step 3: Educational Objectives, Competencies, Learning Outcomes and subject/module

content shall be refined through series of internal workshops at department, school, and
college and university level by involving experts.

Step 4: Final evaluation using professionals shown in the new curriculum development.

11
Article 10. Evaluation and Approval of the Revised Curriculum

10.1 The evaluation processes of the revised curriculum shall also follow the steps mentioned
under articles 6 (Curriculum evaluation and approval).
10.2 If the curriculum needs major modifications, it shall be evaluated by by subject/area
expert(s) (external professional(s)), curriculum experts and relevant stakeholders. However,
for curriculum with minor modifications, it shall be evaluated at DC, AC, CGS and
ASCRQAC levels.
10.3 For curriculum with minor revision, it shall get approval by ASCRQAC following the
formal procedure.
10.4 Curriculum that needs major revisions, it shall get final approval by the university senate
following the procedure indicated in the graduate studies guideline.

12
 Annex
Form 1: Pre-need assessment for new graduate program development
For Submission to the College and Graduate Studies Directorate

This form should be used when submitting a proposal from the academic session 2013/2021 onwards.
Complete form – with DGC minute has to submit to School/ College

College/ School has to submit AC minute to GSD based on the request of DGC minute.

Final Decision to get permission for need assessment and launching programme has to be decided by CGS.
Programs are not considered approved and may not be advertised until approval is granted by the University
Senate.

a) New Programme Name

b) Award Type (MA/MSc/PhD/Speciality)

c) Total Credit Volume of Programme and

Programme Duration(Total ECTS and year of study)

Proposed Programme Start Date

Please indicate whether it starts in September or
January (Based on academic year)
Department (s)or School(s) associated with the
proposed new programme

Rationale for the proposed new programme

Insert a brief description of the factors which have contributed to the development of this proposal, with reference to
how the programme fits into the relevant School/College/University Strategic Plans. Also highlight any crossover
and/or collaboration across Schools or Colleges.

Market/demand analysis for the proposed new programme

Please outline:
 The stakeholders/ target group are going to involve in the need assessment or have the desire to participate
in the new programme.
 Is there any program exist with similar competency and what additional competency this programme
contributes?
 What market research and analysis has been conducted to ascertain: the existing national and international
competitors; the points of differentiation of this programme over those competitors (i.e. why will a student
choose this over another option); the likely market (who will take programme); how this programme is

13
 designed to meet the circumstances of those potential students  (e.g. does the proposed timetabling meet
students’ needs; is the pricing right; does the programme provide a qualification required for career
advancement ).

6. Proposed Need Assessment Strategy

Please outline the methodological approach to be used while conducting the need assessment of this programme.
(Questioner, workshop, discussion forum with stakeholders etc...)

7. Resource Implications for the School, College and University

Please outline the availability and sufficiency of the following resources for the successfully implementation of the
proposed new programme
 Human resource (teaching and advising)
 Laboratories/ Demonstration sites/ workshops/ farms
 Class room/ Lecture hall
 Library and ICT services

SIGNATURES
(All such proposal forms must also be signed by all signatories)
N.B: Before signing on this formal signatories should confirm that the proposed new programme must approve by DGC,AC,
and CGS, respectively.

Head of the Date:

Department/ Schools
(Name & Signature)
Date:
College/ Schools Dean
(Name & Signature)

GS Director Date:
(Name & Signature)
VPAA Date:
(Name & Signature)

14
 Form 2: Approval sheet for the submission of newly designed Program/revised curriculum

Wolaita Sodo University

Graduate Studies Directorate

Approval Sheet of the Newly Designed Curriculum for Review Workshop

N.B: Before signing on this form all signatories should confirm that the proposed new programme must approve
by DGC, AC, and CGS, and University Senate, respectively.

Head of the Department/ Date:

Schools
(Name & Signature)

Date:

College/ Schools Dean

(Name & Signature)

Date:
GS Director
(Name & Signature)

Vice President for Academic Date

Affairs
(Name & Signature)

15
 Form 3: Program Evaluation form for external Evaluators

Graduate Studies Directorate

Program Design and Evaluation Format

Full title of the Program: ______________________________________

Award Type: ________________________________________________

1. General comments on the assessment phases and designed curriculum

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2. Suggestion and modification to be made

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Name of Evaluator: _______________________________ Signature: __________

16