Supervisor feedback and departmental submission checks may cover overlapping issues. Confirm your actual review process and checklist, then audit the final report for factual accuracy, required content, layout and genuine endorsements. No checklist guarantees first-time acceptance.
Before printing or uploading, give your real placement work a report you can check systematically. UniDraft helps organise your confirmed activities and instructions into an editable SIWES document, with versioned corrections. Start your SIWES report, then run the final audit below. Approval and genuine endorsements remain your institution's decisions.
The short answer
- Confirm the actual review roles. Supervisors and departmental reviewers may both check content, evidence, completeness and compliance.
- Administrative checks matter: wrong details on preliminary pages, missing signatures or dates, the wrong format version, a report that disagrees with the logbook, and missing appendices.
- Every department has its own checklist. This guide covers what reviewers commonly look for. Where your department's guideline says something different, follow your department.
- Run the audit at the end of this post on the final file, not on an earlier draft, and allow time for at least one correction round.
Why departmental review is a separate checkpoint
Under ITF's SIWES guidelines, students are supervised by institution-based supervisors and ITF staff during attachment, and the institution's supervisors sign and vet the logbook. The guidelines also make institutions responsible for submitting completed Form 8 sheets to ITF. So the department has its own accountability for the paperwork that leaves the school. That is why the review at your end feels different from your supervisor's comments in the margins.
Nigerian institutions are overseen by different bodies depending on type. ITF's guidelines name three supervisory agencies for SIWES: the National Universities Commission (NUC), the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) and the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE). NUC is the regulator that lays down minimum academic standards for universities, and NBTE regulates technical and vocational institutions including polytechnics. In practice, a university department and a polytechnic department can present different templates, different signature blocks and different deadlines. Nothing here is a single national rule for how an IT report looks, so treat your own department's document as the authority.
What reviewers check, and why it fails
The table below is an original planning checklist, not measured rejection data or an official NUC, NBTE or ITF marking scheme. Confirm the specific requirements with your coordinator.
| Reviewer checks | What a pass looks like | How it fails | Fix before submission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title page and preliminary pages | Your name, matric number, department, programme, session and place of attachment are correct everywhere | Another student's details left over from a template; matric number typed differently on two pages | Search the whole file for your matric number and name and compare every hit |
| Certification page | Only the actual required names, signatures and dates, at the required stage | Missing signature, undated signature, wrong supervisor named | Get signatures while your supervisors are still reachable |
| Format | Matches the department's current guideline: font, size, spacing, margins, heading levels, numbering | Last session's template used; inconsistent headings; wrong page-number style | Compare against the current guideline, then run a formatting check |
| Table of contents and lists | Entries match headings and page numbers | Outdated page numbers after edits; headings missing from the list | Update fields last, after all edits |
| Report and logbook consistency | Dates, duties, units, supervisors and tools agree | Report describes work the logbook does not mention, or the reverse | Cross-check week by week |
| Content structure | Required chapters and sections present in the order the department asks | A required section missing, or added in the wrong place | Tick each heading against the guideline |
| Appendices | Required attachments present and referred to in the text | Attachment listed but not attached; attachment never cited | Cite every appendix at least once in the body |
| References | Sources are listed consistently in the department's style | Half in one style, half in another; citations with no reference entry | Match every in-text citation to a reference entry |
| Language and presentation | Clear, consistent, free of obvious errors | Copy-paste fragments, mixed spelling styles, inconsistent tense | Read the whole document once, out loud if you can |
Issues to check before submission
Wrong details left over from a template
Students borrow layouts from seniors, and sometimes a name, matric number or company survives on a header, footer or the certification page. Reviewers notice quickly because it looks careless, and in some departments it raises questions about authenticity. The fix takes five minutes: use Word's find function for the previous owner's name, the previous company and last year's session, then check headers and footers, which the search box often skips.
Signature and date problems
Check the required certification and signing process. Check that each required signatory has signed, that the dates are filled in, and that names and titles are spelled correctly. If your industry-based supervisor is hard to reach, send the page early and ask when they will be available. Do not sign for anyone, and do not paste in a scanned signature you were not given permission to use. UniDraft does not generate or fill signatures, and neither should you.
The certification page is not the same as SIWES Form 8. ITF's guidelines describe Form 8 as the end-of-programme report sheet completed by students, employers and institutions, and they make the institution responsible for submitting it. The SCAF, the form you complete when attachment begins, is a separate document again, explained in the SCAF guide. Keep track of which document a reviewer is asking for.
A format from the wrong session
Departments update templates. If your report follows last session's layout, check whether the current requirements differ and correct any actual mismatch. Ask your coordinator for the current guideline and its date. If you are unsure how universities set out a report, the format guides collect published requirements for many institutions, and the general principles are covered in formatting a project report for a Nigerian university. Your department's version always wins over any general guide.
Roman-then-Arabic page numbering is a frequent trouble spot. If your preliminary pages restart at 1 or the body starts at the wrong number, this walkthrough of Roman and Arabic numbering in Word shows how to use section breaks properly.
A report that disagrees with the logbook
The logbook is a signed, week-by-week record. If your report says you spent weeks 4 to 6 in the network unit and the logbook places you in the helpdesk, a reviewer will wonder which is true. Fix mismatches by asking which document reflects what actually happened. If the report is wrong, change it. If the logbook has an error, take it to your industry-based supervisor for a correction and initials. Never overwrite signed entries yourself. When your logbook is thin, how to fill your SIWES logbook shows what a usable entry contains, and the computer science logbook examples show how tasks translate into a week's entry.
Appendices that are listed but missing
If your report says "see Appendix B for the network diagram", Appendix B must exist and be labelled the same way. Reviewers open appendices to confirm the report is backed by something. Photos need captions, letters need to be legible, and any diagram you did not draw needs its source. Only include material you are allowed to share; some employers restrict internal documents or customer data. If in doubt, ask your industry-based supervisor before you attach it.
Content that reads like a list of tasks
Departments want to see what you learned, not a diary. If the body of your report is a run of "I did this, then I did that" with no reflection on skills, problems and outcomes, expect comments even at the administrative stage. How to write a SIWES report your institution will accept covers the chapter structure, and it is worth reading before you polish the final copy.
Building a submission timeline
There is no universal deadline, so ask your coordinator for the internal date, and distinguish it from any institution-to-ITF deadline. Then work backwards. This is a planning suggestion, not a rule.
| When | What to do |
|---|---|
| Weeks 4 to 6 before deadline | Finish the draft. Confirm the current department guideline and ask for the review checklist if one exists |
| Weeks 3 to 4 | Send the draft to your supervisor. Book time with your industry-based supervisor for signatures |
| Weeks 2 to 3 | Apply corrections. See how to manage IT/SIWES corrections so nothing already approved gets lost |
| Week 1 | Run the full audit below. Fix mismatches. Update the table of contents and page numbers last |
| Final days | Print or export as required, check the file opens on another computer, and submit with a receipt or acknowledgement |
If you have not started yet, plan the audit into your schedule now. Allow time for the checks, corrections and signing arrangements your actual submission needs.
A full pre-submission audit checklist
Work through this on the final file. Tick only what you have checked yourself, not what you assume.
Identity and preliminary pages
- Your full name is spelled the same on the title page, certification page, declaration, acknowledgement and any header or footer.
- Your matric number is correct and identical everywhere it appears.
- Department, faculty, programme, session and level are correct.
- The place of attachment and its address match the logbook and the SCAF.
- Attachment dates match your logbook and school records.
- No leftover names, companies or sessions from a template.
Certification and endorsements
- Every signature your department requires is present on the certification page.
- Every signature is dated, and the names and titles are correct.
- The signatures are real, given by the people themselves.
- You know where Form 8 and the SCAF stand, and who is responsible for each.
Format and layout
- You are using the current department guideline, not an old copy.
- Font, size, line spacing and margins follow it.
- Heading levels are consistent and numbered as required.
- Preliminary pages use the required numbering style (for example Roman), and the body starts at the right number.
- Table of contents, list of figures and list of tables are updated and match the text.
- Figures and tables are numbered, captioned and cited in the text.
- You have run the file through a formatting check for mechanical problems.
Content and consistency
- Weekly or unit-by-unit activities match the logbook.
- Every required chapter or section is present, in the order your department asks.
- Claims about what you did are things you actually did.
- Technical terms, tools and software are named the same way throughout.
- Any figures, screenshots or diagrams you did not create are credited.
- You have read it once from start to finish for typos, tense and mixed spelling.
References and appendices
- Ordinary citations and reference entries match, with any legitimate style exceptions such as unretrievable personal communications identified.
- The reference style is the same throughout, as your department requires. The citation finder helps you locate real published sources.
- Every appendix is attached, labelled and referred to in the text.
- You have permission to include anything taken from your employer.
Submission
- Your supervisor's corrections have all been applied and no earlier good change was lost.
- The file opens correctly on another computer, and fonts and images survive.
- You know the department's submission method (hard copy, soft copy or both), the number of copies, and the deadline.
- You have a way to prove you submitted, such as a receipt, a signed register or an email acknowledgement.
After you submit
Review outcomes differ by department. Some return the report with marks in the margin, some ask for a re-submission, and some send you to a defence. If corrections come back, apply them methodically and keep a copy of every version. If you may be asked about the report in person, how to defend your SIWES report explains what panels tend to ask. And since your report is usually only one part of your SIWES result, how SIWES is graded explains why departments split marks across several components, though the exact split is set by each institution.
Where UniDraft fits in
UniDraft builds your written IT/SIWES report as an editable Word (.docx) document around your confirmed activities, project/supervisor instructions, student-confirmed guidelines, department patterns, university baselines and platform defaults, applied in that order of priority. It does not invent activities, results, sources or approvals, and it does not fill Form 8, sign logbooks or guarantee approval. When your supervisor sends corrections, you supply them, confirm the changes UniDraft extracts, and get a new version while earlier versions are kept. Check current pricing and included correction rounds before checkout.
You can also use the free formatting checker on any .docx to compare font, spacing and margins against a university's rules. It does not store your file, and it does not replace your department's own checklist.
Sources
- Industrial Training Fund: SIWES guidelines (PDF) covers the objectives of SIWES, the roles of ITF, institutions, employers and students, supervision, logbook vetting and Form 8.
- National Universities Commission describes NUC's role in setting minimum academic standards and accrediting programmes.
- National Board for Technical Education describes NBTE's role in regulating technical and vocational institutions, including polytechnics.
