Quality Standards 5.3 Learner Assessment

Quality Standards 5.3 Learner Assessment

Quality Standards 5.3              Learner Assessment

Quality Standards Type          Process

Quality Standards Description:

     There are 3 main purposes of learner assessment. The first is to provide useful data/ information to improve the instructor’s teaching, which leads to improvements in student learning (assessment for learning).The second purpose of assessment allows students to evaluate their own progress, and use the results to develop new study methods that lead to learning (assessment as learning). The third purpose is to assess expected curricular learning outcomes (assessment of learning). Most assessment is used for the last purpose, which is focused on providing data regarding student learning achievements. Learning and teaching management should encourage assessment for the first two aims as well. Thus, appropriate assessment systems must place importance on creating assessment criteria, assessment methods, quality assessment tools, and grading methodologies that aptly reflect learning outcomes. Supervision is necessary to bring about authentic assessment, use of a variety of assessment methods, assessment results that reflect ability to operate in the real world, and feedback which enables students to resolve their weaknesses and reinforce their strengths. Such assessment results will reflect students’ actual abilities. Graduate programs must give priority to establishing quality systems to assess theses and independent study projects.

     When reporting operations for this indicator, describe processes or show operational results covering at least the following issues:

              5.3.1 Assessment of learning outcomes according  to the Thai Qualifications Framework of Higher Education and learners outcomes 3 aspects

              5.3.2 Verification of assessment of student learning outcomes

              5.3.3 Regulate the assessment of teaching management and curriculum assessment (TQF 5,TQF 6 and TQF 7)

              5.3.4 Assessment of these projects in graduate programs (Master and Doctoral Degree)

Assessment Criteria

0 – No system
– No mechanism
– No concept of overseeing, tracking, and improving
– No information or evidence
1 – A system and mechanisms are in place
– System and mechanisms are not put into practice, implemented
2 – A system and mechanisms are in place
– The system and mechanisms are put into practice, implemented
– The process is assessed
– There are no improvement/developments integrated into the process
3 – A system and mechanisms are in place
– The system and mechanisms are put into practice, implemented
– The process is assessed
– There are improvement/ developments integrated into the process from assessment results
4 – A system and mechanisms are in place
– The system and mechanisms are put into practice, implemented
– The process is assessed
– There are improvement/ developments integrated into the process from assessment results
– There are concrete results from the improvements that can be clearly seen
5 – A system and mechanisms are in place
– The system and mechanisms are put into practice, implemented
– The process is assessed
– There are improvement/developments integrated into the process from assessment results
– There are concrete results from the improvements that can be clearly seen
– There are good practice with support evidence, assessment committee can clearly explain why these are good practice

Operational Result

5.3.1 Assessment of learning outcomes according  to the Thai Qualifications Framework of Higher Education and learners outcomes 3 aspects

The program administrative committees have students’ and lecturers’ learning assessment by organizing on the use of evaluations, assessment criteria and assessment outcomes.

Process

Scholars’ Learning Outcome Assessment Inspections and the Development of a Validation Tool to assess students’ learning outcomes

  1. Assessment of learning outcomes according to the Thai Qualification Framework for Higher Education (TQF) were done through midterm and final exam, class discussion and all the work assignments.
  2. The learning outcomes of each course were based on the curriculum mapping in the TQF 2.
  3. Students’ achievement was verified based on the learning outcome standards stated in the TQF 3.
  4. The learning and teaching assessment direction and program assessment (TQF 5, TQF 6 and TQF 7) had a completion of follow-up arrangement of TQF 5 and TQF 7 in accordance with the time allotment.
  5. Students’ attainment of desired learning outcome standards was measured or evaluated through the utilization of appropriate assessment tools and methods.
  6. The instructors’ utilization of these assessment methods and tools were evaluated through the use of monitoring and evaluation tool to check the strengths and weaknesses of those tools and methods of assessing learners.

       Assessment of the process

       The process of learning outcome assessment inspections were improved through the integration of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the assessment tools and methods. Based on the lecturers’ feedback, there were no further discussions or conferences after the assessment period.

       Process improvement

        The instructors were required to prepare an Evaluation Blueprint and Table of Specifications (TOS) or Test Blueprint which should be aligned with the TQF 3. This will ensure the achievement of the intended and course learning outcomes.      

       Result    

        The examination papers became more valid and addressed the attainment of the course learning outcomes. 

5.3.2 Verification of assessment of student learning outcomes

Process

  1. The program verified and assessed the students learning outcomes through midterm and final examinations.
  2. The instructors prepared the written examination papers and submitted to the program head.
  3. The examination papers were reviewed by the faculty academic board that the questions are aligned with the learning outcomes as stated in the TQF reports.
  4. After the examination, the faculty board reviewed the results and the grade distribution.
  5. If there were some extreme cases were too many A or F grades, the instructors were asked to give the reasons for each case.
  6. The TQF 5, TQF 6 and TQF 7 reports have to be completed in accordance with the assigned deadline which is 30 days after the final examination date/s.

       Assessment of the process     

                The assessment of learning outcomes according to the TQF was done through the review of TQF 3 and TQF 5. The TQF 3 showed that the instructors wrote the course objectives which reflect the learning outcomes of TQF 2. The examination papers and the students’ learning results were analyzed. The process of student evaluation was highly acceptable.

       Other form of student’s evaluation is the involvement of the community; the community and other stakeholders played important roles in giving feedback to our students. For example, the community evaluated our students for the community services they conduct.

        The program also implemented peer assessment in which other program instructors were invited to assess the students. For example, the observation of Student Teaching Demonstration during practicum and internship.

       Process improvement

Intensified Peer Assessment

    In order to verify the students’ achievement of learning outcomes, peer assessment was also done and incorporated in the process. This created and developed meaningful experiences in teaching and assessment practices for the teachers. 

 21st Century / Authentic Assessment

     There was also technical assistance provided by the Dean in order to ensure the implementation of appropriate authentic assessment tools and methods. Authentic assessment methods such as group and individual projects were utilized by the instructors in the courses they teach in order to effectively and meaningfully assess the achievement of students’ learning outcomes.

     One of the best examples is the synthesis and compilation of all the course projects and assignments, including practicum and internship requirements, through an electronic portfolio (ePortfolio).

Outcome

Monitoring and Evaluation System

 The program learning outcomes are authentically verified through the ePortfolio of students.

5.3.3 Regulate the assessment of teaching management and curriculum assessment (TQF 5,TQF 6 and TQF 7)

System and Mechanism

        The assessment of teaching management was checked from the students’ evaluation of the teaching performance in each course. The program committee analyzed the assessment results and met with the instructor who have received an assessment result lower than 3.51. The program committee sets the development plan for that instructor. At the end of the academic year, the program chair prepared TQF 7 within 60 days and submitted to the faculty for review.

       Assessment Process

The program coordinators evaluate the TQFs and provide suggestions for further improvement. The TQFs are returned to the respective teachers for revisions.

Updates and revisions on TQF forms are regularly relayed to the teachers in faculty meetings by the Director of the Program in coordination with the IT department.

       Improvements

TQF writing was strengthened in 2020 especially in the MIS.

A committee was then identified to become a potential reviewer. Hence, “TQF Reviewers Workshop” was conducted” to discuss technical issues involving TQF writing.

       Outcome

        Based from the students’ evaluation of the lecturer summary results for the courses they have taken for the academic year, the average mean is 4.68. This rating is higher than the last year with an average mean of 4.67 out of 5.00.

5.3.4 Assessment of these projects in graduate programs (Master and Doctoral Degree)

Not applicable

Evidence

5.3.1.1Evaluation blueprint
5.3.1.2Test Blueprint or TOS
5.3.1.3Memo
5.3.2.1Verification of learning outcomes
report forms
5.3.2.2Teaching ePortfolio of Students
5.3.3.1TQF Workshop and Monitoring
5.3.3.2TQF 4 and 6
5.3.3.3Students’ evaluation of the
lecturers (MIS)
Self-AssessmentScore
5.34.00

Leave a Reply