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

System & machanism

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 tools 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 them 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 where there 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.

       Another 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, supervising their Practicum in the Government office where they demonstrated the actual practice of doing the roles and responsibilities of educational administrators.

Process improvement

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 

 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 had 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 it 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. TQF Feedback Form was developed and used to monitor the progress of the TQF 3 and 5.

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 4.67. This rating is higher than last year with an average mean of 4.66 out of 5.00.

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

System and Mechanism

  1. The program committees have appointed the 3 same Thesis examiners and draft Thesis examiners which consist of full time program lecturers who were the President of the examinations.  This position focused on academic seniority, advisor lecturers and knowledgeable lecturers or 1 external specialist.
  2. The assessment criteria marks were:  if over 85% are equivalent to excellent, if the marks are 70-84% were counted as pass only and if lower than 60%, it meant failed.
  3. The Examination President has written down explanations when the assessment was excellent.
  4. The Thesis Oral Defense shall be rated according to the approved grading system and the judgment is based on the majority vote by the panel. The rating scale is as follows:
  • PASSED
  • PASSED with Minor Revisions
  • PASSED with Major Revisions
  • CONDITIONAL rating may be given requiring the student to do Major revisions for Re-Defense (Oral) or Re-Evaluation of the corrected copy only.
  • In case the Thesis Committee rules that the thesis needs amendments, although the evaluation of the thesis may be satisfactory, the student is required to do the necessary revisions.

-In case the student does not pass the first attempt of his/her thesis defense, he/she is allowed to retake the examination within four (4) weeks after the first attempt, or within a period recommended by the Thesis Committee. Notwithstanding, this period should not extend beyond the expiration date of the student’s own program, which is five (5) years.

Process Information

  1. After the program administrative committees have listened to teachers’ reasons, there were 2 subjects that students got high unusual marks–seminars and K.M.  Students have participated more in debates and every group did well.  For operations, students submitted works completely and all works passed the assigned criteria.
  2. There were no students who graduated from last academic year since they are in the process of writing their research.
  3. The Thesis Assessment results of students are still ongoing.  There was no one who failed, only withdrawn for personal reasons.

Improvements and Best Practices:

*There was an online feedbacking and formative assessment of student’s work to ensure the quality of the research paper.

*Graduate Students are currently and regularly undergoing an intensified weekly research seminar- workshop and thesis advising and counseling system as conducted by the Dean, program director, assigned lecturer-advisors and co-advisors and other appointed research experts.

*An enhanced evaluation tool to objectively measure student’s quality of written work and oral presentation/defense was designed and utilized. 

*Online seminar, online advising/counseling/mentoring room (Facebook Page, Line Group, and General Google Classroom), online Professional Learning Community (PLC), and innovated a thesis writing manual or handbook that served as guide and main reference material with the essential forms included in the appendices.

Results

MED candidates were moving to the next steps of the thesis writing process through the intensive guidance of the thesis advisors and intensified online monitoring and supervising system. One (1) candidate were able to graduate this academic year. However, there were four (4) candidates who successfully published their full research papers and still on the process of revising their final thesis manuscripts.

Batch

Title

Proposal

Data Gathering

Publication

Final Defense

2016

7

7

4

3

3

2017

5

3

3

2

2

2018

7

3

2

2

1

2019

7

2020

 1

 –

 –

 –

 –

Evidence

5.3.1.1Evaluation blueprint
Test Blueprint/TOS
5.3.2.1Practicum E-Portfolio
Practicum Documentation
5.3.3.1 TQF Review Feedback Form
5.3.4.1Revised Thesis Manual/Guide
Online General Google Classroom
for Thesis Advising/Counseling/
Mentoring System
Self-AssessmentScore
5.34.00

Leave a Reply