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 assessments by organizing 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
- Assessment of learning outcomes according to the Thai Qualification Framework for Higher Education (TQF) was done through a midterm and final exams, class discussions, and all the work assignments.
- The learning outcomes of each course were based on the curriculum mapping in the TQF 2.
- Students’ achievement was verified based on the learning outcome standards stated in the TQF 3.
- The learning and teaching assessment direction and program assessment (TQF 5, TQF 6 and TQF 7) had completion of follow-up arrangement of TQF 5 and TQF 7 in accordance with the time allotment.
- Students’ attainment of desired learning outcome standards was measured or evaluated through the utilization of appropriate assessment tools and methods.
- The instructors’ utilization of these assessment methods and tools was 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 was 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
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 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 2021, 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 on the students’ evaluation of the lecturer summary results for the courses they have taken for the academic year, the average mean is 4.70. This rating is higher than the last year with an average mean of 4.68 out of 5.00.
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 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 2021, 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 on 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
| 5.3.2.1 | Evaluation blueprint |
| 5.3.1.2 | Test Blueprint or TOS |
| 5.3.1.3 | Memo |
| 5.3.2.1 | Verification of learning outcomes report forms |
| 5.3.2.2 | Teaching ePortfolio of Students |
| 5.3.3.1 | TQF Workshop and Monitoring |
| 5.3.3.2 | TQF 4 and 6 |
| 5.3.3.3 | Students’ evaluation of the lecturers (MIS) |
| Self-Assessment | Score |
| 5.3 | 5.00 |