proceedings icqa 2013 · 2014. 10. 27. · national library of thailand cataloging in publication...

Proceedings ICQA 2013 International Conference on QA Culture: Cooperation or Competition

National Library of Thailand Cataloging in Publication Data

Name Proceedings ICQA 2013 International Conference on QA Culture: Cooperation or Competition ISBN 978-616-7853-07-9First published June 2014 Number of copies 500 copiesNumber of pages 200 pagesOwner The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public Organization) 24th Floor, Phayathai Plaza Building, 128 Phayathai Road, Tung Phayathai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok 10400 Tel: 0-2216-3955 ext. 220, 228 Fax: 0-2216-5043-6 Website : http://www.onesqa.or.th E-mail : [email protected] by Design Revolutions Co., LtdPrinted by Offset Plus Co., Ltd

Message from the Director The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public Organization)

AccordingtotheNationalEducationActofB.E.2542(1999),theOfficeforNationalEducation Standards and Quality Assessment (Public Organization) was established in order to assess and reflect results of educational provision of eacheducational institution.ONESQAhasachieved2roundsofexternalqualityassessment.TheFirstRoundofEQA(2001-2005)wasanon-scoreassessment,butanassessmenttoconfirmrealcircumstancesofeducationalinstitutions.Likewise,theassessmentdevelopedanunderstandingofqualityassuranceamongeducationalinstitutions.TheSecondRoundof EQA (2006-2010) certified or decertified educational institutions at all levels. Also, ONESQA provided assessment results to institutions and their parent organizationsfordevelopmentpurposes.Currently,ONESQAhasconductedtheThirdRoundofEQA(2011-2015)withthesameobjectivesastheSecondRoundofEQA.Therefore,educationalinstitutionsmustuseassessmentresultstohelpdevelopment.Parent organizationsmust encourage, support, and be responsible for society, especially for students who will use assessment results that will help decide what institution the student may want to enroll. Theinternationalconferenceon“QualityAssurance”2013,heldon7-8November2013 at BITEC,was a step to become a part of ASEANEconomicCommunity. The topic of the conference was “QA Culture: Cooperation or Competition”, providingopportunities tobrainstormassessment culture internationally.Moreover, it was a stage to present an overall operation, and to develop indicators of the FourthRound of EQAbyONESQA, to the public. Also, the conferenceprovided preparationforeducationalinstitutionsforthenextroundofEQA. Iwouldliketoshowmygratitudetoallstaff.Thisproceedingpresentskeynotes,lectures, anddiscussions fromeducation experts at the international conference. I strongly hope that these proceedingswill benefit administrators of educational institutions, teachers, students, educational staff, researchers, academics, and the public,totakeknowledgeofinternalandexternalqualityassessmentstocontinuouslydevelopqualityofinstitutionsandthequalityofeducationinThailand.

(ProfessorDr.ChannarongPornrungroj)Director

Keynote speech

• “QualityAssuranceinEducation” delivered by Phongthep Thepkanjana, Deputy Prime Minister 11 • “Quality-StudentQuality-Teacher” delivered by Professor Dr. Channarong Pornrungroj 13 • QualityAssuranceCulture:CooperationorCompetition? delivered by Dr. Guy Haug 23 • BalancingtheCompetingNeedsofDiverseStakeholdersSetting New Directions for EQA in Higher Education delivered by Dr. Carol L. Bobby 25 • ImpactsofExternalQualityAssessment delivered by Dr. Jingjai Harnchanlash 26 • QAInnovationsinThailand delivered by Prof. Dr. Channarong Pornrungroj 27 • TheEmergenceofEQA:FrameworksforNewDiscovery delivered by Dr. Jagannath Patil 29 • QAasAMeanstoEducationalImprovement delivered by Mr. Tony McAleavy 31

Research Presentation • TheTwo-LayerAppealMechanismofProgramAccreditationinTaiwan and Its Implications for Reviewer Training delivered by Dr. Karen Hui-Jung Chen 43 • OrganizationalEffectivenessEvaluationSystemforHigherEducationInstitutions Under the Ministry of Tourism and Sport delivered by Dr. Chanita Kraipetch 51 • TheEffectivenessofOnlineSelfAssessmentReportinFaculty of Management Sciences Songkhla Rajabhat University Using MGT e-SAR System delivered by Thanapat Yeekhaday and Wuttichai Inkeaw 63 • TQM Application in KMUTT: The Beginning delivered by Sudkad Changkrachang, Ratsuda Borirak, Sasikorn Songkhao, Nakorn Srisukhumbowornchai, Preecha Termsuksawad 72 • Competency-based Teaching and Learning as a Key to the Asean Economic Community Success delivered by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Amornchai Tantimedh, Dr. Payungsak Juntarasurin, Dr. Nipat Jongsawat, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wichian Premchaiswadi 79

Contents

• Accreditation,QualityAssessmentandtheRanking for the Top Universities in Thailand delivered by Dr. Pornchai Mongkhonvanit, Dr. Nipat Jongsawat, Parham Porouhan, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wichian Premchaiswadi 88 • EvaluationEthics delivered by Frank Ying 100 • THAIPre-ServiceScienceTearcher’sPedagogical Content Knowledge: An Exploratory Study delivered by Dr. Chittamas Suksawang 102 • AModeloftheAdoptionandIntegrationofICT into Science Teaching: an SEM approach delivered by Dr. Pongprapan Pongsophon 118 • EnhancingtheQualityofLearningThroughtheUseof Infographics as Visual Communication Tool and Learning Tool delivered by Dr. Patchara Vanichvasin 135 • MoralandEthicalRequirementsofGraduateDoctors: TheEmployer’sViewpoints delivered by Ramorn Yampratoom MD, Somying Bookaew, Alisara Wongsuttilert MD, Sastri Saowakontha MD PhD, Nattapat Lilitsuwan, Teeratat Sukonpatip, Natlada Pathomweepisut, Peerapol Saisuwan, Rujrawee Chankamai, Waralee Amarintarovat, Sucharee Hirunsri, Apichart Hema 143 • StrategicUseofSurveillanceInformationSystem in a Time Frame of Internal Quality Assurance delivered by Dr. Paisarn Kanchanawong 151 • Striving for Performance Excellence at Stamford International University of Thailand delivered by Dr. Boonmark Sirinaovakul 156 • UniversityStudents’RoleinShapingTheirLearningExperience in The 21st Century delivered by DR. Prakash Patil 171 • Development of an Internal Quality Assurance Model for Subject Group Level in Basic Education delivered by Dr. Sasitorn Buathong, Dr. Suwaporn Semheng, Asst. Prof. Dr. Sunan Solkosum, Dr. Komsorn Wongrugsa 181 • DevelopmentofThaksinUniversity’sMasterofEducation Thesis Quality Assurance System Using the Balanced Scorecard Technique delivered by Chareefah Hutyee, Suthasinee Boonyapithak, Suthep Suntiwaranont 192

Committee 198 • Advisory Board • AcademicBoard • SessionChairs • ReviewerTeam • WorkingTeam

06 Proceedings ICQA 2013

Theobjectiveofthe2013InternationalConference,QA Culture: CooperationorCompetitionorICQA2013istopromoteapartnershipof‘TenThousandFriends’thatcanthinkandworktogethertowardQualityImprovement,andtocollaborateandcreatecommongoalsandbondsamonginstitutions,qualityassuranceorganizationsandotherstakeholders.Moreover,thisConferencewillprovideaforumfor educators and assessors in the field of educational quality assurance, both internal and external, of basic, vocational andhighereducationlevelstoupdateknowledgeandtoshareinnovative ideas.Also,participantsatthisConferencewillhaveanopportunityto disseminate information in the forms of publications, ideas, and information relating to external quality assessmentwhich is considered vital and beneficial for educational evaluators, assessors, researchers, as well as the academics.

About The Conference

07Proceedings ICQA 2013

Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN)

AnetworkofqualityassuranceagenciesinhighereducationinAsia-Pacificcountries.APQNhasprovidedgoodpracticesforqualityassuranceto its members and assisted the countries thathavenoqualityassuranceagency.Thenetworkhasbeenexpandedanddevelopedthroughcooperationofitsmembersandsupportfromexternalbodies,particularlyWorldBankandUNESCO.Formoreinformation,pleasevisithttp://www.apqn.org/

ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN)

AQANwasestablishedby10ASEANqualityassuranceauthorities in order topromote harmonization of higher education, share good practices and strengthen quality assurance in South-East Asia region. AQANhasdevelopedtheASEANQualityAssuranceFrameworkwith a view to facil i tate the recognition of qualifications and cross-border mobility. Formoreinformation,pleasevisithttp://www.mqa.gov.my/aqan/

Conference Partnership


ASEAN University Network (AUN)

AUN was founded in 1995 by ASEAN member countries. In1998,AUN-QAwascreatedtocoordinateactivitiesconcernedwiththeharmonizationofeducationalstandardsandcontinuousqualityimprovementofASEANuniversities.Formoreinformation,pleasevisithttp://www.aunsec.org/

Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning Thailand (ASAIHL Thailand)

ASAIHL Thailand aims to assist higher education institutions to increasetheirperformanceandtoachieveinternationalrecognitioninteachingandlearning,researchandpublicservices.Formoreinformation,pleasevisithttp://www.asaihlth.in.th


Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)

SEAMEOisaregional intergovernmentalorganizationestablishedbygovernmentsofSoutheastAsiancountries topromote regionalcooperation in education, science and culture in the region. The focal point of the organization is to increase the human capacitythroughthedevelopmentofeducation.Formoreinformation,pleasevisithttp://www.seameo.org/

VenueBangkokInternationalTrade&ExhibitionCentreBangkok,Thailand

International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)

INQAAHE is a global association of quality assurance agencies andrelevantbodies.Thenetworkhasoffereditsmembersvarious services,suchas,academicjournals,agoodpracticesdatabase,conferencesandworkshops.Formoreinformation,pleasevisithttp://www.inqaahe.org/


Keynote speech


Keynote speech

“Quality Assurance in Education”

delivered by Phongthep Thepkanjana, Deputy Prime Minister

Standards are critically important in the world nowadays. Assessment of educational institutionsissignificantaswell.Aswecansee,everysector,eventhegovernmentofapowerfulcountryhastobeassessed.Forexample,eachcountry’sgovernmentbondmustbeassessed to rate itscreditability. It is inevitable toavoid beingassessedsincetherearemanystandardsandcriteriainallsectors.Now,peopleconsiderqualityofcompanies,educationalinstitutions,andorganizationsbycertainstandards.Duringthepast13years,ONESQAhascarriedtheburdenwhichishighlyessential for theeducationaldevelopmentofThailand.Hence, thesocietyneeds toknowthattowhatextentthattheresultsofexternalassessmentaretrustworthybecausethose resultsshouldbe furtherutilized.Forexample,allparentsneed tofindgoodschools for their children.Manypeople, however, haveposed thequestion as towhether parents would takeONESQA’s assessment results into consideration. Whenever parents useONESQA’s assessment results, then it can be said that ONESQAhasachieveditsgoals.Theassessmentofeducationalqualityisinevitable.It must align with the objectives for educational development. Today, in the educational sector thegovernment hasplaced student quality as the first priority.Graduatesmust be ethical, have a sense of democracy, and promote peace in society. A process of quality assessment this year is an appropriate topic; Quality-studentreflectsquality-teacher. Whenstudents start at thesame level, studentswithbetter teachers tend todo better.YoumighthavethesameexperienceasIdo.Someteacherstaughtmeforoneyear, but I did not understandwhat they had repeated.On theother hand, some teachers taughtme the same topic for only 5minutes, but I could understand it. Obviously,qualityteachershaveasignificantimpactonstudents’learning.Moreover,toinstillethicsinstudentsisevenmoredifficult.Teachersmustconsiderhowtofosterethics,morals,goodvalues,andthesenseofdemocracy.Inordertoteachstudentsknowledgealongwithethics,theteachersmustdedicatethemselves.Currently,thegovernmenthasconcernaboutthenumbersofgraduates;meanwhiletherearemanysocial science graduates, yet there is a lack of science graduates. ONESQA should set up systems in order to encourage educational institutions to focus on the improvementofincreasinggraduatesinfields. Anothertopicthattheprimeministerhasstressedisthatthereareagreatnumbersof educational institutions and graduates. Somehow, there are too many graduates in certainfields;asaresult,thegraduateshavetodifficultyfindingajobintheirownfields.


Insomecases,thereisonly1jobper500graduates.Graduateswhofailtosecureajobmustworkinotherfieldsthatarenotrelevanttotheirbackground.Thegovernmenthasencouragedrelevantorganizationsandpublicsectorstoconductresearchtofindoutthedemandofmanpowerforthenext3yearsfromeachfield,suchas,sciences,engineering,orFrench.Bydoingso,theeducationalinstitutionscouldplantoproducegraduatesthatmeetmarketdemands.ThegovernmentaimstoimproveinfrastructureinThailand,especiallytransportation,suchasthehighspeedtrainandthedualrailsystem.Engineersandtechniciansarerequiredtocompletethoseprojects.Withoutan appropriateplan, the countrywill definitely lack human resources. Toproducegraduatesrequiresanamountoftime,forexample,4yearsforaBachelor’sDegree.ThegovernmenthasgivenapolicyongraduateproductiontotheMinistryofEducation,andONESQAhastoparticipateinconductingtheassessment. In Thailand, as the director ofONESQA hasmentioned that the assessment hasbenefits,butalsobringsaboutcompetitionseitherinthesameeducationalinstitute,orwith other educational institutions.Assessment has led to assumption that one needstobebetterthanothers,resultinginthelackofcooperationacrossinstitutions.That is unfortunate because educational institutions could gainmore benefits if theycooperatewithothers.Therefore,weshouldfindawaytopromotecooperationamong educational institutions, such as through the method of assessment. Forexample, theremightbeanextrapoint foran institution thatparticipates in theimprovementofotherinstitutions’quality.Thiswillbeapartofassessmentdevelopment,andthusachievementoftheassessmentobjectives. Finally, ONESQA has been usually accused of causingmore burdens to educational institutions since external assessment seems to overlapwith internal assessment.IhaveinformedtheONESQAexecutivecommitteethatONESQA,asaserviceprovider,shoulddevelopasystemtofacilitateeducationalinstitutions,whichareservicereceivers.Tolessenburdensforeducationalinstitutionsmeanstolessenburdens of ONESQA. That can be manageable. ONESQA has to work with educational institutions inmanaging the systems between external and internal assessments in order to lessen their burdens, but still gain the most accurate data. At this conference, there are speakers and experts from Thailand and from the international community. Thus, I believe that all of youwill have an opportunity to exchangeperspectivesinordertoimprovequalityassessmentsystemsandeducationstandardsinThailandthatwillbewidelyrecognized. I strongly hope that the international conference on “Quality Assurance,” held byONESQA,willbesuccessfulandprovidecontributionstoallparticipants.Iwouldlike to expressmydeepest gratitude to theMinister of Science and Technology (Dr.PeerapunPalusuk),thechairofONESQA’sexecutivecommittee,thedirectorofONESQA, and all participants.Now it is an appropriate time.Here, I declare the internationalconferenceon“QualityAssurance”open.


Keynote speech

“Quality-Student Quality-Teacher”

delivered by Professor Dr. Channarong Pornrungroj Director, Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment

TheOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(ONESQA)would like to extend our gratitude to all participants for finding time in your busy scheduletoattendourInternationalAcademicConference.Thefactthatyouareallhereisclearlyevidentthatyou,educationalprofessionalswhoareresponsibleforournationaleducation,docareandunderstandtheimportanceofQualityAssurancewhichispropitioustothedevelopmentofThailand’sstandardofeducationintheimminentfuture. Toreachthatpoint;however,Iwouldliketomakeitclearthat: ONESQA is responsible for assessing and reflecting the quality of education provision-bothatinstitutionalandnationallevels.Theaspectofeducationdevelopment,however, is entirely incumbent on the institutions and their parent organizations. Atpresent,therearescoresofagenciesabroadthatpublishtherankingsoneducationinordertoreflectthequalityofanation’seducationinaninternationalarena.Ifwewishtoupgradeourstandardofeducation,itisimperativethatacademicinstitutionsandparentorganizationsmustbeactive,attentiveandcourageousenoughtojointlyacceptresponsibilitybyacceptingandutilizingsuch rankingdata topropel improvements in a serious and tangible way. As such, in order to integrate into theASEANEconomicCommunity, this year, ONESQA has organized an International Conference on the topic “QACulture: CooperationorCompetition”inparalleltotheaforementionedeffort.Theconference isdesignedtorepresentastageforbrainstormingactivitiesonQAcultureandtobeable to ascertain that it is actually cooperationor competition,beforedetermining ourselveswhatwereallywanttobe-collaborator,orcompetitor. For the sake ofmodernization and catching upwith theworld,ONESQA has establishedaPhilosophy,Goal,Vision,Mission,andValuesthatareassociatedwithourInstitutionalAssessmenttasks,asfollows:

Philosophy: BreakingBarrierstowardaMillenniumofQuality.Breakingbarriersdoesnotmeanignoringtheproblemsorobstacles,butratherovercomingthemandmovingforwardasHisMajestytheKingoncesaid“Whenworking,donotmakeexcusesofwhatyoulack,butdoworkamidstinsufficienciestoachievethedesirableends.”


Goal: Assessing forContinual Improvement. It is crucial that such improvements are carried out ceaselessly.Inthisregard,boththeassessorandtheassessedmustunderstandthatresultsfromassessmentsmust be used for improvements and such improvementsmust be carried out ceaselessly.

Vision: MaintainingONESQA’sCompetencies, IncreasingCredibility, and Enhancing PublicConfidence. Mission: AssessingandAccreditingtheQualityofEducationalInstitutions. ONESQAisresponsibleforassessmentsandaccreditationstoassurethatqualityofeducationisincompliancewiththestandards,aswellasofferingrecommendationsto academic institutions and parent organizations for their improvements and developmentsunderthe“TenThousandFriends”policy. Also,tobecomeoneoftheglobalorganizations,ONESQAhasmodifieditsEnglishlogotobe“ONE’SQA”bychangingthecoloroftheletter“S”intoblueandmakethefontbigger to representbothYinandYangat thesame time.This isdifferent from“ONCEQA”sincequalitymustbeginwithanindividualandthenthequalityshouldbemoldedintoawayoflife,adailyactivity.Itshouldbeperformedeachdaywithoutfail.Toperformonceinawhileisburdensome,butadailyactwouldbecomeahabitandthenabehavior. ONESQA’smainvaluesareasfollows: O = OvercomeLimitations N = NurtureCreativity E = Enhance Ethics S = SocialResponsibility Q = Quality Awareness A = Amicable Agency Atthesametime,ONESQAhasdevelopedaflexibletoolforassessmentcalledthe“3-D-KPIs”.ONESQAhasalsoadjustedtheassessmentsystemtobeanArea-basedAssessmentcapableof reportingassessment resultsbyprovince, thusgivinghighvisibilityovereducationareas.Theinformationobtainedfromthenewsystemcanbeused as fundamental information that the national developments are based on. Also, the institutionswith “excellent” quality assessments are encouraged to help improvethequalityassessmentofotherinstitutions.Thisiscalled“1for9.”ONESQAalso establishedamonitoring systemofAssessor andAssessmentUnit orQC100


tohelpanassessortoimproveuponone’sselftobecomeaQualityAmbassadorandtouseanamicableapproachinperformingassessments.TheAssessmentUnitshavebeenimprovedtohaveadministrationsthatarebothhighinqualityandalsoefficient. Firstofall,IwouldliketogiveyouthestatusofThaiEducationatpresent. ProblemsintheThaiEducationprovisionarestemmingfrom3mainroots: 1. Lackof continuity inpolicy. ThailandhaschangedEducationMinistersquite frequently.WhenthereisanewMinister,thereisalsoanewpolicy. 2. Lack ofQualitativeControl.Higher education is expandingwithout bounds: full-time,part-time,on-campus,off-campus,includinginternationalprograms. 3. LackofQualityControl.Becauseatpresentthedecentralizationofauthorityin education is become more distributed than before, but the systems to control and regulatethequalityofeducationfromtheparentorganizationsaresomewhatlacking. From these 3 problems in education provision, wewould like to propose “QualityRules.” TheRuleshavetwoaspects: ThefirstaspectoftherulesisTRUTHs ThesecondaspectoftherulesisPractices Perhaps,wecancombinetheabovetwoaspectsbysimplysayingthattheRulesaretheTRUTHsthatwemustPractice. Qualityisthelevelofsatisfactionthattheneedsorexpectationsofanindividualaremet. Thequality of education canbe assessed fromdesirable characteristics of learnersthatareresultsofGoalsandMissionsofeducationalinstitutions.Therefore,QualityRulesarepracticestobeusedfortheintakeofidealstudents,teachers,andsupportingstaff. Sofortoday’sQualityRules,wewouldliketopresent3rules:

•Rule1:YourQuality=YourImage Animageofanindividualisthesumofalldeedsthatonedid.Agoodimagemustbegroundedintruth.Ifanactionisjusttoinciteafleetingimpression,itisnodifferentfromaTVcommercial-afakeimage.Therefore, the quality of people in academic institutions-learners, teachers, and personnel-mustberegulated,assessed,andimprovedstartingfrom:1.Inputwhichmeans intakeof highquality learnerscoming into a system;2.Processor agood educationadministrationprocess,sowecanbeconfidentthatOutputorthegraduatesarealsoofhighquality. Withregardtothequalityofcourses.Coursesshouldbematchedwithneedsfromthe society or whatwe call “Demand-Driven,” not what is a fad at themoment, or “Supply-Driven”with no connectionwhatsoever to the society or themarket’s needsanddemandsandalsodomestic/internationalcompetitions. Withregardtoacademicserviceprovision,instructorsandpersonnelareconsidered


the key to achievequality in educationboth in the ration of instructors: students, andalsoqualityofinstructors. Administrators should be ethical and managing educational institutions in accordancewithgoodgovernanceandnot focusingsolelyonprofits-thequalityofgraduatesshouldalsobeconsidered.Isthereanyinstitutionthatguaranteesthatafterpayingfeesandspendingtimeinschooluntilgraduation,thatitsgraduatesbecomewell-qualifiedandpossessalldesirablecharacteristicsandattributesthatthesocietyexpectsandarefullyemployable? Atpresent, universities are expanding limitlessly-full-time, part-time, on-campus,off-campus, aswell as international programs, distance-learning, andE-learning. These are the things that the administrators should step up and take more responsibilityfortheiroutputs. From thepastassessments,ONESQAcancategorize thequalityof educationalinstitutionsinto4levels: 1. WorldClass: The group of schools that is accomplished and excellent in everyway.Thegroupcanpasstheminimumcriteriawithease. 2. AlwaysReady: The type of schools is ready for assessments at any time- scheduled or not. 3. Ready if Scheduled: This category represents themajority of Thai schools. Theyneedtimetoprepareforassessments. 4. NeverReady:Inthiscategory,schoolsalwayscomplaintoONESQAonthegroundthatassessmentsareburdensomeandsnatchinginstructor’stimefromstudents.

However, if we carefully think about it, we can see thatONESQAwill perform assessmentsonceinevery5years.Typically,anassessmentwilltakeonly3daysforaschool.Thequestionis,whatdidyoudowiththeremaining4yearsand362days?Thisclearlyshowsthatqualityisnotabehaviorandcertainlynotawayoflife. Nevertheless,wehavenewsthatisrathergood.Thisyear,wehavenotfoundanyschoolingroup4,soitcanbeexpectedthattheoverallpictureofgroup4’sschoolswouldbesignificantlydiminishingandtheyareaddingtonumbersofschoolsingroup1 and 2. Insum,YourQuality=YourImage.Qualityisthelevelofsatisfactionthattheneedsorexpectationsofanindividualarebeingmet.Qualitycanbemaintained,improved,andraisedhigherwithnolimittohowhighitcanbe.Foryourimageisanimage;yourimageisaresultnotanoutput.Thus,tocreateanimagebymeansofadvertisementscanworkonlyforsomepeople,orsomesituation/occasionorsomemoment. However,theimagecreatedfromthequalityofachievementsthatbecomeevidentandacknowledgedisthegenuineimagethatisworthyofpraise.Whateverthequalitylevelis,thatisthelevelofyourimage.Howthequalityis,thatishowyourimageisprojected.


•The 2ndQualityRule:Student-FocusedAssessment Ifwerollbacktothepreviousyear,wehadtalkedabouthowthequalityofastudentcouldbesetasanAssessment’sgoalandthatwhenanassessmentisperformed,thestudentmustbecompetent,good,andvaluabletothesociety.Itwasnotsufficientthatonlyaninstitution/schoolpassedtheassessmentandwasaccredited. Usetheindustrialsectorasanexample.Thesectorputsmuchemphasisontheproductionprocessthatstartsfromselectingrawmaterials,puttingaproductionsysteminplace,toperformingQCateverystep.Anythingthatisnotuptostandardisrejected.Anycomponentthatcausesproblemsiseitherrepairedorreplaced. When taking theexampleof the industrialsectorandcomparing itwith theThaiEducation System, this is not the case, especially the failingmeasurement and evaluationsystem thatmandates thateverystudentmustpass-no repeatingayear oracourse-allacrossthenation.ThisisoneofthereasonsthatcanexplainwhythequalityofThaichildrenhasbeendeteriorating. The continuingproblemof illiteracy is still on theMinistry of Education’s list of “Things to solve”.Certainly, if students canneither readnorwrite, itwould reflectbadlyonacademicachievement.Thesestudentsshouldbethecauseofgraveconcernsince theywouldbecome second-rate input into vocational education and higher educationsystemsatthenextlevel. Everyschoolofevery typeand level,aswellasevery instructormustbeaware andbe responsible for the quality of the students. Theymust assure the quality, competency, andgood characteristics of their students. Thegoal of Educational QualityAssessmentshouldbethedesiretoseethatourstudentsarecompetentandwellqualified. To summarize, an assessment is performed in order to obtain results that improvements canbemade upon.An assessment shouldmeasure thequality of studentsandmustbeintherightdirection.Forteachers,itgoeswithoutsayingthatassessments are burdensome, but it is incumbent on a teacher’s sprit and is an obligationofa teacher thatmustbe fulfilledsince it isdirectlyaffecting livesof thestudents.Theburdenisheavy,thusateacherwhoacceptssuchaburdenispraisedbyall.Theburden,ifcomparedtoexercising,canbeover-whelmingifdoneonceinawhile;however,ifdoneeveryday,itwillbecomearoutine,thenabehavior,andfinallyahabit.Atthispoint,theburdenisnolongeraburden. Thus,eventhoughyoupassedtheassessment,ifthestudentsarestillincompetent,theschoolsmuststrivetoimprove.Ifthestudentsarealreadycompetent,theschoolsmustalsostrivetomakethestudentsevenbetter.Ifthestudentsarestillincompetent,theoriginalaffiliationsmuststrivetobesupportive.Ifstudentsarealreadycompetent,theparentorganizationsmustalsostrivetobemoresupportivesothatthestudents are better.


Assessmentresultsthataremadejustforthesakeofgettingapass-anactivitydoneonceevery5years,mustbeeliminated.Thus,eventhoughyoupassedtheassessment,ifthestudentsarestillincompetent,itwouldmeanqualityisnotateacher’swayoflife. AyearlyIQAisjustadocumentationburden,isthatit?AquinquennialEQAismoreofaburdensinceback-dateddocumentationneedstobeprocessed,isthatit?Ifthisisso,itiscertainthatthereareproblemsinyourorganizations’culture.Urgentfixes arerequired.

•Rule3:QualityofastudentreflectstheQualityofateacher Speakingasalife-longteacher,everytimeIseemystudentssucceed,Ifeelproud.At least, I think ofmyself as apart that contributes to their successes.As for the Quality of an individual, I think that youwould agree if Iwere topropose that the qualityofanindividualdependsonvalues,ontime,andonera.Tounderstandthisconcept,I’dliketogiveanexample. In the timeofourgreat-grandmothers, thequalityofawomandependedonher being a lady-to be able to cook and clean. Every great-grandmother couldgrow vegetables,raisefish,cookdecentmeals,buttheycouldnotreadorwrite. Next,inthetimeofourgrandmothers,everygrandmothercouldweave,sewandcook.Notonlytheycouldweave,theycouldalsomakeyarnfromsilkwormsthattheyhad raised. Some of them went to school and were able to read and write. Next,inthetimeofourmothers,allofthemcouldread,butsomecouldn’tseworgiveahaircut,orcook. Next,inourtime,ourwivesareverygoodatreadingandwriting.Theyareworkingwomen,butcannotsew,orgivehaircut.Theycan,however,warmfoods. Inpresentday,thequalityofouryouthisdeemedsecond-rate,butisittrue?Timechanges.Technologychanges.Yet,thesystemofmeasurementandevaluationisstillbasedonpaperandpencil.This,initselfisnolongeranygood. Today,IwouldliketopresentQualityofanindividualinthecontextofThaisociety.ThequalitymustbecomposedofQuality,VirtueandGoodCharacteristics.

1.QualitymeansKnowledgeandSkill a. Knowledgeiswhatoneobtainsfromwhatonereads,speaks,writes,touches, andencountersthroughthinking,analyzingandsynthesizingprocesses. Knowledgecanbemeasuredusingtests. b. Skill is the capability that one derives from practicing the knowledge repeatedlyuntilaskillisobtained.Skillcanbemeasuredbyputtingitinto practice. 2. Virtue isanactionofmeritdependingonwhat theorganization,society,andcommunity have determined to be a virtue. ForONESQA,wewould like to offer 9virtuesthatcanhelpeveryonetobegood:


Discipline, Consciousness, Gratitude, Kindness, Tolerance, Honesty, Frugality,Diligence,Selflessness These9virtuesarethingstobeembedded,nurturedandmadeintohabits. 3. Good characteristics. Forme, good characteristics are characters that are merits.Thesecharacteristicsindicatethegoodinone’snatureanddifferentiateonepersonfromanotherandgivevaluestothatperson.Examplesofgoodcharacteristicsarecheerfulness,kindness,civility,respectfulness,timeliness,andhumility.Theseareresultsofeducation,drills,andnurturethatarecontinuousandobservable. If Iwere tocompare themwithan iceberg,whatwealwaysseeandbelieveas important are the knowledge and skills at the top, but the portion that remained submersed isconsidereda fundamentalor theheartof the iceberg.Thisportion isgenerallyreceivedminimalattentionornoneatall.ThesubmersedpartoftheicebergrepresentsVirtuesandGoodCharacteristics.Theyarethemaindriversofbehaviorsandcreatingtheaddedvaluesforeveryindividual.

To summarize, a person of quality is a competent person. In the world of competition,competentpersonsorknowledgeablepersonsareeverywhereaslongaseverytextbookisreferencingthesamethinkers.Everyteacherisreferencingthesametextbookorevenharnessingthesamesetoftests. Howwould our studentsbedifferent or begivendifferent values fromothers? Aperson of virtues is a goodperson. In the 21st century, virtues and ethics are important and desirable attributes. They differentiate one person from another. Manypeoplearecompetent,butareimmoral.Manyarenotcompetentinsomesubjects,butaregoodnatured.PeoplewhoarebothcompetentandgoodnaturedcanonlysucceedintheWesternsociety. InthecontextofThaisociety,inordertobecomesuccessful,onemustalsohave“goodcharacteristics”ontopofbeingcompetentandgoodnatured.OneofthegoodcharacteristicsishospitalitywhichisconsideredaThaiidentitythatispraisedbyall. In sum, a person of quality is a competent person. A person with good characteristics isawonderfulpersonoraniceperson.Therefore,aqualitystudent inthecontextoftheThaisocietymustbecompetent,good-naturedandpleasantandmustlivealifethatcreatesvaluestothesociety. EveryonemaybefamiliarwiththewordASEAN.Intheimminentfuture,thesocietywillbeopenedandthelabormarketwillbeintegrated.Forthisreason,ASEANhasmadeastatement:OneVision,OneIdentityandOneCommunity. •OneVisioniseasytocreate.Oncecreated,everynationfollowssuit. •OneCommunityisalsoeasy.OncewereachJanuary1st,2015.Everyonewill belong to the same community in this region. •However,whatistrulydifficultis“OneIdentity.”Wemuststrivewithoutfail tocreatetheASEANIdentity.


Tocreatequalitystudents,itisinsufficienttoonlygivethemknowledgeandskills.It is necessary to alsocreatean identity of competency,goodness, anddecency. Theidentitysuchasthiscanonlybeobtainedfromimprovementsofoureducation provisions. Education comes inmany forms: formal, non-formal, and informal. A human’s learningsourcessincebirth: 1. Home/familyisthefirstlearningsourceandistheprimaryplaceofeducation. Home/family is an important rootwhereparents,grandparentsare actingas mentorswhogivebothanethicalandagoodcharacteristiceducation. 2. School/institutionisthesecondlearningsourcethatfulfillsthecompetencyof thelearnerintheaspectsofknowledgeandskilltocreateaqualitychild. 3. Societyisabigclassroomwherelearningcantakeplaceatanytime.Society offersalife-longleaningwithnolimitationsonformatsandmethods.However, in this classroom, the right and the wrong, the good and the bad are mingling, so it depends on thepotential of eachperson to analyze and extractwhat is needed. I can sympathizewith teachers.Atpresent, teachersarealways labeledas the accusedbysociety.IalsosympathizewiththeMinistryofEducationaseveryoneisexpectingtoseetheeffectiveoutputs. WhetherThaiyouthscanbeperfecthumanbeings,theyarejointlysharedbythe family institution, the educational institution, and the social institution, so it can be saidthat:

Teachersmustlongforknowledge,andmustbeinthesamepacewiththeworldandcanquicklyadapttochanges. Teachersareattheheartofstudentdevelopment. Theremustbeabalance in theaspectofquantitysuchas the ratioof teachers and students; also theremust be an aspect of qualitywhichmeans a teacher’s potentialisofutmostimportance. Besidesproblemswith teachers, theeducationalsystemproblemsarealsoveryimportant.Many have seen this slide before, but I would like to present this to emphasizethepointsagain. WesternersuseSWOTAnalysis,butI,asaThaiperson,wouldliketoproposeanewtheory:CP-SWOT+ CPisChannarongPornrungrojSWOT+ isplusthesin,merit,virtueandwickedness о Strengthifeverystudentisofhighquality,competent,goodnatured, andlivemeaningfullives.Thestudentswillliveonandcreatethe benefitsandcontributetothesociety,andthecountry.Certainly,they willeventuallymaketheirinstitutionwell-known.


о Weaknessissin.Itissinfulifanyinstitutionoffersacoursethathas notbeenaccredited.Thiswillstigmatizethestudentsforlife. 1. Isitsinfuliftheschoolhasnoteachersordoesnothaveenough teachers,orexistingteachersareincompetent? 2. Isitsinfulifthereexistsaneducationsystemwherestudentsthat aremeasured and assessed are sure to pass? There is no failingstudentinthisnation.Thesestudentswillthenbecome poorinputintoinstitutionsthatarehopingtoobtainaWorld-Class status. 3. Isitsinfulthatsub-standardinstitutionsthatarenotaccredited byONESQA,butstillholdregularclasseswhilsttheirparent organizationshavedonenothingtoregulatethequality? 4. Is it sinful that the ratio of teachers and students is not appropriatewhereteachersdonotteachclassesthatmatchwith theirexpertiseandwhereoneteacheroverseestensoftheses at the same time. о Opportunitiesaremerits.Itisavirtuethatteachersdevoteallthey havetoteaching. о Threat if the institutions wish for nothing except passing the assessment.Theyarenotlookingforexcellenceorcreateaquality organization culture in order to create a way of life. Any institution behaveslikethiswillsurelybringforthlongtermdamages.

“Quality”isnotuptoanindividualoranorganization,itmustbeginwitheveryone.Fromaqualityway of life, froman individual, aquality community is createdand contributedbyall factionsinthesocietythat jointlyshare,think,solve,anddevelopuntil a communitybecomesaquality community.Ultimately, all factionsmust alsojointlytakeresponsibilityandmustnottrytoplacetheburdenontosomeoneelse.

“Quality” istheheartofsustainabledevelopment“Quality” beginswithanindividual….qualityindividualcreatesaqualitycommunity“Quality” isborneofunderstanding….approachability…improvement“Quality” hasalifeofitsown,sodevotionandcommitmentisrequired.

Insum,today’sQualityRulesare: 1. YourqualityYourImage 2. StudentFocusAssessment 3. Quality-StudentQuality-Teacher

Wheneversomeonebottom-ranksThaichildren,IbelievethateveryteacherwouldfeelthepainsinceThaichildrenareourstudents.


Ibelievethattheadministratorsarebadlyhurtsincetheyaredirectlyresponsible. AndIbelievethatDirectorsofEducationalServiceAreas/parentorganizationsarealsohurtingquitebadlysincethisisyouroutputs. Schools/institutions should make a swift correction. Family,parentsmustputmoreeffort into educatingand instillingdesirableand decent attributes so the children are complete with quality, virtues, and good characteristics. Atthesametime,thesocietymustalsojointlyaccepttheresponsibility. Therefore,ifouryoutharefailing,notonlydoesitreflectthateducationisinferior, italsoindicatesthatthereareissuestobeimprovedforfamiliesandthesocietyaswell.

ONESQA’s Educational Policy

Philosophy Breaking Barriers Towards a Millennium of Quality

GoalAssessing for Continual Improvement

VisionMaintaining ONESQA’s Competency, Increasing Credibility, and Enhancing

Public Confidence

MissionAssessing and Accrediting the Quality of Educational Institutions

Values O = Overcome Limitations N = Nurture Creativity E = Enhance Ethics S = Social Responsibility Q = Quality Awareness A = Amicable Agency


Keynote speech

Quality Assurance Culture: Cooperation or Competition?

delivered by Dr. Guy Haug

Dr.GuyHaug is an international expert in universitymanagement andquality assurance/accreditation. He has servedwithmanymajor international organizations (OECD,Council of Europe,UNESCO,EuropeanCommission,etc.).Hehasadegreeinlaw(Strasbourg),aPhD inPolitical Sciences (Tübingen), an honorarydegree fromHETAC (Dublin), andanMBA(Ottawa).

Abstract

ThecurrentstateofdevelopmentofQualityAssuranceinhighereducationintheworldistheresultofamovementofrapidgrowthandgeographicalextensionsincetheturnofthenewMillennium.ThisexpansionisevidentlyreflectedinthenumberofQAagencies and universities with an internal QA system, whichmay be seen as clearsignalsregardingthespreadofacultureofqualityallovertheworld.Acloserobservationreveals,however,thatinmanycasesitwasnotdevelopedbythehighereducation community itself, but rather imposed fromabove in awaveof “me too” initiativesatanationallevelratherthanin-depthanalysesoflocalneedsandcapacities.These characteristics in the spreading ofQualityAssurance systems (rather than cultures) throughout the world also contain the germs of the major facing issues in the coming years anddecades relating to culture, competition and cooperation. Thepresentationwill examine these issues inacriticalway,witha view to identify majorchallengesandareasforimprovementinthecomingyears. Themostbasicchallengeisthatinmanycases,thespreadingofQualityAssurancestructuresandmechanismsappearedtohavebeenmorerapidthanthedisseminationofagenuineandshared“cultureofquality”.Theresultisthat,overall,thelegitimacyofQAremains fragileand itsacceptancestill limited in theacademiccommunityandsociety in general. Thepresentationwill sketchpossible answers to these issues, such as stronger internalQA systemswithin universities, leaner procedures for accreditation, theprovision for users ofmore accessible and relevant information, andtheshiftfromconformitycontroltoamoreopenapproachemphasizingthesearchforimprovement,innovation,differentiationandpocketsofhighqualityorexcellence. ThesecondmajorissueisthatthedevelopmentofQualityAssurancesystemshasfollowedthelinesandpatternsofnationalhighereducationsystemsandthereforedoes


notseemtobewellpreparedfortheformidablechallengespresentedbyfacetsoftheinternationalization of higher education in an era of globalization and worldwide competition.The fragmentationofQualityAssurancealongsidenationalboundariesplaces it at a disadvantagewith respect to the immense need for comparability in degrees, programmes and institutions across borders. This entails obvious limitations concerning the recognition of QA decisions and the credibility of QA agenciesabroad.Overall,thissituationislikelytofuelthedevelopmentofcompetitioninmanyrespects.SinceQualityAssuranceisplacedatadisadvantagewithrespectto internationaluniversity rankings,nationalagenciesmustestablish theircredibilitybeyondtheirbordersamongstpeers.Thesearchforinternationalrecognitionislikelytofavourthedevelopmentoftrulyinternational,specialisedagenciesprovidingamuchhigher levelofcomparabilityacrossborders inaparticulardisciplinary/professionalarea. Thirdly,thefutureofQualityAssuranceislikelytobeshapedbytheneedforclosercooperationaimedatfindingadequateanswerstocommonchallenges,particularlythosestemmingfromtherapidexpansion indigitaleducationand lifelong learning. Theimplicationsofdistancelearningonqualitychallengeestablishedprejudicesandreachfarbeyondtechnicalchanges.Theymusttakeintoaccountthedifferingspirits(orculture)andexpectationsinnewtypesoflearnersaswellasthecustomizationoflearningpaths.Therecognitionofpriororalternativelearning(formal,work-basedorinformal)willalsobecomeamajoraspectofQualityAssuranceandQualityculture. In this way, the interplay of the three “Cs”, beingCulture, Cooperation and CompetitionislikelytosignificantlytransformthefutureofQualityAssuranceallovertheworldintheyearsahead.It isthereforeexpectedthatthepresentationwillhelpQuality Assurance agencies and the entire higher education community to consider about these upcoming challenges anddefine their own answers in a profoundly differentglobalenvironment.


Keynote speech

Balancing the Competing Needs of Diverse Stakeholders SettingNew Directions for EQA in Higher Education

delivered by Dr. Carol L. Bobby

Dr. Bobby is the President of INQAAHE, and the ExecutiveDirector Council forAccreditationofCounseling&RelatedEducationalPrograms(CACREP) Sheearnedherdoctoratedegree inCounselorEducationandSupervision from theUniversityofFloridain1986.

Abstract

The role andpurpose of external quality assurance in higher education varies dramaticallydependinguponwhoisaskedandwhatneedstheymayhave. The needs of five distinctly different stakeholder groups-institutions, students, employers,professions,andnationswillbeexaminedthroughthequestionsthateachgroupwants answeredwith regard towhat constitutesquality assurance in highereducation. Meeting the competingneedsof suchdiverse stakeholdergroups is not easily accomplishedbymostQAagenciesascurrentlystructuredandoperating.Asaresult,criticismsofQAare aboundandno stakeholdergroups’ needsare fully satisfied. Rethinking EQA to balance the competing needs of diverse stakeholder groups requires consideration of new approaches to defining,measuring, and reporting quality,aswellascooperationfromallstakeholdergroups.Suggestionsforcreativelyaddressingthebarrierstochangewillbeexplored.


Keynote speech

Impacts of External Quality Assessment

delivered by Dr. Jingjai Harnchanlash

FormerChair of the ExecutiveCommittee of theOffice forNational Education StandardsandQualityAssessment(PublicOrganization).Withhisvastexperiences in management and development, he had servedmanymajor organizations, both national and international. HewasalsotheDirectorofAsiaRegionoftheInternationalDevelopmentResearchCenter,thebodythatsupportsresearchindevelopingcountries.

Abstract

The presentation is focused on out-dated educational problems in Thailand. This ismainlybecause there is a lack of a comprehensive follow-up systemsince the first educational reformwhich relied heavily onmatrixmanagement.However, overtheyearsitturnedouttobemoreof“Silo”management. Anothermajorproblem is theneverchangingofThaimentalityas“paperchasesociety”resultinginthemismatchofworkforcesupplyandindustrialdemand. Additional organizations were set up to solve the on-going problems. The Organization for National Education Standard and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) isoneofthoseorganizationstofillthegap.Itsmainpurposeistoimproveeducationalstandardsthroughexternalqualityassessment. Forthelast13years,ONESQAhastrieddifferentapproachestoundertakeEQA. Ithasnotbeeneasyduetothelackofunderstandingofmanyeducationalinstitutionswhich consider EQ as another bureaucratic hurdle in addition to internal assessment, insteadofatooltoimproveitseducationalstandards. ApositiveapproachofEQAhas recentlybeen introducedbyONESQAplacingemphasisonconstructiveEQA.EQArelatedKPIwasreviewedtoreducetheburdenof assessed educational institutions. Changing attitude of “external evaluators” isanotherimportantstep.AninnovationsystembasedonAreaBasedEQAisbeingexperiencedtoachieveamoreintegratedassessmentoftheentireeducationallevel. It is hoped that the Thai educational standards could be raised through the intertwined EQA.


Keynote speech

QA Innovations in Thailand

delivered by Prof. Dr. Channarong Pornrungroj

Prof.Channarong is theDirectorofONESQA (TheOffice forNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment,PublicOrganization).Thailand He has a strong academic background related to assessment and human development as demonstrated through his career at Chulalongkorn University, andastheSecretary-GeneraloftheCouncilofUniversityPresidentsofThailand.

Abstract

AfterthepromulgationoftheNationalEducationActof1999,theimplementationofQualityAssurancepolicyinThailandwasofficiallymandated.Chapter6ofthe1999Actisentitled“EducationalStandardsandQualityAssurance”(NEA,1999).Withinthislegalframework,Section47statestheneedforinternalqualityassuranceandexternalqualityassessment.Section49stipulatestheestablishmentoftheOfficeforNationalEducation Standards and Quality Assessment or ONESQA (Public Organization) to conduct anddevelopcriteria andmethodology for external quality assessment everyfiveyears. ONESQA, establishedas apublic organization for flexibility andmanagement, is responsible for theprocessofExternalQualityAssessment (EQA).This includesdeveloping the systems,method, and indicators to assess the ExternalQuality Assessment aswell as providing training to certify external assessors. Since its inceptionin2000,ONESQAhasperformedthreeroundsofqualityassessmentatthenational level. The First Round from 2000 to 2005 aimed to assure the current managementmeetstheneedoftheQAsystem;theSecondRoundfrom2006-2010aimed to verify the standard of institution; and the ThirdRound from 2011-2015 aimedtoverifythestandardofinstitutionanditsrelevantareastoenhancethequalityofeducationbasedonoutputs,outcomesandimpactstogetherwiththevariationofthe institution. The Third Round of ExternalQuality Assessment began in 2011 andwill be completedby2015.Afteradecadeofqualityassessment,theThirdRoundattemptstodifferentiatetheroleofONESQAfromthatofOHEC,whichisresponsibleforinternalquality assessment (IQA).WhileOHEC ismandated to focus on the input and process ofQA,ONESQA is responsible for the output andoutcome.Additionally, theThirdRoundlaunchedanewparadigmofqualitycalled“ONESQA’sInnovations


inEQA”.First,isthe1-4-9Model,azero-budgetprojectthatinvitesanInstitutionwithaqualitylevel“VeryGood”tohelpanother9Institutionswithalowerqualityleveltoimproveeducationalquality.Second,isthe3-DKPIsthatareclassifiedby3indicators:theBasic indicators are compulsory and fundamentally linked to the IQA system; True Identity indicators focus on the uniqueness of the institution; and Social Responsibilityindicatorsinvolvemakingsuggestionsandsolvingproblemsofsocietyor community. Third, is theQC100 thatwill bring feedback fromall institutions to ONESQA for continuous improvement for theassessors. Fourth, is theArea-Based Assessment (ABA) thatwill focus on all institutions (Basic Education, Vocational Education andHigher Education) in all provinces by analyzingdata anddirectly reporting results to the ProvincialGovernor and other stakeholders (Government sector of TheProvince, Industries sector,Graduatehires,parents, etc.). For Fiscal Year2012,8provinceshaveaccomplishedthisgoal,andanother20provincesareexpectedtoachievesuccessthisfiscalyear. Moreover,theBTSsloganistheprincipleofONESQA’soperations:Bisbetterworldcitizen,Tistogether-wewilldoitbetter,andSistosimplifytheQAsystem.Fortheupcoming Fourth Round of EQA,ONESQAwill continue to utilize that slogan to strengthenthequalityofinstitutions.


Keynote speech

The Emergence of EQA: Frameworks for New Discovery

delivered by Dr. Jagannath Patil

Dr. Patil is thePresident ofAsiaPacificQualityNetwork (APQN: thenetworkof qualityassuranceagenciesinhighereducationforAsia-Pacific.) He is also theDeputyAdviser at theNational Assessment andAccreditation CouncilofIndia. He hasworked on assignments ofmany international organizations, such as, theWorldBank,UNESCO,etc.,andleadsmanyinternationalprojectsinthefieldofqualityassuranceinhighereducation.

Abstract

Asiancivilizationsboastofsomeof theoldestandstrongest traditionsofhighereducation in theworld. In the last fewcenturies, theseadvantageserodeddue to severaleconomicandpoliticalreasons.TheAsianValuedebateinthe1990swhichsparkedworldwidediscussionsonAsianvaluesandthefinancialcrisisintheregionprompted some to announce its premature end.However, if we observewhat is happeninginfirstdecadeofthe21st Centuryoneducation,aswellastheeconomicfrontinAsia,EuropeandAmerica,weneedtoinferthatthedebateonAsianvaluesisfarfromover.TheneedofthehouristoredefineandrediscoverAsianvaluesinthechanging scenario of the world. Thispaper isanattempt to rediscoverAsianvaluesas theyare reflected in thetransformationofAsianhighereducationsystemsandtheemergingexternalqualityassurance systems. Qualityisarelativeconceptandsoisqualityassurance.WhenQualityAssurancecultureisdiscussed,itmeansdifferentthingsfordifferentpeople.QualityasameansofstandardizationisaconceptadoptedbyIndustry.Thishasbeengenerallydislikedbyexperts ineducationalqualityassurance.This isparticularly trueformanyAsianQualityAssurance organizations.Asia hasquite distinct valueswhen it comes to education. Inourculture, impartingeducation isasacreddutywithanoblecause.However,forprofiteducationprovidershavenotbeenstrictinmanyAsiancountries. Theseandallsuchtraditionsarebeingchallengedandputtotestwithincreasedglobalization of higher education. Education hubs are emerging across Asia to market highereducationalofferingsofglobaleducationplayers.ExternalqualityassuranceinhighereducationisarelativelynewconceptinAsiaborrowedfromtheindustrializedworld.


These emerging EQA bodies thus have faced a huge challenge of doing a balancing act between old traditions of educationwith certain value systems as against new forces of higher education internationalization. •IsthereanythingcalledAsianwhenitcomestoquality? •DowehaveanAsianValuesystemofeducation? • Is it possible to rediscover an Asian Value frameworkwhichwill foster cooperationratherthancompetition? ThispaperreflectsonthesequestionsandattemptstoarticulateanewvisionforAsianQualitybasedonablendofuniquelyAsianvaluesandtheuniversalquestforexcellenceinpursuitofhumanity.Itmainpurposeistoimproveeducationalstandardsthroughexternalqualityassessment.


Keynote speech

QA as A Means to Educational Improvement

delivered by Mr. Tony McAleavy

Mr.McAleavyistheDevelopmentandResearchDirector,CfBTEducationTrust,UK He is CfBT’s EducationDirector, with corporate oversight of the educational impact of all our activities. He is also has responsible for corporate business developmentandadvisestheTrusteesonCfBT’spublicdomainresearchprogramme. Mr.McAleavy hasplayedamajor part in thedevelopment of our international consultancy practice, and he hasworked extensively on our growingportfolio of educationreformprojectsintheMiddleEast.

Abstract

QualityAssurance (QA) is placedwithin a theoretical framework relating to the improvementofpublicservices.Inspectionhasthepotential toprovide‘shortroute’accountability in linewith the theoryof service improvement throughaccountabilitydevelopedby theWorldBank.Under the termsof the ‘short route’ theory service providersaremorelikelytoperformwelliftheyareheldtoaccountbywell-informedlocal communities. In the secondhalf of this paper the characteristics of fourQA regimesare considered: India, England, theNetherlandsandNewZealand.Eachmodel corresponds to ‘the short route’ concept because inspection findings are sharedwith local communities. Themethods of the threewestern systems are similar in other importantways including the useof risk-based inspectionand the existenceofrobustpost-inspectionarrangementsforweakschools.

Full Paper

Thispaperproposesthat internationalapproachestoschool inspectionshouldbeevaluatedwithinasecuretheoretical framework.Moderneconomicscanhelpustocreatesuchatheoreticalframeworkforunderstandingthelogicofserviceimprovementthroughexternalreview.Whileclassicaleconomicsconceptualisedoutputasafunctionof thequality of inputs,moderneconomicsplacesgreater emphasis onquestions ofincentivesandmotivation.Inotherwords,itisnotenoughtorecruitwell-qualifiedteachersandtohavewell-resourcedschools, theremustalsobeagoodsystemofincentivesandaccountabilitythatencouragesteachersandschoolleaderstoperformat a highprofessional level. This emphasis on incentives and accountabilitywas skilfullyarticulatedbyGalal(2008)intheWorldBankstudyofeducationreforminthe


Middle East andNorth Africa. This report created an Analytical Framework for SuccessfulEducationReforminwhichpublicaccountabilitywasidentifiedasoneofthethreeessentialbuildingblocksfortheimprovementofaschoolsystem.

TheThreeBuildingBlocksoftheAnalyticalFramework

(Galal2008p123)

InGalal’sviewthe‘traditional’paradigmfocussedexclusivelyonwhathecallsthe’engineering’buildingblock.Herethephysicalandhumanresourcesoftheeducationsystemaremadeasgoodaspossible.Ofcourseitisgoodtohavetalentedteachersandqualitylearningresources.Galalsaysthatthisisnotenough.Thereisalsoaneedfor incentives and accountability tomake themost of the resources available. Throughincentivisationandthepowerofpublicaccountabilitythegovernmentcangetthebestpossiblereturnonitseducationalinvestmentinspectionis,ofcourse,aformof accountability and, if inspection reports arepublished, then inspection has the potentialtobeapowerfulformofpublicaccountability..

Thelongandshortrouteofaccountability Galal (2008) was influenced by the earlier theorising about public service improvementmethodstoschoolaccountabilitydevelopedbytheWorldBankaspartof theWorldDevelopmentReport(2004).This identifiedtwoformsofaccountabilitythroughwhichcitizenscaninfluencepublicservicedeliveryinareassuchaseducationandhealth.Thefirst, the longroute,occurswhenthegovernmentactsonbehalfofcitizens to hold serviceproviders to account. The second formof accountability,

Engineering

+

+

=

Incentives

Publicaccountability

Successfuleducationreform

• Physical resource

• Curriculumandteaching

• Financeandadministration

• Evaluation/monitoring

• Motivation/rewards

• Information/markrts

• Voiceatthenationallevel• Voiceatthelocallevel


Citizens/clients Providers

theshortroute,occursatcommunitylevelwhencitizensengagedirectlywithserviceprovidersandtheirmanagementtoapplypressureforimprovement. TheWorldDevelopment Report argued that the long route alonewas aweak mechanism for service improvement. The short route is potentiallymorepowerful. Advocatessuggestthattheeffectivenessoftheshortrouteisunderpinnedbythreeprinciples: 1. The increased availability and transparency of information on service performancewill generatepressure for change, addressing issues of ‘information asymmetry’betweenserviceproviders(suchasteachers)andserviceusers(suchasstudents and their parents) (WorldBank2008) and stimulating citizen involvement anddemandforbetterperformance. 2. Accountability informationenablesserviceuser ‘voice’ toapplychallenge and pressure through the exposure of shortcomings and inequalities (Keefer andKhemani,2005;Majumdar,ManiandMukand,2004)orthroughexercisingtheirchoiceforbetterserviceprovidersand‘votingwiththeirfeet’. 3. There is an assumption that increasedcitizenpressurewill be answered by improved provider responsiveness in meeting needs. Thus demand side ‘clientpower’willdriveupthequalityofsupplysideprovision.

The state

Politicians

Coalitions/inclusion Management

Nonpoor Frontlinepoor Organizations

Policymakers

Services

Voice

Compact

Client power

Short route

Long route of accountability

Figure 1 The Short Route of Accountability (World Bank 2004)


Theshortroutetheorysitswithintwomainareasofpolicydiscourse.Firstly,itisa‘market based’model underpinnedbybasic economicprinciples suchas supply, demandand‘clientpower’.Secondly,itislinkedtotheconceptofdecentralisationofdecision-makingandresponsibility, including‘informationforaccountability’policieswhichargueforlocalaccesstoinformationaboutschoolqualityasaleverforchange(e.g.Brunsetal.,2011).Advocatesarguethatdecentralisationhasthepowertobringtheabilitytoinfluenceserviceswithinthereachofordinarypeople(Brunsetal.,2011;Gertler et al., 2011) and facilitate the relationshipbetweengovernmentpolicy andpeoplepreference(BesleyandCoate,2003;BesleyandGhatak,2003;HanushekandWoessmann,2007;Lockwood,2002). In theeducationsectorspecifically,Brunsetal. (2011)havedevelopeddetailedexplanations of the links between community empowerment and provider responsiveness. For example, school scorecard approaches typically combine increasingthecollectionandavailabilityof informationaboutschoolqualitywiththeopportunity for direct community involvement in school governance.Bruns et al. describehowandwhythiscombinationofparticipationandoversight isapowerfulleverofchange: [It] enables closermonitoring of resource allocation – ensuring alignment betweenwhatparentswant(whichmayincludehighertestscores)andtheway resources aredeployed.Participation also enables closemonitoring of effort on the part of teachers and other educators. Both of these results – better deployedresourcesandgreatereffort–are,inturn,inputsintohigherlearning outcomes (Bruns et al. 2011) Theyalsodescribehowthepromotionofdialogueandconsultationamongstallac-torscanalleviateinformationasymmetriesandsopromotemoreconducivelearningenvironments. Brunsetal.provideacomprehensiveviewofthewaysinwhichinformationaboutschool quality – of the sort generated by inspection reports – can increase accountabilityandultimatelythequalityoflearningoutcomes.Theyidentifycategoriesof ‘informed’action,where theaction ismore likely tobeeffective if accountability information isavailable.Thecategories identifiedbyBrunsetal.canbeapplied tosystemswhereschoolinspectionleadstoapublishedreport. 1. Inspectionfindingscaninformschoolchoiceandapplypressurefor improvement:Inmanysystemsparentschooseschools.Theymaychoose betweendifferent public schools or choose betweenpublic andprivate schools.Iffundingfollowsstudentsthenpopularschoolswillberewarded andunpopular schoolswill bepenalised. “Schoolsmaywork to improve qualitytodrawinmorestudentsandtherebyboostincome.Thisimproved qualitywould thenbereflected inmeasuresof learningoutcomes“ (Bruns etal.p34).


2. Inspection findings can create pressure for improvement through empowered citizen voice. Information from inspection sources can be used by parents and others to lobby for change and improvement at communitylevel.Pressurecanbeappliedbothdirectlythroughschoolstaff and through local political systems.Most electedpoliticianswill wish to associatethemselveswiththeimprovementofpublicservicesandmay, therefore,beresponsivetoinformedparental‘voice’. 3. Inspection findings can provide ‘improvement information’ for school management. Accountability through inspection can generate a benchmarked view of the developmental priorities for a school. The performance, for example, of particular groups of studentsmaybe identifiedasacauseforconcern.Schoolmanagementisthenbetterableto takeactiontoaddresstheseproblems. Insummary, theshort route isdeemedto function throughbettercitizenchoice,participation,oversight (andsopressureandchallenge)of resourceallocationandteachereffort,immediateservicefeedbackandimproveddialogue.

Theshort route inaction:Examples from India,England, theNetherlandsand New Zealand. An interestingexampleof theshort route inaction isprovidedbya recentCfBT study from India (Galab et al. 2013). It describes howpoor localwomen in rural Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh,were empowered to engagedirectlywith their local primaryschoolsandtoapplypressureforschoolquality improvement.Itsupportedcollective action by engaging a large network of women’s Self HelpGroups to collectdataaboutschoolqualityinasimplescorecardandtopublishitwithintheirowngroupmeetings and at data-driven SchoolManagementCommittees. Themost radical featureof theprojectwas toempower themostmarginalisedwomen in thecommunity, the illiterate and semi-literate, to undertake these scorecard assessments. Not all educationally highperformingcountriesuseexternal school reviewasacentralmechanismforschoolimprovement.Famously,high-performingFinlanddoesnot have a national school inspection system. The highly decentralisedAmerican publicschoolsystemplacesanemphasisonpublicaccountabilitybutthisistypicallybasedonpublicationoftestscoresratherthanthroughinspection.Thereare,however,severaleducationallyhighperformingcountriesthatusewholeschoolinspection–withpublicaccountability–asan importantpartof theprocessofschool improvement. Thisstudyfocusesparticularlyonthreeofthesecountries:England,theNetherlandsandNewZealand. In England, school inspection is the responsibility of ‘Ofsted’: theOffice for Standards in Education. InNewZealand, accountability for school performance isoverseenbyERO:theEducationReviewOffice. In theNetherlands,school inspections are conducted by theDutch Inspectorate. In each of these


countriesthereisafunctioningandlong-establishedinspectionsystemthatisclose inpracticetothetheoryofthe‘shortroute’ofaccountability.Eachofthesecountrieshasahighaccountabilityschoolreviewsystemwhichgeneratespublicfindingsaboutschool quality. In termsof other ‘western’ jurisdictions these countries havehighly accountablesystemswithinwhichadvocacyforstudentsareexplicitlyplacedabovepartnershipwithteachersasaguidingprinciple.Inthesejurisdictionstheinspectionregimessharecertainkeycharacteristics: > Inspectionfindingsaremadepublic; > Inspectionisbasedoncleartransparentcriteria; > Theinspectionmethodologyisproportionatetorisk; > Thereisastronglinkbetweenexternalinspectionandinternalorganisational self-review; > Theinspectioneventispartofalongerprocess,particularlyforschoolswith weaknesses. The followingdetailed analysis is based on the inspectionmethod statements publishedbythethreejurisdictionsontheirwebsites: • Ofsted,England:http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/ • ERO,NewZealand:http://www.ero.govt.nz/ • DutchEducationInspectorate,Netherlands:http://www.onderwijsinspectie. nl/english

Inspectionfindingsaremadepublic Allschoollevelreportsarepublishedineachofthethreecountries.Theinternetisthemainmediumforsharinginformationwithparents.Thewebsiteofeachinspectionagency is designedwith parents inmind and provides both a straightforward mechanismforfindinglocalreportsbutalsoguidancetoparentsastohowtheyshoulduseinspectionfindings.TheNewZealandEROplacesaparticularemphasisontheimportance of school choice andgivesdetailed advice as to howparents should systematicallychoosethebestschoolforachild,usingEROreportsandotherdata tomakean informedchoice. InNewZealandthereportsoneach individualschool areplacedontheEROwebsitewithin twoweeksof thesubmissionof thereport to the school. There isastrongsenseof theshort route inactionontheOfstedwebsitewhich hasa featurecalledParentView.This isapublicon-linemechanismforparents to share their views on the quality of education at school level. For every school in England it ispossible toseehowparents rateeachschoolusing12criteriaanda 4point scale fromStronglyAgree toStronglyDisagree.Ofsted inspectors use the ParentViewdataaspartofthereviewprocess.


Ofsted:ParentViewStatements

1. Mychildishappyatthisschool 2. Mychildfeelssafeatthisschool 3.Mychildmakesgoodprogressatthisschool 4.Mychildiswelllookedafteratthisschool 5.Mychildistaughtwellatthisschool 6.Mychildreceivesappropriatehomeworkfortheirage 7. Thisschoolmakessureitspupilsarewellbehaved 8. Thisschooldealseffectivelywithbullying 9. Thisschooliswellledandmanaged 10. ThisschoolrespondswelltoanyconcernsIraise 11. Ireceivevaluableinformationfromtheschoolaboutmychild’sprogress 12.Wouldyourecommendthisschooltoanotherparent?

(Ofsted 2012)

Inspectionisbasedoncleartransparentcriteria Thebasisforinspectionjudgementsineachjurisdictionisarelativelysimpleset ofqualityindicators.Thesefocusoneducationaloutcomesandthekeydeterminantsof learning. InNewZealand every school review is organised around a constant overarching‘majorevaluationquestion’:

How effectively does this school’s curriculum promote student learning – engagement, progress and achievement? TheNewZealandERO reviewmethodology focuses on TheSixDimensions of a Successful School. This is a research – based theorywhich identifies the key characteristicsofschooleffectivenessas: • Studentengagement,progressandachievement • Effectivegovernance, • Professionalleadership, • Highqualityteaching, • School culture, • Engagementwithparentsandcommunities. In the Netherlands, similarly, judgements about primary school quality are organisedaroundjudgementsaboutthesuitabilityofoutcomesandafurther8criteriaor‘qualityaspects’.


‘QualityAspects’forPrimarySchoolInspection:DutchInspectorate

1. Theoutcomesareatthelevelthatmaybeexpectedonthebasisofthecharac teristicsofthepupilpopulation; 2. Thecurriculumofferedpreparespupilsforfurthereducationandsociety; 3. Theteachersallowthepupilssufficienttimetomasterthecurriculum.; 4. Theschoolclimateischaracterisedbysafetyandrespectfulinteraction; 5. Theteachersprovideclearexplanations,organisetheireducationalactivities efficientlyandkeepthepupilsinvolvedintheirtasks; 6. Theteachersadaptthecurriculum,instruction,timeallowedforlearningthe subjectmatterandteachingtimetoaccommodatethedevelopmentaldifferences betweenpupils; 7. Theteacherssystematicallymonitortheprogressmadebythepupils;theschool guidesthepupilsinordertoallowthemtodevelopaccordingtotheircapabilities; 8. Extracareisprovidedtopupilswhoarefoundtoneedit; 9. Theschoolhasaqualityassurancesystem.

(DutchInspectorate2012)

The inspection methodology is proportionate to risk Allthreecasestudysystemsadoptadifferentiatedapproachtoschoolreview.Ratherthanprovideanequalamountofaccountabilityresourcetoallschools,regardlessofeducationalperformance,eachcountrytargetsaccountabilityresourceonthoseschoolswheretheneed oreducationalriskisgreatest.Eachsystemisrelativelymatureanddecisionsaboutriskcan, inpart,bebasedonpriorinspections. InEnglandaschoolthatwasjudgedtobeoutstandingatitslastinspectionisnow‘exempt’fromroutineinspection.Ofstedwillreviewtheperformancedataforsuchschools,twoyearsafter the last inspection, todeterminewhether an inspectionmightbenecessary.A school judged tobe ‘good’,a lowergrade than ‘outstanding’, isnormally inspectedevery5years. A school judged as ‘requires improvement’ will receive regularmonitoring visits from inspectors tocheck itsprogressand is inspectedwithin twoyears. Ifat that inspection it is stilljudgedas‘requiresimprovement’,therewillbefurthermonitoring,andanotherinspectionwill takeplacewithina further twoyears. Ifat this inspection it isstillnot ‘good’, it ishighly likelythatitwillbejudged‘inadequate’anddeemedtorequirespecialmeasures. TheDutch Inspectorate of Education has carried out risk-based inspections of schools since2007,assessingpotentialproblemsthatcouldaffectthequalityofeducation.Thissystemreducestheburdenforhighperformingschoolsandisintendedtomakeinspectionmorecosteffective. TheDutch Inspectorate conducts anannual risk analysis to check for indications


that a school is performingbelow standard.On thebasis of this risk analysis, the inspectorsdetermine thedegreeof inspection a school requires. Thismeans that each school receives a ‘tailored’ inspection. Schools delivering agoodeducation (no risks detected) and good results do not require inspection, allowing the Inspectorate to focus on the rapid improvement of schools that supply a poorer education (risks detected) and get unsatisfactory results. In New Zealand, ERO has also adopted a differentiated approach. The key determining factor is theperformanceof the school in theprevious school review. TherearenowthreedifferentoptionsforthetimingofthenextEROEducationReviewbasedonrisk: • 1-2 years for schools causing concern • 3yearsformostschools • 4-5yearsforbestpracticeschools.

There isastrong linkbetweenexternal inspectionand internalorganisationalself-review Each jurisdiction emphasises the close relationship between internal quality reviewandtheexternalvalidationprovidedbyinspection.Oneconsistentmessageisthat good schools are characterised by their commitment to organisational self knowledge.TheNewZealandEROsystem,forexample,ispredicatedontheideathattheschool’sownselfreviewis‘thestartingpointforERO’sreview’.Contributingtothestrengtheningschools’self review isexplicitlyseenasacentralaimofEROexternal reviews.Theexternalreviewteamnotonly lookdirectlyat theschool inactionthey also consider how the school has used self reviewdata to plan for improvement. Whenassessingthequalityofselfreviewthekeyquestionsare: • Whatdoyouthinkyourdatameansforyourschoolandyourstudents? • Howistheinformationyoucollecthelpingteachingandlearninginyourschool? • Howhasthisaffectedtheachievementofyourstudents? In theNetherlands, schools are strongly encouraged toperformorganisational self-evaluation.Schoolsare legally required tohaveaschoolpolicyonmaintaining and improvingquality.Theyalsomusthaveaschoolplanand in theirschoolplan, theymustdescribetheirqualitypolicy.Thispolicyshouldcontaininformationonhowtheschoolboardfulfilsitsresponsibilityforsafeguardingtheachievementofqualitygoalsandforassessingthenecessarymeasuresforqualityimprovement.Theschoolprospectus contains information on a school’s objectives, its educational activities andtheresultsachieved.InawaythatismarkedlysimilartoNewZealand,the2002lawon inspection states that the Inspectorate should take the school’s data from self-evaluationasastartingpointforsupervision.


SelfevaluationhasbeenacentralpartoftheOfstedmethodologyformanyyears.AspartofacommitmenttoreduceburdenstherequirementinEnglandtomaintain aSelf Evaluation Formhas recentlybeendropped.However,Ofstedcontinues to recognisetheimportanceofself-evaluationasacrucialpartofschools’ongoingcycle of reviewand improvementplanning.Although it isnotmandatoryOfstedprovidesguidanceonhowaschoolcanmanagetheevaluativeprocess.Ofstedencouragesschools todevelopa ‘selfevaluationsummary’whichdraws togetheranevaluation ofdifferentaspectsoftheirworkleadingtoanevaluationofthequalityofeducationprovidedbytheschooloverall.

The inspectionevent ispartofa longerprocess,particularly forschoolswithweaknesses. One of the clear traits shared by these three countries is a seriousness of intent afterweaknesseshavebeendetectedthroughschoolreview.Ineachcasethereisaclearmechanismformanagingandmonitoringtheschool’simprovement. IntheNetherlands,forexample,ifaschooliscategorisedas‘unsatisfactory’itissubject toclosemonitoringas itputs inplacean improvementplan. If theschool’simprovementprogressdoes not satisfy the inspectors, this can lead to an official warningandultimatelyareporttotheMinisterofEducation. TheEROinNewZealandreservestherighttorecommendaMinistryofEducation‘intervention’inschool’sthatmakeunsatisfactoryprogressafterareview.TheMinistryofEducationmaysendaninterimmanagertoassumetemporarycontroloftheschool.ThispersonisknownastheLimitedStatutoryManagerandthencanbeinpostfor overayearas theschool is improved.Formally theLimitedStatutoryManagerhascontrolovertheSchoolBoard. Thepost-inspectionprocessinEnglandisveryrobust.Ifinspectorsjudgeaschooltobeinadequateitwillbeplacedinoneofthefollowingtwocategories.

Special measures Thismeans‘theschoolisfailingtoprovideitspupilswithanacceptablestandardofeducation’,andappearstolackthecapacitytoimprove.Oftentheprincipalofsuchaschoolwillbereplaced.ThegoverningbodymaybesuspendedandreplacedbyanInterimExecutiveBoard. Inspectors visit the school regularly tomonitorprogress,untilitcanberemovedfromthecategory.Wewillinspectitagainafterabouttwoyears.

Serious weaknesses In this category, key areas of the school’s performance require significant improvement, but the leaders andmanagers havedemonstrated ‘the capacity to improve’.Inspectorswillvisittheschoolregularlytocheckitsprogress,untilitcanberemoved from the category. Itwill be inspected againwithin 18months of its last inspection.


References: Besley,T.andCoate,S. (2003)Centralizedversusdecentralizedprovisionof localpublicgoods:apoliticaleconomyanalysis,JournalofPublicEconomics,87:12:2611–2637.

Besley,T.andGhatak,M.(2003)Incentives,choice,andaccountabilityintheprovisionofpublicservices,OxfordReviewofEconomicPolicy,19:2:235–249.

Bruns,B.,Filmer,D.andPatrinos,H.A.(2011)Makingschoolswork:newevidenceonaccountabilityreforms,Washington:WorldBank.

DutchEducationInspectorate(2012),EducationInspectorateWebsiteavailableathttp://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english

Galab S., Jones, C., Latham,M. andChurches, R. (2013)Final evaluation of a Community-based Accountability School Improvement programme in rural Anantapur, India.CfBT,ReadingGalal,A. (2008)TheRoadNotTraveled:EducationReform in theMiddleEastand NorthAfrica,theWorldBank,Washington

Gertler,P.J.,Patrinos,H.A.,Rubio-Codina,M.(2011)Empoweringparentstoimproveeducation:EvidencefromruralMexico,JournalofDevelopmentEconomics.

Hanushek,E.andWoessmann,L.(2007)Theroleofeducationqualityforeconomicgrowth,Washington:TheWorldBank.

Keefer, P. andS.Khemani (2005)Democracy,public expenditures, and thepoor, WorldBankResearchObserver,20:1-27.

Lockwood,B.(2002)Distributivepoliticsandthecostofcentralization,TheReviewofEconomicStudies,69:313–337.

Majumdar,S.,Mani,A.andMukand,S.W.(2004)Politics,InformationandtheUrbanBias,TuftsUniversity:DepartmentofEconomics.

Ofsted(2012)OfstedWebsiteavailableat:http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/

WorldBank (2004)Makingserviceswork for thepoor:WorldDevelopmentReport:Washington:WorldBank.


Research Presentation


The Two-Layer Appeal Mechanism of Program Accreditation in Taiwan and Its Implications for Reviewer Training

delivered by Dr. Karen Hui-Jung Chen ResearchFellow,HigherEducationEvaluationandAccreditationCouncilofTaiwan e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Peerreviewhasbeenanimportantmethodofqualityassuranceofhighereducation.Ithasbeennoticedthatreviewers’decisionsmightbeinfluencedbydifferentcontexts.Inorder toprotest theuniversity rights, two layersof appealmechanismhasbeen developed sinceHigher Education Evaluation&AccreditationCouncil of Taiwan (HEEACT)starteditsfirstcycleevaluationin2006.Thisstudyanalyzed672objection and85appealreportsduringthefirstcycleofprogramaccreditationfrom2006to2009in Taiwan. This study explored themajor reasons for the objections and appeals individually,examinedthevalidityofthereviewsystem,andproposedtheimplicationsforreviewer’straining.Resultsshowedthattheaveragerateoffilingobjectionsinthefirst-layerappealis37%,andtherateofrevisionofon-sitevisitdraftsis8%(with4%revisedand4%partiallyrevised.Comparingtheviewsofuniversitystaffandreviewers,itwasfoundthatthedifferencesexistedforfivereasons:lackingcontextanalysisoftheprograms,non-impartialreporting,notfocusingonthesameissue,lackingvalidandreliableinformation,andunjustifiedconclusion.Whileinthesecondlayerofappeal,theaverage rateofproposingappeals is3%and theacceptanceofappeals is0.35%(0.07%revisetheaccreditationstatus,and0.28%re-conductedon-sitevisit).Contentanalysisshowedthreemajorreasonsforproposingappeals:lackingcontextanalysisoftheprograms(especiallythenewlyestablishedprogram),unsolvedandinconsistentopinionsofinstitutionsandreviewers,andaflawedpeerreviewprocess.Itrevealsthatthereviewertrainingcanbefocusedonsituationalanalysis,systematicinquiry,andtheethicsof the reviewprocess.This studywillprovidea foundation for thedesignof trainingsofthereviewersandtheinstitutionalstaffforbetterevaluationprocess.

Keywords: ProgramAccreditation,Appeals,ReviewerTraining,PeerReview

1.Introduction Peer reviewhasbeenamajormethodofquality assuranceof highereducation(Harvey,2002).Asthereisadeeperunderstandinginthefieldthatisbeingevaluated,peer reviewerswereable tomakecomments for theexternal evaluation.However, ithasrecentlydrawnattentionthatreviewers’decisionsmightbeinfluencedbydifferent


contexts (Huisman &Currie, 2004; Kristoffersen, 2012). In order to protest the universityrightsintheprogramsaccreditation,twolayersofappealmechanismhasbeendevelopedsinceHigherEducationEvaluation&AccreditationCouncilofTaiwan(HEEACT)starteditsfirstcycleevaluationin2006.AccordingtoHEEACT,aprogramcould file an objection if the evaluation result is inconsistentwith fact or violating proceduresafter thedraftof thesitevisit report iscompleted.Thisstudyanalyzed 672 objection reports and 85 appeal reports during the first cycle of program accreditationfrom2006to2009inTaiwan.Theaimofthisstudyexploredthemajorreasonsfortheobjectionsandappealsindividuallythroughthereports,examinedthevalidityofthepeerreviewsystem,andproposedtheimplicationsforreviewer’straining. Itwillprovideafoundationforthedesignoftrainingsofboththepeerreviewersandtheinstitutionalstaffforbetterevaluationprocess.

2. Theoretical Background 2.1.PeerReviewandAppealsinProgramAccreditation Peer reviewhasbeenawidely appliedmethod in thequality assuranceofhighereducation.Reviewersgavecommentsandwroteevaluationreportsaccordingtotheirobservationandjudgments.Thewholeprocessreliesonanassumptionthatthe reviewers can objectively find out the real situations of programs by data collecting,interpretation,andmakingjudgmentswithoutbiasbutwiththeiracademicprofessionals(Denzin,1978). However,thisassumptionofneutralityandobjectivityhasbeenchallengedbyGreene (2011) andother researchers. Itwas suggested that the evaluationswere conductedinasituatedcontextandthereviewersinevitablybroughttheirbeliefsandvaluesintotheprocess(Greene,2011;Lather,1993;Kane2006). Inordertoprotecttherightofinstitutionsandadjusttheincongruencebetweendifferentperspectivesof institutionsandpeer reviewers,manycountriesaresetupappealproceduresoruniversities.Institutionscouldfileappealsiftheydisagreewiththeevaluationresultswhichhavebeenreportedtothepublic.TheQAagencieswillinvite reviewers to form a panel to review the appeals andmake final decisions. Inparticular,theregionalnetworksofQA(ENQA,INQAAHE,andAPQN)havemadeappeal procedures as one of the requirements of QAmethods to protect the institutionalrights(ENQA,2009;INQAAHE,2007;APQN,2013). 2.2.HEEACTProgramAccreditation and the Two-LayerAppealMechanisms in Taiwan As a national accredit or,HEEACT has conducted programaccreditation according to the revised University Law. In 2006, HEEACT began a 5-year, program-based, and nation-wide accreditation. The second cycle of program accreditation is being undertaken from 2012 (HEEACT 2013a). The standards developedbyHEEACT in the first cycle of programaccreditation are as follows: (1)goals, features, and self-enhancementmechanisms; (2) curriculumdesignand


teaching;(3)learningandstudentaffairs;(4)researchandprofessionalperformance;(5) performance of graduates. There are three types of accreditation outcomes, including accredited, accredited conditionally, and denial. HEEACThassetupatwo-layerappealmechanismtoreconciletheincongruenceviewsbetweentheinstitutionandreviewers.Afterthesitevisitandthedraftofreportisfinished,HEEACTwillsendacopytotheinstitution.Iftheinstitutionsdisagreewiththedraft, they can file an objection (the first-layer appeal) to ensure a fair evaluation. Inresponsetotheobjections,HEEACTwill invitetheon-sitevisitteamtoreviewtheobjections.Theobjectionwillresultinrevisingthereport,upholdingpartsofthereports,orupholdingtheoriginalreport.Regardonresolutiontoobjectionwillbesenttotheuniversity and available to the public on-line. The site visit reportwill be revised according to theresolutionreportandthensent to thecommittee for further reviewwhichwillleadtothefinaldecisionofaccreditation. Inaddition, the institutionscanfileanappeal(thesecond-layerappeal) if theevaluationresultis“inconsistentwithfact”or“violatingproceduraldueprocess”afterthe accreditation results ismadeandannounced to thepublic.An appeal review meetingisheldwithinonemonthafterreceivingtheappeal.Thedeterminationscouldbe: keep theoriginal accreditationstatus;conducton-site visit again;or revise the accreditation status directly, which will be sent to the “Accreditation Review Committee.”TheCommitteewilltakeafinaldecisionthentheoutcomeoftheappealwillbesenttotheinstitutionwithinfourmonths(HEEACT,2013b).Atwo-layerappealmechanism can reconcile the different perspectives of the institution and peer reviewersinthebeginningofwritingtheevaluationreport. 2.3.ResearchQuestions Theaimofthisstudyistoexplorethemajorreasonsforthetwolayerappealmechanismmadeby institutions through the appeal reports. The three research questionsare: 1.Whatarethemajorreasonsforthefirstlayerofappealsmadebyinstitutions?Whatarethedifferencesbetweentheperspectivesandpeerreviewers? 2.What are themajor reasons for the second layer of appealsmade by institutions? Whatarethedifferencesbetweentheperspectivesandpeerreviewers?Arethereasonsdifferentfromthoseofthefirst-layerappeals? 3.Whataretheimplicationsfromanalysisoftheappealreports?

3.Method Thisempiricalstudyanalyzed672objection reportsand85appeal reports from2006to2009inTaiwan.Thefirstcycleofprogramaccreditationofhighereducationwas conducted byHEEACT from 2006 to 2010 in Taiwan. Due to the program evaluatedin2010werepoliceandmilitaryprograms,theevaluationresultswerenotopenedtothepublic.AllreportscouldbedownloadedfromthewebsiteofHEEACT.


Contentanalysisoftheobjectionandappealreportswereconductedtoinvestigatethedifferencesofinstitutionstaffandreviewers’perspectivesrespectively,andalsotheimplicationsforreviewertrainings.

4.ResultsandDiscussion In2006to2009,atotalof1819programshavebeenevaluatedinTaiwan.Amongthese, 1147programs (63%)accepted thedraft of theon-site visit report and672 programs (37%)proposedappeal report.As for theaccreditationpass rates, 82% oftheprogramsgotaccredited,16%receivedconditionalaccreditation,and2%weredenied accreditation. 4.1.AnalysisoftheReportsoftheFirst-layerAppealMechanism Theanalysisresultsoftheobjectionreportsoffirstlayerofappealmechanismshowed that the average rate of filing objections of the first cycle of program accreditationis37%andtherateofrevisingon-sitevisitdraftsis8%(with4%revisedand4%partiallyrevisedtheobjectionreports).Wecomparedtheviewsofuniversitystaffand reviewersand founddifferencesexisted in thefiveareas: lackingcontextanalysis of theprograms, non-impartial reporting, not focusingon the same issue, lackingvalidandreliableinformation,andunjustifiedconclusion. LackingContextAnalysis of thePrograms: The evaluation shoulddescribe theprogram’sbackgroundandsetting(Stufflebeam,2000).Thecontextinwhichtheprogramexistsshouldbeexaminedinenoughdetail,sothatitslikelyinfluencesontheprogram can be identified. From the content analysis of the appeal report, the university staff proposed that the special context of their programs should be considered,with38items(0.8%)relatedtothisissue.Theuniversitystaffproposedthatthereviewersshouldconsiderthespecialcontextsoftheirprograms,includingspecialorbroaderdefinitionsofprogramgoals,newlyestablishedprograms,programgoalschanged,andinter-disciplineprograms. Non-Impartial Reporting: The reporting procedures should guard against distortioncausedbypersonalfeelingsandbiasesofanypartytotheevaluation,sothatevaluation reports fairly reflect the evaluation findings. Results showed that only 10items(0.2%)inthiscategory.Fromtheuniversitystaffsides,theyconsideredbiasreviewscomingfrom:reviewers’prejudicesoftheprograms,andreviewers’violationoftheprincipleofconfidentiality.Ontheotherhand,someofthereviewersrepliedwithemotionalwordingandthosewereclassifiedintothiscategory. Focus on the Same Issue: The focused issue of the university staff and reviewersduringtheback-and-forthappealprocessshouldbethesameinordertokeeptheargumentsproperly.Wefoundthat106items(2%)wereclassifiedintothiscategoryandidentifiedfouractionsofuniversitiesmightcausethishappened:givingirrelevantanswers,providingdataofimprovementsafteron-sitevisit,givinginsufficientornotspecificanswers,misinterpretingtheon-sitevisitreports,andself-contradictoryargumentsproposedbyuniversities.


ValidandReliable Information:The reviewerswereexpected touseseveralmethodstogatherinformationduringtheon-sitevisit,includinginterviews,largegroupmeetings,readingdocuments,andclassroomobservation.Throughthetriangulationprocess,thereviewerscouldgetawholepictureoftheprogram.Resultsshowedthat363items(7%)wereclassifiedintothiscategoryandfourreasonswereidentifiedforcausingthis:overemphasisoninterviewresults,failtoclarifytheuncertaintyduringon-site visit, inadequate data citation, and university providing improvement data conductedafteron-sitevisit. UnjustifiedConclusion:Itshowedthat31items(0.6%)relatedtotheissuethattheuniversitystaffperceived the reviewers’suggestionsasunjustified for twomainreasons:thesuggestionsweredifficulttoachieve,andthesuggestionswerevagueandnotspecific.Forexample,thereviewersaskedanewlyestablisheddepartment tobe internationalized,whichneeds lotsof fundingand it isdifficult toachieve for anewdepartment.And the reviewerssuggested thatanotherdepartmentbuildup a flexible salary system to includeworld class experts as faculty. The universities complainedthatitisverydifficultforadepartmenttomakesuchabigchangetotheentiresystemwithoutuniversitysupport. 4.2.TheSecond-LayerAppealMechanism Theanalysisoftheappealreportsofthesecond-layerappealmechanismshowedthattheaveragerateofproposingappealsis3%andtheacceptancerateofappealsis0.35%(with0.07%revise theaccreditationstatus,and0.28%re-conducton-sitevisit). There are 2 (0.07%) programsdirectly revise the accreditation status from denial toconditionallyaccredited.Bothare for thesame reason: theprogramsarenewlyestablishedanditshouldnotbeevaluatedbythesamestandardsasotherwellestablishedprograms.Thereare15(0.28%)programsre-conducton-sitevisit.Contentanalysisshowedthreemajorreasonsforproposingappeals:lackingcontextanalysisoftheprograms,unsolvedinconsistenceopinionsofinstitutionsandreviewers,andaflawedpeerreviewprocess(reviewersviolatedcurtainedproceduresduringon-sitevisit). For example, one institution insisted that the space for students is enough according to the laws,which is different from the reviewers’ opinions. The appeal committeedecidedtore-conductanon-sitevisittoconfirmit. Fromtheaboveanalysis,wefoundthatthereasonsforproposingobjectionsandappealsarethesame.Andthereasonsforfilingappealsaremorefocusedontheissuesthatareapparentorcanbeobjectivelyjudgedbutunsolvedissues,suchasnewlyestablishedprogramwithinoneyear,orreviewersviolatetherules.However,other reasons that are more unneutral or not easy to make judgments are often rejectedby appeal process, such as reviewers that gave comments in emotional tones,orreviewersaremakingtheirjudgmentsonlyfromstudentinterviews.However,theaboveincongruencecanprovideafoundationforthedesignofreviewertraining.


4.3.ImplicationofReviewerTraining Intheprogramaccreditation,reviewersarethemostimportantelementsoftheprocess. Itisexpectedthatreviewerscanobjectivelyconductsystematicexplorationtodepict thewholepictureof theprogramforaccreditation.However, therestillsomeincongruenceperspectivesbetween institutionsand reviewers.Asweexamine theabovereasonsforthedisagreementsintheobjectionandappeal,wecanfindthatthereviewersneedtoenhancetheirevaluationcapabilities. It has been suggestedby Stevahn,King,Ghere, andMinnema (2005) thatevaluator competencies include six categories: professional practice, systematic inquiry, situational analysis, project management, reflective practice, and interpersonal competence.According to the above analysis of the objection and appealreports,theincongruencehappenedmajorlyforthereasons:lackingcontextanalysis of the programs, unsolved inconsistence opinions of institutions and reviewers, anda flawedpeer reviewprocess. Therefore, the reviewer trainingcan focus on situational analysis, systematic inquiry, and the ethics of the review process.Forsituationalanalysis,areviewercanlearnthewayofrespectandanalysis of theuniqueprogramcontext, the issueoforganizationalchange,andmodify theevaluation inquiry, as needed. In the training of systematic inquiry, reviewers can enhance thecapability of knowledgeofqualitativemethods, identifydata sources, data collection, assess validity and reliability of data. This studywill provide a foundationforthedesignoftrainingsofboththepeerreviewersandtheinstitutionalstaffforbetterevaluationprocesses.

5. Conclusion Peerreviewisthecornerstonetoconstitutesoundqualityassuranceprocedures.Thevalidityandreliabilityofpeerreviewsisbeingchallenged.Theskillsandknowledgeof reviewers,and thevarietyof reviewers involvedneeds tobeseriously reviewed. Theapplicationofpeerreviewisinfluencedbythecontextoftheeducationalsystem.Thecomplexityofpeerreviewisincreasingasthehighereducationsystemissmaller. Institution’s self-evaluation and on-site visit are complementary and integrate witheachother.Thegapbetweenthemstillexists,withregardof the judgmentsofreviewers and also the different perspectives of reviewers and institutional staff. Through the analysis of the reports of the two-layer appealmechanism, this study providesanunderstandingofthediscrepancybetweenuniversity’sviewofevaluationandreviewer’sviewofevaluation.Thisstudywillprovideafoundationforimproving theevaluationprocessandreviewertraining.


References: APQN(2013).MembershipCriteriaofAPQN.RetrievedJune11of2013,onhttp://www.apqn.org/membership/criteria/.

Denzin,N.(1978).Sociologicalmethods.NewYork:McGrawHill.

ENQA(2009).StandardsandGuidelinesforQualityAssuranceintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea.Helsinki:ENQA.RetrievedJune11of2013,onhttp://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf

GreeneJ.C.(2011).Theconstruct(ion)ofvalidityasargument.InH.T.Chen,S.I.Donaldson,&M.M.Mark(Eds.),Advancingvalidityinoutcomeevaluation.TheoryandPractice.NewDirectionsforEvaluation,130,81-91.

Harvey,L(2002).EvaluationforWhat?TeachinginHigherEducation,7(3),245-263.

HEEACT(2013a).2012AnnualReportofHigherEducationEvaluationandAccreditationCouncilofTaiwan.RetrievedonMay5of2013,onhttp://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Data/34916371871.pdf.

HEEACT(2013b).AccreditationResultsofProgramAccreditation.RetrievedonJanuary20of2012,onhttp://www.heeact.edu.tw/sp.asp?xdurl=appraise/appraise_listasp&ctNode=491&mp=2

Huisman,J.&Currie,J.(2004).AccountabilityinHigherEducation:Bridgeovertroublewater?HigherEducation,48,529-551.

INQAAHE(2007).GuidelinesofGoodPracticeinQualityAssurance.RetrievedJune11of2013,onhttp://www.inqaahe.org/admin/files/assets/subsites/1/documenten/1231430767_ inqaahe---guidelines-of-good-practice[1].pdfKane,M.(2006).Validation.InR.L.Brennan(Ed.),Educationalmeasurement(4thed.,pp.17-64).NewYork:AmericanCouncilonEducation,andMacmillan.


Kristoffersen,D.(2012).Evolutionaryapproachestopeerreviewandfuturedirections.EvaluationinHigherEducation,6(1),1-14.

Lather,P.(1993).Fertileobsession:Validityafterpoststructuralism.ThesociologicalQuarterly,34(4),673-693.

Stevahn,L.,King,J.A.,Ghere,G.,&Minnema,J.(2005).Establishingessentialcompetenciesforprogramevaluators.AmericanJournalofEvaluation,26,43-59.

Stufflebeam,D.L.(2000).Professionalstandardsandprinciplesforevaluation.InDaniel L. Stufflebeam,GeorgeF.Madaus,& ThomasKellaghan (Eds.), EvaluationModels–Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation, 2nd Edition, pp439–456.NY:KluwerAcademicPublisher.


Organizational Effectiveness Evaluation System for Higher Education Institutions Under the Ministry of Tourism and Sport

delivered by Dr. Chanita Kraipetch e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The objectives of the present studywere 1) to develop the components and indicators of organizational effectiveness, and 2) to develop an organizational effectivenessevaluation system forpublic higher educational institutionsunder theMinistry of Tourism and Sports. The sample included a total of 41 participants comprisingadministrators,facultymembers,andsupportingstaff.Datacollectionwasconducted throughadocumentary study, interviews, observations, andan inquiry usinganassessment form. Thedatawere thenanalyzedbymeansof descriptive statistics and a content analysis. Thefindingsrevealthatthereare6componentsand21indicatorsthataredeemedappropriate fororganizationaleffectiveness inpublichighereducational institutionsunder theMinistry of Tourism and Sports. They are component 1: instructional managementwith6indicators;component2:researchwith3indicators;component 3:academicserviceforsocietywith1indicator;component4:preservationofartandculturewith1indicator;component5:organizationaladministrationanddevelopmentwith 8 indicators; and component 6: development toward excellent athleticswith 2 indicators.Organizational effectivenessevaluation system involves 4 interrelatedcomponents: 1) input, 2) process, 3) output, and 4) feedback and utilization of evaluation results. The system is valid, comprehensive, and useful for evaluating organizationalperformancebasedonitsmainmissions,propriety,andfeasibility.

Keywords: Organizational,Effectiveness,ComponentandindicatorsofOrganizationaleffectiveness,Organizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystem

Introduction ThereisaneedforThaisocietytotransforminresponsetotherapidandconstantchanges.“Organizationaleffectiveness”asadeterminantofsuccessfulorganizationisacommongoalforallorganizationsparticularlyinthiscurrentageofdramaticchangeand high competition.As in other organizations,measurement of effectiveness in publicorganizationscanbecarriedoutusingtheeffectivenessmodelsdespitewithambiguous,diverse,andsometimescontradictorygoalsinthelatter.Organizational


effectivenessfocusesonsuccessfulperformancestoachieveorganizationalgoalsandobjectives.HarmonandMayer(1986)providedconsistentnotionwithEddy’s(1981)thateffectivenessistheextentofachievementorsuccessinimplementingwhataredecided.Evaluationisanactivityofparticularimportanceintheplanningcycleandqualityadministration.Itbeginswithplanning,implementing,directing,monitoring,andevaluatingprojectoutcomes, leading to systematicandconstant improvementanddevelopment of plans/projects. Standardized evaluation provides credibility and equity to all sectors. Effective evaluation requires transparency andaccountability. Thenatureofevaluationdemandsevaluativeconclusionaboutthevalueofwhatareevaluatedalongwithrecommendations forbetter improvementanddevelopmentofimplementation. Highereducationiscrucialforitsdirectfunctiontoprovideintellectualgrowththroughadvancedmanpower production process, research development, promotion of advancedtechnologies,forinstances.Sofar,thenation’shighereducationhasbeensupported and promoted to bring about substantive and constant development despite its failure to rapidlyprogress (Office forNationalEducationStandardsandQuality Assessment, 2007). The National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999), andAmendments (SecondNational EducationAct B.E.2545 (2002)) defined the goalsandprinciplesofeducationalmanagementtofocusonthequalityandstandardsdetailedinChapter6EducationalStandardsandQualityAssurance,Section47thatthereshallbeasystemofeducationalqualityassurancecomprisingbothinternalandexternalqualityassurance,asthemechanismtomaintainthequalityandstandardofhighereducationinstitutions.Internalassuranceprovidesthesystemandmechanismtocontrol,audit,andassess the implementationofeducational facilities in linewith thepolicies,goals,andtheextentofqualityconformingtothestandardsdefinedby educational institutions and/or their parent organizationsby establishingaquality assurancesystemwithintheinstitution.Internalqualityassuranceshallberegardedaspartofeducationaladministrationwhichmustbeacontinuousprocess.Thisrequirespreparation of annual reports to be submitted to parent organizations, agencies concerned, andmade available to the public for purposes of improving the educational quality and standards and providing the basis for external quality assurance.Evaluationusingthelogicmodelallowsevaluatorstodisplayconnectionsinthediagramrepresentingorganizationalfunctionstoprovideunderstandingabouttherelationshipofresourcesemployedinconductingactivities.Itspurposeistoprovidepeopleconcernedwithaninsightontheconnectionofactivitiesandintendedoutcomes,andwhatactivitiesandgoalsareattainedbytheuseofinputsandresources.SirichaiKanjanawasee(2009)suggestedthatthelogicmodelpresentsthecausalrelationshipbetween input andprocess that leads to output and resultswhich are combined


as expectedachievement.Development of organizational effectivenessevaluationsystem for higher education institutions under theMinistry of TourismandSports offers a good practice for proper evaluation of organizational effectiveness. This developed systemcanbe used in the organizationswith the goals tomake availableanevaluationprocessaspartoftheircontinuousandroutinework.Itisakeymechanism that will bring about quality development of higher educational management and implementation of coremission of higher education institution. Asa result, educational standards arewell improved and recognized at both the national and international levels, hence further enhancingeducational standards inhighereducationalinstitutesundertheMinistryofTourismandSport.

Objectives 1. To develop the components and indicators of organizational effectiveness forhighereducationalinstitutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSports. 2. To develop an organizational effectiveness evaluation system for higher educationalinstitutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSports.

Research Scope 1. Development of components and indicators of organizational effectiveness forhighereducational institutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSportsincludeslogic model, MBNQAmodel, organizational effectiveness evaluation model byCameron (1978, 1986),Coltt (1995), Kwan andWalker (2003), Steers (1977), the components and indicators of quality insurance for higher education in academic years 2009 and 2010, and indicators for ExternalQuality Evaluation ofHigherEducationRound2(2006-2010)andRound3(2011-2015). 2. Evaluationofthesystemqualityconsidersthe4aspectsofevaluationstandardswhichincludeaccuracy,utility,feasibility,andpropriety.

Conceptual Framework Todevelopthecomponentsandindicatorsoforganizationaleffectiveness,variousapproacheswereinvestigated.Theyarethelogicmodel,MBNQAmodel(TheMalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityAwardModel),organizationaleffectivenessevaluationmodelbyCameron (1978, 1986),Coltt (1995), Kwan andWalker (2003), Steers (1977), thecomponentsandindicatorsofqualityinsuranceforhighereducationinacademicyears 2009 and 2010, and indicators for External Quality Evaluation of Higher EducationRound2 (2006-2010)andRound3 (2011-2015). The synthesisof these approachesprovided6componentsand21indicatorsoforganizationaleffectivenesssuitableforhighereducationalinstitutions,asillustratedinfigure1.1


Figure 1.1 Conceptual framework for developing the components and indicators of organizational effectiveness

Methodology Step1Investigationofcomponentsandindicators Investigation is conducted on documents, concepts, theories, and relevant literature regarding evaluation, effectiveness, and organizational effectiveness evaluation. Several models studied are the logic model, MBNQA model, organizationaleffectivenessevaluationmodelbyCameron(1978,1986),Coltt(1995),KwanandWalker (2003),Steers (1977).Others include thePhysicalEducationActB.E.2548 (1995), theNational EducationActB.E. 2542 (1999), andAmendments (Second National Education Act B.E.2545 (2002)), organization effectiveness evaluation,thecomponentsandindicatorsofqualityinsuranceforhighereducationinacademicyears2009and2010,andindicatorsforexternalqualityevaluationofhighereducation round 2 (2006-2010) and round 3 (2011-2015). The conceptual framework for the components and indicatorswas formulated, then reviewed for appropriatenessbyexperts,administrators, facultymembers,andsupportivestaffs ofhighereducation institutionsunder theMinistryofTourismandSports,using thechecklists of suitable components and indicators of organizational effectiveness for higher education institutions under theMinistry of Tourism and Sports in the questionnaireformoffive-pointLikertscale,criteriaconsiderationM>3.51,SD<1fromwhich6componentswith21indicatorswerefinallyobtained.


Step 2Development and trial of organizational effectiveness evaluation system Relevant documents and literature are studied concerning organizational effectiveness evaluation, development of evaluation system, organizational effectivenessevaluationapproachesandmethods,evaluationconcepts,bydevelopingthelogicmodelofcausalrelationshipbetweenorganizationaleffectivenessrelevantinputandprocessandoutput.Evaluationsystemwasthendevelopedalongwiththehandbook, performance report form, organizational effectiveness evaluation form,evaluationresultform,assessmentformonsatisfactiontowardthesystem,andsystemqualityassessment,basedon the4aspectsofevaluationstandards, i.e.accuracy,utility,feasibility,andpropriety.Then,thesystemwastriedoutin2highereducationalinstitutions under theMinistry of Tourism andSports. The total of 41 participants comprisedof12administrators,25facultymembers,and4supportingstaff.Thetrialwasarrangedinto4phrasesasshowninFigure1.2andTable1.

Figure 1.2 Organization effectiveness evaluation system for higher educational institutions under the Ministry of Tourism and Sports

Input-Evaluationobjectives-Contentsoforganizationaleffectivenessintendedforevaluation-CriteriaEvaluation-Staffsinvolvedinevaluation- Duration

Useofevaluationresults1)Organization’sadministratoremploysevaluationresultsinplanningfordevelopment/improvementoforganizationalperformance2)Organization’sstaffstakeevaluationresultstodevelopment/improvetheirownperformance

FeedbackAdvantagesanddisadvantagesat work in the system and leadtoadjustedinputorprocesstoyieldexpectedqualityoutput

Process-Preparation-Evaluation-Conclusionreviewofevaluationonresults

OutputIndicatesorganizationalperformancebasedonthecoremissionidentified


Table 1 Implementation procedure for the use of organizational effectiveness evaluation System

Phrases

Phrases1Preparation

Phrase 2Implementation

Phrase3Conclusionof results

Phrase 4Feedbackandreporttoparentorganization

Institutionboardexaminestogetherthedetailsoforganizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystem.

Appointment of organizational effectivenessevaluationcommitteescomprisingacommitteefor evaluating organizational effectiveness, a committee for data collection, and a committee for coordination.

Appointedindividualsstudythehandbookfortheuse of organizational effectiveness evaluationsystem

The appointed organizational effectivenessevaluation committee conducts ameeting to inform all staffs in the organization the details of organizationaleffectivenessevaluation,evaluationtools,duration,rolesandfunctionsofindividualsinvolved,underthecoordinationofcoordinatingcommitteeupontheappointmentorder.

The committees compile information on organizational performance by collecting andmonitoring the implementation of organizationusingtheperformancereportform.

Report of organizational performance to the committee for evaluating organizat ional effectivenessattheendofevery1stsemesterasaformativeevaluation,underthecoordinationofthe coordinating committee.

The committee for evaluating organizational effectiveness performs an audit check for organizationaleffectivenessbasedontheauditchecklistfromtheperformancereportformforthelast academic year, under the coordination of coordinating committee.

The committee for evaluating organizational effectiveness prepares a summary report of organizational effectiveness evaluation results andrecommendationsforimprovement,toinformall staffs in the organization and report to the parentorganization.

May(before the start of a new academic year)

June(the start of a newacademic year)

1June-31May(in each academic year)

October (within the academic year)

May(within the academic year)

June(the start of a new academic year)

Activities Timeframe


Step3Assessmentonthequalityoforganizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystem Assessment on thequality of organizational effectiveness evaluation system is basedonthe4aspectsofevaluationstandardsin(Stufflebeam,1981,citedinSirichaiKanjanawasee,2009)includingutility,feasibility,proprietyandaccuracy.Thequalityassessment form for rating the organizational effectiveness evaluation for higher education institutionswith five-point Likert scalewere administered by all those involved inorganizational effectivenessevaluationatpost-tryout of the systemwith their additional recommendations.

Result 1. There are 6 components and 21 indicators deemed appropriate for organizational effectiveness for higher education institutions under theMinistry of TourismandSports.Component 1 is instructionalmanagementwith 6 indicators: 1). curriculumdevelopment and administration; 2). learner-centered instructional management;3).developmentoflearningsupportivematerials;4).Student-development;5).Involvementofinternalandexternalindividualsininstructionaldevelopment;and6).qualityofthegraduates.Component2isresearchwith3indicators:1)researchdevelopment; 2) research knowledgemanagement; 3) research for instructional development. Component 3 is academic service for societywith 1 indicator, i.e. developmentof academic service for socialbenefits.Component 4 ispreservation ofartandculturewith1 indicator, i.e.promotionandsupportforpreservationofart and culture.Component 5 is organizational administration anddevelopmentwith 8 indicators: 1) development of organization strategic plan; 2) organizational development toward learning organization; 3) development of facultymembers and supporting staff; 4) roleperformanceof organization’s administrator 5)Useof information technology for administration; 6) financial andbudget administration; 7)organizationalriskmanagement;8)internalsystemandmechanismdevelopmentforquality assurance.Component 6 isdevelopment towardexcellent athleticswith 2indicators:1)athletedevelopment;and2)coachdevelopment. 2.Organizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystemforhighereducational institutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSportsinvolvesthefollowing4interrelatedaspects.1) Input includes evaluation objectives, contents of organizational effectiveness intendedforevaluation,evaluationcomponents,indicators,andcriteria,staffinvolvedinevaluation,andduration.2)Processcomprises3stepsofpreparation,evaluation,conclusion and review of evaluation results. 3)Output indicates organizational performance based on the coremission identified. 4) Feedback functions for controllingtheprocesssothatthesystemisoperatedtoachievetheintendedgoals.Feedback indicates theadvantagesanddisadvantagesatwork in the systemand leadtoadjustedinputorprocesstoyieldexpectedqualityoutput.Theuseofevaluation


results suggests that the result of organizational effectiveness evaluation obtained fromreportedfeedbackisutilizedintheorganizationat2 levels.Theorganization’s administrator employs evaluation results in planning for development/improvement of organizational performance. The organization’s staff review and utilize the evaluationresultstodevelop/improvetheirownperformance. 3. The organizational effectiveness evaluation system for higher education institutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSportsdisplaysagoodlevelofquality for all of the 4 aspects of evaluation standards. Regarding its utility, information derivedfromtheevaluationsatisfiestheneedofthoseinvolvedwithintheorganization. It providedcredibility anddefinite recommendations for utilizingevaluation results.Evaluationresultswereaccuratelyandclearlyinterpretedanddetermined.Reportofevaluation results is clear and in time for further use.All staffsweregrantedwith opportunities to participate in evaluation. In terms of feasibility for further use, the systemprovides practical evaluationmethods andprocedure. The evaluation process, procedure, and results are credible andworthy. The system is practical for conducting organizational effectiveness evaluation.With respect to propriety, the systemclearly identified theassumption for evaluation.Evaluation resultswerehonestly and explicitly reported, and with validity and accuracy. Evaluators conductedevaluationwithresponsibilityandethics.Thisevaluationsystemaccordswith organizationalmission. In the aspect of accuracy, the evaluation objectives andprocedurewere clearly identified. The system is in place for data collection,analysis, and report of result. Report of evaluation resultwaswritten clearly and apprehensible.

Conclusion TheorganizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystemforhighereducationinstitutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSportsadoptedthesystemconcept,consistingofinput,process,output,andfeedback.Evaluatingorganizationaleffectivenessfollowsthe goal-attainment approach which includes the components and indicators oforganizationaleffectivenessencompassingthecoremissionofinstitutions.These 6componentsand21 indicatorsare1) instructionalmanagementwith6 indicators, 2) researchwith 3 indicators, 3) academic service for society with 1 indicator, 4)preservationofartandculturewith1indicator,5)organizationaladministrationanddevelopmentwith8indicators,and6)developmenttowardexcellentathleticswith2indicators.Theprocessandperformanceineachindicatorbasedontheconceptoflogicmodel reflects thecausal relationshipbetween inputandprocess involved inorganizationaleffectivenessandoutput.Evaluatingorganizationaleffectivenesswasconductedbystaffintheorganizationasself-evaluation.Evaluationsystemdemonstratesitsqualitybasedonthe4aspectsofevaluationstandardsincludingutility,feasibility,propriety,andaccuracy.


Discussion 1. Thereare6componentsand21 indicatorsoforganizationaleffectiveness forhighereducationinstitutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSportsthatarealignedwiththosecomponentsandindicatorsinthehighereducationeffectivenessevaluationmodel andquality conceptmodel offeredbyCameron (1978, 1986),Coltt (1995), KwanandWalker (2003), andPitsanuFongsri (1999, 2009); theconceptofSteers(1977);theMalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityAward:MBNQA);thequalitycomponentsoftheexternalqualityassuranceforhighereducationround2(2006-2010);thequalitycomponents and indicators, and criteria for internal quality assurance for higher education institutions in Thailand, academic year 2010; and the indicators for ExternalQualityAssuranceRound3 (2011-2015), all are indicators encompassingimplementationactivitiestoachievethegoalsofmajormissionsofhighereducationalinstitutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSports. Component 1: Instructionalmanagement reflects the achievement level of implementing thegoals of instructionalmanagement onphysical education, healtheducation,sport, recreation,sportscience,healthscience,andotherrelatedfields. Itisthemaintaskoftheorganizationtoundertaketheorganizationalgoalsasqualityinstructionalmanagementeffectsthequalityofthegraduates. Component 2:Research suggests the level of success in implementing the goalstodevelopresearchresultsandinnovationsaswellastodevelopinstructionandresearch capacity of organizational staff. The current development of instruction, community,andorganizationrequiresthebodyofknowledgeobtainedfromtheresearchprocess. Component 3:Academic service for societydemonstrates theachievementlevel of thegoals toprovideacademic service to the society andcommunity, and tocreatethe learningsociety in locality.Thehighereducation institutionsundertheMinistryofTourismandSportswereestablishedtoserveasthecommunityeducationinstitutions all over the country in order to constantly provide various academic servicestothesociety. Component 4: Preservation of art and culture suggests the level of achievementforthegoalstopreserveThaiartandculture,folkplaysandsports. Component 5:Organizational administration anddevelopment involves theachievement levelof implementingthegoals inadministrationtomaximizetheworkandstaffeffectiveness.Itisalsothekeycomponentthatpromotesandsupportsothercomponentsintheirimplementationtoachievethedefinedgoals. Component 6: Development toward excellent athletics provides the achievementlevelofthegoaltodeveloptheathletestowardtheirexcellenceatboththenationaland international levels.Other than thoseothermajor tasks, thehighereducationinstitutionsundertheMinistryoftourismandSportstakeonadditionalmaintask topromoteanddevelop for excellent athletics.Accordingly, thegoalwas set


for implementation and development toward excellent athletics so that both the athletesandcoachesareequippedwithknowledge,capacityandskillsatthenationalandinternationallevels. 2. The organizational effectiveness evaluation system for higher educational institutions under theMinistry of Tourism and Sports consists of 4 interrelated components,1)input,2)process,3)output,and4)feedbackanduseofevaluationresult, adopting the system concept conforming to Pikul Eekwarangkul (2007). Evaluation by the logicmodelwas added as it demonstrates the result of each component and indicator in termsof causality. Particular organizational staffwere assignedwithclearlydefinedresponsibilitiesandrolestoevaluatetheorganizationaleffectiveness. Evaluationmanual and tools were also developed, allowing the organizationtoexaminetheresultofeachtaskwhetherandtowhatextentitachievedthe goal in each circle of academic year, including its strength and what and how to be improved. The results canbe utilizedby the organization to plan for those unattained results if therewereanydefectsandwhat factorsorprocessesneeded tobeimprovedandcorrected.Moreover,theorganizationaleffectivenessevaluationshouldbecarriedoutbasedon thePDCA,with the implementation report of each indicatorbesupportedbytheclearevidenceoftraceofimplementation.Thejudgmentof results involvesboth thecomponentand indicator levelsofeach implementationsection,includingfactors,processes,outputsandoutcomes.Sincetheorganizationaleffectivenessevaluationusingthisdevelopedprocessisbasedonstaffself-assessment,and for the use of this system to fulfill the objectives and obtain accurate and applicable results, the evaluation capacity development should be extendedly introducedtoeveryorganizationstaff. 3. Theorganizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystemdisplays itsqualityon the 4aspectsofevaluationstandard. It issuitable,practical,andbeneficial toboththeorganization and its staff. The process is not complicated and offers accurate results, allowing for thediscussion in eachof theevaluation standard.Executives, faculties, and supporting staff displayed overall high level of satisfaction on this organizationaleffectivenessevaluationsystemsincethesystemisapplicabletotheorganization, with clearly defined manual to enable every staff to evaluate organizationalperformance.However,theresearcherdidnotperformtestofvalidity of this system due to the fact that in the system try-out, the users were assigned separate jobstoevaluate the intendedcomponentsand indicatorsbutoneof them wasfailedtoevaluateeverycomponentandindicatorandhencemakeitnotpossible totestofvalidityfromthecoefficientofinternalconsistencyandaccordinglyunabletopresentthequalityofthissystemintermofitsvalidity.It isnotedthatasystemtrialprocedure should be developed by allocating at least 2 evaluators for every component and indicator in order to obtain the Rater Agreement Index (RAI) foridentifyingthevalidityofthedevelopedevaluationsystem.


Recommendations 1. Policy and process should be present to promote and support the use of evaluationprocessinsupervision,monitoring,andinvestigatingtheimplementationoforganizational mission on a systemic and continuous basis. 2.Organizationsshouldhavetheiradministrators,facultymembers,andsupportingstaff trained in conducting organizational effectiveness evaluation systemprior to actual use. 3.Administrators shouldgrant, promote, andcreateopportunities for all facultymembersandsupportingstafftoinvolveinorganization’simplementation,aswellasinevaluationanddecision-makingtoadequatelyandcomprehensivelyutilizeevaluationresults.Staffatall levelsaresubject toevaluationcapacitybuildingconstantlyandextensively. 4.Thereshouldberesearchtodevelopanevaluationcapacitybuildingmodelforadministrators,facultymembers,andsupportingstaffinhighereducationinstitutions.

ReferencesCameron, K. S.MeasuringOrganizational Effectiveness in Institutions of Higher Education.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly.1978.

Cameron,K.S.AStudyofOrganizationalEffectivenessandItsPredictorsManagementScience,1986.

Clott.C.B.TheEffectsofEnvironment,Strategy,CultureandResourceDependencyon Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness of Schools of Business. Paper Presentation at the 20th AnnualMeeting of the Association for Study of Higher Education, Orlando, 1995.

Daft,R.L.Organizationaltheoryanddesign.7thed.Cincinnati,OH:South-Western,2001.

Debenbam,K.J.KnowledgeSystemsDesign.NewYork:Prentice-Hall,1989.

Eddy,W.B.PublicOrganizationBehaviorandDevelopment.Cambridge,MA:Winthrop,1981.

Ekwarangkool, P. Research andDevelopment ofMeasurement and Evaluation System for Integrated Learning in Primary Education. ADissertation forDoctoral DegreeinEducation,GraduateSchool,ChulalongkornUniversity,2007.


Goodman,P.S.andPenning,J.M.NewPerspectivesonOrganizationalEffectiveness.SanFransisco,1977.

Harmon,M.M.,&Mayer,R.T.OrganizationTheoryforPublicAdministration.Glenview,IL:Scott,ForesmanandCompany,1986.

Hoy,W.K.andMiskel,C.EducationalAdministration:Theory,Research,andPractice.3rded.NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1991.

Kanjanawasee,S.EvaluationTheory.7thed.Bangkok:ChulalongkornUniversity,2009.

Kwan, P., &Walker, A. Positing Organizational Effectiveness as a Second-order ConstructinHongKongHigherEducationInstitution.ResearchinHigherEducation,2003.

OfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(PublicOrganization).Handbook of External Evaluation for Higher Education, 2nd Round (2006-2010). Bangkok:Office ofNational EducationStandards andQualityAssessment (Public Organization),2007.

Pitiyanuwat, S.Methodology for Evaluating Science of Value. 2nd ed. Bangkok: TextandJournalPublication,2001.

Steers,R.M.OrganizationalEffectiveness:Abehavioralview,1977.

Steers, R.M.,Ungson,G.R., &Mowday,R. T.Managing effective organizations: Anintroduction.Boston:Kent,1985.

Stuffebeam, D. L. 2000. Guidelines for Developing Evaluation Checklists: Thechecklistsdevelopmentchecklist(CDC).[Online]Availablefrom:http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/guidelines_cdc.pdf[2010September3].

Wongwanich, S. Unit 7: Evaluation Research. Bangkok: Sukhothai Thammathirat OpenUniversity,2009.


The Effectiveness of Online Self Assessment Report in Faculty of Management Sciences Songkhla Rajabhat University Using MGT e-SAR System

delivered by Thanapat Yeekhaday*, Wuttichai Inkeaw *e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Theaimsof this studywere todefinea suitable onlineSelf-AssessmentReport (SAR) for Faculty of Management Sciences at Songkhla Rajabhat University, todevelopanonlinedatabaseandcollaborationsystemforthereport,andtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofthesystem.ThesystemwasdevelopedundertheOfficeofHigher EducationCommission’s criteria usinga systemdevelopment life cyclewith sevenphases, namely, definingproblems, analysing theproblems, designing an online database system, developing an system calledMGT e-SAR, testing the system, systemdeployment, and evaluating its effectiveness. Itwas found that any users usingthementionedsystemcouldeditandchecktheirinputandoutputviatheInternet.AfterthesystemhadbeenusedinFacultyofManagementSciences,itcouldincreaseSARscoresofthefacultyandsubjectprograms.Itcouldmakethepersonswhowere responsibleforSARinthefacultyreportandcheckSARresultseasily.Additionally, itwasuser-friendlyandreliableandcouldsupportanonlinecollaborationtoeditSARresults anytime and anywhere. Finally, it was suggested that the system be implementedinotherfacultiesanddepartmentsattheuniversityandthatitcouldalsobeused tosupportactivitiesatOfficeofHigherEducationCommission (HEC)and theOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(ONESQA).

Keywords: Self-AssessmentReport(SAR),MGTe-SARsystem,onlineself-assessment

Introduction QualityAssurance inHigher Education in Thailandwas first introducedby the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA) in 1996. TheMUA announced this policy to encourageallpublicandprivateuniversitiestoestablishqualityassurancesystemsofeducationin1999(additioneditedin2002).TheintroductionoftheNationalEducation

1Thanapat Yeekhaday, Thailand2Wuttichai Inkeaw, Thailand


Actin1999hasgivenanewconnotationtotheterms“InternalQualityAssurance(IQA)”whichrefers tostandardof theOfficeof theHigherEducationCommission(OHEC) and “ExternalQualityAssurance (EQA)”which refers to standard of theOffice for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) (Public Organization). For IQA, it is the responsibility of eachacademic institution and its governingorganization to oversee that such internalmechanismsareput inplace andremainapartofthecontinuingimprovementmanagementsystem.AsforEQA, the Office of the National Education Standards and Quality Assessment is responsible for the external assessment of institutions at all levels especially outcome of education quality (Kanjanapanyakom, 2005). To provide the quality auditofbothOHECandONESQAstandards,all institutionsneed to report through theSelf-AssessmentReport or “SAR” andprepare the result and its evidences of operationforIQAandEQA. FacultyofManagementSciences,SongkhlaRajabhatUniversity,hasrealizedtheimportanceofquality assurance system, especially on self-assessment report anddocumentsupportofoperations.TheFacultyconsistsofeightacademicprograms.Each academicprogramneeds tobe audited thequality assurance sameas the faculty anduniversity indicators. The external quality assurancealso needs tobe reviewedandauditedeveryfiveyears,sothefacultyandacademicprogramsneedtobekeptoperationalandsupporteddocument ineachquality indicatorof lastEQAperiod.ThemainproblemsoccurredonpaperormanualSARreportsystemasfollows: 1)Hugenumberofdocumentsandpapersarewastedsoonedocumentmaybecopiedtoeightcopies. 2) Faculty administrators did not know the current quality data until SARwas reported. 3)SARauditorswereunabletocheckonlinereportandunabletotracesupportingdocuments. From the above cases, the quality assessment management system and supportingdocumentstraceabilityisimportanttosupportIQAandEQA.Inthisstudy,the researchers aimed to solve the problems toward SAR and enhance the effectivenessofqualityassurancemanagement.Therefore,theresearchersdesignedand developed the prototype of online SAR and SARmanagement processes. Theobjectivesofthisresearchare: 1. TodefinethesuitabilityofonlineSARinthefacultyandacademicprograms. 2. TodevelopdatabaseandonlinecollaborationsystemforSARmanagement. 3. To evaluate the effectiveness of online SAR in Faculty of Management SciencesanddesigntheappropriatebusinessprocessmanagementtosupportwithMGTE-SAR. This articlepresents anoverviewof the researchon theeffectivenessof online SARcalledMGTE-SAR,includingSARoverview,problemstatement,literaturereview, researchmethodology,researchfindings,discussionandconclusion.


Literature Review Overthelastdecadetherehavebeenworldwidemovementsineducationtowardsquality assurance especially in higher education. The underlying concept of the quality assurance framework proposed by theMUAwas based on three basic cornerstonesofquality,namely;QualityControl,QualityAudit,andQualityAssessment(Kanjanapanyakom,2005).QualityAssuranceinHigherEducationframeworkbasedonbackgroundandnatureofdevelopmentofThaiuniversities,takingintoconsiderationuniversity autonomy and academic freedom, serves as a broad outline for each institutiontoadaptandmodifytofittheirtraditions.Theframeworkconsistsof9aspectsof quality factors (ONESQA, 2001): 1) Philosophies,Commitment andObjectives 2)TeachingandLearning3)StudentDevelopmentActivities4)Research5)AcademicServices 6) Preservation of Art andCulture 7) Administration andManagement 8) FinanceandBudgeting9) InternalQualityAssuranceSystemandMechanisms. Alltheninequalityfactorsarehelpfulforqualitymanagementiftheysupporttheonlineself-assessment or database system. According to Jiao et al. (2007) anOnline QualityInformationSystem(OQIS)thathadbeendevelopedforqualitycontrolinane-manufacturingenvironment found thatanOQISdatabasehadcentralizedquality data storage, provided data integrity, long term cost savings, real time data accessibility and collaboration with other manufacturing databases. Methodology Toachievetheresearchobjectives,wefirstlyanalyzedtheproblemanddesigned requirementofcurrentSARmanagementsystemandreport.Then,wedevelopedthesystemprototypefromfacultyadministratorandSARofficers’requirementstosupportonlinechecking,document traceability,qualitymonitoringandonlinecollaboration.InformationSystemDevelopmentMethodology(ISDM)wasusedtodevelopsystemprototype, we finally designed business processmanagement in faculty and academicprograms to supportMGTE-SAR. In our systemdevelopment,weusedpersonalcomputer,notebookcomputerandscannerashardware.Theresearchersalso usedMySQL for databasemanagement system (DBMS)whichwere able to support online transaction through web browser. Moreover, we evaluated the effectiveness of system from faculty’s administrators, officers andSAR’s auditors. Figure1showstheresearchframeworkonEffectivenessofonlineSARintheFacultyofManagementSciences.


Figure 1 Research Framework on Effectiveness of Online Self-Assessment Report in the Faculty of Management Sciences using MGT E-SAR System.

TheInformationSystemDevelopmentMethodologyforimplementingMGTE-SARwasdoneinsevenphasesbasedonInformationSystemDevelopmentMethodology(ISDM)(Hofferet.al,2005)asfollows: (1) Problemdefinition: defining the current system of SAR report andSAR management.Thecurrentreportwasbasedonpaperdocumentswhichencounteredwithmanyproblems. (2)Analysisofproblemssolution:definingthesolutionofencounteringproblemsfromthefirstphase.Wefoundthesolutionfortheproblemthatthenewsystemneedsdatabase to share and store operational document.Consequently, thismadeSARadministrator unable toaddandeditSAR report online. The result ofSAR ineach indicatorenabledtheuserstomonitorqualityresultasrealtimewheneverfacultyofficersentered the activity report. SARauditorswere also able to checkSAR report anddocumenttractabilityonlineviaInternet. (3)Design the system:designingdatabase of the system includingprocess design, logical databasedesign, physical databasedesign, user interfacedesign,designformandreporttosupportuniversityformat.AsFigure2,ContextdiagramshowstheMGTE-SARusersanditsrelatedfunctionsofeachuser.

OnlineSARManagementRequirementAnalysisandDesign

BusinessProcessDesignforSAROnlineManagementandMGTE-SAREffectivenessEvaluation

OnlineMGTE-SARManagement

SystemDevelopmentMethodology

Problemdefinition

Analysis

Design

Development

Development

Maintenance

Testing


Figure 2 Context Diagram of MGT E-SAR

(4)Development:developingsystemtosupportonlinetransactionviaInternetusingMySQLandPHPlanguageastoolsforsystemdevelopment. (5) Testing: testing the system on functionality, reliability, efficiency, and usability of the system. (6)Deployment: installinganddeploying theMGTE-SARsystemused in thefacultyandallacademicprograms. (7)Maintenance: encouraging the systemmaintenance, edit and addmore additionalrequirements.

Results

TheresultsofresearchoneffectivenessofonlineSARintheFacultyofManagementSciencesusingMGTE-SARsystemareasfollows: 1.ThesuitabilityofonlineSARreportneededtosupportadministratorsandofficerswho are responsible for indicators. The systemcanmonitor the data andquality performancerightaway.TheSARstaffandofficersareabletomanagetheSARreportandaddedsupportingdocumentsonline.TheFaculty’sDeanandprogramleadersalsocouldviewtheSARreportandseethecurrentstatus.AttheSARauditorsite,thesystemallowsSAR auditors to view the result of SARwith report and its related documentsonlineby justclicking it.AsFigure3,showsMGTE-SARsupportswithvarioustoolssuchasnotebook,desktopcomputer,tabletandsmartphone.Thesystemallows users to monitors SAR results, online discussion, online collaboration, document andfilesharing.

MGTE-SAR

Faculty’sAdministratorsSAR’sAuditors

SystemAdministrators Officers

SAREvaluationReport

SARSubjectProgramLevelandResultReport

SetIndicatorsforFaculty/Program

SARReport

Documents/Evidences

ImprovementSuggestions

SARReport

Docum

ents/Evidences

ViewSA

RResult

Docum

ents/Evidences

SARReport

SetIndicatorsforFaculty/Program

SARReport

Documents/Evidences

ImprovementSuggestions

QualityImprovementSuggestions

Download Documents and Evidences

ViewSARResultScore


Figure 3 Functions of MGT E-SAR

2. FortheeffectivenessofMGTE-SARsystem,theinstrumentusedforfindingthesystemeffectivenessiscalledsystemeffectivenessevaluationform,whichisdividedintofourpartsasfollows: - FunctionalRequirementTest–toevaluateifthesystemcapabilitiesservethe needs - FunctionalTest–toevaluateiftheworkingsystemisaccurate - UsabilityTest–toevaluateiftheusagemethods - Performance–toevaluateifthesystemiseffective Wesubmittedtheevaluationformsof60differentexamplestolecturers,staff,and auditors. There were 52 respondents including 10 faculty and program administrators, 23 lecturers, 9 officers, 4programsecretaries and6SARauditors. Thescoresofsurveyareinterpretedasfollows: - 4.01–5.00 indicatestherespondents’verygoodlevelofopinion - 3.01–4.00 indicatestherespondents’goodlevelofopinion - 2.01–3.00 indicatestherespondents’moderatelevelofopinion - 1.01–2.00 indicatestherespondents’fairlevelofopinion - 0.01–1.00 indicatestherespondents’poorlevelofopinion Theresultofsystemevaluationisshownintable1,resultofsurveyedforMGTE-SAR system.

MGTE-SAR


Statements EvaluationLevel Mean Quality 1.Functionality 1.1 Collecting operational quality assurance 3.80 Good information/documents/evidences 1.2 Searching for operational quality insurance 3.78 Good information/documents/evidences 1.3 Using all menus of MGT e-SAR effectively 3.83 Good

1.4 The system supported educational quality 3.93 Good assurance operation of program and faculty 2.Reliability 2.1 Referring operational evidences conformed 3.80 Good to standardized indicator in each element 2.2 Evaluating the accurate operation 3.85 Good 2.3 Accurate operational report based on standards 3.89 Good 2.4 Reliable security and access 3.96 Good

2.5 Continuity of usage 3.85 Good 3.Efficiency 3.1 Program and information downloading speed 3.89 Good

3.2 Speed of searching information/operational 3.83 Good evidences based on standard indicators 3.3 Speed of bringing evidences/documents to 3.72 Good the system 3.4 Speed of operational result check 3.85 Good 4.Usability 4.1 Easy steps and usage 3.87 Good 4.2 Appropriate screen and menu design 3.87 Good 4.3 System application in educational 3.85 Good quality assurance in both faculty and program subject support with IQA and EQA Total average score 3.85 Good

Table 1: Satisfied Level for MGT E-SAR System Usage Evaluation Results


TheconclusionofsatisfactiontowardsQualityAssuranceInformationTechnologyin the Faculty of Management and Sciences, Songkhla Rajaphat University, is presented in four dimensions including functionality, reliability, efficiency, and usability. The results showed themean of eachdimension as 3.84 (functionality), 3.87(reliability),3.82(efficiency),3.86(usability),andtotalaveragescoreas3.84. Asmentioned,MGT E-SAR system helps the faculty and academic program administratorstomonitorandsharedocuments,italsoassiststoreducegapofscoreresultbetweenacademicprograms.AsshowninTable2,theresultofInternalQualityAssurancereportacademicyear2010-2012facultylevelandacademicprogramlevel,showedthatthescoreofIQAtotallyincreasedandthescore’sgapbetweenprogramsdecreased in academic year 2011 and 2012.

Discussion and Conclusion ThesuitabilityofonlineSelf-AssessmentReportsystemforfacultyandacademicprogramsisthat, thesystemenablestheuserto insert,update,delete,andeditan SAR report via Internet. Theonline systemenables faculty administrators andSAR officers to collaborate onworking, onlinemonitoring, onlinediscussion andonlinedocumentsharing.Thesystemalsoenablesauditor tocheckand tracesupportingdocuments online. TheMGTE-SAR systemenables users to support internal and externalqualityassuranceverywell,especiallyforreportingandtracingthedocumentof operations. It assists the administrators tomonitor and supportmanagement decisions. The system has been used in the Faculty ofManagement Sciences, SongkhlaRajabhatUniversityforanacademicyear.Theeffectivenessofthesystemwas tested on functionality, reliability, efficiency, and usability. It resulted that the averagescorewas3.85whichisa“good”level.ThesystemmakesuserstoaccesseasilyviaInternet.Onlinedatabaseassiststosavenumberofdocuments.However,to useMGTE-SAR system, the faculty administrators need to designprocess to supportthesystemandothersrelatedprocessesinvolvedsuchaselectronicmails,

Table 2 Result of Internal Quality Assurance Report Academic Year 2010-2012 in Faculty Level and Academic Program Level

SubjectProgram/Academic Year

FacultyLevel

Economics TourismIndustry

BusinessComputer

Management Marketing Accounting HRM Communi-cation Art

201020112012

4.494.544.49

4.114.104.50

3.043.654.26

3.214.004.08

3.253.334.05

3.293.843.96

3.233.483.92

3.193.423.92

3.454.013.91


electronicsdocumentsystem,andelectronicfilereport.Wesuggestthatthissystembeused in every academicprogramsand faculty to support internal andexternal assuranceaudits,SARonlinecollaborationandmonitorthequalityimprovement.

References:Bellman,M.,&Ryan,D.Extraordinarygroups:Howordinaryteamsachieveamazingresults.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.2009.

BureauofHigherEducationStandards.All inOne: Policies,QAandCooperation. Bangkok:MinistryofUniversityAffairs.2003.

HigherEducationFundingCouncil forEngland.Guide toPerformance indicators inHigherEducation.2003.

Jiao,R.Pokharel,S.Kumar,A.andZhang,L.Developmentofanonlinequalityinformationsystem for e-manufacturing. Journal ofManufacturing TechnologyManagement, 18no.1,(2007):36-53

Law,WandWoo,M.Qualitycontrolinformationrepresentationusingobject-orienteddatamodels, InternationalJournalofComputer IntegratedManufacturing,16no.3,(2003):192-209

Mark,Nichols.Development of aQualityAssurance system for E-learningproject. AustralasianSocietyforComputerAssistedLearninginTertiaryEducation.(2002)http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/004.pdf (Accessed2013-08-12).

Murgatroyd,StephenandMorgan,Colin.TotalQualityManagementandtheSchool.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress,1994.

Officeof theNational EducationStandardsandQualityAssessment.Guideline for ExternalAssessmentforHigherEducation.2001.

Rachavarn Kanjanapanyakom. Thai experience with quality assurance. 2005. http://www.fulbrightthai.org/data/knowledge/exp.doc(Accessed2013-08-12).

Stair,R.andReynoldsG.InformationSystems.9thed.CourseTechnology,2010.

Turban,E., andVoloninoL. InformationTechnology forManagement TransformingOrganizationsintheDigitalEconomy.7thed.InternationalStudentVersion.2010.


TQM Application in KMUTT: The Beginning

delivered by Sudkad Changkrachang1, Ratsuda Borirak2, Sasikorn Songkhao3, Nakorn Srisukhumbowornchai4, Preecha Termsuksawad5, Office of Quality Assurance, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Thailand e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Globalchangesineconomic,social,andtechnologydevelopmentandthecomingASEANEconomicCommunityin2015havebroughtgraduatequalitytomeethigherexpectationsofbothdomesticandinternationalinterests.Inaddition,KingMongkut’sUniversity of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT) as Thailand’s first autonomouspublic universityin1998hasincreaseditscapacityandhasbeencapableofimprovingitseducationalsystem,service,and research tomeet thoseexpectationsandsocietalrequirements.Suchfastchangeanddemandhavecausedundesirablemisalignmentamong personnel resulting in ineffective and inefficient work.With regard to organizationalcontextandculture,KMUTT’sTQMModelwasthereforedevelopedforthe purpose of quality assuranceby adapting TotalQualityManagement (TQM) philosophywithEducationCriteriaforPerformanceExcellence(EdPEx)frameworkintoitsmanagement system. TheModel has been implemented excessivelywith the compulsoryOHECandONESQAcriteria(accordingtoThailand’sEducationAct1999).Currently,theModeliscarriedoutundertheuniversity’sexistingoperationswiththeobjectivesofenablingthepersonneltounderstandtheuniversity’sholisticconception,aligningtheirworkswithallunits,andpromotingclosecooperationamongoperations,support,andadministrativeunits. Thekey factorof implementing theModel isgainingpersonal knowledgeof thecustomer,management,roleandresponsibility,tasks,andproblemsolving.Approvedbytheuniversity’sexecutives,thetrainingprogramnamedTraintheTrainerswastheninitiatedandprovidedtorepresentativesofacademicmembersandsupportstafffromallfacultiesandoffices.Withtheircontext,therepresentativeswillapplytheirknowledgeand later teach their colleagues in their own units. Prior to training, deans and directors fromall units come to comprehendand request supports of their representatives. Trainingactivitiesincludedlectures,casestudies,groupdiscussion,andateachingdemonstration.Afterbeingevaluatedandassessedbywrittenandoralexaminations,the representatives have changed their quality paradigm from a system of documentationtotheessenceofquality.Todate,20outof23representativeshavedemonstrated their potential. Hereafter to become qualified trainers, potential representativesmustbecertifiedbyKMUTT’sexperts.


Keywords: Quality assurance, Total QualityManagement (TQM), Education Criteria for PerformanceExcellence(EdPEx)

Introduction: Global warming and global changes in economic, social, and technology development and thecomingASEANEconomicCommunity in 2015will affect the mobilityofprofessionalsandskilledlaborinThailand.TogetherwiththeFrameworkoftheSecond15-YearLongRangePlanonHigherEducationofThailand(2008-2022),thedirectionofThailand’shighereducationistoproduceanddevelopgraduatesofquality,capableoflifelongworkandadjustment.[1]Establishedin1960asatechnicalinstitute to educate and train technologists, Thonburi Technical Institute (TTI)with 33staffmembersofferedfourhigherdiplomaprogramsto304students.[2]In1971,TTIwascombinedwithothertwotechnicalinstitutesunderThailand’sDepartmentofVocationalEducationtoformonedegree-grantinginstitutionunderthenameofKingMongkut’sInstituteofTechnology(KMIT).TTIbecameKMITThonburiCampus.Laterin1986,threecampusesofKMITgainedtheirautonomousuniversitystatus.[3]KMITThonburiCampusbecameKingMongkut’sInstituteofTechnologyThonburi(KMITT).Comparable to international government-owned university, KMITT was, then, theThailand’sfirstuniversitytobetransformedtoafullyautonomouspublicuniversityin 1998 and namedKingMongkut’sUniversity of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT). [4]Theuniversityhas longbeenascienceand technology intensive institution thatfocuses on teaching and conducting research in science, engineering, and technology andprovidingquality academic services to industries and societies. In 2012, the universityemployed2145people in foureducationalserviceareas inBangkokandRatchaburiProvince.Theuniversityoffered47-degreeprogramsand147fieldsofstudyto18176studentsofelevenfaculties,schools,andinstitute.[5] Tomove forward, a fewnewacademic serviceand supportingunits hadbeen set up, andmany reorganized. Someuniversity’s routine functionsbecamemore customized to carry out some specific tasks.Consequently,managementbecame difficult andmore complicated.Undesirablemisalignment among operation units resulted in ineffectiveand inefficientwork.Unlike inmanufacturing,management ineducationismorecomplexduetohumanisticnature,reluctancetochange,highlevelofprofessionalism[6],andbureaucraticbackground.Tomaintaincustomerconfidence(Quality Assurance as KMUTT’s ultimate goal) through its transformations, the university must continue delivering values of its offerings while adjusting university-widealignment. Likemanyworld-classuniversities [6-7],KMUTT learned to apply TotalQualityManagement (TQM) Principles on a university-wide basis. ThePrinciplesaretoengagepersonnelinallfaculties,schools,institutes,andofficesatall levels; to focusonsystematicmanagementofdata inallpractices topursue


continuousimprovement;andtotakefulladvantageofdiversitiesprovidedbyeachindividual to operate as one. In Thailand, the Principles of TQM have been implementedsuccessfullyinsomedegreestobothprivatecompaniesandautonomousgovernmentagency.However,applyingTQMinThailand’suniversityhasneverbeenreported. For suchglobal changes,KMUTTbelieves TQM is crucial to its growth regarding customer satisfaction and employee engagement throughmodern management. Withregardtoorganizationalcontextandculture,KMUTT’sTQMModel(Figure1)wasdeveloped for thepurposeofquality assurancebyadaptingTQMphilosophy withEducationCriteria forPerformanceExcellence (EdPEx) framework. TheModelwouldbe implementedadditionally to thecompulsorycriteria fromtheOfficeof theHigherEducationCommission(OHEC)andtheOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment (ONESQA), according to Thailand’s EducationAct 1999. Currently,theModelhasbeenconductingundertheuniversity’sexistingoperationswith the objectives of enabling the staffmembers to understand their roles and responsibilities,aligntheirworkswiththeorganizationaldirection,andpromoteclosecooperationamongoperation,supporting,andadministrativeunits. ThispreliminarystudywasthenaimedatthebeginningofimplementingKMUTT’sTQMModel by training and educating quality concepts to the university’s staff members. Commitments from their top and middle management levels and university-wideunderstandingofqualityweretakenintoconsideration,askeysuccessfactors.

Methodology: The key factors of implementing theKMUTT’s TQMModelwere leadership anduniversity-wide understanding of quality. Leadership aspect was focused on commitmentandcommunicationatdifferentmanagementlevels.Severalmeetingshadbeen set between top andmiddlemanagement levels by the university’s quality assurance team. Knowledge of TQM essences for business sustainability was providedtotopandmiddlemanagementlevelsandtheircommitmentstoTQMweremade.University-wideunderstandingofqualityapproachhad focusedon initiating the lifelong learningprocessby integratingworkforce’sunderstandingof rolesandresponsibilitieswithqualityconcepts.Therefore,comprehensivecoursesfocusingonqualityconceptsandgapanalysiswouldbeprovidedtoalluniversitystaffmembers.However, thereweremany peoplewith various functions. Ameans of “Train the Trainer”programwaschosentoprovidetraininginqualityconcepts,andinturnthecolleagues can learn from the qualified trainers. Approved by the university’s executives,thetrainingprogramwasthencalledTraintheTrainerandofferedtothoseinvolvingtheuniversity’scoreprocessesandsupportingtheprocesses.Eachdeanselectedtwoorthreerepresentativesastraineestotheprogram.


Figure 1: KMUTT’s TQM Model adapting Total Quality Management philosophy with Education Criteria for Performance Excellence framework.

The“TraintheTrainer”programconsistedoflectures,casestudies,andpracticeteaching.Thosewhopassedbothwrittenandoralexaminationswouldbequalifiedastrainers.Results and Discussion:

Quality Assurance

Measurement,AnalysisandKnowledgeManagement

QualityConceptandPeoblemSolving

OganizationalStructure

ManagementReviewPresident

StrategicPlanningSenior Vice President

for Administrative Affairs

Market&CustomerFocusSenior Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs

HumanResourceFocusSenior Vice President

for Administrative AffairsInternalQualityAuditAssist. to the President

for QA

OHEC

ONESQA

...

LeadershipSenior Vice President

for Administrative AffairsProcess ManagementSenior Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs


Thetrainingprogramwasofferedtothoseinvolvingtheuniversity’scoreprocessandsupporting theprocesses.Recordsof theirattendanceandperformanceareshowninTable1. Froma university viewpoint, commitments ofmanagementwould help trainees succeedandsubsequentlybenefittheirunitsoncethequalifiedtrainersreturned,setup trainingcourses, and shared their lessons to colleagues.However, the leading indicator of management commitment was not directly related to the success of trainees. Deans’ personal interests inmodernmanagement and their challenging situations includingwhat the facultieswere facingmight influencetheir levelsofcommitment. In addition, some traineesmight consider that becoming future trainerswouldput burden of time on their routine work and might not in return contribute much to their existing career path. Their distress was gradually lessened by an increased understanding andawareness of quality through in-house education about qualityconcepts at KMUTT.KMUTT’s quality assurance teamhad also pointed out their roles as key drivers to communicateKMUTT’s quality at all levels in their units, as trainerswould consequently support implementation of the EdPEx framework asembeddedintheKMUTT’sTQMModel. Determinedthroughoutthelearningprocess,alltraineeshadchangedtheirattitudesaboutqualityfromburdendocumentationtotheessenceofquality.Outoftwenty-threetrainees, twenty remained active throughout the training course. Prior to training,quality-relatedcomplaintsandissueswereunderstoodtobethesolelyresponsibilityof theOfficeofQualityAssurance. The trainees reconsideredandgainedabetter perceptionofqualityaseveryone’sresponsibility.Duringtraining,traineesoften ledtheirdiscussionbasedontheirwork,assessedwhattheyhadperformed,andreferredtheir activities to quality concepts.With knowledge and teaching skill, the twenty traineeshaddemonstratedtheirpotentialtobecomefuturetrainers.Hereaftertobecomequalifiedtrainers,potentialtraineesmustbecertifiedbyKMUTT’squalityexpert. As all trainees came fromdifferent backgrounds and disciplines, the training processwasprolonged. In themeantime, theprocesswasevaluatedandadjustedaccordinglytotrainees’understandingandperception.Moreover,cultureoflearninganddiscussionintermofqualityawarenesshasarisenatKMUTT.


Conclusion: Due to undesirable misalignment, KMUTT decided to implement TQM via KMUTT’sTQMmodeltoitsexistingoperations.The“TraintheTrainer”programwasappliedtochangequalityperspectiveoftheuniversitystaffmembersfromsupporting documentation to the essence of quality. The leading indicator ofmanagement commitments was not directly related to the success of the trainees. However, therewasagoodsignofaparadigmshiftinalltrainees.

Acknowledgement: The authors are grateful to Assoc. Prof. Kitisak Ploypanichcharoen (Quality EngineeringDivision, Production Engineer, Faculty of Engineering) for providing valuable advice,methodology, and unlimited support to the training program. Theauthorswould like to thankDr.NandhThavarungkul forprovidingall possible supportsandmeans.KMUTTpersonnel includingmanagement teams,colleagues, andfriendshavemadepossiblethecontinuationofthiswork.Theauthorswouldliketoexpressoursincerethanksandwithgratitudefortheircontributions.

References: 1. ExecutiveReportFrameworkoftheSecond15-YearLongRangePlanonHigherEducation of Thailand,Commission onHigher Education,Minister of Education, ChulalongkornUniversityPrintingHouse,Bangkok,Thailand,2008.

2. KingMongkut’sInstituteofTechnologyThonburiCampus:AStatisticalReport1960-1980.

3. 30YearsKingMongkut’s InstituteofTechnologyThonburi (1960-1990), ISBN974-8154-87-4,inThai.

4. RoyalThaiGovernmentGazette,Vol.115,Sect.11a,Mar.6,1998,inThai.

5. Annual Report 2012, KingMongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, ISBN978-974-456-744-4,inThai.

6. M. S. Owlia and E.M. Aspinwall, TQM in Higher Education – A Review, InternationalJournalofQuality&ReliabilityManagement,Vol.14No.5,1997,527-543.

7. P.R.Kleindorfer, TQMat theUniversity of Pennsylvania,ManagingService Quality,Vol.4No.4,1994,20-23.


Table 1: Records of attending and performance of trainees.

†Considered a number of activities: attendance, frequent follow-up communication, for examples; ††Ratio of attendance; †††Results in quartile – Q1 means lower quartile; (1) Permitted for absence.

Trainee Category

AcademicSupportingAcademic

AcademicAcademic

AcademicAcademic

AcademicAcademic

AcademicSupporting

AcademicAcademic

AcademicSupporting

AcademicSupporting

AcademicAcademic

AcademicSupporting

AcademicSupporting

HighMediumHighHighHighHighHigh

MediumHighLowLowLow

MediumLow

MediumMediumHighHighHighHighLowHighHighLow

MediumMedium

LowMedium

LowHigh

MediumLowLowLowHigh

2/22/21/2

2/21/2

2/20/2

2/22/2

1/22/2

0/22/2

2/22/2

2/21/2

1/21/2

2/22/2

0/22/2

2/22/22/2

2/22/2

1/22/2

2/22/2

0/22/2

2/22/2

2/22/2

(1)(1)

2/21/2

2/22/2

1/21/2

3/33/32/3

2/31/3

0/30/3

3/30/3

1/33/3

1/31/3

1/32/3

1/30/3

1/30/3

2/33/3

0/31/3

YYY

YY

NN

YN

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Q3Q1Q4

Q4Q3

Q1Q1

Q4Q1

Q1Q2

Q2Q3

Q2Q1

Q3Q1

Q4Q1

Q4Q1

Q3Q2

Attentive Lecture††

Exam.Result†††

Potential Trainers

Dean/Trainee

ExecutivesDean A

T1T2T3

Dean BT4T5

DeanCT6T7

Dean DT8T9

Dean ET10T11

DeanFT12T13

Dean GT14T15

DeanHT16T17

DeanIT18T19

DeanJT20T21

DeanKT22T23

LevelofCommitment†

Case Study††

Practice Teaching††


Competency-based Teaching and Learning as a Key to the Asean Economic Community Success

delivered by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Amornchai Tantimedh1, Dr. Payungsak Juntarasurin2, Dr. Nipat Jongsawat3, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wichian Premchaiswadi4*

Siam University, Bangkok, Thailand e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]*

Abstract

Competency-based teachingand learning is very important for anyeducationalorganization at any level. Therefore, thesemodules can be keys to the ASEAN EconomicCommunity’sSuccess. Thispaperpresentsadiscussionofteachingandlearningstrategiesthatpromotecompetency-basedlearningandteachingineducationforasingleeconomicentityby2015.Itbeginswithanoverviewofvariousteachingandlearningtheoriesandhowtheymightbeusedto facilitateboth theacquisitionanddemonstrationofcompetenciesneededbylearners.Itincludesanoverviewofcompetency-basededucationandthespecificattributesof teachersand learnersneeded tomake this typeofeducation successful. A brief discussion of teachingmethods and learning activities that contribute to competency development is also presented. Examples of some of learningactivities(domainoflearning)suchaspsychomotordomain,affectivedomain,andcognitivedomainaredescribed.Finally,thelastpartofthispaperprovidessomekeyqualificationsandresponsibilitiesofteachersandlearnersinacompetency-basedprogram.

Keywords Competency-BasedTeaching,Competency-Based Learning,ASEANEconomicCommunity(AEC),domainoflearning

1. Introduction Competency-based teachingand learning for theASEANEconomicCommunity orasingleeconomicentityshouldbeaninstitutionalprocessthatmoveseducationfromfocusingonwhatacademicsbelievegraduatesneedtoknow(teacher-focused)towhatstudentsneedtoknowandbeabletodoinvaryingandcomplexsituations(studentorworkplacefocused).Competencieswithindifferentcontextsmayrequiredifferentbundlesofskills,knowledgeandattitudes.Thechallengeistodeterminewhichcompetenciescanbebundledtogethertoprovidetheoptimalgroupingforperforming


tasks.Anotherchallengeisdesigninglearningexperiencesthatsupportstudentsastheypracticeusingandapplyingthesecompetenciesindifferentcontexts.Continualrefinementofdefinedcompetenciesisnecessarysothatenhancedperformanceinavarietyofcontextscanbeassessed.Competency-basededucationhasbecomeahottopicinhighereducationcirclesthesedays.ItisbecomingincreasinglypopularastheASEAN nations searches for ways to improve college affordability andmore accuratelymeasurestudentlearning.Therearealmostasmanyinstitutionsclaimingtohavecompetency-basededucationastherearedefinitions,soitseemsworthwhiletodefinewhatcompetency-basedlearningisandhowitcanbenefithighereducation. What is competency-based education andwhatmakes it different? Themost importantcharacteristicofcompetency-basededucationisthatitmeasureslearningrather than time. The student’s progress by demonstrating their competence, which means they prove that they have mastered the knowledge and skills (calledcompetencies)requiredforaparticularcourse,regardlessofhowlongittakes.Whilemore traditionalmodels can and often domeasure competency, they are time-based--courseslastaboutfourmonths,andstudentsmayadvanceonlyaftertheyhaveput in the seat time. This is trueeven if theycouldhavecompleted the courseworkandpassedthefinalexaminhalfthetime.So,whilemostcollegesanduniversitiesholdtimerequirementsconstantandletlearningvary,competency-basedlearningallowsustoholdlearningconstantandlettimevary. Thispaperpresentsadiscussionofteachingandlearningstrategiesthatpromotecompetency-basedlearningandteachingineducationforasingleeconomicentityby2015.Itbeginswithanoverviewofvariousteachingandlearningtheoriesandhowtheymightbeusedto facilitateboth theacquisitionanddemonstrationofcompetenciesneededbylearners.Itincludesanoverviewofcompetency-basededucationandthespecificattributesof teachersand learnersneeded tomake this typeofeducation successful. A brief discussion of teachingmethods and learning activities that contribute to competency development is also presented. Examples of some of learningactivities(domainoflearning)suchaspsychomotordomain,affectivedomain,andcognitivedomainaredescribed.Italsoprovidessomeofthekeyqualificationsandresponsibilitiesofteachersandlearnersinacompetency-basedprogramme.Finally,thelastpartofthispaperdiscussestheimplementationofcompetency-basedteachingandlearninginEducationfortheASEANEconomicCommunity.

2. OverviewofCompetency-BasedEducation Competency-Based Education (CBE) is an institutional process thatmoves education from focusing on what academics believe graduates need to know (teacher-focused) towhatstudentsneedtoknowandbeable todo invaryingandcomplexsituations(studentand/orworkplacefocused).CBEisfocusedonoutcomes(competencies)thatarelinkedtoworkforceneeds,asdefinedbyemployersandthe


profession.CBE’soutcomesareincreasinglycomplexinnature,ratherthanderivingfromtheadditionofmultiplelow-levelobjectives.CBEoftennecessitatesmorecomplexassessment,involvingportfolios,experientiallearningassessmentinfieldexperience,demonstrationinvaryingcontexts,roleplay,useofstandardizedpatientsorclients,etc.Competencieswithindifferent contextsmay requiredifferent bundles of skills,knowledgeandattitudes.Thechallengeistodeterminewhichcompetenciescanbebundled together to provide the optimal grouping for performing tasks. Another challenge isdesigning learningexperiences thatsupportstudentsas theypracticeusingandapplyingthesecompetenciesindifferentcontexts.Continualrefinementofdefinedcompetencies is necessary so that enhancedperformance in a variety of contextscanbeassessed.Inessence,CBEisaprocess,notaproduct.CBEismorethan an effort to describe or list educational andbehavioral objectives. The early emphasisonbehaviorallearningobjectiveswasonreliableobservationandjudgment.To this end,writers of behavioral objectiveswere encouraged to state outcomes inoperationalterms,whichcanbeobservedusingconsistentobservationalprocessesallowing forno interpretation(Bloom,1974). Inanattempt toachieve this reliability, a behavioral verb from a list of behavioral verbs (for example: state, list, name, recognize,describe,calculate,describe,explain,synthesize,analyze)wasrequiredtobegintheobjective.Itisthisnarrownessthatledtothecriticismoftheseapproachesthenandnow;attainmentofthemultiplebehavioralobjectivesdidnotequalstudents’workforce functionality. Competency-BasedEducationwith its teaching and learning approaches has receivedagooddealofattentionandsupportwithinthehealthprofessionsinrecentyears(Albaneseetal.,2008).However,aswithanynewlyemergingconcept,thereisnocommondefinitionbeingusedbut therearesomecommonelements.Themostimportantoftheseelementsisthatthelearnermustbeengagedandactiveinallaspectsofacquiringtheknowledge,skillsandprofessionalbehaviorsneededtodemonstratepracticeinaspecificdiscipline.Inotherwords,competency-basededucationusesteachingandlearningstrategiesthatfacilitatethedevelopmentanddemonstrationofcompetency(Fullertonetal.,2011).Othercommonelementsincludetheneedforaclear, evidence-baseddefinition of the learningoutcomes tobedemonstrated for performanceof theprofessionalrole(i.e., thespecificcompetencies).Thisclarity isvital tobothteachersandstudentsas itdefinestheexpectedoutcomesof learningwithoutany‘hidden’agendas.Writinglearningoutcomestakeslotsofpracticebutiswell worth the effort to learners and teachers. Competency-based education requires competency-based teaching.Defining attributesofcompetency-basedteachingare includedinthefollowingtextboxandcomefromavarietyofsources(Knowleetal.,2005).Theseteachercharacteristicsandexpectations contribute to learner success. They also demonstrate the shared responsibilityofteachersandlearnerstoreachthegoalofacompetent,fullyqualifiedmidwife.


3. EffectiveTeachingStrategiesinFacilitatingCompetencyDevelopmentfortheASEANEconomicCommunity FortheASEANEconomicCommunity,teachingstrategiesneedtobematchedtothedomainoflearning,aswithanytypeofcurriculum.Someoftheeffectiveteachingstrategies within a competency-based curriculum, based on the attributes of competency-basedteaching,mustincludethefollowing. Psychomotor domain:Demonstrate the expectedway to performagiven skill. Allowthelearnertopracticeforawhile,andthenaskforareturndemonstrationofthatskill.Setupmodelsorcreateasimulationexerciseinthepracticallaboratorywherelearnerscanhaverepeatedpracticeofskillswithpeersand/orteachersupervision.Arrangeforsufficientpracticalexperiencesrequiringskillperformanceunderdirectsupervision. Create a valid and reliable assessment tool for use in determining competencyinskilldemonstration. Affective domain: Create values clarification exercises for personal values. Structureopportunitiesforroleplayrequiringrecognitionofdifferingvaluesandbeliefs,with time for discussion of how thesedifferencesmay affect one’s ability.Create avalidandreliableassessment tool foruse indetermining integrity, respect forall,maintainingconfidentiality. Cognitivedomain:Developcasestudiesfromactualpracticerequiringdiscovery or problem-based learning to determine themost appropriate, evidencedbased approach. Support learner-led seminars, structure debates to address complex practicalsituations.Alwaysrequirethatthelearnerprovidetheirreasons(rationale)fortheirresponsestoknowledgequestionsplans. Otherstrategiesincludeself-studymoduleswithsuggestedlearningactivitiesthatthe learnerscancompleteon theirownprior to interactionwith fellow learnersandteachers.Itisimportantthatteachersprovideampletimefordiscussion/dialogueandclarificationofconceptstobelearned.Theyalsoneedtoencourage/helpthelearneruse their own knowledgeand ideas to findpossible solutions to clinical situations.

AttributesofCompetency-basedTeaching• Understandhowadultslearn• Matchprinciplesoflearningandteaching• Facilitate,ratherthancontrollearning• Modelhumility,criticalthinking,respect,competency&caringatalltimes• Supportacquisitionofknowledge,skills&professionalbehaviorsinalllearningdomains (cognitive,psychomotor,andaffective)• Promote&expectlearneraccountabilityforlearning• Providetimely,specificfeedbackonlearnerprogressbeginningwithlearnerself-assessment•Individualizelearningexperiencesaccordingtoneeds•Expectincreasingcomplexityofperformanceasthelearnerprogressesthroughouttheprogramme


OneofthemosteffectiveteacherstrategiesforguidingthelearnertodiscoverhowtoproceedoractiscalledSocraticquestioning(MerriamandCaffarella,1991).Eachofthese teaching strategies are aimed at helping the learner develop newways of thinkingaboutwhat theyare learning, encouraging them in their discoveryof newknowledgeandskillsusingcriticalthinking,andsupportingtheireffortstointegratethisnewlearningintotheirpractice.Theteacherbecomesacoachorfacilitatoroflearning,rather than an all-knowing sage telling the learner what to learn, how to learn it, and what to do with the new learning.

4. TheKeyQualifications andResponsibilitiesofTeachers andLearners in aCompetency-BasedProgramme Forteachers,thecoreresponsibilitiesofteachersinclude: -Teachingandpracticinginaccordwithprofessionalethicsandstandards -Understandingones’ownvaluesandbeliefsrelatedtoteachingandlearning -Providingasafe, supportiveenvironment for learningbasedonmutual trust andrespectandmaintainingconfidentialityofstudentconcernsandrecords -Usingavarietyofteachingmethodsthatpromotecriticalthinkingandactive participationofthestudentsintheirlearningandself-assessmentofprogress in learning -Directlysupervisingstudentsinpracticalsettingsinordertocontinuetheir teachingandassessmentresponsibilities. -Beingopentoconflictingideasandopinions -Assistinglearnertoconnectcurrentinformationtobroaderconcepts -Collaboratingwithotherprofessionalsandmembersofthehealthcareteam -Regularlyengageinacademicactivitiesrelatedtoprofessionaldevelopment -Conductvariousactivities,takingintoaccounttheoutcomesontheirstudents -Committodevelopingtheirstudentstoreachtheirfullpotential -Developteachingplansforpracticalimplementation -Regularlydevelopeffectiveinstructionalmediaandmaterials -Organize instructional activities that focus ongeneratingpositive and long lasting outcomes from their students -Systematicallyreporttheresultsofstudents’qualitydevelopment - Act as good role models for their students -Constructivelycooperatewithothersinthecommunity -Seekoutanduseinformationfortheirowndevelopment -Createopportunitiesforstudentstolearnfromallkindsofsituations

Forlearners,thereareseverallearningactivitiescommontoprofessionaleducationthatiscompetency-based.Examplesofsomeoftheseactivitiesfollowbydomainoflearning.


Psychomotor domain: -Reviewwrittendescriptionofaparticularskill(text,handouts) -Taketimeforrepeatedpracticeofskillsinthesafetyofapracticallaboratory setting -Seekoutpracticalexperiencesthatallowonetoincreaseconfidenceaswell ascompetenceintheskillsrequiredforpractice. Affectivedomain: -Reviewtextforcontentondefinitionofvalues -Participate in selected values clarification exercises for personal values providedbyteachers(self-studyorgroupwork) -Write up an analysis of a code of ethics (local or international) and share withpeersandteachers Cognitivedomain: -Helpinglearnersbecomeactiveparticipantsinandtakeresponsibilityfortheir ownlearning,encouragingthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingbysupporting learners’effortstoretrieveandretainknowledgeandapplyitinpractice -Teamworkisanessentialcomponentofthistypeoflearningasmanylearning activitiesarestructuredforgroupsoflearnersworkingtogethertodiscoverthe bestsolutiontoagivenneedorprobleminboththeoreticalandpracticalwork.

5.ImplementationofCompetency-BasedTeachingandLearninginEducationfortheASEANEconomicCommunity Basedonimplementationofcompetency-basedteachingandlearningineducation,theeducationministryofeachcountryshouldworkoutthefollowingmeasures: -Useteachingstandardsatthedepartmentlevelunderthesupervisionofthe MinistryofEducation -Institutedtheteachersserviceschemewhichmandatedregulationsforteacher progressionintermsofpromotiontoahigherpositionandsalaryincrements -Givecertificatesofappreciationandawardmedalstoperformingteachersin recognitionofexemplaryperformance -Developandimplementanattractivecareerplanforteachers -Givetrainingprogramsasincentivestoperformingteachers.

5.1 Anestablishmentofaunifiedstandardizationofteachingprofession The unified standardization of teaching profession should provide the followingmajorcomponents: - Higherstandardsofteaching/learningforallteachers/students - Deeper learning, which shifts the focus of teaching away from a presentation-recitation mode of instruction towards teaching for conceptualunderstanding,problemsolving,andsharedintelligence


- Centralizedcurricula - Literacy and numeracy as prime targets of reform and which also determinethesuccessorfailureofpupils,teachers,schools,andentire education systems - Consequential accountability where the school performance and especially raising the quality of education, are closely tied to the processesofaccreditation,promotion,inspectionandultimatelyfunding andrewards(orpunishments).

5.2 Ifthereisanestablishmentofaunifiedstandardization,whatactionswill needtobetakentoensurefullcompliancewiththestandards? - Theremustbesomeextentofinvolvementfromtheteachersthemselves inthedevelopmentofthestandards. - Centralizedcurricula - Theuseofstandardizedtestsforteachingprofessionshouldbeprovided.

5.3 MeasurementoftheASEANEconomiccommunitysuccess - The firstmeasure is to increase the capabilities of ASEAN students, especiallytheirEnglishorskillsinthelanguagesofneighboringcountries. - The secondmeasure concerns education-standard improvement and efforts to set one same standard to facilitate student mobility and credit transfer across the region and also teacher mobility. - The thirdmeasure is to adjust education regulations to support the liberalisationofeducationalservices.

6. Conclusion Implemented effectively, competency-based education in ASEAN nations can improvequalityandconsistency,reducecosts,shortenthetimerequiredtograduate,andprovideuswithtruemeasuresofstudentlearning.Wemust: - Measurestudentlearningratherthantime. - Harnessthepoweroftechnologyforteachingandlearning.Computer-mediated instructiongivesustheabilitytoindividualizelearningforeachstudent.Because eachstudentlearnsatadifferentpaceandcomestocollegeknowingdifferent things,thisisafundamentalrequirementofcompetency-basededucation. - Fundamentallychangethefacultyrole.Whenfacultyserveaslecturers,holding scheduledclassesforaprescribednumberofweeks,theinstructiontakesplace atthelecturers’pace.Formoststudents,thiswillbethewrongpace.Somewill needtogomoreslowly;otherswillbeabletomovemuchfaster.Competency- basedlearningshiftstheroleofthefacultyfromthatof“asageonthestage” toa“guideontheside.”Facultymembersworkwithstudents,guidelearning,


answerquestions,leaddiscussions,andhelpstudentssynthesizeandapply knowledge. - Definecompetenciesanddevelopvalid,reliableassessments.Thefundamental premiseofcompetency-basededucationisthatwedefinewhatstudentsshould knowandbeabletodo,andtheygraduatewhentheyhavedemonstratedtheir competency.Thismeansthatwehavetodefinethecompetenciesveryclearly. Gettingindustryinputisessentialtomakesurethatwe’veidentifiedrelevant competencies.Once the competenciesare established,weneedexperts in assessmenttoensurethatwe’remeasuringtherightthings.

Thispaperpresentsadiscussionofteachingandlearningstrategiesthatpromotecompetency-based learningandteaching ineducation forasingleeconomicentity by 2015. Effective teaching strategies in facilitating competencydevelopment for the ASEAN economic community are described. The core qualifications and responsibilitiesofteachersandlearnersareproposed.Finally,thispaperdiscussesthe implementation of competency-based teaching and learning in Education for the ASEAN economic community.

References:Bloom,BS.An introduction tomastery learning theory. In: J. Block, Ed. Schools, SocietyandMasteryLearning.NewYork:HoltRinehartandWindston;1974.

AlbaneseMA,MejicanoG,MullanP,KokotailoP,&GruppenL.Definingcharacteristicsofeducationcompetencies.MedicalEducation42:2008,pp.248-255.

Fullerton JF,Gherissi A, JohnsonPG,& Thompson JB. (2011).Competence and competency:Coreconceptsforinternationalmidwiferypractice.InternationalJournalofChildbirth1(1).2011.DOI:10.1891/2156-5287.1.1.4

KnowlesMS,HoltonEF,&SwansonRA.Theadultlearner6thedition.Boston:Elsevier,2005.

MerriamS.&CaffarellaR.Learninginadulthood.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass,1991.

Bloom,BS,Hastings, JT,&Madaus,GG.Handbookon formative and summativeevaluationofstudentlearning.NewYork:McGraw-Hill;1971.

Bowden,JA,&Marton,F.TheUniversityofLearning:BeyondQualityandCompetence inHigherEducation.Oxford:Routledge;2004.


Bowden,JA.Competency-basededucation:Neitherapanaceanorapariah.1995.Available at: http://crm.hct.ac.ae/events/archive/tend/018bowden.html.AccessedJanuary3,2006.

Calhoun,J,Rowney,R,Eng,E,&Hoffman,Y.Competencymappingandanalysisforpublic health preparedness training initiatives. PublicHealth Reports. 2005; 120 (suppl):91-99.

Dinwakar,V.2002.Commentary:Thebabyisthrownoutwiththebathwater.BMJ.2002;525:695-696.

Gagne,RM.Theconditionsoflearningandtheoryofinstruction.4thed.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart,&Winston;1985.

Gronlund,NE.How towrite anduse instructional objectives.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Merrill.1995.Hoogveld, A, Pass, F, Jochems,W. 2005. Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: product-oriented vs. process-orientedworked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2005; 21 (pt3):287-297.

Jones, E, Voorhees, R, Paulson, K. Defining and assessing learning: Exploring competency-basedinitiatives.Washington,DC:CounciloftheNationalPostsecondaryEducationCooperative;2002.PublicationNCES2002159.

Krathwohl,DR,Bloom,BS,Masia,BB.TaxonomyofEducationalObjectives:HandbookII,AffectiveDomain.NewYork:DavidMcKay;1964.

Leung,W.2002.Competencybasedmedicaltraining:review.BMJ.2002;325:693-695.Miner, K, Childers,W, Alperin,M,Cioffi, J, &Hunt, N. TheMACHmodel: From competenciesto instructionandperformanceof thepublichealthworkforce.PublicHealthReports.2005;120(suppl1):9-15.


Accreditation, Quality Assessment and the Ranking for the Top Universities in Thailand

delivered by Dr. Pornchai Mongkhonvanit1, Dr. Nipat Jongsawat2, Parham Porouhan3, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wichian Premchaiswadi4, Siam University, Bangkok, Thailand e-mail: [email protected],1 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],4

Abstract

Nowadays,therankingofglobaluniversitieshasbecomesopopularallovertheworld that it starts influencingnationalpolicy ineducation.Whilequalityassurance can play a very important role in pointing out the strengths andweaknesses of any institution, rankings indeedgive us some idea about the performance of the universitiesaroundtheworld. Thepurposeofthispaperistopointoutthatthecurrenthighereducationevaluation,accreditation, andquality assessment in Thailand have helped universities in the countryachievequalityassuranceandmoveupinrankings.Theproposedframeworkofaccreditation,qualityassessmentandtherankingfortopuniversitiesinThailandisintroduced.Threecharacteristicsofhigh-rankinguniversities,namely,concentrationoftalent,abundantresourcesandfavorablegovernancearepresentedanddiscussedindetailtoshowthattheyareimportantforsuchpurposes.Besides,manykeyfactorssupportingthequestforbecomingahigh-rankinguniversityarealsopresentedanddiscussed.Tounderstandandvisualizethementionedconcepts,agraphicframeworkwillaccompanythepresentation.

Keywords: Accreditation,QualityAssessment,qualitycontrol

1. Introduction 1.1.QualityinHigherEducation Extensive debate has occurred overmany years about the nature of quality in higher education and the different ways in which it can be conceptualized. Forexample,Harvey(2006)distinguishesfiveconceptionsofqualityas: • Somethingexceptionalorexcellentinthesenseofexceedinghighoutcome standards; • Perfection,consistencyorabsenceofdefectsasmeasuredagainstprocess standards;


• ‘Fitnessforpurpose’,typicallyasstatedbyaninstitutionoraprogramwithinit; • ‘Valueformoney’orreturnoninvestment;and • ‘Transformation’orqualitativechangefromonestatetoanotherasapplied tothedevelopmentofstudentsthroughthelearningprocessorthecreation of new knowledge.

Of these, ‘fitnessforpurpose’and ‘excellenceandstandards’hasbeenmostinfluentialaroundtheworldinthedevelopmentofhighereducationqualityassurance.Fitnessforpurposeapproachesexplicitlyacknowledgediverseinstitutionalmissionsandthedifferences inwhat theyachieve.Standards-basedapproachesemphasizewhatinstitutionsshouldhaveincommon,especiallyintermsofthenatureandleveloflearningoutcomesthatstudentsareexpectedtodemonstrateintheiruniversitystudies(James,McInnis&Devlin2002). Though various models for a new approach to quality assurance and accreditationhavebeenreviewed;themainaimofthepaperwastodevelopaModernModelasanalternativetotheothermodelsinThailand.

1.2 QualityAssuranceandAccreditation “Qualityassurance”inhighereducationisdefinedassystematicmanagementandassessmentproceduresadoptedbyahighereducation institutionorsystemtomonitor performance and to ensure achievement of quality outputs or improved quality.Qualityassuranceaimstogivestakeholdersconfidenceaboutthemanagementofqualityandtheoutcomesachieved. “Accreditation”referstoaprocessofassessmentandreviewwhichenablesa higher education course or institution to be recognized or certified asmeeting appropriate standards. In Australia, the term accreditation has developed three specialistmeanings:aprocessofrevieworassessmentconductedbyagovernmentagencytoenableaMinisterorapprovedauthoritytorecognizeandapproveahighereducation institution or course; a process of review carried out by a government registrationbodytoenablegraduatesofparticularcoursestopracticeintheparticularState or Territory; and a process of assessment and recognition carried out professionalassociations.Inthispaper,weareprimarilyconcernedwiththefirstusage.

1.3 ThaiExperiencewithQualityAssuranceandAccreditation Globalmovement ineducationalreformhasbroughtQualityAssuranceintofocus especially in higher educational institutions. The introduction of Quality AssuranceinHigherEducationinThailandbeganin1996whenMUAannouncedthepolicyandguidelinesforQualityAssuranceinHigherEducation.TheannouncementofNationalEducationActin1999hadfurtherpromotedthequalitymovementamong


Thai institutions. According to the Act, quality assurance in educational system comprisesof internalandexternal systems. InternalQualityAssurance (IQA) is theresponsibility of the institutionand itsgoverningagency toestablisha systemand ensurethecontinuingoperationofsuchsystem.ExternalQualityAssurance(EQA)isthe responsibility of a newlyestablishedpublic organization,Officeof theNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment (ONESQA). Thispaperpresents theskeletonoutlinesofboth frameworks.Stagesofdevelopmentof IQA inThaihighereducationalinstitutionscanbedefinedintofourphasesas;introductoryphase,totalimplementationphase,internalintegrationphaseandlearningandsharingphase.Thepaperalsopresentssomeoftheexperiencesandlearninggainedfromtheprocessandchallenges facingThai institutionsand finally recommendations for continuingsustainabilityofqualityassurancesysteminhighereducation.

2. ConceptualFrameworkandProcesses 2.1.Framework. Theproposedframeworkofaccreditation,qualityassessmentandtherankingforthetopuniversitiesinThailandisintroduced.Thethreecharacteristicsofhigh-rankingUniversityareas follows: (1)Concentrationof talent-ahighconcentrationorcriticalmassoftalent,includingfaculty,staffandstudents;(2)Abundantresources-sufficientresources toprovideanextensive,comprehensive learningenvironmentanda richenvironmentforadvancedresearch;(3)Favorablegovernance-favorablegovernanceallowingandencouragingautonomy, strategic vision, innovation, efficient resourcemanagement and flexibility. The following issues such as research excellence, commitmenttohigh-qualityeducation,sustainablefunding,andoutstandingpeopleare very important to improve the quality of higher education and support the characteristics of high-rankingUniversity. In addition, the key accelerating factors supportingthequestforbecomingahigh-rankinguniversityareasfollows:(1)focusingmoreonnicheareas,(2)increasingthenumbersofinternationalscholars,(3)bringingoverseas scholars back to their country of origin, (4) introducing curriculum and pedagogical innovations, and (5) using benchmarking to orient an institution’s upgradingefforts. Ingeneral,aqualityuniversityshouldfulfil thefollowingthreemajoroutcomes inexcellence:(1)research,developmentanddisseminationofknowledge,(2)educationofitsstudents,and(3)activitiescontributingtoitscommunityandsociety.Tomaintainand raisequality of high-rankinguniversities, universityquality assurancemustbeconsidered.Thefollowingapproachesareoftenusedinuniversityqualityassurance:qualityassessment,qualityaudit,accreditation,andqualitycontrol.Qualityassessmentisgenerallyconductedinthefollowingfoursteps-definewhatqualityis,setassessmentstandards,compare the latterwith the realoutcomeanddecide towhatextent the


standardsaremet.Qualityauditinvestigateswhethertheprocessofactivityisefficient.Accreditationisoftendelegatedbythegovernmentorexternalpartytospeciallyformedassessmentagenciesasit iscommoninaccreditationof institutionsandprograms.Qualitycontrolisasystemthatcheckswhethertheproducedproductorofferedservicemeetsthesetstandards.Theseapproachesareimportanttokeepcheckingagainsttheoutcomes.Theproposedframeworkofaccreditation,qualityassessmentandtherankingforthetopuniversitiesinThailandisshowninFigure1. 2.2.InternalQualityAssurance ThebaselineforThailand’squalityassuranceframeworkliesintheestablishmentofstandardcriteriaandrequirementsetforthbytheMinistryofUniversityAffairsforalllevels of degreeprograms offered in the country. All degreeprograms offered in publicandprivatehighereducationinstitutions,includingtransnationalones,willhavetomeetthesestandardcriteriabeforeapprovalandcommencement.Overtheyears,theMUAhad transferred suchapproval authority topublic universities.Academic boardsandgoverningcouncilshavetheresponsibilitiesforthequalityofeducationalprovision including control of academic standards. Some universitiesmay invite externalexpertsforreviewingaspectsofinternalactivityandcurriculumdevelopment.The accreditation system is concernedmainlywith professional courses such asmedicine, accounting, nursing, engineeringandarchitecture.As forprivate highereducationinstitutions,programsapprovalandaccreditationareverymuchunderthesupervisionoftheMUA(nowtheCommissiononHigherEducationundertheMinistryof Education) as aquality control andconsumerprotection systems.Over the last decadetherehavebeenworldwidemovementsineducationtowardsqualityassuranceespecially in higher education. The underlying concept of the quality assurance frameworkproposedbytheMUAwasbasedonthreebasiccornerstonesofquality,namely: • QualityControl • QualityAudit,and • QualityAssessment


Figure 1: The proposed framework of accreditation, quality assessment and ranking universities in Thailand

TheframeworkbasedonbackgroundandnatureofdevelopmentofThaiuniversities,takingintoconsiderationuniversityautonomyandacademicfreedom,servesasabroadoutline foreach institution toadaptandmodify tofit their traditions.The frameworkconsistsof9aspectsofqualityfactors: 1. Philosophies,CommitmentandObjectives 2. TeachingandLearning 3. StudentDevelopmentActivities 4. Research 5. AcademicServices 6. PreservationofArtandCulture 7. AdministrationandManagement 8. FinanceandBudgeting 9. InternalQualityAssuranceSystemandMechanisms

Althoughtheframeworkspecifiessomekeyitemsconsideredtobeessentialfactorsinthequalitymanagementsystem,thereisnospecificdirectiveinstructionashowto

Focusingmoreonnicheareas,such as the science and engineeringdisciplines

Increasingthenumbersof international scholars

Bringingoverseasscholarsback to their country of origin

Introducingcurriculumandpedagogicalinnovations.

Usingbenchmarkstoorientaninstitution’seffortstoupgrade

Abundant resources

Favorablegovernance

Concentrationoftalent

Research,developmentand dissemination of knowledge

Education of its students

Activitiescontributingto its community and society

Researchexcellenceunderpinnedbyaninternational and openoutlook

Commitmenttohigh-qualityeducation

Sustainable funding

Outstandingpeople

Maintainingandraisingquality

Control

Accountability

Improvement

KeyAcceleratingFactors High-RankingUniversity

Outcomes University Quality Assurance


establishsuchasystemwithinthecontextofeachinstitution.Theideaisforeachandevery institution todevelop their own systemwhich ismost suitable to institutional environmentanduniqueness.Implementationprocess,auditproceduresandreviewcyclesarealsodependinguponthepolicymakersineachinstitution.Thiswasnoteasyataskforanyacademicinstitutionsincethequalityauditprocessandself-reflectionconceptwerebothnewtoThaiculture.

2.3.ExternalQualityAssurance TheOfficeoftheNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(ONESQA)was established in 2000 as a public independent body responsible for external assessment of all educational institutions.At the higher education level,ONESQA requires each institute to present results against 28 indicators and to review the institutionalperformancein8categoriesasfollows: 1. Quality of Graduates (4 indicators) 2. Learning Process (4 indicators) 3. LearningSupportResources(5indicators) 4. ResearchandInnovation(4indicators) 5. AcademicServices(2indicators) 6. PreservationofArtandCulture(2indicators) 7. AdministrationandManagement(5indicators) 8. InternalQualityAssuranceSystem(2indicators)

Majorityoftheindicatorsarestatisticalwithonly5descriptiveindicators.Becausethere are such differences between institutions, the use of these statistical indicators toassesstheperformanceofeachinstitutionrequiresfirstbenchmarksthatrepresentthediversityandfactorsthatcontributetodifferencesbetweenthem.Notonlyarethereno suchbenchmarks established, informationpertaining to these indicators is not usuallyreportedthroughthenormalchannelsintheinstitutionaloperations.ONESQAthendecidedthatthefirstreviewcycleistoencourageallinstitutionstopresenttheiractualperformanceandstatisticaldata togetherwith their institutional reviewreport that reflect their IQA system. The reviewcycle is set to be 5 yearswith focus on institutional assessment. Someof theguidingprinciples set forth byONESQAon externalassessmentare: 1. Ensurethathighereducationisdevelopedtothestandardsofinternational levels. 2. Upholdthequalityofacademicstandardsinhighereducationinstitutes 3. Operate under the objectives, principles and directions set forth in the National Education Act. 4. Reviewandconfirmexistingsystemoftheinstitute,assessingqualityofeach andeverymainfunctionwhilekeepinginmindtheiracademicfreedom, uniqueness,values,principles,missionsandgoals.


5. Assureandsupporttheimplementationofinternalqualityassurancesystem within the institution. 6. Employamicableassessmentprocedureswithoutlesseningtheintegrityof transparencyandaccountability. Theassessmentprocess looks into threedimensionsofdevelopmentwithin the institutions,namely: • Awareness, • Attempt,and • Achievement

Eachinstituteistosubmitdataandaself-reviewreporttotheONESQAbeforebeingsubject to external assessment visit. Additional document and reports on internal qualityassurancesystemmightberequestedtosupplementoverallunderstandingofthenatureofinstitutionpriortoon-sitevisit.Ateamofexternalreviewersconsistedofexpertsandacademiciansintherelatedareasanddisciplinesthenmakethevisitoncampusesaccordingtoapredeterminedschedule.Afterthevisitanevaluationreporttogetherwithfindingsandrecommendationswillbesentbacktotheinstitution.ThefirstroundoftheexercisewillbecompletedbyAugust2005.Beforethenweexpecttoseesomefeedbackreportsfromallstakeholdersontheassessmentprocessandcriteriabeingemployed.

3. ImplementationandDevelopment QualityAssurance systemwas establishedasper theNational EducationAct, Section47.Thequalitysystemisbasedonaninput-process-outputconcept.ThePDCAcycleinFigure3foreveryqualityaspectaimsforcontinuousandsustainablequalityimprovement. Despite the somewhat successful introduction ofQuality Assurance in higher education system inThailand, thisdoesnotdiminish theproblemsandchallenges facingmostinstitutions.Thesethreatsandchallengesbothfrominternalandexternalforcescanbesummarizedbroadlyasfollows: 1.While Thai public institutions aremoving towards autonomy, there is an atmosphereoffearanduncertaintyamongstaffsandacademicmembersespeciallyin terms of budgeting, sources of funding and continuing academic freedom. 2.MostinstitutionsadoptedthemodelrecommendedbyMUAastheirinternalqualityassuranceframework.TheframeworkfocusesmainlyattheacademicfacultywhiletheexternalassessmentofONESQAisattheinstitutionallevel.ManyinstitutionsneedtofindthebalancebetweentheirinternalassessmentandmonitoringofqualityandexternalrequirementsregulatedbyONESQA. 3. Thereisaneedtocommunicateclearlyhowthequalityassurancemechanismshaveresultedintheimprovementandchangesinthequalityofprograms,coursesandotherrelatedactivitiesandeventuallythequalityoutputandoutcome.


4. There isan international trend towards transnationaleducation. Issues likecross-borderdeliveryofprogramsandcourses,mobilityofhighereducationstudentsand staff, online degrees and offshore degrees fromoverseas institutionswill be inevitable.Thai institutionswillhavetobemore internationalizednot justmerely thecurriculumandprograms. 5.Globalcompetitionandbusinessexpansiondemandsnewbreedofworkersand leaders. Some knowledge and skill which were once considered to be among theexceptional fewwillbecomemorecommonandabasicrequirementamongalluniversitygraduates,suchascomputerliteracyandforeignlanguageproficiency. 6. TherapidchangesoftechnologyandinformationareapparentthroughtheusageofICTinteachingandlearning.Technology-mediatedlearningisachallengetoThaiacademicswhostillbelieveintheconventionalmethodofdirectin-classcontact.Thai academics have yet to strike a balance between the existing form and the ‘newform’ofdeliverymechanismstoproducethebestlearningoutput. 7. Finally,Thaiinstitutionswillhavetofacethechallengesofcosteffectivenessversusqualityandefficiency.

Althoughlearningandsharingoccursineveryphase,itisworthmentioninglearningandsharingasaseparatephase.Everylearningandsharingphasethatoccursbringstheorganizationandthepeopleintothenextlevelofimplementation,integrationandhencenewawarenessandlearning(seeFigure2).Internalqualityauditingprocesshavebroughtstaffmembersinthesameinstitutiontogethertoshareandlearnfromeachother,seekoutandpublicizebetterpracticesandappreciatetheachievementandcontributionofoneanother.MoreovertheauditprocesshastaughtThaipeopletogiveandtakecommentsinamoreconstructivemanner.Learningandsharingamonguniversitiesarealsoincreasingthroughexchangesofauditors,cross-auditprocesses,and invitedexperts forcurriculum review.Benchmarkingandnetworkingarebeingintroducedinsomedisciplineareastohelpimprovenationwidequality.

Notethatthereisanoverlappingperiodofeachphaseduetodifferentstagesofdevelopment at universities in Thailand. These stages of development are not a one-time cyclical event but rather a helical process.Many universities will see themselvesrevisitingthesestagesmanytimesinthefutureandeverytimetherewillbenew issues that surface, that new learning and understanding will bring them to the next higher level. Accordingly, a committee of assessors follows a framework for QualityAssuranceforHigherEducationwith9Aspectsand23indicatorsofInternalAcademicsasfollows: 1.Philosophy,Mission,ObjectivesandActionPlan(1indicator) 2.ProduceGraduates(8indicators) 3.TheActivitiesforDevelopingStudents(2indicators) 4.Research(3indicators)


5.AcademicServicestoSociety(2indicators) 6.PreserveArtandCulture(1Indicator) 7.AdministrationandManagement(4Indicators) 8.FinancesandBudgeting(1Indicator) 9.QualityAssuranceSystemandMechanism(1Indicator)

Figure2:Stages of Development Figure3:Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)

Moreover,theassessmentpracticesofacademicsareclearlymuchbroaderthanthewrittenmaterials they use for assessing student achievement and progress. Themore restricteddefinitionofassessmentused in thisguideprovidesaspecificpathway into improving assessment practice in general. TheQualityAssessment Frameworkhasthreedimensionsthatrepresentassessmentpracticesthathavebeenlinkedtoimprovedstudentoutcomes.Thesethreedimensionsare:intellectualrigor,significance,andstudentsupport(seeFigure4).

ContinuousQualityImprovement(CQI)

Quality

Time


Figure4: The Quality Assessment Framework

4.FutureWork Althoughtherearenodirectanswerstothechallengesabove,herearesomeoftherecommendations for continuing sustainability of the quality assurance system inhighereducation: 1. TheCommissiononHigherEducation-CHE(previouslyknownasMUA)shouldcontinuetotaketheroleofacatalystinstimulatingtheon-goingqualityactivitiesandengineernetworkingamongThaiinstitutionstowardsqualityexcellence. 2. Public understanding and stakeholders’ involvement in the internal and externalqualityassuranceprocesseswillbevitalinprovidingfeedbacktothesystem.Universitiesneedtotakeintoconsiderationtheessenceofinputandfeedbackfromdifferentgroupsandintegratethemintotheirimprovementplans. 3. Thai institutions should share and learn from each other’s experience. Moresymposiaandseminarsshouldbeorganizedatthelocalandnationallevelstofacilitateinformalandformaldebateanddiscussionsonlessonslearnedandinitiativesintherelatedtopicinqualityassessment,auditandbetterpractices.Theyshouldalsobenefit fromthewealthofknowledgeandexperiencesalreadyavailablewithinandbeyond the region through networking with relevant education institutions and agencies concerned. 4. Each institution shouldmake full use of IQAmechanism to createquality cultureandcontinuousimprovementtowardsqualityexcellence.


5. University leaders shouldmakeefforts to induce thedesire for quality an overarchingprincipleineveryoperationintheirinstitutionstocreateaqualityculture.Moreimportantlyislinkingtheinstitutionalstrategieswithinternalkeyprocessesandalignmentofresourcestoimproveperformanceandsupportorganizationaldirectionand distinction. 6.QualityAssurance, like theprocess itself is dynamic and ever changing. DevelopmentsofbothInternalandExternalQualityAssuranceshouldbecontinuouslymonitored.Periodicreviewofdevelopmentneedstobecarriedoutbythoseinvolvedintheprocess.

ReferencesAltbach,PhillipG.2006.‘TheDilemmasofRanking’,InternationalHigherEducation,42(2–3):2–3.

Altbach, PhillipG., SumaChitnis, andSchultz, TheodoreW. 1961. ‘Investment in HumanCapital’,AmericanEconomicReview,March,51(1):1–17.Stella,Anthony.2002.ExternalQualityAssurance in IndianHigherEducation:CaseStudyof theNational Assessment andAccreditationCouncil (NAAC). Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Martin,Michaela andAntony Stella. 2007, ExternalQuality Assurance inHigher Education:MakingChoices.Paris:UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganizationandInternationalInstituteofEducationalPlanning.

Tilak, J. B.G. 2004. ‘Absence of Policy and Perspective in Higher Education’, EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,39(21):2159–64.Velaskar, Padma. 2010. ‘Quality and Inequality in IndianEducation: SomeCriticalPolicyConcerns’,ContemporaryEducationDialogue,7(1):58–93.

Wende,Marjik vander. 2008. ‘Rankings andClassifications inHigher Education: AEuropeanPerspective’, in JohnC. Smart (ed.),Higher Education:Handbook ofTheoryandResearch,vol.23.London:Springer.Winch,Christopher.2010.‘SearchforEducationalQuality:TheDialecticof InputsandOutputs’,ContemporaryEducationDialogue,7(1):19–40.


Winston,GordonC.1999.‘Subsidies,HierarchyandPeers:TheAwkwardEconomicsofHigherBureauofHigherEducationStandards(2003).AllinOne:Policies,QAand Cooperation.Bangkok:MinistryofUniversityAffairs.DepartmentofEducation,TrainingandYouth(2000).QualityAssuranceandAccreditationinAustralianHigherEducation.Anationalseminaronfuturearrangements.CommonwealthofAustralia.EuropeanNetworkforQualityAssuranceinHigherEducation(2003).QualityProceduresinEuropeanHigherEducation.AnENQASurvey.Helsinki,FinlandHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(2003).GuidetoPerformanceindicators inHigherEducation.

Massy,W.F.(2003).AssesstoWhat?Putting“Quality”intoNationalQualitySystem.Keynoteaddresson“QualityandStandards:TheNationalPerspective” to the2003conferenceof the InternationalNetwork onQualityAssuranceAgencies inHigher Education(INQAAHE),Dublin,Ireland,April14-17,2003.

MonashUniversity(2002).StillLearning:theReportofOurSelf-review.OfficeoftheNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(2001).GuidelineforExternalAssessmentforHigherEducation.

TheNationalUnion of Student of Europe (2002). EuropeanStudent handbook on QualityAssuranceinHigherEducation.


Evaluation Ethics

delivered by Frank Ying

Preface

“Thestonesofthosehillsmaybeusedtopolishgems.”Aseriesofprinciplesaboutevaluationethicsshouldbeestablishedonthewaytoprofessionalism.Alltherelatedevaluationpersonnel canbase theseprinciples tomake their own judgmentwhile processing the evaluation andproper adjustments that are necessary to gowith the change of the social needs tomeet diverse education evaluation standards. Furthermore, turning to theguidelines for adifferent evaluationare followedwhen drawingup theirownprofessionalethics.Fairnessand justicearenot theonly two ingredientsthatneedtobeconfirmedbyevaluationethics.Credibilityneedstobebuiltupatthesametime.Withouttheunanimity,theutopiansituationofevaluationcouldbedifficulttoreach.

Standards & Principles HigherEducation’seducationalaccountabilitieshavebecomeacross-bordertrend.Therefore,severalcountriesareworkinghardtomakeitbettertoensuretheprogressofeducationdevelopmentandevaluationprocedures.Asseveralaspectsandpeoplemight be includedwhile processing the evaluation, the appropriate courses and standardized implementation have become the crucial pointswhenmaking the patternsormodels. A. Identification B.Confidentiality C.Objectivity D.Justice E. ConflictsofInterest

Guidelines A. PreparationofanEvaluation a. RightsConfirmation b. ContractsCompletion c. Knowledge&AbilityCompetence d. EvaluatorRecruitmentStandards B.ConductionofanEvaluation a. ProcedureAppropriateness b. InformationCollection c. ResultConfidentialityLegitimacy d. SecondaryInjuryAvoidance


C.ConclusionofanEvaluation a. ReportCompleteness b. OpinionDeclarationObjectivity c. InformationAnnouncementCredibility

Postscript Themost importantprinciple to complete educationethics is “professionalism”; therefore, theworstcaseofviolating theeducationethnics is the lackofeducation ethicswhileimplementingevaluation.


THAI Pre-Service Science Tearcher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Exploratory Study delivered by Chittamas Suksawang* Science Education Program, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand e-mail: *[email protected]

Abstract

PedagogicalContentKnowledge(PCK)development isconsideredasagoalofteacher education. Thepurposeof this studywas to explore theunderstandingof Thaipre-service science teachers’ PCK in apre-service science teacherprogram. Theparticipantsofthisstudywerefivefifth-yearpre-servicescienceteachers(PSTs)froma university located inBangkokwho enrolled in the field experience course in2013.TwoPSTsfieldexperiencetookplaceataschoolthatwasrunbytheOffice ofBasicEducationCommission,whiletheotherstookplaceataschoolthatwasrunbyBangkokDistrictOffices.Thisstudywasaninterpretivequalitative-basedresearchwithmultiplecasestudies.Intheexploratoryphase,astudywasconductedtoexplorepre-servicescienceteachers’pedagogicalcontentknowledge in thefirstsemester.Multipledatasourcesconsistedofclassroomobservation,semi-structureinterviewofPSTs’lessonplansandteachingpracticeswithPSTsandtheircooperatingteachers,university supervisor’s reflective journals of PSTs’ lesson plans and teaching practices includingdocument review. Inductiveanalysiswithconstant comparativemethodwas used in this study. The results revealed that PSTs’ PCKmay not be sufficient. Theyhavehad limitedknowledge inall thecomponentsofPCKnamely:orientations toward teaching science, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of students understanding of science, knowledge of instructional strategies and knowledge of assessment in science including content knowledge. Also the study target of PSTs cannot integrate all kinds of PCK components appropriately and effectivelyintheirteaching.

Keywords: Pedagogicalcontentknowledge,pre-servicescienceteachers,student teachingpractices


Introduction: In the past three decades, many studies have focused on the increased attentiontoteacherknowledgeandhowit isdeveloped(BorkoandPutnam,1996).MuchofthisinterestwasstimulatedbyShulman’s(1986)modelthatintroducedtheconceptofpedagogicalcontentknowledge(PCK)asadistinctivebodyofknowledgefor teaching.PCK is anacknowledgement to the importanceof the transformation of subjectmatter knowledgeper se into subjectmatter knowledge for teaching. Hismodel of teacher knowledge incorporating the formation of PCK has had an important impacton teachereducation (Shulman,1986,1987).HedefinedPCKas “theamalgamofcontentandpedagogythatisuniquelytheprovinceofteachers,theirownspecialformofprofessionalunderstanding”(p.8). More recently, Loughran, Berry, and Mulhal (2012) reconceptualize PCK as theknowledge that teachersdevelopover time,and throughexperience,about howtoteachparticularcontentinparticularwaysinordertoleadtoenhancedstudentunderstanding.Itstandstoreasonthatinordertorecognizeandvaluethedevelopmentof their ownPCK, teachers need to have a rich conceptual understanding of the particularsubjectcontentthattheyteach.Thisrichconceptualunderstanding,combinedwithexpertiseindeveloping,usingandadaptingteachingprocedures,strategiesandapproachesforuseinparticularclasses,ispurposefullylinkedtocreatetheamalgamofknowledgeofcontentandpedagogythatShulman(1986,1987)describedasPCK.Therefore, PCK is the uniquecombination of content andpedagogical knowledge thathelpsteacherstransformsciencecontentintolearningexperiencesforstudents.Thisspecialknowledgeultimatelydifferentiatestheexpertiseofscienceteachersfromthatofscientists(NationalResearchCouncil,1996;Shulman,1986,1987). The purpose of this studywas to explore the understanding of Thai fifth-year pre-servicescienceteachers’PCKduringteachingpracticesinthefirstsemester,2013.

Theoretical Framework

Shulman(1987)proposedsevendomainsofteacherknowledgeemphasizingthatteachingisacomplexprocessrequiringteacherstoapplyknowledgefrommultipledomains. The domains are content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculumknowledge,pedagogicalcontentknowledge,knowledgeof learnersandtheir characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts and knowledge of educationalends,purposes,andvalues.Of thesedomains,hehighlightedPCKasfollows: Itrepresentstheblendingofcontentandpedagogyintoanunderstandingof howparticulartopics,problems,orissuesareorganized,represented,and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners andpresented for instruction.(p.8)


Grossman (1990)buildsonShulman’s ideas tohighlight the relationshipamongthreeknowledgedomainsthatinfluenceateacher’sPCK.Theseknowledgedomainsincludesubjectmatterknowledgeandbeliefs,pedagogicalknowledgeandbeliefs,andknowledgeandbeliefsaboutthecontext.AccordingtoGrossman,PCKisatypeof knowledge that is transformed from these three knowledge domains and is more powerful than its constituent parts.Her study of beginning teachers, reported that PCKisdevelopedfromthefollowingsources:observationofclassesasastudentandteacher, specific courses during teacher education, and classroom teaching experience. Magnusson, Krajcik andBorko’s PCKmodel (1999) elaborates on Shulman’s andGrossman’swork and conceptualizes PCKas consisting of five components including orientations toward teaching science, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of students’ understanding of science, knowledge of instructional strategies and knowledge of assessment in science. Since then,many researchers have conceptualized on PCKby adding other components. Thedifferent componentsofPCKbydifferent researchersare shown inTable1. PCKistheconceptualframeworkforthisstudy.Specifically,theauthordrawsuponMagnusson et al (1999) as the basis for the decision to focus attention on the componentsofPCKforteachingscience(seeFigure1).KnowinghowPSTsintegratethosecomponentsduringfieldexperiences.

Table1.DifferentcomponentsofPCK

1.purposesofteaching science2. science curriculum3.students4. instructional strategies5. subject matter6.context7.assessmentinscience

PCKPCK PCK

PCKPCK

PCKPCKPCKPCK

PCK

PCKPCKPCK

PCKPCKPCKPCK

PCK

PCKPCKPCK

PCK

PCKPCKPCKPCK

PCK

Knowledgeof Shulman(1986)

Grossman(1990)

Magnusson et al.(1999)

Smith(2000)

Friedrichsenet al.(2007)

Henze et al. (2007)

ParkandOlive(2008)

Researchers’conceptionsofPCKcomponents


Figure 1: Components of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching scienceSource: Adapted from Magnusson et al. (1999: 99)

Methodology: Thisstudywasaninterpretivequalitative-basedresearchwithmultiplecasestudies.Themain feature of case study research focused on aparticular situation, event, program,orphenomenon(Merriam,1998).

Participants The participants in this study included five Thai fifth-year pre-service science teachers (PSTs) in the division of Science Teaching of Faculty of Education from onelargeuniversity locatedinBangkokwhoenrolledinthefieldexperiencecoursewhich was conducted in the first semester, 2013, consisting of two PSTs with Chemistrymajor, twoPSTswith Physicsmajor, and onePSTswithBiologymajor, respectively.Before theirone-yearof teachingpracticeduring thefinalfifthyearof theprogram, thePSTswere required to pass all courses taken in education and science subject areasduring theprevious four years. Pseudonymswere used to representthePSTs’names.Weera,Mana,andPiti’sfieldexperiencestookplaceat a school, run by Bangkok District Offices, while Jantorn and Chujai’s field experiencestookplaceataschool,runbytheOfficeofBasicEducationCommission.

PedagogicalContentKnowledge

Orientationstoward teaching

science

Knowledgeofstudents’s

understandingofscience

Knowledgeofassessment in

science

Knowledgeofscience curriculum

Knowledgeofinstructional

strategies

Beliefsofpurposesandgoalsfor

teaching science at aparticular grade level

Goalsandobjectivesfor

teaching science

Requirementsforlearning science

Areasofstudentdifficultyfor

learning science

Dimensionsofscience learning to

assess

Methodsofassessment in

science

Subject-specificinstructional

strategies

Topic-specificinstructional

strategies

includes

including

influences

influences influencesinfluences influences

including including includingincluding including includinginfluences+


Likewise,pseudonymswereused to represent their cooperating teachers’ names: Mrs.SamornwascooperatingteacherofWeera;Mr.SomsakwascooperatingteacherofManaandPiti;Mrs.Siriwascooperating teacherofJantorn;andMs.Somsriwascooperating teacher ofChujai, respectively. Table 2 provided additional general informationaboutthePSTs.

Table2.GeneralinformationaboutthePSTs

Participants Sex MajorCurrent science

teaching Assignment

Topicsofobservedlessons

Weera

Mana

Piti

Jantorn

Chujai

Male

Male

Male

Male

Female

Biology

Physics

Physics

Chemistry

Chemistry

5th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

-Animals’sexualreproduction-Vertebratesandnon-vertebrates- Density- Resultant force

-Plantresponsestostimuli-TyndallEffect-Acid-basepropertiesofsolution-Thepropertiesofacidicsolution

-Excretory-Nutrientsthatprovideenergy-Thepropertiesofelements-Thepropertiesofcompounds

- State of matter- Solution-Acid-basepropertiesofsolution- Acid-base in daily life

-Substanceseparationbychromatography-Structureandcomponents of the Earth-Nutrientsthatprovideenergy-Nutrientsthatprovidenoenergy


Data collection ToexploretheunderstandingofThaipre-servicescienceteachers’PCK,multipledatasourceswereusedinthisstudy.Theauthor’sroleasPSTs’universitysupervisorwasanon-participantobserver in theclassroom.AllPSTs’classroom lessonswerevideorecorded.ThetopicsofobservedlessonsconsistedoffourtopicsforeachofPSTs.ThePSTswerealsointerviewedindividuallybyoneoftheauthorafterthelessons.Theywereaskedtoshowandexplaintheir lessonplans,reportandreflectontheirteaching practices. All interviewswere conducted in a semi-structuredway that allowed the PSTs to tell their own expectations and reflections. The author also interviewedtheircooperatingteachersafterthelessonsaboutPSTs’lessonplansandteachingpractices.All the interviewswerealsorecordedandtranscribedverbatim. Inaddition, theauthorwrote reflective journalsofPSTs’ lessonplansand teachingpracticesaftercompletingeachofclassroomobservations.Thedocumentsaslessonplans,worksheets,assignments,andreflectivejournalswerereviewedasadditionaldata.

Data Analysis MethodologicaltriangulationwasachievedthroughmultipledatasourcessuchasPSTs’ lessonplans, interview transcriptions, fieldnotes,anddocument review.Thevalidation of the interpretationwaspromotedby applying inductive analysiswith constant comparativemethod, inwhich categories, properties, and hypothesizes wereusedtoprovideconceptuallinksbetweenandamongcategoriesandproperties.Itwasusedtoanalyzedatabyassessingcodesthatreflectvariouscategoriesandproperties to unit of data through sorting them into groups of like substance or meaning(Merriam,1998).Thisinvolvedthecomparisonoftheanalysisoftheinterviewtranscriptionswithothersourcessuchaslessonplans,fieldnotesanddocumentreview.Theauthorcodedthelessonplan,interviewtranscriptions,anddocumentreviewusingthefivecategoriesofPCKmodel (Magnussonetal., 1999): (a)orientations towardteachingscience, (b)knowledgeofsciencecurriculum, (c)knowledgeofstudents’understanding of science, (d) knowledge of instructional strategies and (e) knowledge ofassessmentinscience.Withmultiplecasestudies,datawereanalyzedforinsightsbothwithineachcaseandacrossthecases(Merriam,1998).TheauthorthenanalyzedthefivePSTs’dataforpatternsandthemesacrossthedataset.

Credibility The author achievedmethodological triangulation (Guba and Lincoln, 1989) bycollectingdatafrommultiplesources:lessonplans,interviewtranscriptions,fieldnotes,anddocumentreview.Thisprocessallowedthesamedatatobeviewedfromvariousperspectives,whichclarifiedthemeaningofthedatainthelargercontext.Inaddition,theauthorconductedmembercheck(GubaandLincoln,1989)toestablish


credibility, toclarifymeaning,andtochecktheaccuracyofthedatafromthePSTs and theircooperating teachers’ interview transcriptionsbyasking them to read thetranscriptionsofdialoguesinwhichtheyhadparticipated.Heretheemphasisshouldbe on whether they consider that their words match what they actually intended. Results and Discussion The PSTs hold didactic and guided inquiry orientations. OrientationstowardteachingsciencebaseduponMagnussonetal.(1999)weredividedintonineorientations:process,academicrigor,didactic,conceptualchange,activity-driven, discovery, project-based science, inquiry and guided inquiry orientations. According to the PSTs’ orientations to teaching sciencewhichwere considered from thecharacteristics of the instruction, the results revealed that the different orientationwhich almost PSTs, exceptMana,maintainedwas didactic orientations that focused on transmitting basic information to their students by telling. Considering the PSTs’ lesson plans and the author’s field notes of observation, the characteristics of the instructions which were related to didactic orientation includedthetopicsofanimals’sexualreproduction(inthecaseofWeera),excretoryandthepropertiesofelements(inthecaseofPiti)stateofmatterandacid-baseindaily life (in thecaseofJantorn),andnutrients thatprovidenoenergy(in thecase ofChujai), respectively. The teaching sequences of these topicswere primarily questioning and answering session, followed by a lecture using power point presentationoraskingstudentstoreadsciencetextbooksandclosingwithstudents’completing the worksheet. According to the interview transcription, the PSTs explainedtheirgoalsforteachingscienceasfollows: “IwantedstudentstoremembersciencecontentthatItaughtthem...Iused powerpointpresentationinthetopicofexcretory...”(1stInterviewofPiti,June 18,2013). “Iwantedstudentstogaintheknowledgeofnutrientsthatprovidenoenergy... Ithoughtthatreadingfromthetextbookwasthebestwaytocoverallofthe contents...”(4stInterviewofChujai,September4,2013). The results implied that in these topics, the PSTs focused their teaching on teacher-centeredapproach.Theywanted their students to listen to the lectureandrememberthesciencecontentstheytold.Theybelievedthatthestudentswouldbemore interested in their lectures, andcould remember sciencecontents theyhavetaught.ThefindingsareconsistentwithFriedrichsen,Lankford,Pareja,Volkmann,andAbell (2007),stated that thePSTsholddidactic teachingorientations.They tend tobelievethatscienceteachingisteacher-centeredapproach. In contrast, the PSTs developed amore student-centered science teaching orientation, the results revealed that the sameorientationwhich all PSTsholdwasguidedinquiryorientation.ConsideringthePSTs’lessonplansandtheauthor’sfield


notes of observation, the characteristics of the instructionswhichwere related toguided inquiry orientation included the topics of vertebrates andnon-vertebrates, density,andresultantforce(inthecaseofWeera),plantresponsestostimuli,Tyndalleffect,acid-basepropertiesofsolution,andthepropertiesofacidicsolution(in the caseofMana),nutrientsthatprovideenergyandthepropertiesofcompound(inthecaseofPiti), solutionandacid-basepropertiesof solution (in thecaseof Jantorn), and substance separation by chromatography, the structure and components of the Earth and nutrients that provide energy (in the case ofChujai), respectively. The teachingsequencesof these topicswereprimarily introducing the lessonwithvarious situations or examples followedby questioning to explore students’ prior knowledge,askingstudentstodohands-onactivitiesorexperimentsinsmallgroups,concluding the lessonwith students andgiving related examples and exercises. According to the transcription of the interview, thePSTs explained their goals for teachingscienceasfollows: “Iwantedstudents tohave fun inscienceclass...I thought thatmystudents shoulddoactivitiesbythemselvessothattheycouldunderstandtheconcept (plantresponsestostimuli)theyhavelearned...”(1stInterviewofMana,June 18,2013). “Iwantedstudentstofindscienceinteresting...Ididnotwantstudentstobe boredsoItriedtoachievethisgoalbymakingsciencerelevanttotheirdaily lives...”(1stInterviewofWeera,June18,2013).

Theresultsimpliedthatinthesetopics,thePSTswantedstudentstounderstandthephysicalworld, particularlywith respect to using the tools of science, to construct scientific concept by their own. The characteristics of the instruction focused on student-centeredapproach.ThefindingsareconsistentwithFriedrichsenetal.(2007),stated that thePSTs shouldbedeveloped toprovideorientations toward teaching sciencewhich focused on student-centered orientationsbecause they influenced toseveralkindsofknowledge.

‘The PSTs’ understanding of science curriculum was limited to the scope and sequence of concepts, and nature of science.’

The PSTs’ understanding of science curriculumwas limited. They lacked the knowledgeofthegoalsandobjectivesforstudents inthesciencesubjectthattheywereteaching.Concerninglearningobjectiveintheirlessonplans,thePSTsheavily focused on cognitive and affective domains, but some PSTs did not focus on psychomotor domain. Regarding to the PSTs’ lesson plans, some PSTs wrote learningobjectiveswhichwerenotrelevanttotheindicatorsinthe8thgrade:nature of science,and the instructional strategies.Forexample,whenPitiwrotehis lesson


plan in the topic of excretory, hismajor teaching objectiveswas to help students tobeabletoexplainaboutexcretorythroughthelargeintestine,lung,kidneyandskin.Theotherswere tohelpstudents tobeable to inferandmakeconclusion fromthe data, and to participate in expressing opinions.However, the evidence from the author’s field note showed that he emphasized only students’memorization of excretory.Heheavily focusedon lecturing tocoverall requirementsof thecontent usingapowerpointpresentationratherthantoenhancestudents’thinkinganddeepunderstandingbydoingvariousactivities. InthecaseofJantorn,whenhewrotehislessonplaninthetopicofacid-baseindailylife,hismajorteachingobjectivesweretohelpstudentstobeabletoexplaintheimportanceofacid-baseindailylife,classifythesubstancesindailylifeintogroups,andintendtotheclass.However,theevidencefromtheauthor’sfieldnoteshowedthatheaskedhisstudentstoreadthecontentofclassifyingacid-baseindailylifeinschool’stextbook, and he later used apower point presentation to present the properties of acid-base in daily life, and at the end of the class, he asked his students about classifying the acid-base in daily life into groups and the criteria of classifying. The results revealed that he heavily focusedon students’memorization insteadof fullyunderstandingbydoinghands-onactivities. Likewise,thePSTsalsodidnotmentionabout learnerquality, learningstandard, aswellas the indicatorsandcorecontentof theBasicEducationCoreCurriculum B.E.255(2008)ofsciencelearningareaandschoolcurriculum.Inaddition,theylackedtheknowledgeof thearticulationofguidelinesacross topicsaddressedduring theschool year. It also included theknowledge theyhadabout thevertical curriculum insciencesubjectarea.Accordingtotranscriptionoftheinterview,thePSTsdidnotmentionwhatstudentshadlearnedinpreviousyearsandwhattheywereexpectedtolearninthelateryears.ThePSTs’opinionstatedasfollows: “Iwasuncertainaboutwhatthe8thgradestudentsshouldlearnaboutthe propertiesofelements…Ididnotknowwhattheyhadlearnedandwhatthey should know…I followed the school’s textbook…” (3rd Interview of Piti, August30,2013). “Iwasnotsurewhatstudentshadlearnedaboutforceinthepreviousyears…I didnotviewsciencecurriculum…”(4thInterviewofWeera,September10,2013). The results implied that thePSTsdidnot recognize theneed for sequencingof topics.Theyalsoreliedheavilyontextbooks.Moreover,theylackedtheunderstandingofnatureofscience(NOS).Theydidnot integrateNOS into their lessonplansandteachingpractices.Although,somePSTsmentionedonNOSinthelearningobjectives,during teachingpractices they taught the student by telling the conceptwithout hands-on,minds-onactivities.ThefindingsareconsistentwithAbd-El-Khalick,Bell,andLederman(1998),statedthatthePSTsdidnotunderstandofconceptionsoftheNOS and could not teach them to their students.


‘The PSTs lacked prerequisite knowledge required for students to learn specific concepts, knowledge of the abilities and skills that students might need for teaching, and knowledge of areas of student difficulties for teaching science topics which were different from their major.’

The PSTs did not know the prerequisite knowledge and knowledge of the abilitiesandskillsrequiredforstudentstolearnscienceconcepts.Accordingtothetranscriptionoftheinterview,thePSTsstatedasfollows: “Iwasnotquitesurewhatconceptsthestudentsshouldknowabouttheproper tiesofcompoundsbeforetheycametomyclass…becausemymajorwasphysics, Ididnotknowwellaboutchemistry…”(4thInterviewofPiti,September10,2013). “Ididnotknowwhatstudentsshouldknowaboutresultantforcebeforethey cametomyclass…”(4thInterviewofWeera,September10,2013).

ThePSTsalsowerenotawareofstudents’approachestolearning,andthestudents’differentneedsandabilities.Accordingtothetranscriptionoftheinterview,thePSTsstatedasfollows: “7thGradestudentsthatItaughthaddifferentabilities…Itaught2classesin thesameway…”(3thInterviewofMana,September2,2013). “I taught 3 classesofmy students on the topic of nutrients thatprovideno energy in thesameway…Iaskedthemtoreadaboutvitaminsandminerals from the school’s textbookand topresentwhat theyhad learned from it…” (4thInterviewofChujai,September4,2013).

In addition, they did not know the students’ learning difficulties in science. Theycannotidentifythestudents’misconceptions.Accordingtotheauthor’sfieldnotesofobservation,thePSTscannotcorrectstudents’misconceptions.Forexample,Mana’scase,whenhetaughtstudentstheTyndalleffect,heaskedstudentstopresent theresultsaftershootingalightbeamtothevarioussamplesindailylifesuchasmilk,mud,potassiumpermanganatesolution,syrup,vegetableoil,coconutmilk,liquidsoap,andsoft drink. Students stated that some samples showed the Tyndall effect such as potassiumpermanganatesolutionandsyrupwhiletheothersstatedthatcoconutmilkdidnotshow theTyndalleffect. In relation to thestudents’alternativeconceptions, Manadidnotcorrect theiranswersorgive them thecorrectexplanationabout theTyndall Effect. Besides, in Piti’s case, when he taught his students the element properties,heaskedhisstudentstoclassifytheobjectsindailylifesuchassteelruler,plastictoy,rubber,cork,andzincsheetwithoutthesamplesofmetalloid.Heonlyaskedhisstudents toobservetheseobjectswithoutdoinghands-onactivities.Theresultsshowedthatthestudentsclassifiedtheobjectsinto2groupsasmetalsandnon-metals.Concerningthestudents’answers,Pitiwasnotawareoftheiranswers,andhedidnot


explain about the correct classifying of substances according to their properties. Heonlytoldhisstudentsthattheobjectscouldbeclassifiedinto2groupsofmetalsandnon-metalsusingtheconductivityascriteriaofclassifying.

ThefindingsareconsistentwithVanDriel,DeJong,andVerloop(2002),statedthatthe PSTs not only lacked the knowledge of student difficulties, they also lacked scientificcontentknowledge.

‘The PSTs used didactic and guided inquiry teaching strategies.’

The PSTs’ knowledge of subject-specific instructional strategies is related to the orientations to teaching science.Weera, Piti, Jantorn, and Chujai applied teacher-centered, didactic instructional strategy to transmit knowledge by lecturing to thestudents;equatingteachingwith telling.Theybegintheir lessonswithabriefquestionandanswersession,followedbyalectureoraskingstudentstoreadsciencetextbook andconcludingwith student’s completion of theworksheet. Thepurpose ofthequestioningstrategywasnottobuilduponstudents’priorknowledge,butforPSTstofocusonlecturingtheirstudents,tomotivatethemtolistentothelecture,andtodetermine the startingpoint of the lecture.According to the transcriptionof the interview,thePSTsstatedasfollows: “Ididnotknowhowtoteachthebiologytopics…Igavelecturesutilizingpower pointpresentation…”(1stInterviewofPiti,June18,2013). “Onthetopicofnutrientsthatprovidenoenergy,Iaskedmystudentstoread thebenefitofvitaminsandmineralsfromthetextbookandtodotheexercise by selecting some kinds of vitamins orminerals thatwill benefit them… ” (4thInterviewofChujai,September4,2013).

The resultswere relevant to thePSTs’cooperating teachers’ transcriptionof theinterviewasfollows: “I thought that themajor of Pitiwasphysics, hemight not fully understand othersubjectareashetaught…heplayedanotherroleastutorsothathemight beable to tell theconcepts tohisstudents…” (1st InterviewofMr.Somsak, June18,2013) “Inthistopic(nutrientsthatprovidenoenergy),heaskedstudentstoreadthe contentfromtextbook...Ithoughtthatshewasnotconfidentinherteachingof thistopic...”(4thInterviewofMr.Somsri,September4,2013)

The findings are consistentwithMagnusson et al. (1999), reported that a lack ofsubjectmatterknowledgehadbothbeenlinkedtothe ineffectiveuseofsubject-specificstrategies,suggestingthatthedevelopmentofPCKrelativetothiscomponent


requiresdrawinguponknowledge fromeachof the threebasedomainsof teacherknowledge:subjectmatter,pedagogy,andcontext. Besides, all PSTs implemented a student-centered, guided inquiry approach. Forexample,whenManawrotehislessonplanonthetopicofthepropertiesofacidicsolution, hismajor teachingobjectiveswere to help students tobeable to explain aboutthepropertiesofacidicsolution,theexperimentandtomakeaconclusionofthepropertiesofacidicsolution,andworkcooperatively.Theevidencefromtheauthor’sfieldnoteshowedthathestartedthelessonbyquestioningstudentstoexploretheirpriorknowledgeaboutthepropertiesofacidicsolution,theacidicsubstancesintheirdailylives,andthesituationofeggshelldissolvedinvinegar.Thiswasfollowedbytheexperimentationsofpropertiesofacidicsolutionusinghydrochloricacidandsulfuricacidwithlitmuspaper,phenolphthalein,limestone,andzinc.Healsoaskedthestudentstoworkcooperativelyingroups.Thestudentswereinterestedbecausethelearningmaterialswererelevanttotheirdailylives.Next,heconcludedthelessonwithstudentsandgaverelatedexamplesandexercises. OnthecaseofJantorn,whenhewrotehislessonplanonthetopicofthesolution,hismajorteachingobjectivesweretohelpstudentsexplainthepropertiesofsolution,experimentofthedissolutionofsoluteandsolvent,itsintenttotheclass.Theevidencefromtheauthor’sfieldnoterevealedthathebeganbyshowingtheclasswithvarioussamplesof substance indaily lifebyquestioning students’ prior knowledgeof the solution, followedbydoing3experiments: theproperties of solution,dissolutionofsoluteindifferentkindsofsolvent,anddissolutionofsolventindifferentkindsofsolute,respectively.Inthefirstexperiment,heaskedthestudentstodohands-onactivities byevaporatingthesamplesofsodiumchloridesolution,softdrink,andsyrup.Inthesecondone,heaskedthestudentstodoanexperimentonthedissolutionofsolute indifferentkindsofsolvent.Thesolutewassugar,andthesolventswerewaterandethanol.Thelastexperimentwasthedissolutionofsolventindifferentkindsofsolute.The solvent waswater, and the soluteswere vegetable oil, sugar, and copper (II)sulfate.Healsoaskedthestudentstoworkcooperativelyingroups.Attheendofthe class, he concluded the lessonwith students andgave relatedexamples and exercises. The resultswere relevant to thePSTs’cooperating teachers’ transcriptionof theinterviewasfollows: “He focused on the student-centered approach...he placed emphasis on doing experiments ...I think his students liked theway he taught them...” (4thInterviewofMr.Somsak,September10,2013). “Ithoughtthatheimplementedthestudent-centeredapproach...Heaskedthe studentstodovariousactivities...”(the2ndInterviewofMrs.Siri,July24,2013). TheresultsimpliedthatthePSTsimplementedastudent-centeredapproachusingteaching sequencesas introducing the lessonwith various situationsor examples


followedbyquestioning to explore the students’ prior knowledge, asking students todohands-onactivitiesorexperimentsinsmallgroups,concludingthelessonwithstudents andgiving relatedexamples andconducting exercises. The findings areconsistentwithauthors(BozandBoz,2008), reportedthatpedagogicalknowledge and subject matter knowledge, and were found to be the main factors for choosing a teachingstrategy.ThePSTswhohadthesedomainsofknowledgecouldadaptnewstrategiesforteachingscienceappropriately.

‘The PSTs used examples as topic-specific representations, as well as investigations and experiments as topic-specific activities.’

AllPSTsusedthesametopic-specificrepresentations,asexamples.Thefindingsimplied that the PSTs had limited knowledge of topic-specific representations. Theyonlymentionedexamplesbuttheydidnotmentionotherrepresentationssuchasmodels,analogies,explanation,andexplanationswithexamples.Thismightinfluencethe students’misconceptions. The factor that influencedusingPSTs’ topic-specificrepresentationwascontentknowledge.ThefindingsconsistentwithSander,Borko,andLockard(1993),reportedthatthePSTscouldnotanswerstudents’questionsorexplaintothestudentswhohadmisconceptionsthatcausedbythelackofknowledgeoftopic-specificrepresentations,aswellascontentknowledge. Moreover,allPSTsusedthesametopic-specificactivitieswiththe investigationsandexperiments.ThefindingimpliedthatsomePSTsfocusedheavilyontextbooks ormanualswithout using other activities such as problems, demonstrations, and simulations.ConsistentwithDeJongandVanDriel(2004),reportedthatthePSTswholackedcontent knowledge, couldnotdesignor adapt variousactivities. The factor that influenced to PSTs’ instructional planningwas teaching science topics that weren’trelevanttotheirsciencemajors.Theyhaddifficultiesmakingdecisionsoftheinstruction and materials.

The PSTs’ knowledge of assessment in science may not be sufficient.

AllPSTsassessedthestudents’learninginsciencewithoutappropriateassessmentcriteria,andtheassessmentprocessestheyusedwerenotconsistentwith learningobjectives in their lessonplans.Theyalsodidnot focusonalternativeassessment. The PSTs focused on traditional forms of assessments with worksheets, tests orquizzes,inshortanswerresponses.ThefindingswereconsistentwithFriedrichsenet al.(2007),whichreportedthatthePSTshadlimitedtheknowledgeofassessmentinscience.Theydidnotuseanalternativeassessment,butfocusedheavilyonstudents’worksheets.Theyalsodidnotidentifyassessmentcriteriainthelessonplans.


Conclusions and Implications Basedon the results of the study, theauthor concluded that in this exploratory phase, the PSTs’ PCKmay not be sufficient. They had limited knowledge of all components of PCK: orientations toward teaching science, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of students’ understanding of science, knowledge of instructional strategies and knowledge of assessment in science including content knowledge.TheyalsocouldnotintegrateallkindsofPCK’scomponentandcontentknowledgeappropriatelyandeffectively.TheresultsindicatethatthePSTsinvariousdisciplinesdonothavesufficientunderstandingofPCK.The resultsareconsistent withthepreviousstudy(Friedrichsenetal.,2007). Thishasimplications,asitwouldtendtoindicatethatthePSTs’fieldexperiencestookplaceatschoolswithoutintegratingallcomponentsofPCK,andcontentknowledgeappropriatelyandeffectively.Moreover,when theydidnot fullyunderstandcontentknowledge,itinfluencedinstructionalstrategieswhichimplementedateacher-centeredapproach,aswellasteachinginthewaythatcausedstudents’alternativeconceptions.When the PSTs hold alternative conceptions, they had difficulties identifying theirstudents’alternativeconceptionsandcorrectingthem(Magnussonetal.,1999).Therefore, it may be suggested that the science teacher preparation program shouldgobacktothecourses ineducationandsciencetodevelopthePSTs’PCKduringfieldexperiences.Moreover,thePSTswillbeawareoftheimportanceofPCKdevelopment, thus they shouldbeprovidedwith pre-service training,workshops, ormentoringsothattheycandeveloptheirPCK. Regarding the limitation of the findings in the study, it is not possible tomake ageneralizationtothewholePSTsinThailand,becausetheauthorjustrepresentedPCKwithasmallportiononparticipantswhoenrolledinthefieldexperiencecourse in2013,atauniversitylocatedinBangkok.However,itwouldbevaluabletoaddressthesePCK issues to a larger number of thePSTs, if thepractitionersbelieve their situationstobesimilartothatdescribedinthestudy,thatmayrelatethefindingstotheirownpositions,tobeconsistentwithGubaandLincoln(1989),thereadersmustdeterminehowfartheycanbeconfidentintransferringothersituationswithresultsandconclusionsastheyarepresented.Itisalsoimportantthatasufficientdescriptionofthephenomenonunder investigation isprovided toallow readers tohaveaproperunderstanding of it, thereby enabling them to compare the instances of the phenomenonwiththosethattheyhaveseenemergeintheirsituations.

Acknowledgement IwouldliketothanktheFacultyofEducation,KasetsartUniversity,forsupportingthis study through research funds.


References:Abd-El-Khalick,Fouad,Bell,RandyL.andLederman,NormanG.TheNatureofScienceandInstructionPractice:MakingtheUnnaturenatural.ScienceEducation82,no.4(1998):417-436.

Borko,HildaandPutnam,RalphT. Learning to teach. InHandbookof educationalpsychology,DavidC. Berliner andRobertC.Calfee (Eds.), 673-708.NewYork: Macmillan,1996.

Boz,Nihat andBoz, Yezdan. AQualitativeCaseStudy of ProspectiveChemistry Teachers’KnowledgeAbout InstructionalStrategies: IntroducingParticulateTheory.Journalofscienceteachereducation19(2008):135-156

DeJong,OnnoandVanDriel,JanH.ExploringtheDevelopmentofStudentTeachers’PCKoftheMultipleMeaningsofChemistryTopics.InternationalJournalofScienceandMathematicsEducation2(2004):477-491.

Friedrichsen,Patricia,Lankford,Deanna,Brown,Patrick,Pareja,Enrique,Volkmann,Mark, andAbell, Sandra. The PCK of Future Science Teachers in anAlternative CertificationProgram.Paperpresentedat theNationalAssociation forResearch in ScienceTeachingAnnualConference,NewOrleans,L.A.,2007.

Grossman, Pamela L. Themaking of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress,1990.

Guba,EgonG.andLincoln,YvonnaS.FourthGenerationEvaluation.NewburyPark,CA:Sage,1989.

Henze, Ineke,VanDriel,JanH.,andVerloop, Nico.ScienceTeachers’Knowledgeabout TeachingModels andModeling in theContext of aNewSyllabusonPublic UnderstandingofScience.ResearchinScienceEducation37,no.2(2007):99-122.

Loughran,John,Berry,AmandaandMulhall,Pamella.Understandinganddevelopingscience teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. 2nd ed. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2012.


Magnusson, Shirley, Krajcik, Joseph and Borko, Hilda. Nature, Sources, and DevelopmentofPedagogicalContentKnowledgeforScienceTeaching.InExaminingPedagogicalContentKnowledge, JolieGess-NewsomeandNormanG.Lederman,96-115.TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers,1999.

Merriam,SharanB.Qualitativeresearchandcasestudyapplicationsineducation.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass,1998.

National ResearchCouncil. National Science Education Standards.Washington: National Academy Press, 1996.

Park,SoonhyeandOliver,SteveJ.Revisiting theConceptualisationofPedagogicalContentKnowledge (PCK):PCKasaConceptual Tool toUnderstandTeachersasProfessionalsResearchinscienceeducation38,no.3(2008):261-284.

Sanders,LindaR.,Borko,HildaandLockard,DavidJ.Secondaryscienceteachers’knowledgebasewhenteachingsciencecoursesinandoutoftheirareaofcertification.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching30no.7(1993):723-736.

Shulman,LeeS.Knowledgeandteaching:Foundationsof thenewreform.HarvardEducationalReview57,no.1(1987):1-22.

Shulman,LeeS.Thosewhounderstand:Knowledgegrowthinteaching.EducationalResearcher15,no.2(1986):4-14.

Smith,DeborahC.Content and PedagogicalContent Knowledge for Elementary Science Teacher Educators: Knowing our Student. Journal of Science Teacher Education11,no.1(2000):27-46.

VanDriel,JanH.,DeJong,Onno,andVerloop,Nico.TheDevelopmentofPre-serviceChemistryTeachers’PedagogicalContentKnowledge.ScienceEducation86No.4(2002):572-590.


A Model of the Adoption and Integration of ICT into Science Teaching: an SEM approach

delivered by Dr.Pogprapan Pongsophon Division of Science Education, Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart Univeristy, Bangkok, Thailand *e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This study aims todevelopand test a casualmodel of teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT into teaching underpinning theory of planned behavior. The secondary data were retrieved from the database of the Second Information Technology inEducationStudy (SITES) 2006. The sample comprised679 scienceteachers from 465 schools from 13 educational service areas in Thailand. To empirically test themodel,LISREL9.1wasemployed.The results indicate that thestructuralmodelprovidedagoodfittothedata(Chi-square=449.08,df=239;2/df=1.87,p=0.0000; RMSEA=0.047; CFI 0.99). Attitudes (= 0.54, p<0.01) and perceived behavioral control (= 0.27, p<0.01)were significantly related to the intention. The relationshipbetweensubjectivenormandintentionwasnotsignificant(=0.12,p>0.05).These threedeterminantscollectively explained52%of the variance in intentions. TheimplicationfordesigningandimplementingaprofessionaldevelopmentprogramtopromotetheadoptionandintegrationofICTintoteachingscienceisdiscussed.

Keywords: CausalModel;AdoptionandIntegrationofICTintoScienceTeaching;TeachingScience

Introduction: ICTs offer a range of tools for use in school science activity to enhanceboth practicalandtheoreticalaspectsofscienceteachingandlearning.Thesetoolsinclude,butarenotlimitedtotoolsfordatacapture,processingandinterpretation;publishingand presentation tools; information systems; and educational software.With the assistanceofthesetechnologies,students’motivationandengagementareimproved;self-regulatedandcollaborativelearningfacilitated;schoolandcontemporarysciencelinked;andworkproductionexpeditedlivingmoreroomforthinking,discussion,andinterpretation.Unfortunately, Thai teachershave rarelyadoptedand integrated ICT in theclassroom.This isevidencedinSecondInformationTechnologyinEducationStudy(SITES)2006,aninternationalcomparativestudyconductedbytheInternationalAssociation forEvaluationofEducationalAchievement (IEA).SITESaimed tostudyinformation andcommunication technology (ICT) usageandpractices in teaching


science andmathematics and its impact on teaching and learningprocess. The findings show that among the total number of 23participatingeducation systems,Thailandwasreported tohavecomparatively lowcomputerand internetaccess forpedagogicaluse.Inrespondtothisworrisomereality,theThailandgovernmenthaslaunched theMasterPlanonASEANConnectivity (ASEAN,2011)andnational ICT forEducationpolicies,widely knownas,Thailand ICT2020 (Ministryof Information andCommunication Technology, 2011). These documents state that Thailand is committedtoestablishinganinformationinfrastructuretoenableICTtoimprovetheircompetitivenessintheworldeconomy. TheMinistryofICTinpartnershipwiththeMinistryofEducationhavepromotedtheuseofICTinclassroomstoenhancequalityofteachingandlearning,expandaccess,andsustainlife-longlearning.Thestudentsareencouragedandfacilitatedtolearntouse ICT and use ICT to learn so theygain knowledge and skills andbecome IT andinternet-literate.Intermsofprofessionaldevelopment,theMinistryofEducationhave improved teachers’ capacity on effective ICT-Pedagogy integration and advocate the development of awhole-school support strategy on integrating ICT in Education. The introduction of ICTsdoes not simply ensure the transformation of science education. In doing so, the teachers have a critical role in selecting, evaluating,andintegratingICTintohisorherclassroom. This study is therefore carried out to examine the relationship between factors affecting theadoptionand integrationof ICT into theclassroombydevelopingandtesting the proposed hypothetical structural equationmodel. The findingswould suggesttopolicymakers,educationaladministrators,andpractitionerstheconditionsunderwhich ICTwould be adopted and integrated into a lessonby teachers so teachingandlearningareoptimized.

Research Purpose: The present study aims to examine the effect of attitude, social nomination, andperceivedbehavioralcontrolregardingpedagogicaluseofICTontheadoptionand integration of ICT into teaching suggested by theory of planned behavior. Literature review:The theoryofplannedbehaviorwasproposedbyAjzen (1985). This theory indicates the linkbetweenbelief andbehavior. It hasbeen testedand confirmedby a number of studies in various fields such asmarketing, education, public relation, and education on a number of issues such as condom use, pro-environmental behavior, intention to prevent becoming overweight andGM food-consumption.Thetheorystatesthatthestrongestormostproximalpredictorofbehavior is intention. Behavioral intention isan individual’sreadinessorperceivedlikelihoodthatheorshewillperformorengageinagivenbehavior.Theintentionisthoughttobetheresultofattitudetowardperformingthebehavior,subjectivenorm,andperceivedbehaviorcontrol.


The attitude towardbehavior (ATT) is thedegree towhichperformanceof the behavior ispositivelyornegativelyvalued.Theattitudeisdeterminedbybehavioralbelief (BB), an individual’s belief about the consequences of particular behavior. Thesubjectivenorm(SN)istheperceivedsocialpressuretoengageornotengage inabehavior. It isaperson’sbeliefaboutwhethersignificantothers feel thatheor she should perform the target behavior. The subjective norm is influenced by normativebelief(NB),anindividual’sperceptionofsocialnormativepressure.Perceivedbehavioralcontrol(PBC,orself-efficacy)isanindividual’sperceivedeaseordifficultyofperformingtheparticularbehavior.Itisdeterminedbycontrolbeliefs(CB)-howthatpersonthinksaboutthepresenceoffactorsthatmayfacilitateorimpedeperformanceof thebehavior. Theperceivedbehaviorcontrol isalso found todirectlydetermineactualbehavior.Thesefactorshaveadirectrelationshipinamodelinthatthemorefavorable the attitude toward behavior and subjective norm, and the greater the perceivedbehavioralcontrol,themorelikelythepersonwouldintendtoperformthebehaviorinquestion.Inthesamenegativedirection,theperceivedbehavioralcontrolcouldbehinderedbynegativecontrolbeliefs, inthecaseofsustainablebehaviors, forexample,constraintssuchasalackofaccessiblerecyclinginfrastructure. When TPB is applied to explained factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integrationofICTintoteachinginthisstudy,theproposedmodelisdescribedbelow.IfteachersbelieveinthebenefitofICTinpromotingstudents’learning(BB),itislikelythattheywillhavepositiveattitude(ATT)andintend(IN)toadoptandintegrateitintoteachingandlearningprocess.IfadoptionandintegrationofICTinclassroomisanationalpolicyandhighlyvaluedbytheirprincipalandcolleagues,theywouldintendtofollowthissocialnorm(SN).IftheteachersperceiveahighlikelihoodofsuccessonusingICTforeducationalpurposes(PBC)andsuchsuccessisunderhisorhercontrol(CB), he or shewill intend to use ICT in the classroom. If teachers have no time committed,notechnicalandmentalsupport,nounderstandingfromtheircolleaguesand superiors, no collaboration in schools, unsupported structure of educational systems,andrestrictivecurricula,theywouldthinktheycouldnotmakeit;theywouldthink that itwas toodifficult to accomplish. They start to loseconfidenceby these uncontrollable external barriers. Hence, the hypothetical model to be tested empiricallyinthisstudyisillustratedbelow:


Note: ATT: Teacher’s perception about the importance of various curricular goals; PBC: Teacher’s self-reported levels of confidence in accomplishing pedagogical use of ICT; IN: Teachers’ priorities for different pedagogical uses of ICT within the next two school years; BB: Teacher’s perception of the extent to which school staff hold a shared vision and mission for ICT literacy; and CB: Teacher’s perception of the extent to which various kinds of supports are available.

Research methodology: The empirical data from Second Information Technology in Education Study (SITES2006)databasewasretrievedandusedintestingthehypotheticalmodel.SITES2006isaninternationalcomparativestudyconductedbytheInternationalAssociationforEvaluationofEducationalAchievement(IEA).SITESaimstostudyinformationandcommunication technology (ICT) usage and practices in teaching science and mathematics and its impact on teaching and learning process. There were 23 education systemsparticipating in SITES2006 including information from roughly 8,000 schools, 13,000mathematicsand16,000 science teachers. The surveywasadministered towards the end of the school year. Each participating education systemappointedaNationalResearchCoordinator(NRC),togetherwithstaffmembersattheirnationalcentertoconductcomplexsampling,translation,anddatacollectiontasks. The implementationmustbe inaccordancewithSITES2006guidelinesandprocedures. Ms.PornpunWaitayangkoonandMs.SomsriTangmongkollertfromtheInstituteforthePromotionofTeachingScienceandTechnology(IPST)andtheirorganizationwere

Figure 1: A hypothetical model of the adoption and integration of ICT into Teaching.

BB

CB

SN

ATT

PBC

IN


appointedbyThaigovernmentatthetimetobeThailand’sNRCsandnationalcenterforSITESrespectively.TheThaipopulation,thefocusofthepresentstudy,wereGrade8 science teachers. The sample comprised 679 science teachers at 465 schools from13 educational service areas in Thailand using a two-stage stratified cluster samplingdesign.Explicitstratificationvariableswereschooltypes(publicorprivate),urbanization(urbanorrural),andschoolsize(verylarge,large,medium-size,small, or very small). The implicit stratification variablewas theeducational servicearea.Seventyonepercentoftherespondentswerefemale.Themajorityoftherespondents(32percent)agedbetween40-49yearsold; followedby30percentagedbetween30-39yearsold.Eightyfivepercentoftherespondentsearnedabachelordegreeastheirhighest levelofeducation.Regardingteachingexperience,56percentsof theteachers hadbeen teaching science formore than ten years. Themajority of the respondents(83%)ownedacomputerathome. Providedbythenationalcenter,IEADPCdrewschoolsamples,takingintoaccountnationalstratificationneeds.Iftheselectedschoolsagreedtoparticipateinthestudy,the national center randomly selected two eligible science teachers using software providedbyIEADPC.TheNRCcouldopttoadministerthesurveyquestionnaireonlineor onpaper. TheSITES2006 surveywas administered fromMarch to June 2006. Toensurehighqualityandinternationalcomparabilityofdata,thenationalcenterhasto run several quality control and assuranceprocedures. The cleaneddata from participatingeducationsystemswerethenweightedandtransformedtointernationaldatabase structure; the dataset from different countries consisted of the same variableswiththesamecodingscheme.TheSITES2006internationaldatabaseanduserguidewereorganizedandmaintainedforpublicusersbyIEAaimingtosupportandpromote secondary analysis. Thedatabase is accessible on IEA’s studydata repositorywebsite,http://rms.iea-dpc.org.

Measures: ThemeasurewasselectedfromSITES2006’sTeacherQuestionnaire.Sixscalesfrom theoriginal version;curriculumgoals, teacherself-reported ICTskills, teacher visionof ICTuse in the near future, presenceof community of practice in school, and presence of community of practice in school (I, II, and III) that were in correspondencewith factors in theproposedmodelwere selectedand renamed, respectively; attitude towardspedagogical useof ICT (ATT), perceivedbehavioralcontroloverpedagogicaluseofICT(PBC),intentiontouseICT(IN),behavioralbeliefinpedagogicaluseofICT(PBC)andcontrolbelief(CB)overpedagogicaluseofICT.Thesixscales,aftertherevisionastheresultofconfirmatoryfactoranalysismakeupatotalnumberof24items(Table1).Allitemsweremeasuredona4-pointLikertscale.Eachscaleismeasuredby3to6indicators.


Data analysis: TotesttheproposedmodeloftheadoptionandintegrationofICTintoteaching,structuralequationmodelingorSEManalysiswasconducted.Variables intheSEMmay influenceone-another reciprocally,eitherdirectlyor throughothervariablesasintermediaries. In SEM, a structure of the covariancematrix of themeasures is generated; theparameters of themodel are estimated. This impliedmodel is thencomparedtoanempiricalcovariancematrixtoexaminewhetherthetwomatricesareconsistentwithoneanother.Ifthemodelfitsthedata,thestructuralequationmodelscan be considered a plausible explanation for relations between themeasures. WithSEManalysis,latentvariablescanbeconstructedandunbiasedestimatesfortherelationsbetweenlatentconstructsarederivedsincemeasurementerrorsaretakeninto account in the model building. To analyze thedata, LISREL9.1 statistical packagewasusedas follows.After definingthedata,datascreeningwascarriedout.Theresultsshowedthattherewere603caseswithnomissingdatafromthetotalof679.Thecaseswithmissingvaluesweretreatedbymatchingimputationhence641completecaseswereincludedasthenumberofobservationsinthesubsequentanalysis.TheSITESteacherquestionnaireusedordinal response scales.Rather treating theordinal variablesas if theywere continuousvariables,ordinaldatawerekeptastheywereintheanalysistopreventmisleadingresults.Evenweightedleastsquare(WLS)gavemoreaccurateparameterestimates,standarderrors,betterfitindicesthanothermethodssuggestedtoestimatethemodelwith non-normal andordinaldata; unweighted least squares (UWL)and diagonallyweightedleastsquares(DWLS)inthesimulationevaluation(Yang-Wallentin&Jöreskog,2010);WLS is,however,unadvisable foreither themodelwithasmallsamplesizeora largemodelor thecombinationofboth (Mîndrilă,2010)as in this present study. In situations in which the assumption ofmultivariate normally is severely violated and/or data are ordinal, the diagonallyweighted least squares (DWLS)methods providemore accurate parameter estimates. Inputmatrices of polychoriccorrelationandasymptoticcovariancewereestimated.TherobustDWLS is based on the polychoric correlation and asymptotic covariancematrixof the polychoriccorrelationswasincludedintheanalysis.InLISREL9.1,thefunctionality ofLISRELandPRELISarecombined,therefore,itisnolongernecessarytoestimatean asymptotic covariancematrix with PRELIS and read this into LISREL.DWLS computesrobustchi-squaresandsubsequentindices,bycorrectingfornon-nomality.Particular attentionwas given toCFI andRMSEA indices since there had been evidenceinaprevioussimulationstudytobemoretrustworthythanotherfitindexesfor ordered categorical data (Yu, 2002). The two-step approach suggested by


AndersonandGerbing(1988)wasfollowed.First,measurementmodel(CFA)relatingobserved variables to latent variableswasdeveloped. Thegoodness of fit of thismodelwas examined. The research examined the reliability of themeasures and thevalidation(convergentanddivergent)oftheindicatorsinrelationtotheconstructs.Thentheproposedstructuralequationmodelwastested.Thegoodnessoffitofthismodel as awhole had been examined. However, the fit indices recommended forcategoricalvariablesas thecaseof thisstudyareCFI (close to1)andRMSEA (approximately less than .06) (Finney&DiStefano, 2006). There is likely to be a practical problem with using chi-square as a solemeasure of fit because of its sensitivity to sample size and its assumption of multivariate normality. Thehypothesizedmodel inthisstudyisquitecomplicatedanditscategoricaldata, bynature,deviatefromnormality.

Results1. Descriptivestatistics The frequencies of students’ responses to a particular statement indicating aconstructinthemodelaresummarizedinTable1.Itwasfoundthatthemajorityoftherespondents“verymuch”agreedwithallstatementsindicatingtheattitudestowardpedagogical useof ICT (ATT) suchas ICT for increasingmotivation, and fosteringstudents’collaborativeandorganizationalskills.ThisisincorrespondencewiththeirresponsestotheindicatorofATT’sdeterminant,behavioralbeliefinpedagogicaluseofICT(BB).Whenaskedabouttheirperceivedbehavioralcontroloveranumberofindicatorstotheadoptionandintegrationof ICTintoteachingsuchasusingICTtomonitorstudents’progressandevaluatelearningoutcome;usingICTtogiveeffectivepresentation, the level of confidencewasgenerally dropped to “somewhat” level. Thisisconsistentwithitstheoreticaldeterminant,thecontrolbeliefoftheadoptionandintegration of ICT into teaching. Among the indicators of the control belief, themajorityofteachersdidnotthinkthattheadministrativeworkarisingfromtheuseof ICT in his or her teachingwas easy to do at school.When asked about the influenceofthesubjectivenormofthepedagogicaluseofICT,themajorityofteachersreportedthattheysomewhatco-taughtwithotherteachersbutdiscussedtheproblemswith their colleagues and teachers from other schools a lot. Regarding the intention for thepedagogical use of ICT (IN), themajoritygavehighpriority tomost of the indicators, except the indicator, “using ICT to provide opportunity for students to collaboratewithand learn frompeopleoutsidetheirclassroom”towhichtheygavemediumpriority.


Table 1: Items of the questionnaire for the various scales and descriptive statistics

Attitude towards Pedagogical Use of ICT (ATT)

Perceived behavioral control over the adoption and integration of ICT into teaching (PBC)

Intention for pedagogi-cal use of ICT (IN)

-

-

-

1.4

10.6

14.4

15.0

13.0

9.4

0.6

0.5

0.9

1.4

2.3

0.9

1.6

3.1

1.7

7.4

22.8

29.4

29.1

26.9

16.4

5.8

3.4

6.9

4.2

13.8

4.2

18.3

28.8

18.2

28.2

43.7

37.6

36.5

39.9

36.6

39.4

30.4

37.2

31.5

42.9

29.7

80.1

68.1

80.1

63.1

22.8

18.6

19.4

20.2

37.6

54.1

65.7

54.9

62.9

41.0

65.1

BTG08F1:Toincreaselearningmotivationandmake learning more interesting BTG08H1:Tofosterstudents’abilityand readiness to settheirownlearninggoalsandtoplan,monitorandevaluatetheirownprogressBTG08I1:Tofosterstudents’collaborativeandorganizational skills for working in teamsBTG08L1:Topreparestudentsforcompetent ICTuseBTG21J1:Iknowwhichteaching/learningsituationsaresuitableforICTuse.BTG21L1:IcanuseICTformonitoringstudents’progressandevaluatinglearningoutcomes.BTG21M1:IcanuseICTtogiveeffectivepresentations/explanations.BTG21N1:IcanuseICTforcollaborationwith others.BTG21P1:IcanusetheInternet(e.g.,selectsuitablewebsites,usergroups/discussionforums)tosupportstudentlearning.BTG22A1:Tomonitormoreeffectivelytheprogressof my students.BTG22C1:Toprovidebetterandmoreinterestinglectures/presentationstomystudents.BTG22E1:Toprovidemoreactivitiesthataddressindividualdifferencesamongmystudents.BTG22H1:Toinvolvemystudentsinscientificinvestigations(involvinglaboratorywork)BTG22I1:Toprovidemoreopportunitiesformystudentstocollaboratewithorlearnfrompeopleoutsideoftheirclassroom,includingpeersandexternalexpertsBTG22K1:Toprovidemoreopportunitiesformystudents to collaborate with their classmates

Constructs Indicators(SITES’svariablenames) Not at allLabels

*A little *Somewhat **Very much


* “A little” and “somewhat” are replaced by “low priority” and “Medium priority” in IN respectively; ** “Very much” is replaced by “A lot” in BB, PBC, SN and CB and “high priority” in IN

Behavioral belief in pedagogical use of ICT (BB)

Subjective norm of the pedagogical use of ICT (SN)

Control belief of the adoption and integration of ICT into teaching (CB)

1.6

0.8

0.6

12.51.4

5.2

11.7

20.8

2.5

11.4

7.8

5.5

21.69.1

21.6

27.4

33.2

13.0

38.3

36.8

34.7

38.031.6

34.7

36.0

32.2

46.3

48.7

54.6

59.2

27.957.9

38.5

24.9

13.8

38.2

BTG25A1:Wediscusswhatwewanttoachievethrough our lessons. BTG25B1:Teachersareconstantlymotivatedtocriticallyassesstheirowneducationalpractices.BTG25C1:Teachersareexpectedtothinkabouttheschool’svisionandstrategieswithregardtoeducationalpractices.BTG27A1:Ico-teachwithmycolleagues.BTG27B1:IdiscusstheproblemsthatIexperienceat work with my colleagues.BTG27C1:Iworkwithteachersinotherschoolsoncollaborativeactivities.BTG28B1:Mystudentscanaccesscomputerseasilyoutsidescheduledclasstimewithoutmyhelp.BTG28C1:TheadministrativeworkarisingfromtheuseofICTinmyteaching(e.g.,bookingcomputerlaboratories, changing class schedules) is easy to do in my school.BTG26C1:Iamabletoimplementinnovationsin my classroom according to my own judgment and insights.

Constructs Indicators(SITES’svariablenames) Not at allLabels

*A little *Somewhat **Very much

2. Measurement model results ACFAforthemeasurementmodelwithsixconstructswasperformed.Theinitialmodeldemonstratedamoderatelyacceptablewiththedata(χ2=696.75,df=310,χ2/df= 2.25, p= 0.0000,RMSEA=0.069,CFI= 0.99).After deleting the indicators withlowloadingandtheindicatorsfoundtocorrelateveryhighly(e.g.BTG21D1forsubjectivenorm,λ=0.27),thefinalmeasurementmodelresultsweregood,indicatinggoodreliability,althoughthechi-squarevaluewassignificant(χ2=464.52,df=237,χ2/df= 1.96, p=0.00,RMSEA=0.045,CFI= 0.99) (Table 2). The results of the measurementmodel indicate that the factor loadings of the latent variables are


Constructs Variance extracted

Composite reliability

Conbach’salpha

t-valueStd.errorStd.factorloading

Indicators

Attitude towards Pedagogical UseofICT(ATT)

PerceivedbehavioralcontrolovertheadoptionandintegrationofICTintoteaching(PBC)

BTG08F1

BTG08H1

BTG08I1

BTG08L1

BTG21J1

BTG21L1

BTG21M1

BTG21N1

BTG21P1

0.83*

0.87

0.86

0.75

0.85*

0.89

0.95

0.94

0.84

-

0.06

0.06

0.06

-

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

-

18.35

17.27

14.78

-

36.52

38.49

37.76

32.74

0.77

0.93

0.90

0.95

0.69

0.80

generallyhighandallarestatisticallysignificant(i.e.,>0.5,p<0.001).Allt-testsaresignificantindicatesthatallitemsaremeasuringtheconstructtheyareassociatedwith.Givenacceptable composite value (>0.6), theconvergent validity of the scales is established. Convergent validity is further evidenced since most indicators’ standardizedloadingontheirpositedlatentconstructisgreaterthantwiceitsstandarderror (AndersonandGerbig,1988).TheAVEvaluesarehigher than thesuggestedcut-offat0.6(Bagozzieetal.,1991)exceptthoseofsubjectivenormandcontrolbelief.Hatcher(1994)notedthat“veryoftenvarianceextractedestimateswillbebelow0.50”(p.331). Toexamine the internalconsistencyofeachscale,Conbach’salphawascalculated.TheConbach’salphavaluesofallconstructsarehigherthanthesuggestcut-off at 0.70 (Nannally, 1978)except thoseof subjectivenorm (0.60)andcontrolbelief(0.63).

Table 2: Parameter estimates for the CFA measurement model of the 6 constructs


* Initially fixed at 1 for estimation purpose

Constructs Variance extracted

Composite reliability

Conbach’salpha

t-valueStd.errorStd.factorloading

Indicators

IntentionforpedagogicaluseofICT(IN)

BehavioralbeliefinpedagogicaluseofICT(BB)

Subjectivenormofthe pedagogicaluseofICT(SN)

ControlbeliefoftheadoptionandintegrationofICTintoteaching(CB)

BTG22A1

BTG22C1

BTG22E1

BTG22H1

BTG22I1

BTG22K1

BTG25A1

BTG25B1

BTG25C1

BTG27A1

BTG27B1

BTG27C1

BTG28B1

BTG28C1

BTG26C1

0.87*

0.92

0.86

0.84

0.79

0.85

0.86*

0.94

0.93

0.61*

0.77

0.60

0.59*

0.63

0.75

-

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.03

0.03

-

0.04

0.04

-

0.13

0.11

-

0.08

0.10

-

33.92

31.83

23.94

26.85

28.45

-

27.52

29.93

-

9.53

8.92

-

13.16

11.71

0.89

0.87

0.60

0.63

0.94

0.93

0.70

0.70

0.73

0.82

0.45

0.44


Discriminant validity is assessedby comparing the shared variance (squared correlation)betweeneachpairofconstructsagainsttheaverageoftheAVEsfortheseconstructs. The variance extracted estimates shouldbegreater than the squared correlationestimate.ThiscriterionwasmetinthisstudyasshowninTable3.

Table 3: Discriminant validity checks by comparing the average variance extracted and the square of correlation

3.Structuralmodel Beck andAjzen (1991) suggest that to predict behavior itmay sometimes be sufficient toconsideronly intentions.Thestructuralmodelhave thesame indicatorstructureasthemeasurementmodelbutincludeddirectpathsfromattitudes,normsandbehavioralcontroltointentionsandfrombehavioralbeliefstoattitudesandfrombelievedcontroltoperceivedbehavioralcontrol.Thestructuralmodelprovidedagoodfittothedata(Chi-square=449.08,df=239;χ2/df=1.87,p=0.00;RMSEA=0.047;CFI0.99).Attitudes(β=0.54,p<0.01)andperceivedbehavioralcontrol(β=0.27,p<0.01)weresignificantly related to intentions.The relationshipbetweensubjectivenormandintentionwasnotsignificant(β=0.12,p>0.05).Thesethreedeterminantscollectivelyexplained52%ofthevarianceinintentions.Behavioralbeliefs(β=0.58,p<0.01)andcontrolbelief(β=0.63,p<0.01)weresignificantlyrelatedtoattitudeandperceivedbehavioralcontrolrespectively. Behavioralbeliefscouldexplain34%ofthevarianceinattitudeandcontrolbeliefcouldexplain40%ofthevarianceinperceivedbehavioralcontrol.

ConstructsPBC IN BB SN CB

Squareofcorrelation(averagevarianceextractedforthepairofconstructs)

(ATT)

PBC

IN

BB

SN

0.12 (0.69,0.80)

0.39(0.69,0.73)

0.17(0.80,0.73)

0.18(0.69,0.82)

0.09 (0.80,0.82)

0.23(0.73,0.82)

0.16 (0.69, 0.45)

0.08(0.80,0.45)

0.15 (0.73,0.45)

0.33(0.82,0.45)

0.16 (0.69, 0.44)

0.42 (0.80,0.44)

0.20 (0.73,0.44)

0.33(0.82,0.44)

0.36(0.45, 0.44)


Chi-Square = 449.08, df = 239, P-value = 0.0000, RMSEA = 0.047

Figure 2: The estimated model of the adoption and integration of ICT into teaching

Note: Standardized coefficients with t value in the parentheses. Standardized factor loadings of indicators on latent variables are not shown here. Dashed lines denote tested but nonsignificant relationships.

Discussion: The findings of this study confirms the theory of planned behavior and are consistentwithanumberofpreviousstudiesthathaveappliedthistheorytoexplainperformingparticularbehaviors(Hardingetal.,2007;Stoneetal.,2007).Asexpected,attitudefavorabletowardpedagogicaluseofICT,normsupportiveofpedagogicaluseof ICT, and high perceived behavior control pedagogical use of ICT were positivelyassociatedwithintentiontoadoptandintegrateICTintoteachingscience.Behavioral belief and control belief have positive correlation with the attitude toward andperceivedbehavioral control over pedagogical use of ICT.A notable findingofthiscurrentstudywassupportfortheattitude.ItcouldpredicttheintentionbetterthaneitherperceivedbehavioralcontrolornormofpedagogicaluseofICT. This finding is consistentwith the study ofDemirci (2009) that discovered that TurkishteacherswhohadnegativeattitudetowardsGeographicInformationsystems(GIS)asneitherfulfillingtheirneedsnortheirstudents’needswouldnotintegratethetechnologyintoGeography.Incontrast,ifteachers’attitudeswerepositive,theycouldprovideusefulinsightandshowedintentiontoadoptandintegrateICTintoteachingandlearningprocess. In the largescalesurveyconductedbyDrentandMeelissen withDutchteachersin2008,thefindingsindicatethattheattitudetowardscomputershave adirect and strong influence on the innovation use of ICTby the teachers. ThisstudyalsofoundthatperceivedbehavioralcontroloverpedagogicaluseofICT

BB

CB

SN

ATT

PBC

IN

0.58(9.70)

0.12(1.80)

0.54(10.53)

0.63(10.51)0.27(6.14)


positively related to their intention to adopt and integrate ICT in their teaching. Thisconfirmsanumberofpreviousstudies just tonamea few (Yuen&Ma,2008; Peralta&Costa,2007).Thesestudiesfoundthatteachers’judgmentoftheircapabilitytouseacomputerinfluencedtheirintentionanduseofICTinclassroom. However,theresultsdidnotconfirmthehypothesizedrelationsbetweenSNand theintention.ThisisconsistentwiththepreviousstudiesconductedbyTrafimowandFinlay(1996),CialdiniandTrost(1998),HansenandJensen(2007).Theyfoundthatthe effect of subjective normwas insignificant and very low in the full model. Theyexplained thatapotentialcause for the insignificanceof the relationbetween SNandintentionmaybetheevolvementof“individualism”thatcouldaffectpeoples’decisionmaking. Striving for individualism leads to the rejection of dependency (Pchiffman&Kanuk, 2004). People that hold this valueare less likely to follow the guidance of other people in order to reinforce their feeling of independence and self-identity. The relationship between subjective norm and intention in this studymay be moderatedby individualism. For those lacking individualism, the subjective norm may influence the intentionbut forpeople holding this valueandpositive attitude towardspedagogicaluseofICT,theywouldadoptandintegrateICTintotheirteachingregardless the subjective norm. The subjective normwasmore relevant to the individualswhocouldaccessthecollectiveselfinaprominentmanner.Thiscollectiveself isdependentupon interpersonalbonds toothers.People showingaffiliation to in-groupmembershipwouldbemoreconcerned to theadoptionand integrationof ICTintoteachingandtheimpactofsubjectivenormmaybemorepronouncedontheintention. If the teachers lacked interpersonal skills, they, asper the results, could neitherbuild relationships, norgracefully collaboratewith other teachers; in effect, theycouldnotinfluenceorbeinfluencedbytheirpeers.Inaddition,teachersmaynotbeawarethattheirinfluenceiswhatcanmakethedifferenceintheirteachingpractice.Theymaybeveryhumbletoshowoff,regardingthisasagoodmannerinthepublicespeciallywhenworkingwithseniorteachersortheyprefertostayinthesafezonewhenworkinginteams.ThisisquiteacommonvalueandpracticeamongThaipeople.

Implication of the study: It was evidenced in this present study that the behavioral belief influenced scienceteachers’attitudetowardpedagogicaluseofICT.Thatmeansthatthemorethe teachersbelieve in the impact of ICT in their teachingpractice and students’ learning,themorepositiveattitudetowardpedagogicaluseofICTandinturn,morelikely theywould intend to adopt and integrate ICT into their lesson. To enhance teachers’behavioralbeliefofpedagogicaluseof ICT inprofessionaldevelopment, theyshouldbegivenaroleoflearners.Theyshouldwitnessanddirectlyexperience


thedesirableconsequencesofthepedagogicaluseofICT;moreinteresting,funandengaging than aplain lesson.Alternatively, they are asked towatch the video of aneffectiveICTdrivensciencelessonandencouragedtocriticallyreflectuponandexchangeideaswithfellowparticipantsonwhetherandhowICTwereadoptedandintegratedintothesciencelessonanditseffectivenessregardingstudents’learning.Inaddition, theyshouldbeencouragedtotry it themselves-designinga lessonandhave amicro teaching, and get instant and constructive feedback from their instructorsandpeers.TechnicaldifficultiesandrelatedissuesinusingICTshouldbebroughtin.Tipsandtechniquestodealwiththeseproblemsandchallengesshouldbediscussedsotheparticipantsare,inadvance,wellequippedandfeelbestpreparedforthecomingrealityanduncertaintywhentheyreturntoschool.ThiswouldboostuptheirperceivedbehavioralcontrolofabilitytouseICTinclassroom,anothersignificantdeterminantoftheintentiontoadoptandintegrateICTintoteaching. Factors that demote the use of ICT include lack of support from the school principals,lackofallottedtimetoimplementtheworkplanandlackoffinancialandhumanresources.Theseuncontrolledrealitiesseriouslydiminishteacher’sperceivedbehaviorcontrolandinturnlessentheintentiontoadoptanduseICT.Toresolvesuchconstraintsandlimitations,itisadvisablefortheprofessionaldevelopertoinvitetheadministrator and the school/district education leader toparticipate andcontributeinputsthroughouttheprocessof thedesignandimplementationof theprofessionaldevelopment programso theywould gain a sense of ownership, leadership and responsibilityandwouldfollowupandfacilitatetheteachers’adoptionandintegrationof ICT in teachingonsite.Theywouldbuildacollaborativeworkingenvironment inschool, so the subjectivenormwouldmatter and takeeffect. Like target teachers, these school principals and head teachers shouldbe empowered so theywoulddeepen the appreciation to pedagogical use of ICT, build capacity and have commitment to promote, support and sustain the implementation of educational innovation.

ReferenceAjzen,I.Fromintentionstoactions:Atheoryofplannedbehavior.InActionócontrol:Fromcognitiontobehavior,J.Kuhi&J.Beckmann(Eds.),11-39.Heidelberg:Springer,1985.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D.W. Structural equationmodeling in practice: A reviewand recommended two-stepapproach.PsychologicalBulletin,103,no.3,(1988):411-423.


ASEAN,MasterplanonASEANconnectivity:Onevision,oneidentity,onecommunity.http://www.aseansec.org/documents/MPAC.pdf(2011).Becker,H.J.Howareteachersusingcomputers in instruction?Paperpresentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association, Seattle. (April,2001).Bullen,C.V.,Abraham,T,Gallagher,K.,Kaiser,K,andSimon,J.ChangingItSkills: TheImpactofSourcingStrategiesonIn-HouseCapabilityRequirements,JournalofElectronicCommerce inOrganizations, special issue “OffshoringandOutsourcing: TheInnovationanditsimpactonElectronicCommerceinOrganizations”(April,2007).

Cuban,L.The technologypuzzle:Why isgreateraccessnot translating intobetterclassroomuse?EducationWeek,(1999),August4:68.

Demirci,A.HowdoTeachersApproachNewTechnologies:GeographyTeachers’ Attitudes towardsGeographic Information Systems (GIS). European Journal of Educational Studies 1, no. 1, (2009).

Drent,M.,&Meelissen,M.Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators touse ICT innovatively?Computers&Education,vol.51,no.1,pp.187-199.Ministry of Information andCommunication Technology. (2011) Executive summary of the ThailandICTPolicyFramework:2011-2020(ICT2020),(2008).http://www.ict2020.in.th(Accessed2013-01-14)

Finnay,S.J.&DiStefano,C.Non-normalandcategoricaldatainstructuralequationmodeling. InG.R.Hancock&R.O.Mueller (Eds.). Structural equationmodeling: Asecondcourse.Greenwich,CT:InformationAgePublishing,2006.

Hansen, T. &Jensen, J.M.(2007), “Understanding consumers’ political voting decisions:A Theory of PlannedBehaviorApproach”,InnovativeMarketing 3,No.4,(2008):86-93

Law,N.,Pelgrum,W.J.,&Plomp,T.PedagogyandICTuseinschoolsaroundtheworld:FindingsfromtheIEASITES2006study.HongKong:CERC-Springer,2008.Mîndrilă,D.2010.Maizmumlikelihood(ML)andDiagonallyWeightedLeastSquares(DWLS)EstimationProcedures:Acomparisonofestimationbiaswithordinalandmultivariatenon-normal data. International Journal ofDigital Society (UHDS)1, no. 1, (2010). Osborne,J.&Hennessy,S.LiteratureReviewinScienceandtheRoleofICT:Promise,Problems,andFutureDirections.FuturelabSeries(2003).


Peralta,H.,Costa, F.A. Teachers’ competenceandconfidence regarding the use ofICT.EducationalSciencesJournal,vol.3,(2007):75-84.

Plomp, T., Anderson, R.E., Law,N., &Quale, A.Cross-national information and communication technology: Policies and practices in education(Rev. 2nd ed.). Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing,2009.

Yu,C.Y.Evaluatingcutoffcriteriaofmodelfit indicesfor latentvariablemodelswithbinary and continuous outcomes.Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2002.

Yuen,A.H.K.,&Ma,W.W.K.ExploringteacheracceptanceofE-learningtechnology.Asia-PacificJournalofTeacherEducation,vol.36,no.3,(2008):229-243.


Enhancing the Quality of Learning Through the Use of Infographics as Visual Communication Tool and Learning Tool

delivered by Patchara Vanichvasin*

Abstract

The research objective was to examine the use of infographic in two dimensions, infographic as visual communication tool and infographic as learning tools to enhance effective learning of 20 fourth year undergraduated students majoring in Business and Computer Education who enrolled Knowledge Management Course at Vocational Education Department, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University during the first semester of 2013 academic year. The research design was combined quantitative and qualitative research using questionnaires. Numerical data were analyzed using frequency and percentage and the qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. The research findings were as follows: 1. Most of students agreed that using infographic as Visual Communication Tool could enhance appeal, comprehension and retention 2. The students’ opinion towards the use of infographic as Learning Tool was highly positive. (X=4.82) The results revealed in visual communication tool dimension that infographics could enhance appeal, comprehension and retention, which are the basic provisions of communication in the majority of the students. Therefore, infographic, when used as visual communication tool, could provide effective communication. The results revealed in learning tool dimension that students were most satisfied with mean of 4.82. Therefore, infographic when using as learning tool, could promote satisfaction at a most satisfied level. The overall results suggested that infographics yielded a positive impact when used as visual communication tool and learning tool to enhance the quality of learning.

Introduction: Education is considered as the important tool to develop quality people in the future (Research Center, Bangkok University, 2009). However, according to the survey of Thai people’s perspectives toward the education reform, one of five education problems in Thailand was that students lacked interest or had shorten span of interest

*Lecturer at Business and Computer Education, Vocational Education Department, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University.


in learning and did not pay much attention to learning (Suan Dusit Poll, Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, 2009). Furthermore, boring classrooms, one of education problems in Thailand, made students unhappy and were not enthusiastic in learning as there were no interesting learning tools applied to stimulate their learning. It resulted in not understanding what have been taught. (Lifang, 2012). The research center of Bangkok University also published results from the survey in the topics of “Students’ feeling towards Studying” and proposed one suggestion from students that learning methods should be adjusted by using learning techniques and creating learning environment that support the learning (Research Center, Bangkok University, 2009). With these education problems in hand, quality of learning was expected to be low but due to the importance of learning in the 21st century, quality of learning plays an increasingly significant role. More emphasis has been put on learning tools that can be applied to enhance learning to be at a good quality level. Visual communication is one of the most exciting and potentially useful and powerful learning tools in education according to the words stated that every picture tells a story or a picture worth a thousand word as it is the form of communication that relies in part or whole on vision for its understanding (Sless, 1981) and it is normally comprised of texts and pictures in communicating the story, which can convey facts and ideas in a wider and deeper range than almost any other means of communication (Kepes, 1944). Research also showed that 30 to 40 percent of people are visual learners (Harvard Business School, 2003). Infographic, which is one kind of visual communication, is gaining popularity and has becoming one of the most effective forms of content for communicating information in the digital era (Smiciklas, 2012) and also becoming great educational materials to use in both teaching and learning (Kharbach, 2012). It has been used in a variety of media both traditional media such as newspaper and magazine and digital media such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube because it moved away from text communication to visual communication, which is more attractive and easier to understand than text communication. An infographic is defined as a visualization of data or ideas that tries to convey complex information to an audience in a manner that can be quickly consumed and easily understood (Smiciklas, 2012). It comes from information and graphics. However, it is mutli-modal in the sense that it can have different forms of text, flowcharts, diagrams, images and many more (Kharbach, 2012). Special attention was therefore drawn to enhancing the quality of learning through the use of infographics in two dimensions. The first dimension is using infographic as visual communication tool as when using infographics to communicate, it is physically easier to relate and connect to information (Smiciklas, 2012). Three basic provisions of all effective visual communication methods according to Lankow, Ritchie and Crooks (2012) were shown as follows


1. Appeal. Communication should engage an audience. 2. Comprehension. Communication should effectively provide knowledge that enables a clear understanding of the information. It implies that the viewer should be able to easily understand the information that is presented to them. 3. Retention. Communication should impart memorable knowledge. It means that the viewer should remember the data presented by the infographic. The second dimension is using infographic as learning tool. Infographic is considered as visual aid that can be used to give content, explain content, use as learning activity such as mind map or case study, show example and conclude content with the aim to support learning and make student feel satisfied with this learning tool. Due to the fact that it is considered as a powerful visual communication tool, it has high potential to use as great learning tool as Smiciklas (2012) stated that visualizing information can improve learning. Infographics provide a format utilizing visuals that not only appeal to an audience hungry for information but also aid in the comprehension and retention of that material (Lankow, Ritchie and Crooks, 2012). Courses that teach students to create their own infographics using a variety of tools may encourage engagement in the classroom and may lead to a better understanding of the concepts they are mapping onto the graphics (MacQuarrie, 2012) as infographics can present knowledge in an easy-to-digest format (Smiciklas, 2012). Some of the learning benefits associated with infographics include improved comprehension of information, ideas and concepts, enhanced ability to think critically and develop an organized ideas and improved retention and recall of information (Inspiration Software Inc., 2013). Therefore, infographics seem to have a very high potential to bring into education and use it as a useful tool to enhance quality of learning with the strong belief that if it is carefully integrated and used, it will help enhance the quality of learning through its power of visual communication and learning.

Methodology: The research methodology used for this study were quantitative and qualitative method. The research instruments were questionnaires composing of two parts asking for opinions of students towards infographic using as visual communication tool and infographic using as learning tool. Questionnaires consisted of the use of infographic as visual communication tool in terms of appeal, comprehension and retention and 5-point Likert Scale measuring satisfaction of using infographic as visual aid including open-ended questions rechecking the overall quality of learning. Experts helped verify the questionnaires before applying to students and the researcher took advice and adjusted accordingly.


The samples were twenty students selected by purposive sampling from undergraduated students who enrolled in Knowledge Management course in Business and Computer Education, Vocational Education Department, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University during the first semester of 2013 academic year. Six infographics covering main contents of Knowledge Management Subject were presented to students to examine the impact of the quality of learning in two dimensions, that is, infographic as visual communication tool measuring appeal, comprehension, retention and infographic as learning tool measuring satisfaction in a 5-point Likert Scale format and overall quality of learning in those two dimension via open-ended questions. Quantitative data was analysed by using SPSS for Windows and content analysis was used for analyzing qualitative data.

Results, Discussion and Conclusion:Results The results from the research were as follows:

1. Students opinion on using infographic as a Visual Communication Tool Table 1 Infographic as Visual Communication Tool N=20

123456

Use of Infographic

AppealAppeal

Number Percentage

Not Appeal

Number Percentage

Understand

Number Percentage

Not Understand

Number Percentage

Recall

Number Percentage

Not Recall

Number Percentage

Comprehension Retention

182019192020

901009595100100

2-11--

10-55--

192020201914

951001001009570

1---16

5---5

30

172019191917

8510095959585

3-1113

15-555

15


The overall result finding indicated further that infographic using as Visual Communication Tool could enhance comprehension and retention in the majority of students. For comprehension, it was found that the majority could give topics and details of what have been studied in those infographics and for retention, it was found that the majority could recall topics and details once seeing infographics.

2. Students opinion on using infographic as a Learning Tool Table 3 Infographics as a Learning Tool N=20

The data from table 3 indicated that students were most satisfied with the use of infographics as learning tool to enhance the quality of learning in a most satisfied level (mean = 4.82) and were most satisfied when using infographics to give content, explain content, use as learning activities, show example and conclude content.

Table 2. Students opinion on using Infographics as a Visual Communication Tool N = 20

123456

Giving ContentExplaining ContentUsing as Learning ActivitiesShowing exampleConcluding Content Total

4.854.654.754.904.954.82

Most SatisfiedMost SatisfiedMost SatisfiedMost SatisfiedMost SatisfiedMost Satisfied

Use of Infographic Understand

Number Percentage

Not Understand

Number Percentage

Recall

Number Percentage

Not Recall

Number Percentage

Comprehension

Dimension of using infographics

Retention

Mean Interpretation

151919191919

759595959595

511111

2555555

192020202020

95100100100100100

1-----

5-----


Discussion Results showed positive learning stemming from changing roles of infographic, teacher and students as following 1. Changing Role of Infographics Infographic played an important role in communicating with and connecting to students by way of not only presenting knowledge and stimulating interest but also reaching and engaging students through varied learning activities that infographics were interactively used. It can be seen from student comments in part of visual communication tool that infographic attracted interest, stimulated learning, helped recognize content easily and made easy for them to understand while comments in part of learning tool were enhanced learning, better learning, quality of learning and effective learning based on visual attractiveness, easy recognition and easiness to understand and learn. The finding was in accordance with Kharbach (2012) that infographic can become great education materials to use in both teaching and learning in the sense that it could promote basic communication and Lankow, Ritchie and Crooks, (2012) stated that effective visual communication must basically provide appeal, comprehension and retention, which infographics can promote appeal, comprehension and retention. 2. Changing Role of Teachers Teachers played an important role in using infographics as a helping tool to communicate with students and connect students to learning by way of deciding topics to use and designing ways to use with the intention to stimulate students’ interest, help students to conceptualize and retain knowledge. Smiciklas (2012) also stated that visualizing information can improve learning and courses that teach students to create their own infographics using a variety of tools may encourage engagement in the classroom and may lead to a better understanding of the concepts they are mapping onto the graphics (MacQuarrie, 2012) while Jennifer Brister (2013) stated that visual aids affect learning by helping to keep attention focused on a visual aspect of the presentation. These aids can help children to break down information and manage on their own. Using visual aids in the classroom is a good way to make a lesson more memorable to the student involved. Teaching with infographics requires teachers to carefully plan how to bring in infographics regarding which content to use, what to communicate, which learning activity to combine and when to facilitate learning as infographics can be used to communicate and connect to students in many ways such as giving content, using as case study or showing examples. 3. Changing Role of Students Students played an important role in engaging in the class, being interactive with learning activities with the use of infographics and connecting themselves to learning along with the facilitation of teachers. The finding was also aligned with Inspiration Software Inc. (2013) which stated that some of the learning benefits associated with


infographics include improved comprehension of information, ideas and concepts, enhanced ability to think critically and develop an organized ideas and improved retention and recall of information. Their roles require them more to think, communicate their understanding and participate in the class so that teachers can check and support their learning as needed. Although they have to change their way of studying to be more participative and interactive, their views on the use of infographics were still positive. Most of students preferred using infographics as learning tool in a variety of way such as giving content, explaining content, using in learning activities, showing examples and concluding content at a most satisfied level and agreed that infographics could enhance their learning. Changing roles of infographic, teachers and students seemed to help teachers communicate better and help students learn better according to the findings.

Conclusion It can be concluded that the infographic incorporated throughout the subject can promote the quality of learning as it has a positive impact and can be used as an effective visual communication tool and learning tool to enhance quality of learning. Therefore, it is recommended for instructors to take into consideration for the use of infographics as a communication tool to engage students (Appeal), provide knowledge (Comprehension) and impart memorable knowledge (Retention) and as learning tool to keep attention on subject communicated and presented (Appeal), to connect to knowledge and conceptualize it (Comprehension) and make knowledge more memorable (Retention). However, it is recommended that more research is necessary to verify the potential use of infographics in other environments.

References: 1. Smiciklas, Mark. The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your Audience. Indiana: QUE Publishing, 2012. 2. MacQuarrie, Ashley. Infographics in Education. 2012. 3. Kharbach, Med. Ways to teach using infographics. http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/02/ways-to-teach-using-infographics.html.(Accessed 2012-08-20). 4. Sless, David. Learning and Visual Communication, New York-Toronto: Croom Helm London John Wiley & Sons. 1981. 5. Harvard Business School. 2003. Business Communication. Harvard Business School Press. 6. Lankow, Jason, Ritchie, Josh and Crooks, Ross. Infographics: The Power of Visual Storytelling, John Wiley & Sons. 2012. 7. Kepes, Gyorgy. Language of Vision (Paul Theobold, Chicago, 1969, first published1944).


8.InspirationSoftware.GraphicOrganizers:AreviewofScientificallyBasedResearch,http://bitly.com/rv9iqZ.(Accessed2013-09-13). 9.Lifang,Teng.EducationProbleminThailand.21September2012.http://www.slideshare.net/tenglifangad/education-problem-of-Thailand (Access2013-06-29) 10.SuanDusitPoll,SuanDusitRajabhatUniversity.EducationReforminThaiPeople’sPerspectives.20January–16February2009.http://dusitpoll.dusit.ac.th/polldata/2552/2552_012.html(Access2013-06-29) 11.ResearchCenter,BangkokUniversity.Students’FeelingsTowardsStudying.21May2009.http://bangkokpoll.bu.ac.th/poll/result/poll420.php.(Access2013-06-29) 12.JenniferBrister.TheEffectofVisualAidsonLearning.26September2013.http://www.ehow.com/about_6395799_effect-visual-aids-learning.html (Access2013-09-30)

Keywords: Quality of Learning, Infographics, Visual Communication Tool, Learning Tool


Moral and Ethical Requirements of Graduate Doctors: The Employer’s Viewpoints

delivered by Ramorn Yampratoom MD1,*, Somying Bookaew1, Alisara Wongsuttilert MD1, Sastri Saowakontha MD PhD1, Nattapat Lilitsuwan2, Teeratat Sukonpatip2, Natlada Pathomweepisut2, Peerapol Saisuwan2, Rujrawee Chankamai2, Waralee Amarintarovat2, Sucharee Hirunsri2, Apichart Hema2

1Faculty of Medicine, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand, 2Medical student, Faculty of Medicine, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand *e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Objective: ToidentifythemoralandethicalrequirementsofemployerswhocouldgivetheirfeedbackonfuturedoctorsthatgraduatedfromBuraphaUniversity.Theadministrators,doctors,andnursesinthisstudywerechosentorepresenttheemployerviewpoints.Differencesbetweenthegroupswerealsoanalyzedanddiscussedinthestudy.

Methodology: 406 sampleswere collectedby randomsampling using a five-point scale and open-endedquestionnairesentbyregisteredmail.

Results: The top three requirementswerepunctuality, patient-centeredhealth care, and accountability.Themoralandethicalaspects thatdiffersignificantlyamonggroups of respondents included patient-centered health care, accountability, exhibiting appropriatemedical ethics, and treatmentwithout discrimination. The study found that nurses required highermoral and ethical levels fromgraduate doctors than administratorsanddoctorsdid.Respondentsalsoemphasizedthevalueofhumanityandholistichealthcare.Moralandethicalvalueshouldbeinstilledduringtheearlyyears of medical school by using role models, case studies, and established standards.

Conclusion: Employersneedgraduatedoctorswithahigherlevelofmoralandethicalbehaviors.Regardingemployer’sviewpoints,oneofthemostimportantmoralandethicalaspectsispunctuality.Nursesrequiredhighermoralandethicallevelsfromgraduatedoctorsthan administrator and doctors did.


Keywords: moral,ethics,graduatedoctor,employerrequirement

Introduction With the progression of newmedical technologies and the complexity of the doctor-patientrelationship in theeraofglobalization,moralandethical issueswere theimportanttopicsunderfocusinthemedicalprofessionalongwiththephysician’sknowledge and skill(1-3).InThailand,theMedicalCouncilofThailandisanauthoritytodealwiththepracticeofmedicine,thatincludesestablishingrulesandregulationofprofessionalcompetencies in theareaofprofessionalhabits,attitudes,morals,andethics, under theMedical ProfessionAct (1982)(4).Morals andethics are also the essentialpartofoutcomecompetenciesofgraduatesintheThailandQualityFramework(TQF) for higher education (5). Research studies revealed thatmorals andethical attributesofThaimedicalstudentshadsomegapsandneededtobeimproved(6-8). Differencesinculture,economicsorpositioninhealthcarecontributetoperceptionand expectation of professional ethics(9,10). The Faculty ofMedicine, Burapha UniversityisoneofthemedicalschoolsresponsibleforculminatingthedoctorintheeasternandsomecentralregionsinThailand.It’simportanttoidentifythemoralandethicalrequirementsfromemployerswhocouldgivetheirfeedbackonfuturedoctorsthat graduated fromBuraphaUniversity. In this study, the administrators, doctors, andnurseswerechosentorepresenttheemployerviewpoints.Thedifferencebetweenthegroupswasalsoanalyzed.

Material and Method The population consists of 10,265 administrators, doctors, and nurses in 85 governmenthospitalsintheeasternandsomecentralregionsinThailandrepresentingtheemployerviewpointsongraduatedoctorsfromBuraphaUniversity.Thesamplesizewascalculated fromCohen table(11)with thepowerof0.80and themediumeffect size of 0.15(12).The406sampleswerecollectedbyrandomsampling.AccordingtoTQFforhighereducationofDoctorofMedicineonthemoralandethicaldomainoflearning outcomes of the graduates’ characteristics, the questionnaires were constructedof 8 aspects includingexhibiting appropriatemedical ethics, integrity,exhibitinga crediblepersonality,punctuality,beingaccountable, treatmentwithoutdiscrimination,respectingtherightsofpatientsandpatient-centeredhealthcare.The34itemsof5-scaleand7itemsofopen-endedquestionnairesweresentto3professorswho were distinguishably recognized in moral and medical ethics, medical education andacademicqualityassuranceforcontentvalidity.Reliabilitywas0.80,calculatedfrom50pilot samples. Thequestionnaireswere sentbyusing registeredmail and therespondentswerekindlyaskedtosendbackdirectlytotheresearcherbypre-paid


registeredmail. The response ratewas 77.34%. 11 subjectswere excluded from 326receivedquestionnairesbecauseofmissingmaindirectandindirectvariabledata.Thepercentageofdata fromadministrators,doctors, andnurseswere5.73, 12.74 and81.53,respectively.Mostofthesamples(37.90%)havecontactwiththegraduatedoctorsduring the internshipeveryday.Descriptivestatisticsandone-wayANOVAwereused fordataanalysis. The level of statistical significancewas foundat 0.05level.ThepresentstudywasfundedbytheFacultyofMedicine,BuraphaUniversityandwasapprovedbytheEthicalCommitteeofBuraphaUniversity.

Results

Theresultsreviewedhighlevelsofmoralandethicalaspectsrequiredbyemployerswith average scores of 4.08 from5. The top three requirementswerepunctuality, understanding andbeing able to providepatient-centered health care andbeing accountabletopatientsandassignedduties(Table1). Aone-wayANOVAwasconductedtocomparemoralandethical requirementsofadministrators,doctorsandnurses.Overall,therewasasignificantdifferenceonthelevelofrequirementsatthep<0.05levelforthefouraspectsincludingpatient-centeredhealthcare,beingaccountable,exhibitingappropriatemedicalethics,andtreatmentwithoutdiscrimination(Table2).Posthoccomparisons,usingLeastSquareDifference(LSD)method, indicated thatnursessignificantly requiredhighermoralandethicallevelsfromgraduatedoctorsthanadministratorsordoctorsdid(Figure1).


Figure 1: Comparison of the means of moral and ethical aspects is significantly different between administrators, doctors and nurses

F p-valueMoral and ethical

requirementsforgraduatedoctors

Administrators(n=18)

Mean(SD)

Doctors (n=40)

Mean(SD)

Nurses (n=256)Mean(SD)

Total (n=314)

Mean(SD)

Punctuality Patient-centered health careBeing accountable IntegrityExhibitingappropriatemedical ethicsTreatmentwithoutdiscriminationRespectingtherightsofpatientsExhibitingacredible personality Total

MeanDifference

4.75(0.39)4.21(0.48)4.13(0.46)4.24 (0.42)3.79(0.38)

3.67(0.47)

3.74(0.4)

3.38(0.38)

3.98(0.42)

4.65(0.48)4.19(0.48)3.91(0.54)4.26 (0.46)3.88(0.43)

3.49(0.43)

3.61(0.39)

3.34(0.4)

3.91(0.45)

4.79(0.42)4.53(0.46)4.37(0.49)4.28(0.52)4.06(0.73)

3.9(0.53)

3.63(0.42)

3.43(0.42)

4.12 (0.49)

4.77(0.43)4.47(0.48)4.3(0.52)4.27(0.51)4.02(0.47)

3.83(0.54)

3.63(0.41)

3.41(0.42)

4.08(0.47)

0.525

0.35

0.175

0

-0.175

-0.35

-0.525

-0.7

P1 = Administrators-doctorP2 = Administrators-nursesP3=Doctors-nurses

Exhibitingappropriateethics Accountable Non-discrimination Patient center

P1P2P3P1P2P3P1P2P3P1P2P3P1P2P3P1P2P3

1.7412.4316.110.735.21

12.00

0.68

0.73

11.24

0.177<0.001*<0.001*0.9300.006*

<0.001*

0.507

0.481

<0.001

Table1.MeanandSDwithsignificancetestingofmoralandethicalrequirementsofthe administrators, doctors and nurses

Pairwisecomparisonofmeansofmoralandethicalaspectssignificantlydifferencebetweenadministrators,doctorsandnurses


Discussion Theadministrators,doctors,andnursesrequiredmoralandethicalcharacteristicsingraduatedoctorsatahighlevel.Thisfindingcamealongwithsocialtrendsthatcallfor the good doctors who not only focus onmedical knowledge but also have humanistic andethical competencies(3-5,13-14). The outstanding character needed waspunctuality. Inmedical practice keeping in-timeat every step is very critical, even to saveone’s life.Andperhapspunctuality ismostly straightforward to judgecomparedwithotheraspectswhichcouldbeinfluencedbyasocialorculturalcontext.Importantly,BuraphaUniversityannouncedpunctualityasabasicmoralcharacteristicfor students in every faculty in part of the academicquality assurance. The least needed aspect, at a moderate level, was to exhibit a credible personality. Aprofessionalpersonalityismoreanexternalpartthatwouldbeeasiertobetrainedandtherearevariationsinacceptancedependingonsocial,cultureorsituation(15-17). The aspects that differed significantly among groups of respondents were patient-centered health care, being accountable, exhibiting appropriatemedical ethics,andtreatmentwithoutdiscrimination.Thestudyfoundthatnursessignificantlyrequired highermoral and ethical levels from graduate doctors comparedwith administrators and doctors. Nursing is a profession that has close contactwith patients,gainingtheopportunitytoidentifythegapbetweenexpectationandreality as customer or colleague as seen in some frictions of nurses on young doctors behavior(9). Almost all administrators are doctors that usually take their role in medical practice.However,thisstudyrevealedtherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweentherequirementofadministratorsanddoctors. Regardingtheabovefinding,itcanbeexplainedthatdoctors’andadministrators’requirements onmoral and ethical issueswere significantly lower than nurses. Thelimitationofhealthsystemresourceallocationisthefactorthatthreatensyoungdoctors’moralandethicalreasoningdevelopment.Accordingtoworldhealthstatistics2010 fromWHO(18), Thailand’s doctor to population ratio was 3:10,000 ranking belowtheaverageratiointheSouth-EastAsiaregionortheaverageglobalphysiciandensitythatwere5:10,000and14:10,000,respectively.Excludingthecareofillegalworkersand families thathavenohealthcarecoverage, thehealthcaresystem in Thailand included 3 health schemes: civil servant medical benefit (CSMBS), socialsecurityscheme(SSS)anduniversalhealthcarecoverage(UC),whichareundertheprocessofdevelopment includingtheissuesofuncertaintyandinequityamongthese health care schemes(19-21). The front-linedoctors,most ofwhomare young, havetodecidethepropertreatmentthatissuitedtoanypatient’shealthschemeaswellasthehospitalfacilitiesunderthetimelimittoovercomeanoverwhelmingworkload.Thesesurroundingfactorsmoreorlessinfluencetheirowndecision-makingprocess.However, themedical system takesmoral and ethical issues as an important consideration for medical students or doctors as can be seen in the continual


development of the guidance and rules aswell as improvement of themedical curriculum(4-6). For the open-ended questionnaires, the subjects emphasized the importance of rolemodels. Case studies in real scenarios point out that the assessment of thedoctors’ ethics shouldbedoneobjectively from the start of themedical school year or earlier.

Conclusion Theadministrators,doctors,andnursesneededgraduatedoctorswithhighlevelsofmoralandethicalbehaviors.ThefindingwasinaccordancewithtrendsofmedicalcurriculumbasedonTQFthattightlyintegratemoralandethicalaspectsascorevalues.From the employer viewpoints, themost importantmoral and ethical aspect is punctuality.Nursesrequirehighermoralandethicallevelsfromgraduatedoctorsthanadministrators and doctors.Health organizations or related policymakers should managethesedifferencesofopinionsbyestablishingvenuesforco-workerstoexchangetheirviewsinordertoreduceconflictsandinitiateimprovementsinpatientcare.

References Rhodes,Rosamond,Francis,LesliePandSilvers,Anita(eds.).The Blackwell guide to medical ethics.Australia:BlackwellPublishing,2007.

Ross, Lainie F. Newborn screening. In Pediatric bioethics,GeoffreyMiller (ed.), 2nded,111-124.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010.

Cruess, Richard L, Cruess, Sylvia R and Johnston, Sharon E. Professionalism: AnIdealtoBeSustained.The Lancet 356,no.9224(2000):156–159.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02458-2.

TheMedicalCouncilofThailand.ActandRules,1996.http://www.tmc.or.th/download/Act_pure_01052012.pdf(Accessed2013-01-27).

Officeof theHigherEducationCommission. NationalQualificationsFramework forHigherEducationinThailand,2006.http://www.mua.go.th/users/tqf-hed/news/FilesNews/FilesNews8/NQF-HEd.pdf(Accessed2013-01-27).

Phaosavasdi,Sukhit,Taneepanichsakul,Surasak,Witoonpanich,Pairoj,Tannirandorn,Yuen,Pruksananonda,Kamthorn,Uerpairojkit,Boonchai,Sittisomwong,Tul,Phupong,Vorapong,Manchana,TarineeandNirutisart,Somchai.AssessmentofMedicalEthicsofFourth-yearMedicalStudents.Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 93, no.9(2010):1115–1118.


Hongsanguansri, Sirichai, Rotjananirankit, Ouaychai, Pornsalnuwat, Montira, Sisomprasong, Suwanna and Kongsakon, Ronnachai. TheMoral Development andMoral Reasoning in the 1st, 4th, and 6th year RamathibodiMedical Student. The Journal of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand 51,no.3(2006):189-200.

Tubtimtong,Namtip.TheMoralReasoningofMedicalStudentsinNaresuanUniversity.The Journal of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand 56,no.3(2011):287-296.

Leung,DannyC,Hsu,EnochKandHui,EdwinC.PerceptionsofProfessionalAttributesinMedicine:aQualitativeStudyinHongKong. Hong Kong Medical Journal18,no.4(2012):318–324.

Grol-Prokopczyk,Hanna. Thai andAmericanDoctors onMedical Ethics:Religion,Regulation, andMoralReasoningAcrossBorders.Social Science & Medicine 76, no.1(2013):92–100.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.010.

Cohen,Jacob. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nded.NewYork:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesPublishers,1988.

Polit,DeniseFandBeck,CherylT.Nursing research: principles and methods.7th ed. Philadelphia:LippincottWilliams&Wilkins,2003.

Arnold,Louise.AssessingProfessionalBehavior:Yesterday,Today,andTomorrow.AcademicMedicine77,no.6(2002):502–515.

Fones,CS,Kua,EHandGohLG. “WhatMakesaGoodDoctor?”--viewsof the Medical Profession and the Public in Setting Priorities forMedical Education. Singapore Medical Journal39,no.12(1998):537–542.

Rehman,ShakaibU,Nietert,PaulJ,Cope,DennisWandKilpatrick,AnneO.WhattoWearToday?EffectofDoctor’sAttireon theTrustandConfidenceofPatients.TheAmerican Journal of Medicine 118,no.11(November2005):1279-1286.doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.04.026.

Chung,Heesu,Lee,Hyeyeon,Chang,Dong-Seon,Kim,Ho-Sun,Lee,Hyejung,Park,Hi-JoonandChae,Younbyoung.Doctor’sAttireInfluencesPerceivedEmpathyinthePatient-doctorRelationship.Patient Education and Counseling89,no.3(2012):387–391.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.017.


Hofmann,Julia,Zotter,HeinzandKerbl,Reinhold.HowtoDressasaPaediatrician?ActaPaediatrica101,no.12(2012):1260–1264.doi:10.1111/apa.12020.WorldHealthOrganization.World Health Statistics, 2010.

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS10_Full.pdf(Accessed2012-10-01).

Thammatach-aree, Jadej. Health systems, public health programs, and social determinantsofhealthThailand.WorldConferenceonSocialDeterminantsofHealth,2011.

http://www.who.int/sdhconference/resources/draft_background_paper10_thailand.pdf(Accessed 2012-01-20).

Hanvoravongchai,Piya.HealthSystemandEquityPerspectivesinHealthTechnologyAssessment. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 91Suppl2(2008):S74–87.

Tatsanavivat,Pyatat,Thavornpitak,Yupa,andPongchaiyakulChatlert.ComparativeEffectivenessofThreeNationalHealthcareSchemesinThailand:In-hospitalMedicalExpensesforDiabetesandHypertensionin2010.Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 95Suppl7(2012):S254–261.

Acknowledgement

Thepresent studywasgrantedby theFaculty ofMedicine,BuraphaUniversity. TheauthorswouldliketothankDr.WanlopJaideeforhishelpingivingsuggestions andadviceinthedataanalysis.


Strategic Use of Surveillance Information System in a Time Frame of Internal Quality Assurance

delivered by Dr. Paisarn Kanchanawong Maejo University e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

A period of Twentymonths to complete an InternalQuality Assurance (IQA) is too long to monitor the achievement of indicators before the assessment, whileeffectivenessisoneofthecriticalfactorsthatwillaffectthesuccessofQualityAssurance.Unfortunately, some institutesmay not be able to succeed.Howdo administratorsmonitortheachievementofindicatorseffectivelyinrealtime?Intheyear2010, thesurveillance InformationSystem(SIS)wasadoptedandapplied touse inSchoolofTourismDevelopmentatMaejoUniversity,foronlinemonitoringofIQAandEQA indictors. The surveillancecommitteewasalsopromoted to analyzeactivitieswhichentered into the system from responsiblebodies and to revise the score of indicators accordingly. Fourmeetingswere held to revise indicators while SIS wasused formonitoring theachievement.SIS showed the real timescoreof each indicator on the dashboard that compared the target and performance. Details of activitiesweredisplayedwhen indicatorswere selected. The results of IQAassessment in the year 2010 reported that the total average scorewas 4.36, the highest score in the social science’s faculty. ForComponent 9: System and MechanismofQualityAssurance,thescorewas5duetoSISwasaninnovationanditwasdistributedtoinsidedepartmentsandoutsideMJU.However,Itwasstoppedinthefollowingyearalthoughtheresultwassatisfiedbecausetheresponsiblebodies hadtore-enteralldataintotheCHEQAsystemattheendoftheperiod.

Keywords: SurveillanceInformationSystem,InternalQualityAssurance,QualityAssurance,CHEQAsystem,IQAMonitoring

Introduction: National Education Act BE 1999, Section 6 refers to the standards of Quality AssurancewhichrequiresalleducationinstitutesinThailandmusthaveasystemofqualityassuranceaspartofaprocessforadministrationwork(OfficeoftheNationalEducationCommission2002,28).AllinstitutesmustevaluateInternalQualityAssurance(IQA)byacommitteeeveryyearandExternalQualityAssurance(EQA)byanoutside


committeeeveryfiveyears.However,theinstitute’sperformancesasIQAandEQAindicators for theprevious20monthsareevaluatedeachyear. January-December(calendar year), May-June (academic year), October-September (fiscal year). Thefinalworkingdatahastobeenteredintotheinformationsystemcalled“CHEQA”inSeptemberofeveryyeartoevaluatetheinstitutesbyIQAcommittees.

Figure 1 shows the time frameofQualityAssurance in Year 2010 that School ofTourismDevelopment(TDS),MaejoUniversity,hadtoperformtheiractivitieswithin20monthsbefore IQAassessment.Thequestion ishow theadministratorsmonitor theachievementofallindicatorsduringthistimeframe.

Figure 1: TDS’s Time frame of Quality Assurance for Year 2010

CHEQAfor2010

20092010 2011

Academicyear2010

Calendaryear2010IQA

EvaluationFiscalyear2010

However, effectiveness is one of critical factors thatwill affect the success of quality assuranceespecially for the institutewhichhasmanyactivities in the year. Indicatorsarenecessaryandneed tobe improvedanddevelopedaccordinglyby usingInformationSystemasatooltomonitor,followup,andcontrolindicatorsoftheinstitutes.Hence,Surveillance InformationSystem is a toolwhich is necessary for real time monitoring from online internet.

Methodology: In2010,SurveillanceInformationSystem(SIS)wasadoptedandappliedtobeusedasa tool inSchool of TourismDevelopment for onlinemonitoringof IQAandEQA indicators.Itallowedadministratorsandresponsiblebodiestoanalyzeandevaluateperformanceseffectivelyandtimely.TheobjectiveofSISistomonitorIQAandEQAindicators inreal timebySurveillanceCommitteeandadministrators.Detailsareasfollows:

|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 20

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OctNov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

......

......

......

.

......

......

....


Figure 3: Indicators Dashboard; Showing target and score of indicators

Figure 2: Context Diagram of Surveillance Information System (SIS)

Surveillance Information SystemSurveillance Information System (SIS) was adopted from “Educational Quality Surveillance Information System: EQSIS” by changing indicators from research universityindicatorstoIQAindicators(PaisarnKanchanawong2010,282).ThescopeofSISistostoreallactivitiesdataanddisplaythescoresofallindicatorsinonepagecalled“Dashboard”andgivemoreinformationofselectedindicatorsinadetailwhichareshowninFig.2,Fig.3andFig.4.

Entry Data-UpdatedIndicators-UpdatedActivities-UpdatedDocuments

Request-IQA/EQA indicators

Reports- Dashboard ofindicatorsinoverall-Indicatorsreport;score,activities, documents

Reports-RevisedIndicators

Revise- data- score according to data item

Check data-Completely- Accuracy

AdministratorsSurveillanceCommittee

ResponsibleBody

0SurveillanceInformation

System

(SIS)

IQAComponent

PerformanceIndicator Target


Figure 4: Details of selected indicators

Surveillance Committee TheSurveillanceCommitteewasappointedby theheadofunit in theSchoolof TourismDevelopment.Theirfunctionsweretomonitor,followup,andrevisedataandscores of indicators according to the activitieswhichwas enteredby responsible bodies.Therewere4meetingswhichhadthefollowingobjectives: Meeting1–RevisethecommentsfrompreviousInternalQualityAssessment,Find the solution of those comments, determine the responsible bodies in each indicator,andsetupthetargetforindictors. Meeting 2 – Follow up the activities in the system and revise the score dependingonactivitieswhichwasenteredbyresponsiblebodies. Meeting 3 – Follow up the activities in the system and revise the score dependingonactivitieswhichwasenteredbyresponsiblebodies. Meeting 4 – Follow up the activities in the system and revise the score dependingonactivitieswhichwasenteredbyresponsiblebodies.FinalizethescoreanddatabeforeenteringintotheCHEQAsystem.

Performance

Indicator

Activitiesofindicator


Results, Discussion and Conclusion: TheTDS’sadministratorsandresponsiblebodiesworkedcloselyandcouldmonitortheperformance of indicators via SIS as real time fromonline internet during the 20monthperiod.IQAassessmentreportshowedTDS’stotalaveragescorewas4.36(Office of Quality and Educational Standard 2010). For Aspect 9: System and MechanismofQualityAssurance,ascoreof5wasobtainedduetotheappropriateuseofSurveillance InformationSystemand itwasdistributed to thedepartments inside andoutsideMJU(OfficeofQualityandEducationalStandard2010).TheadvantageoftheSISwas theactivitiesandscoreofKPIcouldbemonitored fromanywhereandanytimewithintimeframeofIQA.Buttheproblemwasthatthedatahadtobere-enteredintotheCHEQAsystembeforetheAssessmentwhichwasrequiredbythegovernment,thushaddoubledtheworkoftheresponsiblebodies.Soitwashaltedthefollowingyearalthoughtheresultwassatisfactory.Frommypointofview,theSISisveryusefulforadministratorstomonitortheperformanceboost-upoftheinstitutes.Therefore,therecommendationfromthisworkistocoupletheCHEQAsystemtothesurveillancesystem in order to monitor indicators from online internet for the institutes within the time frameofworkingforEducationalQualityAssurancebeforetheIQAAssessment.

References:Office of Quality and Educational Standard,Maejo University. Internal Quality Assessment Year 2010. Maejo University. 2010. http://www.oqes.mju.ac.th/ goverment/20111119104834_oqes/15469.pdf,(AccessedAugust8,2013).

Office of theNational EducationCommission. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in 1999 and amended in the second issue/edition 2002,Year2002.Bangkok:Prigwanprinting,2002.

PaisarnKanchanawong,Development of Educational Quality Surveillance Information System for Research University.Dissertation of Faculty of Education, Saint John’s University,2010.


Striving for Performance Excellence at Stamford International University of Thailand

delivered by Boonmark Sirinaovakul, Ph.D. Associate Professor and President Stamford International University, Thailand e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

InThailand,theOfficeoftheHigherEducationCommission(OHEC)hasintroduceda rigorousquality assuranceprocess in an attempt tomeasure and improve the performanceofpublicandprivateuniversitiesandcollegesinthecountry.TheOHECusestheInternalQualityAssessment(IQA)systemtomeasureyearlyperformanceofallpublicandprivateuniversities.Atthesametime,theOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(ONESQA)usestheExternalQuality(EQA)systemtomeasure five-year outcomes of universities’ operations, and it has the official authority to approve or revoke the accreditation of those universities. This paper describesandreviewsthehighereducationsystemmanagementsysteminThailandandhow itsupportsThailandhighereducation toachieveandexceed internationalstandards.ThecaseofStamfordInternationalUniversityiselaboratedtodemonstratehowStamfordimproveditseducationalqualityinthepastthreeyearsfroma“verypoor”ratinginthebeginning,toachievean“excellent”ratingassetforthbytheMinistryofEducation,CommissiononHigherEducationand theOffice forNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment.Achronologicaldescriptionisusedtoshowhowacontinuousimprovementprocesstakesplaceintheuniversity.Seniorleaderswho understand, support and commit the strategicmoves of the proposed quality frameworkregulatedbytheMinistryofEducationarethemostcriticalcomponentsofsuccessfulimplementation.Besides,integrationofqualityprocessesintoacultureofexcellentperformanceisveryessentialtoitssuccess.

Keywords: IQA,EQA,ContinuousImprovementprocess,strategicsuccess.


Introduction Since the inception of a national education plan in B.E. 2542 (1999), quality management of Thai higher educationhas reflectedclear evidenceofprogressiveimprovement with its more advancedmeasurement tools. Key drivers of this improvement are theCommission onHigher Education (CHE) and theOffice for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) which launched implementationofqualityassurancepracticesatalllevelsofeducationthroughoutthecountryinB.E.2545(2002)(5,10).CHEdevelopedtheannualqualitymeasurementsystemcalled“InternalQualityAssessment”(IQA)requiredofallpublicandprivateuniversities.Theobjectivesaretomeasurethequalityofbothacademicandbusinessprocessoperationsinhighereducationinstitutionseachyear.Theresultingscoresgiveannualguidanceforvalue-addedimprovementstoallpublicandprivateuniversities(5,6). Simultaneously,ONESQA, an independent authority agency, hasdeveloped afive-yearqualitymeasurementsystemcalled“ExternalQualityAssessment”(EQA)thatmeasures the outcomes of higher education operations toward achieving standards that represent the national education norm. TheONESQAmeasurementresults in adesignation of “recognized” or “unrecognized”by the ThaiMinistry of Education (3,4).Since theThaiqualitymeasurementandmanagementsystemwasestablishedtenyearsago,qualityimprovementsarevisible,andtheperformanceofmost Thai universities has improved, especially so, thepublic universities that are classifiedasresearchinstitutions.Thetoppublicresearchuniversitieswhichparticipatein the government quality assurance programhave clearly performedwell in the international arena. RecentinternationaleducationtrendsaswellastheASEANEconomicCooperationin 2015 agreement have forced Thai higher education to bemore international. Thai universities must cooperate with other ASEAN universities to develop agreed-upon international education standards tomobilize ASEAN students for employmentopportunitiesinanyASEANcountryinordertomovetheASEANeconomyforward. The recent emergingneedof international higher education standards is emphasized by economic need. It gives rise to the innovative concept of a professional measurement system derived from industry. Thailand has long participatedintheUnitedStatesindustrialqualityassessmentsystemunderthe1987MalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityImprovementAct.SubsequentlytheThaiMinistryofIndustryinitiatedtheThailandQualityAwardinB.E.2539(1996)inanattempttoimproveThaiindustrialproductivityandgiveanannualawardfromtheThaiPrimeMinistertothe top industry asmeasured by the ThailandQuality Award criteria. Recent cooperationbetweentheMinistryofEducationandtheMinistryofIndustryhasresultedin improvedThaieducationperformanceunder theThailandQualityAwardsystemframework.ThenewawardistheThailandQualityAwardwhichispatternedafterthe


MalcolmBaldrigeNationalAward(MBNA)developedinpartnershipwiththeUnitedStatesMBNA committee. The Thai Commission on Higher Education with the cooperation of the ThailandQuality Award committee hence have initiated the application of educational criteria for performance excellence from theBaldrige nationalqualityprograminanattempttoapplythisnewmeasurementtoalluniversitiesinthenearfuture.Manypublicandprivateuniversitiesvoluntarilyappliedforthisnewquality program. The CHE intends to implement these educational criteria for performanceexcellence, shortened to “EdPex,” as a continuingmeasurement tool after thesuccessful implementationof theexisting InternalQualityAssessmentandExternalQuality Assessment for those universitieswho look beyond their current successfulqualitystatus(1,2,3,4,5).TheThaieducationauthorityaimstoachieve ahighersuccessfulqualitystandardatahigherinternationallevelandtobealeadingASEANeducationalqualityandstandardssystem.

Thailand Quality Framework and System Atpresent,therearetwoexistingqualityassessmentsystemsthatworkinunisontomeasureandimprovetheThaihighereducationsystem,namelytheannual internalqualityassessment(IQA)andthefive-yearexternalqualityassessment(EQA)governedbytheCommissiononHigherEducation(CHE)andtheOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(ONESQA),respectively.TheIQAfocusesmore ontheinputandprocessKeyPerformanceIndicators(KPI)whiletheEQAmeasurestheoutcomeofKPI’s.Thecombinationofthetwoassessmentsystemsinafive-yearcycleprovidesacomprehensiveperformancemeasurementofauniversityorcollege.BothCHE andONESQA show and rank the assessment result scores publicly. Apassingscoreis3.51outof5,ratedas“Good”andascoreof4.51orabove,isratedas“Excellent”forbothIQAandEQAsystems.ThecriteriaandKPI’sforthetwosystemsare described in the following sections.

Internal Quality Assessment by the Commission on Higher Education IQA or the InternalQuality Assessment system authorized by theCHE or the Commission on Higher Education is used tomeasure and evaluate education operations,aimingtoproducehighlyqualifiedgraduatescorrespondingwithsociety’sneeds. Educational quality assurance is one of the essential responsibilities for administering education. The IQA is comprised of nine components and 23 key performanceindicators.EachKPIhasafullscoreof5basedoncleardocumentaryevidencefollowingthestepsofapproach,development, learning,andinnovationorADLI.Theconceptissimilartotheconceptofplan,do,check,actsteps(PDCA)ofqualitycirclesdevelopedbyDr.W.EdwardsDeming(1).


Figure 1: The 9 components and 23 Indicators (CHE) and 18 Indicators (ONESQA)Source: Internal Quality Assurance for Higher Education Institutions Handbook B.E. 2553 (2010), Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC).

TheninecomponentsoftheIQAsystemareasfollows:(1)Philosophy,commitments,objectives, and implementation plan, (2) Teaching and learning, (3) Student development activity, (4) Research, (5) Academic services, (6)Culture and arts preservation, (7)Management and administration, (8) Finance and budgeting, (9)Qualityassurancesystemandmechanism.Allofthesecomponentsaretiedintothesystemofqualitymanagementasinput,process,andoutputwiththeirvarietyofKPIsasshowninFigure1.

Input Process

NumberofIndicators

Output/Outcome TotalComponent

(1)Philosophy,commitments,objectives,andimplementationplan(2)Teachingandlearning

(3)Studentdevelopmentactivity(4) Research

(5)Academicservices

(6)Culturalandartspreservation(7)Managementandadministration

(8)Financeandbudgeting(9) Quality assurance system and mechanism

Total

Indicator2.2,2.3and 2.5

Indicator4.3

4

Indicator1.1

Indicators2.1, 2.4, 2.6 and2.7Indicators3.1and3.2Indicator4.1and 4.2Indicators5.1and 5.2Indicator6.1

Indicators7.1,7.2,7.3and7.4Indicator8.1Indicator9.1

18

Indicators(ONESQA)16and17

Indicators2.8andIndicator(ONEESQA)1,2,3,4and14

Indicators(ONESQA)5,6and7Indicators(ONESQA)8,9and18Indicators(ONESQA)10 and 11Indicators(ONESQA)12and13

Indicator(ONESQA)15

1+18

1+2

8+5

2

3+3

2+3

1+2

4+2

11+1

23+18


All of the above 23 KPI’s under nine components are used tomeasure the performanceofalluniversitiesandcollegesinThailand(5,6).Recently,inB.E.2551(2008) andB.E. 2552 (2009),CHE reported that therewere 131 universities and collegesthathadparticipated.InB.E.2551(2008),26universitiesandcollegesreachedthestandardssetbyCHEwhileinB.E.2552(2009),thenumberofuniversitiesandcollegesdroppedto17,andthenumberof“Excellent”scoresimprovedsignificantlytomorethanhalfofthetotalof131participatinginstitutions.Theold,easierscoringsystemwhere3.00wasafullscoreand2.51oraboveratedas“Excellent,”haschangedtothepresentfullscoreof5.00and“Excellent”at4.51orabove.Itisexpectedthatthenumberofuniversitiesandcollegesratedas“Excellent”willdropunderthisstricterrating scheme.Overall, the CHE is shaping the way to improve the system of performancemeasurementtoachievebetterqualityforhighereducationinThailand.

External Quality Assessment by the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment TheOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(ONESQA)presently has completed its second five-year external quality assessment cycle ofhighereducationperformancemeasurement,namelycycle1betweenB.E.2544(2001)and2548(2005),andcycle2betweenB.E.2549(2006)and2553(2010).ONESQAusedtheEQAtomeasuretheoutcomesofhighereducationoperationsbyfocusingonthepastthreeconsecutiveyearsofoutcomeinformation.TheEQAframeworkconsistsof18KeyPerformanceIndicators(KPI’s)ofoutputandoutcomes(3,4). ThepassingscoreofEQAis3.51orabove,ratedas“Good”andthe“Excellent”scoreis4.51oraboveoutofthefullscoreof5.00.Intheassessmentprocess,ONESQAclassifiedallassessinginstitutionsintofourgroupsincluding:(1)Graduateproductionwithresearchfocus,23institutionsparticipated,(2)Graduateproductionwithsocietyand community development focus, 101 institutions participated, (3) Graduate productionwithcultureandartsdevelopment,15institutionsparticipated,(4)Graduateproduction,63institutionsparticipated.Initially,202institutionsparticipatedinB.E.2551(2008), and of these, sixteenwere declared “Unrecognized” institutions in the preliminary announcementbyONESQA inSeptemberB.E. 2551 (2008).ONESQAgrantedanextensionofsixtotwelvemonthstothoseinstitutionswhodidnotpasswithminimumacceptablescorestoimprovetheirperformance. The latest results from the second cycle of external quality assessment by the ONESQAbetweenB.E. 2549 (2006) and 2553 (2010) show that therewere 254 institutions participating in B.E. 2554 (2011) throughout Thailand and only eight institutionsreceived“Unrecognized”.Someofthoseinstitutionswho“failed”couldnotsurvive,resultinginsubsequentmergersandacquisitions.


Continuous Improvement in Higher Education Performance Excellence with the U.S. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award TheCommission onHigher Education (CHE), in cooperationwith the Thailand Quality Award (TQA) committee, is in the process of conceptualizing the higher educationperformance excellence track, also knownas the “EdPex”project. The quality frameworkconcept is adopted from theBaldrigeNationalQualityProgram:EducationCriteria for Performance Excellence. The criteria emerged from Thai industrialpractice towardsperformanceexcellence initiatedby theTQAcommitteeunder ThaiMinistry of Industry sinceB.E. 2545 (2002).During thepast ten years, therehavebeenonlythreeindustrialcompaniesoutof270applicantstoreceivethetop quality award called “ThailandQuality Award (TQA)”. The top quality award grading scale is equivalent to theU.S.MalcolmBaldrigeNationalQuality Award (MBNQA) calibratedby theU.S.MBNQAcommittee. The framework for Baldrige EducationalCriteriaforPerformanceExcellenceisshowninFigure2.Theframeworkconsistsofbroaderandmoreflexiblecriteriaindeterminingthematuritylevelofhighereducationperformancethroughthemeticulousexaminationandconsensusjudgmentof qualified TQApractitioners. The seven evaluation criteria are: (1) Leadership, (2)StrategicPlanning,(3)CustomerFocus,(4)Measurement,Analysis,andKnowledgeManagement,(5)WorkforceFocus,(6)OperationsFocus,(7)Results.

Figure 2: TQA Framework Adopted From Education Criteria of Malcolm Baldrige Performance ExcellenceSource: The 2009-2010 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence, Office of Standards and Higher Education Assessment, Office of Higher Education Commission August 2010.

OrganizationalProfile:Environment,RelationshipsandStrategicSituation

4Measurement,AnalysisandKnowledgeManagement

1Leadership

7Results

2StrategicPlanning

3CustomerFocus

5WorkforceFocus

6OperationsFocus


The Case Example of Benefits of Thai Higher Education Quality Improvement Stamford International University has experienced the troubles of failed and unrecognized status, however, the university finally recovered and delivered a successfulimplementationachievementinestablishingcontinuousimprovementusingtheApproach(A),Deploy(D),Learning(L),Innovation(I)conceptfromtheCommissionofHigherEducation(CHE)andOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment (ONESQA). StamfordInternationalUniversitywasestablishedin1995, locatednearHuaHin,PetchaburiProvince.Theuniversitystarted teachingallundergraduateprograms inEnglish.In2008,StamfordhasexpandeditscampustoBangkokatRamaIX,ontheMotorway road toSuvarnabhumi InternationalAirport. Its aims to replicateEnglish programsattheBangkokcampuswhileinitiatingThailanguageprogramattheHuaHincampusinordertoutilizethebeautifulfacilitiesthere. In2008,theuniversityhadthreeundergraduatefaculties,andagraduateschool,offering 12 programs in Bachelor of Business Administration, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science,Master of Business Administration, andMaster of Public Administration. The second roundofONESQA’s five year evaluationprocesswas conductedduring3,4,5and27April2008byaqualifiedexternalcommittee.The2008externalqualityassessment(EQA)resultswere“failed”and“unrecognized”asshown inFigure3,waitingforasecondroundofEQAwithintwoyears.Thetotalnumberofenrollmentsdropped toabout350 in2009academicyear forbothcampuseseventhough the university spent heavily on advertisingcampaigns topromote the new campusfacilityinBangkok.

The 2008 External Quality Assessment The 2008 EQA system consisted of 7 components including: (1) quality of graduates, (2) research and creativeworks, (3) academic services, (4) arts and culturalmaintainability, (5) personnel and institute development, (6) curriculum, teachingand learning, (7)qualityassurancesystem.Stamfordgot“satisfactory”oncomponent (1), while the other six components were unclear and needed improvement,thereby“failed”ingeneralperformance.


The New Alignment of Business and Academic Strategies The author officially joinedStamford InternationalUniversity in January, 2009. Theuniversitywaschallengedbyacriticallyseriousuncertaintysituation.Thrivinginthe uncertainty, the critical strategies havebeenprioritizedby first correcting the academicsystemandmechanismtostrictlycomplywiththeCHE’sregulationswithrespecttotheinternalqualityassessment(IQA)requirements.Secondly,thebusinessstrategytoincreaseenrollmentthroughadmissionprocesseswasimplemented.Theacademicstrategywastostrengthenthequalityofexistingprogramsinthebachelor’sdegreesandmaster’sdegrees,withoutconsideringnewstrategicprograms,suchasadoctoraldegree.Adoctoralprogramrequiresheavyinvestmentinqualityresourcestobesuccessful.The2009businessstrategywasnecessarytospendveryefficientlyon promotion and advertising,whichwas five times less than the previous year. Businessandacademicstrategieswerealignedandimplementedasinthefollowingcategoriesandtargetedachievements: I. Leadership and Strategies. Thegroupofworkingadvisoryboardswas initiatedby theuniversity licenseholder toconquer thecriticalproblems, thereby reporting to theUniversityCouncilChairman. Thegroupconsists of the licenseholder as a chief advisor, president, anacademicadvisorandabusinessadvisor.Theadvisoryboardmeetsweeklytogiveadviceonbothbusinessandacademic issuesnecessary for thepresident to take appropriateactionintheorganization.Thenewstrategywasproposedbythepresidentinconsentwiththechiefadvisor.ThemainthrustofthenewstrategyistorectifytheacademicsystemandmechanismsinstrictcompliancewiththeCHE’sinternalquality

Figure 3: The 2008 EQA ResultsSource: Internal Quality Assurance for Higher Education Institutions Handbook B.E. 2553 (2010), Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC).

Quality Component Result

1. Quality of graduates2.Researchandcreativeworks3.Academicservices4. Arts and cultural maintainability5.Personnelandinstitutedevelopment6.Curriculum,teachingandlearning7.Qualityassurance

GeneralPerformance

SatisfactoryUnclearandinefficient-FailedVerylimited-FailedUnclearandneedtobeimprovedUnclearandneedtobeimprovedNon-compliantwithCHEregulationsLack of QA system and mechanism

Failed


assessment (IQA) andONESQA’s external quality assessment (EQA) requirementswith necessaryresourceswithinthegiventimeframeoftwoyearssetforthbyMinistryofEducation.Thecapitalforhuman,academic,studentactivities,andmarketingandadmissionwasproposedin yearly and five yearly planswith a financial recovery constraint.Measurement andKey Performance Indicatorswere newly established tomeet theCHE’s regulations and legal requirementsatthetargetedlevelsintheprojectedyearsahead. Theweeklymanagementmeetingforallacademicandbusinessexecutiveshasbeen set to execute the approved annual strategic plan, including academics,marketing and admissions, student activities, andnew regulations. Thebiweeklyacademicmeeting for allfaculties,includingthegraduateschool,hasbeensettoexecutetheacademicoperationalplan,e.g.,teachingandlearning,student’ssatisfactionoutcome,attritionratereduction,andotherurgent matters. The good practice of transparent financial reporting system and procedureswas authorizedbythelicenseholderandthepresidentandreportedataUniversityCouncilmeeting.Theorganizationalplanforacademicandsupportingpersonnelwasproposedintheprojectedannualandfiveyearplan.Theprincipleoflegalandethicalbehaviorwaspromotedandfosteredin theorganizational culture. Thecodeof conduct for facultymembers andpersonnelwas established and implemented alongwith the students’ ethical behavior and dress code. CriteriaforperformancereviewsofUniversityCouncilleadershipwereestablished.Theyaimtoimprove anddevelop organizational goodgovernance and to deliver an appropriate and effectiveleadershipsystem.

II. Academic Operations and Measurements The singlemost critical strategic objective was to rectify the existing academic systemandmechanismtomeettherequirementsofONESQA’sexternalqualityassessment andtosimultaneouslymeettheCHE’sinternalqualityassessmentinthe2009academicyear.BothIQAandEQAreportsofacademicyear2008providedthe immediatekeyguidanceto start with. Then, the university’s quality assurance teamproposed a project plan for the academic year of 2009, including all the necessary action plans together with relevant budgetsunder theclosesupervisionof thepresident.Thekeyperformance indicators (KPI’s) of each IQA and EQA criteriawere developed and calculatedwith targeted achievable scoresinallqualitycomponents. The2009projectplanwasconsidered,discussed,andrefinedbytheadvisorycommittee tomeet budget constraints and finally get consent for implementation. Intensive in-house trainingbyexternalIQAandEQAexpertswasconductedforallfacultymembers,academicexecutives,andthepresident.Properdateddocumentationrelatedtotheactionplanprojectwasproperly implemented in all faculties anddepartments. Existing curriculawere revised and updated to comply with the CHE’s regulation requirements, then reported to the University Councilmeeting to be acknowledged and approved. An interactive teaching andlearningmethodologywasimplementedinallclassroomswithattendanceandnumberof


hours recorded in compliancewith theCHE regulation. A students’ satisfaction surveywas conducted in all classes every semester to rate the teaching faculty performance.Ariskmanagementsystemwasdevelopedinbothacademicfacultiesandbusinessunitstoidentifycriticalactivitiesthatneededtobecloselymonitored. Themostcriticalacademic issuewasproductionofresearch,creativeworks,and academic services. The researchpolicy committeewas established in 2009, chaired by the president. The university exploited its strength of tourism and information technology inwinning academic service contracts from several local provincial governments and the ThaiMinistry of TourismandSports. Theexternal fund generatedmany research and academic articles published in academic journals. In addition, the university set a policy for graduate students to conduct researchprojectsandproduceresearchpublications.

The 2009 IQA Result InOctober 2009, the universitywent through the internal quality assessment process(IQA)conductedbyCHE.The2009IQAscoreresult isshowninFigure4. Note that the university level scorewas 2.63/3.00 rated Excellent, the graduate schoolwas2.41 (Good), liberalartswas2.48 (Good),businessadministrationwas 2.40(Good),andscienceandtechnologywas2.35(Good).Relevantdocumentationwas collected primarily from January toMay 2009, after the current university presidenttookoffice. TheIQAcommitteecitedthatuniversitystrengthsare:(1)Stamfordexecutivesandfacultymemberswerestronglydetermined,devoted,andcommittedtomanagingtoachievequalityofeducation,(2)Stamfordpossesses“internationality”inresponsetothe present and future direction of higher education, (3) there is a diversity of multi-cultural activities. Improvement areas are: (1) needs a development plan for individual facultymembers to grow their academic competency, (2) needs benchmarkingbysharedexperience,(3)needsaworkingcommitteefordevelopingteachingandlearningquality,(4)needstosupportandpromotefacultymembersinproducingnationalandinternationalpublications.

The 2010 IQA Result InOctober2010,theuniversitywentthroughaninternalqualityassessment(IQA)byCHE.The2009IQAscoreresultisshowninFigure4.Notethattheuniversitylevelscorewas4.67/5.00ratedExcellent,graduateschoolwas3.91/5.00(Good),liberalartswas 4.26/5.00 (Good), business administration was 4.22/5.00 (Good), and science and technologywas4.43/5.00(Good). Strengths are in the following: (1)well-prepared anddeveloped excellent style ofpresentation,(2)visionaryseniorleadership,(3)determinedandcommittedfacultyandpersonnel, (4) clearphilosophyand vision especiallyprogressivism, (5) good


environment, small class-size, and student conviviality, (6) Caring instructors. Improvementareasare:(1)itsownuniquestyle,(2)adoptaresearchthemeandbetterresearch teamwork, (3) better communication channels between Bangkok and HuaHin campuses, (4) a clear strategic plan inmoving towards internationality, (5) a plan to develop quality of facultymembers in producing academicworks (6) readiness for education innovation and development (7) strong education partnership for university operations, (8) universities for benchmarking, (9)more educational facilities, e.g. classroom, laboratory, and others.

IQAScoreImprovementYearlysince2009

Figure 4: The Score Results of Internal Quality Assessment in 2009, 2010, and 2011Source: Stamford International University, 2009, 2010, 2011 Internal Quality Assessment Report CHE Online Website.

The Repeated 2008 or the 2nd Round EQA Result in 2011. On the 18th to 20th April 2011, the universitywent through an external quality assessment(EQA)processbyONESQA.Therepeated2008resultwasshowninFigure5and6.Notethattheuniversitylevelscorewas4.14/5.00rated(Good),graduateschoolwas3.98 (Good), liberalartswas3.85/5.00,businessadministrationwas4.20,andscienceandtechnologywas3.80/5.00.Theresultswerecollectedfromtheacademicyear2008,2009,and2010documents. TheEQAcommitteecitedthat“StamfordInternationalUniversitypassestheexternalqualityassessmentstandardandisratedGood.Facultiesofscienceandtechnology,business administration and liberal arts unconditionally pass the external quality standard.”Thenon-recognitionwasrevoked. Improvement areas are: (1) strengthening the research and creativeworks by expanding the research networkwith other universities and integrate research to allmissions of the university, (2) developing effectiveness and efficiency of the administration system and mechanism to increase number of enrollments to meet the

2009 2010 2011 Improvement

StamfordInternationalUniversityGraduate SchoolLiberal ArtsScienceandTechnologyBusiness AdministrationExcellentScoreStandards

2.63/3.002.41/3.002.48/3.002.35/3.002.40/3.00

2.51

4.673.914.264.434.224.51

4.864.674.744.704.874.51

Excellent3consecutiveyearsGoodExcellentGoodExcellentGoodExcellentGoodExcellent


Figure 5: 2011 External Quality Assessment ResultSource: Stamford International University, External Quality Assessment Report by the Office for National Education Standard and Quality Assessment (ONESQA).

business plan. It includes fund sourcing and revenue generation by academic services, (3) budget efficiency consideration, increase exploitation of external resources, and recruitment of the Thai and international facultymembers with qualificationsrelevanttospecificationssetforthbyCHE.

2011 IQA Result On 10th, 17th and 27th August 2011, the universitywent through the 2012 IQA process underCHE committee. The results are shown Figure 7. Noted that the universityscorewasat4.86/5.00,Excellentlevel,graduateschoolwasat4.67,liberalartswasat4.74,scienceandtechnologywas4.70,businessadministrationwasat4.87.Allfacultiesreceivedexcellentscores,includingtheuniversitylevel.

2011IQAResults

ScoreQuality Component Result

1. Quality of graduates2.Researchandcreativeworks3.Academicservices4. Art and cultural maintainability5.Personnelandinstitutedevelopment6.Curriculum,teachingandlearning7.QualityAssurance

AverageScore

4.624.003.544.004.004.115.004.14

ExcellentGoodGoodGoodGoodGood

ExcellentGood


In general, Stamford International University has demonstrated continuous improvementsoftheinternalqualityprocesseveryyearundertheframeworkestablishedby the Thai Commission onHigher Education, alongwith the Key Performance Indicatorsforqualityimprovements.Recently,thereappearstobeincreaseddemandforresearchactivitiesinallpublicandprivateuniversities. The IQAcommitteecommented that1)gooddevelopment inpreparing thewellthoughtoutdocument,2)adeterminedand judgmental leader,3) facultymembers and staff clearly understand and link to leaders’ thought in striving for a leading internationaluniversity,4)needsalongtermplaninacademicpreparationforASEANEconomicCommunity. The partnership between Stamford International University and Laureate InternationalUniversitiesbeganofficialoperationsinJanuary2012.Therehasbeenahuge beneficial gain in the international cooperation among theworld’s largest educationnetworkunderLaureate,i.e.66universitiesin30countriesinmanyareasofacademic excellence.Newworld classprogramshavebeen introduced, suchas, internationalhotelmanagementwiththeBlueMountainHotelSchool,Australia,Bilingualprograms,andafutureartanddesignschool.

2012 EQA Result by ONESQA The third roundof externalquality assessment (EQA) forStamford InternationalUniversitywascompletedonSeptember20-22,2012.The2012EQAscoreresultfromthe18keyperformanceindicatorsoftheweightedaverageoftheacademicyears2009,2010,and2011was4.75/5.00,ratedasExcellent.

2012ExternalQualityAssessmentbyONESQA

Figure 6: Stamford International University 2012 External Quality Assessment Result by ONESQA Source: 2012 External Quality Assessment by ONESQA, Stamford International University.

University/FacultyEQAScore11PrimaryKPI

Score Result Score ResultEQAScore11PrimaryKPI

StamfordInternationalUniversityFacultyofBusinessAdministrationFacultyofScienceandTechnologyFacultyofLiberalArtsGraduate School

4.904.584.844.824.79

ExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellent

4.754.564.694.614.77

ExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellent


TheONESQAEQAcommittee recommendedproposedareas for improvementsincluding1)increaseinacademictitlesforfacultymembers,2)researchpublicationsshouldbefocusedmoretotheareasofspecialtyintheprogramsoffered,3)shoulddomoreonthemanagementandexploitationoftheacademicknowledgeacquiredfromtheresearchtothecommunitybenefits.Strengthsthattheuniversityhasdemonstratedare 1) the strategic management the English teaching that integrated all students and all academicprograms is very efficient, especially, the Laureate English Program isbeneficialtoallstudentsthatarelearningEnglish,2)well-manageddiversityintheinternational environment which comprises 56 nationalities representing about 40 percent of total undergraduate students, 3) students demonstrated excellent performance in national and international competitions, suchas, thewinner in the English national public speaking contest and thewinner of international business competition, 4)Stamfordhasdocumented theability toperformcontinuousqualityimprovementinthepastthreeyearsinachievingtheexcellentlevel,movingfromfailedtogoodandthentoexcellent.

Concluding Remarks StamfordInternationalUniversityhasworkedhardtoimproveitseducationalqual-ityundertheThaiMinistryofEducationqualityframeworkformorethanthreeyears,fromapoortoanexcellentlevel.Theresultingstudentenrollmentshavedramatically increasedyearly,six-foldwithinthreeyearsmainlybecauseofthegreatimprovementoftheeducationalqualityundertheThaiMinistryofEducationsystemandthestrategicimprovementintheadmissionandmarketingoperations.Thiswasaccomplishedbythe strong anddetermined teamwork of all facultymembers, all supporting staff, administrators, and senior leaderswith strong support from the university council members.Themainstrategicinitiativeistheunderstandingofthewellalignedbusinessstrategies and academic operations andmeasurements in all levels from the top executives to all supporting staff in all areas. Lastly, the partnership between Stamford InternationalUniversityandLaureate InternationalUniversitiessince2012 has increased students’ benefits through its international education network from 29countriesand66universitiesonallcontinents.Theauthor isconvinced that thequality framework of the ThaiMinistry of Education is the right path to improving Thaihighereducationinthelongrun.


References:1. EdPexManual,OfficeforHigherEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment, Edition1,November2009,ISBN978-616-202-091-9

2. EducationPerformanceExcellence,http://www.mua.go.th/users/bhes/edpex

3. ExternalQualityAssessment,ONESQA,www.onesqa.or.th

4. ExternalQualityAssessmentforHigherEducation,ThirdCycleB.E.2554(2011) –B.E.2558(2015).RevisedEditionfromNovemberB.E.2554.

5. InternalQualityAssessmentforHigherEducationHandbook.B.E.2553(2010), 177pages.OfficeoftheHigherEducationCommission(OHEC).

6. InternalQualityAssessment,http://cheqa.mua.go.th

7. The2009-2010EducationCriteriaforPerformanceExcellence.2ndEdition, August2010.TheOfficeofHigherEducationCommission.

8. 2011-2012EducationCriteriaforPerformanceExcellence.BaldrigePerformance ExcellenceProgram,NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology,Department ofCommerce,USA.

9. HEQC-Onlineaccreditationsystem.http://heqc-online.che.ac.za, CouncilonHigherEducationandHigherEducationQualityCommittee.

10. HistoryofOfficeofHigherEducationCommission, http://inter.mua.go.th/main2/page

11. W.EdwardsDemings,TheQualityHandbookbyJuran.


University Students’ Role in Shaping Their Learning Experience in The 21st Century

delivered by DR. PRAKASH PATIL CES’SABTCOLLEGEOFARTS,SCIENCEANDCOMMERCE, PUNE, (MS) INDIA. Ph 09422027714 e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Thearticledealswiththeneedsandresponsibilitiesofuniversitystudentsinthe21st

century. It is an era of technologyandglobalisation. Thehigher education should welcomethenewtrendswhichwouldbethepartsandparcelsofit.Forachievingtheaimsandobjectivesof highereducation, the staff and the studentsmayworkwith collaboration.Thestudentsshouldbe taken intoaccountwhiledesigningcurricula. Thestudents,in21st century,shoulddemandauthenticlearning.Thispapertalksabouttheauthenticlearningpracticesthatwouldhelpstudentsdeveloptheirknowledgeofcommunication,collaboration,andleadershipskills.Italsodiscussestheimportanceof information technology in theprocessof learningwith self-relianceandpositive out-puts. The students have to take on responsibilities to self-manage, to find opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and to translate academic learning into practice.Theyhavetofindqualitylearningresourcesandtechnologieswhichwouldfacilitatetheirlearningexperiences.

Key Words: authentic learning, communication, collaboration, learning experiences, responsibilities.

Introduction Forthesuccessfulimplementationofqualityimprovementchanges,anorganisa-tionneedsthenecessarysupportsandsystems.Thisimplementationofsupportsand systemsiscalledtheQualityCultureAssessmentTool.ThistoolhasbeendevelopedtoassessandunderstandtheirqualitycultureforparticipationintheNationalStandardsAssessment Program (NSAP). It also highlights areaswhich could influence the implementationofchange.ThelowestperformingareasmayinfluencehowaserviceisabletoparticipateinNSAP.TheQualityCultureAssessmentToolsimplyprovidesguidanceon the frameworksand systems that are required to support continuous quality improvement and factors that contribute to success. The “shared values, beliefs,expectationsandcommitmentstowardquality”aswellas“astructuralelement


with the processes that sustain quality and aim at coordinating efforts” is called Quality Culture. To achieve aims and objectives of any university in the era of globalisation and technology of the 21st century, universitiesmust invent and implementnewstrategies.Alongwiththis,thestudentsalsohavetoobservecertaindutiestowardstheuniversity.

New Trends in Higher Education: In thepastdecade, higher educational institutionsacross theglobehavebeen buffeted by a complex set of pressures. Foremost among them is the growing importanceof knowledge-ledeconomies that haveplacedhigher educationat thecentre of national competitiveness agendas. Higher educational institutions are increasinglyviewedbypolicymakersas‘economicengines’andareseenasessentialforensuringknowledgeproductionthroughresearchandinnovationandtheeducationand continuous up-skilling of theworkforce. This has resulted in aModernisationAgendaforUniversities-andhasbeentranslatedintonewnationalpoliciesaffectingprincipallygovernance,autonomy,funding,researchandexternalqualityassurance.These fundamental changes, alongwith the implementation of the core reforms, aredeepandsignificant.Theyhavehadasignificant impactonall theactivitiesofuniversitiesand their partnershipswith other higher education institutionsandwith their stakeholders. They also have resulted in an increased emphasis on the universities’strategiccapacityandtheirprofessionalism.Thechangeshaveconsumedboth time and resources, especially on staff members, and require effective institutional leadership. Inaddition, thecurrenteconomiccrisishashadanegative effectinmanycountries:somehavehadtocuttheireducationbudgetswhilestudentdemandtoenterhighereducationortostayonforadditionalqualificationsisgrowing.This,incombinationwithmountingpressuresonpublicfunding,hasledtodebateonthe issue of tuition fees and free admission to higher education in some countries. Finally,theriseinparticipationrateshasledtochangesintheshapeandsizeofmanyhighereducationsystems.Thus,manycountrieshaveseenasignificantincreaseinthenumberofinstitutions,butrecentdemographicdeclineshaveresultedinbringingtogetherseveralinstitutionsunderfederatedstructures.

Roles of Students: Participation in Curricula Designing As far as higher education is concerned there is a growing interest in students becomingmore active participants and co-creators of their learning experiences. Oneof the keyareaswhere students couldhavegreater engagement and impact ontheirownlearningisincurriculumdesign.Scholarsdonotagreeaboutdefinitionsofcurriculum,butmostcommonconceptualisationsviewthecurriculumasthe‘structureand content of a unit’…… ‘programmeof study’ and ‘the students’ experience of


learning’and‘adynamicandinteractiveprocessofteachingandlearning’(FraserandBosanquet, 2006: 272).Often students are kept away from curriculumplanning processes.Yet,whatislesscommonisstudentsaremoreactiveindecisionmakingrolesaboutcurriculumdesign.Currently,academicstaffoftenactasgatekeeperstocurriculumdesign.Thereshouldbeadeeplevelofstudentengagementthroughthestudents’activeparticipationinthecurriculumdesignprocess. Forthebettermentofcurrentstructuresthecollaborativereformsofcurriculumdesignisnecessary.Bydoingthisthestudentswilldemonstratehighlevelsofself-directedlearningandautonomyalongwithimprovedlevelsofconfidenceandmotivationwithanimprovedstudentperformance.Studentswillchangetheirviewsofcurriculumdesignasa resultof theiractiveparticipation incurriculaprocesses.Theywillunderstandcoursedesigntobeacomplexprocessandwillhaveagreaterunderstandingofthedemandsonacademic staffwithin thisprocess. Theprocessof collaboratingwith studentswilldemanda lot fromacademicstaff.However,all tutorswillhavea richexperienceoflearningfromstudentsthroughopeningupmoremeaningfuldialoguewith them.

Issues and Challenges in the Process Formanyacademicstaff,theideaofhandingoversomecontrolofthecurriculumtostudentswillseemverythreatening,ortheymayfeelthatstudents,particularlyintheirfirstyears,havelittletooffertothecurriculumdesignprocess.However,studentswillcontributemeaningfullyinthecurriculumdesignprocessiftheyreceivesupportfromteachersandaslongastheirsuggestionsaretakenseriously.Formanyteachers,constraintsontheirtimewillbeabarriertothemtryingnewapproachesthatappeartobe timeconsuming. For some teachers, there is concern that theyare thepeople responsible for ensuring the programme is taught. If anything goes wrong, the perception is that it will be deemed their fault.However, academic staff and studentswhohaveco-created thecurriculum, theywillgetexperiencesofworkingtogetherandthesharedresponsibilityforthecurriculumthatemergesfromtheprocess.Studentsarelikelytogetthemostfromactivelyparticipatingincurriculathataretheirowncourses–thishelpsthemgainthegreatestownershipovertheirownlearning.However,bydefinitionthisimpliesthatforeachnewcourseorprogramme,studentsneedtoactivelyparticipateincreatingtheirowncurriculum,raisingconcernsaboutthesustainabilityforthiskindofcollaborativeapproachtocurriculumdesign.

Need For Authentic Learning Authenticlearningfocusesonareal-world,complexproblemsandtheirsolutions,usingrole-playingexercises,problem-basedactivities,casestudies,andparticipationin virtual communities of practice. The learning environments are inherently


multidisciplinary. Theyare “not constructed inorder to teachgeometryor to teachphilosophy. A learning environment is similar to some ‘realworld’ application or discipline:managingacity, buildingahouse, flyinganairplane, settingabudget, orsolvingacrime,forexample.Goingbeyondcontent,authenticlearningintentionallybringsintoplaymultipledisciplines,multipleperspectives,waysofworking,habitsofmind,andcommunity.Studentsimmersedinauthenticlearningactivitiescultivatethekindsofportableskillsofjudgmenttodistinguishreliablefromunreliableinformation,patiencetofollowlongerarguments,abilitytorecognizerelevantpatternsinunfamiliarcontexts,andtheflexibilitytoworkacrossdisciplinaryandculturalboundaries. Educationalresearchershavefoundthatstudentsinvolvedinauthenticlearningaremotivatedtoperseveredespiteinitialdisorientationorfrustration.Thelearningeventessentiallyencouragesstudents tocompare theirpersonal interestswith thoseofaworkingdisciplinarycommunity:“CanIseemyselfbecomingamemberofthisculture?Whatwouldmotivateme?Whatwouldconcernme?HowwouldIworkwiththepeoplearoundme?Howwould Imakeadifference?”Collegesanduniversitiesacross thecountryareturningtoauthenticlearningpracticesandputtingthefocusbackonthelearnerinanefforttoimprovethewaystudentsabsorb,retain,andtransferknowledge.Thefollowingareexamplesofauthenticlearningpracticesandtheirbenefits.

Role Playing Based Learning Therole-playingwouldhelptoimmersestudentsinthecomplexitiesofauthenticdecisionmaking, helping them develop the communication, collaboration, and leadershipskillstheywillneedtobesuccessfulpractitionersintheirfields.Thiswillexpose students to thewide range of social, political, economic, and scientific conflicts thataffectcomplexengineeringprojects,particularly those thatmaybemultinationalinscope.Studentsfromdifferentdisciplinarybackgrounds,includingcivil, environmental, telecommunications, software, andmechanical,will use thislearningtooltocollaboratewithothersonauthenticproblemsofglobalimportance.Theywillgetachancetolearnbydoingmoreprecisely,tolearnbyreconstructingkeyarchitecturalandartisticenvironmentsoftheancientworld.

Peer Review Based Evaluation PeerReviewisafreeweb-basedprogramthatallowsinstructorstoincorporatefrequentwriting assignments into their courses, regardless of class size,without increasingtheirgradingworkload.Studentsaretrainedtobecompetentreviewers andarethengiventheresponsibilityofprovidingtheirclassmateswithpersonalizedfeedbackonexpositorywritingassignments.Meanwhile,withaccesstoallstudentwork,instructorscanmonitortheclassasawholeandassesstheprogressofeach


student. The CPR systemmanages the entire peer-review process, including assignment creation, electronic paper submission, student training in reviewing,studentinputanalysis,andfinalperformancereportpreparation.

Working with Remote Instruments Throughabrowserinterface,itispossibleforstudentsaroundtheworldtoconductexperimentswithspecializedequipmentlocatedontheircollegecampus.Forexampleashaketablethatsimulatesearthquakesandasensor-equippedflagpolethatmeasuresmeteorological parameters. Software agents oversee instrument usage, assigning prioritiestoindividualexperiments.Forstudentswithoutimmediateaccesstoexpensivespecializedequipmentorextremelyrarescientificinstruments,thisapproachcanopenthedoortoactivelearningexperiencesthatwouldotherwisebebeyondtheirreach.

Working with Research Data Indisciplinesfromornithologytosocialhistory,studentsarebecominglegitimateperipheral participants in virtual communities of practice, collecting data either first-handorthroughremotelylocatedsmartsensors.Inothercases,studentsusedatacollectedby researchers (suchas virtual skydataaccessible through theNational ScienceDigitalLibraryProject)toconducttheirowninvestigations.Theyarepracticinghigher-order analysis on real data sets while contributing to the common knowledge base.

Reflecting and Documenting Achievements Thestudentshavetostudytheirownlearningpatternsinanefforttoimprovetheirperformanceover time. In addition, a feedbackcycle allows students topost their individualworkelectronically,performintra-groupandextra-groupreviews,questionprojectassumptions,andlearntocritiquetheirpeersconstructively,astheymustdothroughout their whole careers.

Learning with Information Technology In the 21st century, a number of educational researchers have come to the conclusionthat“thevalueofauthenticactivityisnotconstrainedtolearninginreal-lifelocationsandpractice,butthatthebenefitsofauthenticactivitycanberealizedthroughcareful designofweb-based learningenvironments.” Today’sweb-based learningenvironmentsgivestudentsaccesstomanyofthesameresourcesthatprofessionalsuseintheirresearch.WithWeb-basedaccesstoradioastronomydata,forexample,studentshavediscoveredstarsoverlookedbyveteranresearchers.HistorystudentswithaccesstoAmericanCivilWararchivesaredrawingtheirownconclusionsaboutthehistoryandsociologyof thatperiod.Withonlineaccess to remote instruments,


studentsareusingrareorexpensiveequipmenttorunexperimentsandinterpretdatafor themselves. In the process, they are dealingwith incomplete and uncertain information,coming togripswithcomplexpatterns,and realizing themessinessofreal-life researchwhere theremaynotbeasinglerightanswer.Technology isalsoprovidingaccesstophenomenathatmightotherwiseremainopaquetomanynovices,particularlyso-calledexperientiallearners.Softwarevisualizations,images,audio,andhaptics bring abstractions to life. For instance,when scientific,mathematic, and engineeringconcepts require learners tobuildabstractmentalmodels that involveinvisible factors, such as intangible force fields and interactions among charged particles, visualizationandhapticdevicescanbeused tohelp learners feel force, pressure,andtemperature.Educatorscanuseweb-basedcommunicationtoolstohelpstudents collaborate with one another, sharing and constructing knowledge. Socialnetworkingtoolscanhelplearnersfindabroadercommunitywillingtoshareinformationandreferences.Andstudentscanreflectontheirlearningandperformanceby taking “snapshots” of their groupactivitieswith the help of blogs, e-portfolios, quizzes,andvideo-capturetools.Authenticlearningcanrelyoneducationalsoftwaredeveloped to simulate typical scenarios that professionals encounter in real-world settings.Alongwithcommunications tools, theseonlineexperiencesoften integrateintelligenttutoringsystems,conceptmapping,immediatefeedback,andopportunitiesforreflection, includingthechancetoreplayrecordedeventsandadoptalternativedecisionpaths.Thesoftwaretapsintothevariouspressuresituationsandemotionsthat teachers are likely to experience as they engage their students in a lesson. Technologicalsupportfortoday’sauthenticlearningenvironmentscommonlyincludes:

1. High-speedInternetconnectivityforprovisionofmultimediainformation.Itincludesdynamicdataandpracticalvisualizationsofcomplexphenomenaandaccesstoremoteinstrumentationinconjunctionwithexpertadvice. 2. Communication and social networking tools for the support of teamwork, including collaborative online investigation, resource sharing, and knowledge construction. 3. Intelligenttutoringsystems,virtuallaboratories,andfeedbackmechanismsthatcapturerichinformationaboutstudentperformanceandhelpstudentstransfertheirlearning to new situations. 4. Mobiledevicesforaccessingandinputtingdataduringfield-basedinvestigations.WhatMakesAuthenticLearningEffective?Authenticlearningdealswiththewaythehumanmindturnsinformationintouseful,transferableknowledge.Cognitivescientistshavedeveloped a comprehensive portrait of the learner. The followingprinciples illustratethealignmentbetweenlearningresearchandauthenticlearning:


5. Whenweapproachasubjectforthefirsttime,weimmediatelytrytoperceivetherelevanceofthenewconcepttoourlivedexperience.Whenanewpieceofinformationsimplydoesn’tfitinanyofourexistingknowledgestructures,itisoftenrejected.Thismeansthatthemoreencouragementalearnerhastobecomeinvestedinmaterialonapersonallevel,theeasieritwillbetoassimilatetheunfamiliar. 6. Theconceptsbeinglearnedarealwayspartofamuchlarger“learningevent”andaredirectly linked in the learner’smindwith social circumstances-the setting, theactivities,thepeople.Alongwiththisemerginglearnerprofile,cognitivescientistsare studying themind-set of the educator or subjectmatter expert, with some illuminating results. 7. Theteacher-as-facilitatorcanmakeorbreakalearningevent.Learningmethodsevoke feelings in students that reinforce, support, or detract from knowledge construction. Even thebrightest teamof studentsdealingwith complex, sustained investigationsmayhavedifficultymakinggoodjudgments.Itistheeducator’sroletodesign appropriate comprehensionchecks and feedback loops into the authentic learning exercise. For example, students engaged in publishing a peer-reviewed journal will evaluate each other over the course of the project andmay receive additionalguidancefromtheeducatorintheroleofpublisheroreditorialboardmember. 8. An educatormust give a student a capacity to act, decide, and commit. Researchers warn that higher education has focused for too long on inculcating and assessing those cognitive skills that are relatively easy to acquire-remembering, understanding, and applying-rather than the arguablymore important skills of analyzing, evaluating, and creating.Moreover, in developing these lower-order thinkingskills,educatorslargelyhavetoignoretheothermajorlearningdomains,whichdetermines whether a student has the necessary will, desire, commitment, mental energy,andself-determinationtoactuallyperformatthehighestdisciplinarystandards.Thestudentsshouldbeengagedinissuesofconcerntothem,fromglobalwarmingtoworldhunger.Thosewhoadoptinnovativelearningstrategiesmustbereadytoadjusttheirassessmentstrategiesaccordingly.Otherwise,thepurposeoftheentireenterprisemaybedefeated.Thereareeightcritical factors thatareessential forasuccessfullearning environment: goals and objectives, content, instructional design and methods, learner tasks, instructor roles, student roles, technological affordances, and assessment. Aneducatorcan introduceauthenticcontent, replacing textbookswithhistoricaldocumentsandscientificdatafromremotesensors.Hecandesignproblem-basedactivitiestoreplacelectures.Hecanexpectstudentstocollaboratewithoneanother.Hecaneven surrender someof his ownpower asanexpert to join students asa co-learner. And he can support all this innovationwith visualizations, simulations, andinteractivetechnologies.Still,hemaynotachievehisgoalsifheneglectstorethinkhis assessment strategies.


Afterall,whatistheuseofadoptingloftiergoalsforyourselfandyourstudentsifyoucontinuetousemultiple-choiceteststhatseekthe“right”answer,capturingonlythelower level knowledge that is easiest tomeasure?Rather than relyingona single assessmentmethod,instructorswhoadoptauthenticlearningmethodsmustanalyzemultipleformsofevidencetomeasurestudentperformance,includingobservationsofstudentengagementandartifactsproducedintheprocessofcompletingtasks.

Learning and Learners Teachers needcoherent, supportiveProgrammesof Study thatwill encourage themtounderstandtheirworkdifferentlythanthefactorymodelallows.Theirjob,inthe21st century,istointroducestudentsintolivingfieldsofknowledgeandthewaysoflivingthatareappropriatetothatfield.Itistobeforstudents,anexampleofwhatitmeanstobeinterestedinthewaysofthatplaceandtosupportthemastheylearntofindtheirwayaroundinit.

Enhancement of Teaching and Learning the Nine Principles There is a need of fundamental training in teaching for all new academics. Newpromotionspoliciesthatrecogniseleadershipandscholarshipinteachingshouldbe implemented. Rigorous, peer-reviewed audits of teaching and learning performance shouldbe undertaken. Teaching awards that require the exercise of anevidence-based,professionalapproachtoteachingaswellasbasiccompetenceshould be announced. Financial rewards to academics for publications and scholarships for university teaching faculties should be given every year. The authoritiesmust establish some formal benchmarking of teaching quality and academicqualityassurancewithleadinginternationalresearchuniversities.Theyshouldcarrysomemandatoryannualsurveysbasedonthestudents’experienceofcoursesandfacilities,linkedtofundingandAcademicBoardReviews,theNinePrinciplesare: a) Anatmosphereofintellectualexcitement. b) Anintensiveresearchculturepermeatingallteachingandlearningactivities. c) Avibrantandembracingsocialcontext. d) Aninternationalandculturallydiversecurriculumandlearningcommunity. e) Explicitconcernandsupportforindividualdevelopment. f) Clearacademicexpectationsandstandards. g) Learningcyclesofexperimentation,feedbackandassessment. h) Premiumqualitylearningresourcesandtechnologies. i) Anadaptivecurriculum.

Responsibilities of Students Every university expects students to take on the following responsibilities as members of the university community: To shape their educational experience


positively;Bewell informedaboutcourserequirementsapplyingtotheirfacultyandseekfacultyassistanceifindoubt;Useinitiativeinlearningandaspiretointellectualindependence;Acceptandactonadviceandfeedbackonacademicperformance;Topreparediligently forqualifications, employment andcontinuous learning; Takeresponsibilitytoself-managetheirenrolmentandcourseplanning,usingadvicefromtheir faculty; Participate constructively in learning in classesandonline; Take joint responsibility for theireducationandbeself-directed learners;Engagecloselywithfacultyanddiscipline-basedcolleaguesandparticipateinprofessionalbodieswhereappropriate; Explore opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and for translating academiclearningintopractice;Tobeapartofuniversityenvironment;Tobediligentlearnersandtosubmitassessmentspunctually;Beinformedaboutsupportservicestomeetacademicandpersonalneedsandseek information if unsure;Useuniversityresources responsibly and observe university statutes, regulations and policies; Care for thecampusand surroundingareas, including theamenityofneighbours;Supporttheuniversity’scontinuousimprovementendeavoursbyprovidingconsiderateandhonestfeedbackonacademicandsupportservices;Toshowandearnrespectinrelatingwithothers in theuniversityand thewidercommunity;Treatstaffandotherstudentswithrespectandcourtesy;Respecttheopinionsandbeliefsofothersandengage in rational discussion in areas of disagreement; Consider involvement in universityactivitieswhichextendorenrichthestudyexperience,bothoncampusandbeyond; anddisplayprofessional conductwhile undertakingwork andpracticum placements,fieldworkoreducationalexchanges.Allthesedutiesaretobeobservedbyastudentinthiseraofglobalisationandtechnology.Thatwouldleadastudenttohis/her success.

Conclusion For thequality improvementofanyuniversityaQualityCultureAssessmentTool has to be used by it. This will help the university to participate in theNational StandardsAssessmentProgramme.ThebasicneedoftheuniversityistosustainthecollaborativeparticipationoftheStaffandthestudents.Thestudentsmayunderstandcertain identifiedplaces of quality: the learningprogramme (what they needed to learn), learningrelationships(whotheyneededtolearnfromandwith)andlearningspaces(wheretheyneededtolearn).TheLearningProgrammewilldealwiththereallife skills,debating skills,basicphilosophy, raiseglobal awareness, self-discovery,self-knowledge,languagesandcommunicationskills,interpersonalskills,currenteventsand learningbeyond the curriculum. The learning relationshipwill dealwithmore personal groups, table groups, discussiongroups, andmore teacherswith fewer studentsintheclassroom.Thelearningspaceswouldcontainmoreoptionsforfurniture,labs, open areas andwindows, no closed doors, private study areas, brighter, colourful spaces, andcentral spaceand schoolbuilt around it. There shouldbea


curriculum(ProgramsofStudy)thatrevealsthelivingcharacterofthedisciplinesandthatprovidesanadequateresponsetotheinvitationsthatthesestudentshaveopened.Itisnowtimefortheauthoritiestostepforwardtoaccepttheresponsibilityofprovidinga curriculum framework that is responsive to these realities: the students, the new researchfindingsandthenewdemandsthattheworldismakingoneducation. Alongwith these requirements the studentsmust observe certain rules and regulationsof theuniversity.Theyhave to followsomeessentialduties towards theuniversity.Thestudentshavetopreparediligentlyforqualifications,employmentandcontinuous learning. Theyhave tobepart of theuniversity environment. Theyalso must showandearn respect in relatingwith others in theuniversity and thewider community.

References: 1. Fraser,S,andBosanquet,A,Thecurriculum?That′sjustaunitoutline,isn′tit? StudiesinHigherEducation,31,3,269-284,2006.

2. Bovill,C.Morss,K.andBulley,C.Curriculumdesignforthefirstyear. FirstYearEnhancementThemeReport,Glasgow:QAAScotland,2008.

3. Brown,J.S.Learning,working,andplayinginthedigitalage.Presentedatthe AmericanAssociationforHigherEducationConferenceonHigherEducation. http://www.ntlf.com/html/sf/jsbrown.pdf(Accessedon07/09/2013) 4. Siemens,G.(2004).Connectivism:Alearningtheoryforthedigitalage.from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm(Accessedon09/09/2013) 5. Downes,S.EmergingTechnologiesforLearning.Coventry,U.K.:Becta.from http://partners.becta.org(Accessedon09/09/2013)

Internet Sources: 1. http://www.gla.ac.uk/media 2. http://www.ntlf.com 3. http://www.elearnspace.or


Development of an Internal Quality Assurance Model for Subject Group Level in Basic Education

delivered by Dr. Sasitorn Buathong1, Dr. Suwaporn Semheng2, Asst. Prof. Dr. Sunan Solkosum3, Dr. Komsorn Wongrugsa4. Bangkok, Thailand *e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The aimof this research is to develop an internal quality assurancemodel for subjectgrouplevelinbasiceducation.Theresearchmethodologyisdividedintothreeparts.Thefirstpartisthecreationofaninternalqualityassurancemodelforsubjectgrouplevelinbasiceducation.Thiswasaccomplishedbystudyingandanalyzingdatafrom previous research and studying the current quality assurance process of educationintheschools.Thesamplesconsistofeducationaladministrators,personnelresponsibleforqualityassurance,andheadsof8subjectgroupsinbasiceducation.Thesamplesize iscomprisedof37schoolsconsistingof10 individuals fromeachschool,totaling370people.ThesampleswereselectedbyStratifiedRandomSamplingbased on the size of the school. Theseweredivided into 2 groups for obtaining information:4 schoolsusing theFocusGroup Interview technique,and33schools usingquestionnaires. The secondpart is the study on the efficiency of themodel createdwhichwascarriedoutbyconductingapilottestononeschool.Theefficiencyof themodelwasstudied in fourdimensions: theFeasibilityStandard, theProprietyStandard,theUtilityStandard,andtheAccuracyStandard.ThethirdpartisthestudyontheeffectivenessofthemodelwhichwasdeterminedfromtheperformancebasedonthestandardsforinternalqualityassuranceaspresentedintheSelf-AssessmentReports(SAR)submittedbythe8subjectgroups.

The results are as follows: 1. TheinternalqualityassurancemodelforsubjectgrouplevelinbasiceducationisformedanddrivenbytheapplicationofthePDCAcycle.Itisdividedintothreesteps:preparation,implementation,andreporting.Theexecutionofeachstepisintegratedtogether and continuously on an annual basis. 2. Theefficiencyof themodelwith regard to theFeasibilityStandard,ProprietyStandard,UtilityStandardandAccuracyStandardwasfoundatahighlevel. 3. Themodelwasfoundtobehighlyeffective.Thisisevidentfromtheresultthatallsubjectgroupsachievedahigherperformancelevelthantheirsetgoal.


Keywords: internalqualityassurance,subjectgroups,basiceducation.

Introduction According to Section 6 of the National Education Act B.E. 2542, the aims and principlesofeducationisclearlydefinedandstatesthateducationmustbeemployedtodevelopThai citizens in order to thrive in physical,mental, intellectual, literate, andmoral aspects; to haveethics andculture; and to coexist happilywith others (Office forNational Education Standards andQuality Assessment B.E. 2547: 5). Qualityassurancehastobeintegratedintheregularprocessofadministrationandteachingoftheschoolinordertocontinuouslyimprovethequalityofthestudentsovertime. Thiswill ensure that schools are providingquality education thatmeets the standardswhichwillproduceThaiyouthsthatareethical,happy,andabletoproudlycooperateandcompetewithothercountries internationally.TheNationalEducation ActB.E.2542setsoutinSection6thestandardsandqualityassuranceineducation.Itstates thatagenciesandeducational institutionsare toprovidequalityassurance in education. This is to be part of the administration process that needs to be implementedcontinuously.Annualreportsaretobesubmittedtoaffiliatedagenciesandorganizations involvedand tobepubliclydisclosed.According to theNationalEducationAct B.E. 2542Amendment (No. 2) B.E. 2545 onquality assurance for education, quality assurance is an important issue thatmust be implemented collectivelywitheducationadministration.Moreover,decentralizingmanagementtothelocal levelandschools isencouraged.Aqualityassurancesystem isnecessary toensurethatallstudentswillreceiveaneducationthatisofsimilarqualityregardlessoftheirlocale.Thegoaloftheassessmentisnottopunishbuttoreflecttheperformanceof the school in order to provide education thatwould benefit the students fully. Thus, quality assurance is an assurance to the students.As a result, educational institutionsmustbeawareofthequalityofeducationinordertoimprovethequality andstandardsofeducationandtosupporttheexternalassessmentoftheOfficeforNational Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). Accordingtosecondstageoftheexternalqualityassessmentonbasiceducationwhichhasbeenimplementedfor3years(2006-2009)andhasbeen60%completed,itwasfoundthatacommonsuggestiontowardsaffiliatedagenciesisthatthereisaneedtofocusondevelopmentofteachersontheefficiencyofteachingespeciallyontheutilizationofstudent-centeredlearningtechniques.Thisalsoincludescreatinganintegratedteachingplan,analyzingstudents individually,usingdiverseassessmentand evaluation techniques that correspond to the topic being taught, using research-basedlearningtosolveproblemsinteachingandlearningand/orcreatenewinnovations,anddevelopingnewteachingandlearningtechniquesthatconformtothe


core curriculum for basic education B.E. 2551 which would initiate the students to thinksystematically,lovelearning,lovereading,becapableofself-learning,beabletoread and write and be able to apply knowledge effectively resulting in direct developmentofthestudents’achievement.BasedonstageIIandIIIoftheexternalqualityassessment, ithasshown that the teacher isan important factor thatwould influence students to develop their competency. In order for the students to be competent, the teachersmust have efficient teaching and learning techniques especiallyforstudent-centeredlearning.(OfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment,2009).3 Inordertodeveloptheability to learn,studentsmustgothroughprocessesthathavequality.Therefore,schoolsmustprovidequalityeducationandstudent-centeredlearning.Thiscanonlybeachievedbyhavingteachersthatarecapableofusingthistechnique.Theteacherisanalogoustoaresearchersincetheymustknowtheirstudentsindividuallyandbeabletoassesstheminordertoimprovetheteachingandlearningexperience.Quality assessmentmust be implementedby the schools regularly in order to improve continuous quality. This includesmaking self-assessments and systematically recording data. Quality assessment will enable awareness on the strengths and weaknesses of the school in order to adjust and improve education. The characteristic of a good internal quality assurance system is to be able to implementitinconcurrencewithnormalpractice.Theassessmentprocessmustbesystematic, continuous, and authentic. Each subject group has a set standard of learning as an important goal for improving the quality of learning. The learning standardspecifieswhatstudentsneedtoknowandperform.Itindicatesdesiredmorale,ethics,andvaluesfromstudentswhencompletingtheirbasiceducation.Thelearningstandard is also an importantmechanism indriving thedevelopment of the entire educationsystemaswellasatoolforthequalityassurancesystem.Thisisappliedthrough the internal and external quality assurance systemwhich includes both regionalandnationaltests.Thequalityassurancesystemshouldreflectthequalityofeducation and help develop the students tomeet the set learning standards (MinistryofEducation.2008:8). Therefore, each subjectgroupmust havea system inplaceandguidelines for teachers inorder toaccomplish the internalqualityassuranceat thesubjectgrouplevel. This is necessary toensure thequality of teachingof the school. Inorder to developan internalqualityassurancemodel forsubjectgroups inbasiceducation,research and systematic study is needed.

3ReportConference,“ONESQAcoveraround9yearsold.”


Research objectives Theobjectivesofthisresearchareasfollows: 1. Tocreateaninternalqualityassurancemodelforsubjectgrouplevelin basic education. 2. Tostudytheefficiencyofthemodelcreated. 3. Tostudytheeffectivenessofthemodelcreated.

Methodology Themainprincipleofthisstudyistoobtainaninternalqualityassurancemodelforsubjectgrouplevelinbasiceducationwithinthecontextoftheschool.Theresearchisdividedintothreepartsasfollows. The first part is to create an internal quality assurancemodel for subjectgrouplevel inbasiceducationwhichcomprisestwosteps:1)studyandanalyzeresearchpapers related to quality assurance in education and external quality assurance, basiceducationstandards,andtheCoreCurriculumforBasicEducationB.E.2551;2)study the current quality assurancepracticewithin the educational institution and surveytheiropinionsonthecurrentqualityassurancepracticeaswellastheiropinionson the course of action for quality assurance for subject group level by using questionnaires. Contributors for this part of the study include theprincipal, headof thequality assurancedepartment,andheadof8subjectgroups,totaling10individualsfromeachschool.Thesamplesarecomprisedof37schoolsgivingtheoverallnumberof370peoplewhicharedivided into twogroups:1) thegroupprovidingquantitativedataconsistingof330peoplefrom33schools;and2)thegroupprovidingqualitativedatathroughFocusGroupInterviewsconsistingof40peoplefrom4schoolswhichwerepurposivelyselectedfromtheschoolsizeofsmall,medium,large,andextra-large.Thecriteriafortheselectionofthesamplesisthattheschoolmustbevoluntarytoparticipatein the research,administratorsareawareof the importanceofqualityassurance ineducation, and staff iswilling to cooperatewith the implementationof theproject.Samplesfromeachclasswererandomlyselectedfrom30%ofthepopulation. Thesecondpartistostudytheefficiencyofthemodelcreated.Thiswasdonebyconductingapilottestononeschoolfromthesamplinggroupwhichwaspurposivelyselectedbasedonthecriteriathattheschoolmustbevoluntarytoparticipateintheresearch,administratorsareawareoftheimportanceofqualityassuranceineducation,


andstaffarewillingtocooperatewiththeimplementationoftheproject.Forthispartofthestudy,theauthorschoseLadplakaoSchool.ThetestingperiodwasfromAugust2012toSeptember2013.Thestudywasconductedbyvisitingtheschoolafterusingthe quality assurancemodel. The efficiency of themodel was studied in four dimensions:theFeasibilityStandard,theProprietyStandard,theUtilityStandard,andthe Accuracy Standard. TheIndexofItemObjectiveCongruence(IOC)4valuesforthequestionsrangefrom0.67to1.00. Thethirdpartistostudytheeffectivenessofthemodelcreated.Thiswasconduct-edbyaskingeachsubjectgrouptosubmitaSelf-AssessmentReport(SAR)forthe individual levelandsubjectgroup levelat theendof thefirstsemesterof the2012academicyear.Thereportistoevaluatetheresultsondevelopmentandimprovementofperformanceaccordingtothegoalssetbythestandardsofqualityassurancefromtheaffiliatededucationagency.Onlythestandardsrelatedtoeducationmanagementoftheteachersthataffectlearningofthestudentswereevaluated.AccordingtotheStandardsforQualityAssuranceinBasicEducationB.E.2553,thereareatotalof15standards.The6standardsthatarerelevantforthisstudyare:Standard2-studentshavedesirablemorale,ethics,andvalues;Standard3-studentshavetheskillstoseekknowledgeontheirown,lovetolearn,andcontinuouslydevelopthemselves;Standard4-studentsarecapableofthinkingsystematicallyandcreatively,andareabletosolveproblemssensiblyandreasonably;Standard5-studentshavetheknowledgeandskillsrequiredbythecurriculum;Standard6-studentshavetheskillstowork,lovetowork,capableofworkingwithothers,andhaveapositiveattitudetowardslawfuloccupations;and Standard 7-teacherswithin each subject group perform according to their responsibilitiesefficientlyandeffectively.

Results Theresultsaredividedintothreepartsinrelationtotheresearchmethodasfollows:Thefirstpartistheresultondevelopmentofthequalityassurancemodelforsubjectgroup level in basic education. Relevant research and papers were studied to understandproblemsandgoodapproachesintheimplementationofqualityassuranceineducationalinstitutionsofvarioussizes.Theaimistoincorporatetheimplementationwiththestaff’snormalpracticewithoutincreasingtheworkload.Theimplementationofqualityassuranceisbasedonthefollowingprinciples:1)implementationofqualityassurance isaresponsibility forallpersonnelaspartofeachperson’sassignment; 2)qualityassuranceaimstoimprovethequalityofeachindividual’sperformancesince

4 The Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC) provides useful information about the agreement betweencontentspecialists’ratingsastowhethereachiteminatestorquestionnairemeasuresthe intended objective. The limits of the index range from -1.00 to +1.00.


it will also result in the improvement of the institution; and 3) quality assurance emphasizestheimprovementoftheteachingandlearningexperience,asitistobepart of the administration process that needs to be implemented continuously, notmerelyconductedfortheoccasionalassessment;4)qualityassurancerequiresthecooperationofallstaff,asitcannotbeemployedorassignedtoanyotherparties;and5)qualityassurancerequiresrecognitionandapplicationoftheassessmentresultsonimprovingthequalityofeducationbyeducationalinstitutions.Amodel(draftversion)wasdevelopedbasedonthePDCAcycleinconjunctionwithregulationsontheSystem,Codes,andProcedures forQualityAssurance forEducationB.E.2553. Itwas theninspectedbyexperts.Resultsshowthattheexecutionmethodforeachtask,theperiodof time to perform each task, and tools for collecting data in each process are appropriate (mean= 4.84). The feasibility (mean= 4.56), clarity (mean= 4.59), andeaseofuse(mean=4.57)wereexcellent.Theauthorsadjustedandimprovedthemodelaccording to the recommendationsofexperts.Finally, themodel for internalquality assurance for subject group level in basic education was developed. Theprocessisdividedintothreestepsasfollows:

Step1Preparation Plan(P)consistsofthefollowingsub-steps:1)appointtheteamineachsubjectgroup;2)analyzethecontextineachsubjectgroup;3)settheannualfocus/goalofimprovingthequalityofeducation;and4)formannualactionplansforeachsubjectgroup.

Step2Action Do (D) the tasks as plannedwhich consists of the following sub-step: 5) implement the action plan.Check (C) the qualitywhich consists of the following sub-step:6)evaluatetheperformance. Step3Report Act(A)consistsofthefollowingsub-steps:7)reporttheresultsfromeachsub-jectgroup;and8)improveandplanforthefollowingyear. Theprinciplesofqualityassurancecanbecompared to the InternalQualityAssuranceModel forSubjectGroupLevel inBasicEducationasshown inTable1. Theimplementationofthemodelconsistsof8stepsandisoperatedineachcycleasshowninFigure1.TheexecutionplansforeachyearareshowninTable2.


Table 1 Comparison between principles of quality assurance and the Internal Quality Assurance Model for Subject Group Level in Basic Education.

MinisterialregulationsontheSystem,Codes,andProceduresforQualityAssuranceforEducationB.E.2553

TheInternalQualityAssuranceModelforSubjectGroupLevel

in Basic EducationPDCA

Principles ofqualityassurance

1.Defineeducationstandards.

2. Formeducationdevelopmentplansfor the educational institute according to the educational standards of each institute.3.Create an informationmanagementsystem.4.Executetheeducationaldevelopmentplans.5. Providemonitoring of thequality ofeducation.6.Provideanevaluationofthequalityofeducation according to education standards.7.Provideannualreportsoftheinternalevaluationresults.

8. Provide for continuous education qualityimprovement.

Step1Preparation1. Appoint the team in each subjectgroup.2.Analyzethecontext ineachsubjectgroup.

3.Settheannualfocus/goalofimprovingthequalityofeducation.4. Form annual action plans for eachsubjectgroup.Step2Action5.Implementtheactionplan.6.Evaluatetheperformance.

Step3Report7.Reporttheresultsfromeachsubjectgroup.8. Improve andplan for the followingyear.

QualityControl

Quality Auditing

Quality Assessment

Plan (P)

Do (D)

Check(C)

Act (A)


Figure 1: Diagram showing steps involved in the implementation of the Internal Quality Assurance Model for Subject Group Level in Basic Education and the operation cycle.

Plan(P)

Act(A)

Do(D)

Check(C)

Step1Preparation1.Appointtheteamineachsubjectgroup2.Analyzethecontextineachsubjectgroup3.Settheannualfocus/goalofimprovingthequalityofeducation4.Formannualactionplansforeachsubjectgroup

Step2Action5.Implementtheactionplan

Step2Action6.Evaluatetheperfomance

Step2Action7.Reporttheresultsfromeachsubjectgroup8.Improveandplanforthefollowingyear


ThesecondpartistheresultsofthestudyontheefficiencyoftheInternalQualityAssuranceModelforSubjectGroupLevelinBasicEducation.Itwasfoundthattheoverallefficiencyishigh.Whenconsideringindividualaspects,itsusefulnessishighfor all issues, having the highestmean (4.28) on its support for organizingwork functions.Onthefeasibilityofthemodel,itwasfoundtobehighonallissues,havingthehighestmean(4.32)on theeaseofunderstandingandsimplicityof themodel. Inregardstopropriety,itwasfoundtobehighonallissueshavingthehighestmean(4.05)ontheappropriatenessofthemodelforthemonitoringandsupervisorysystems.Theaccuracyofall issueswasalso found tobehighwith thehighestmean(4.32) ontheaccuracyoftheself-assessmentreportbysubjectgrouplevelsinceitreflectstheactualperformance.

Table 2 Annual plan for execution of the Internal Quality Assurance Model for Subject Group Level in Basic Education.

Step Apr May Jun Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb MarJul

Step1Preparation1) Appoint the team ineachsubjectgroup2)Analyzethecontextineachsubjectgroup.3)Set the annual focus/goal of improving thequalityofeducation.4) Form annual actionplans for each subjectgroup.Step2Action5)Implementtheactionplan.6.EvaluatetheperformanceStep3Report7)Reporttheresultsfromeachsubjectgroup.8) Improveandplan forthe following year.


ThethirdpartistheresultonthestudyontheeffectivenessoftheInternalQualityAssuranceModel forSubjectGroupLevel inBasicEducation.The results from theSelf-AssessmentReport(SAR)ofthe8subjectgroupsforonehalfoftheacademicyearbasedontheimprovementandperformanceaccordingtothe6educationstandardsshow that all subject groups had a higher performance level than their set goal. Moreover, from the reports itwas found that the functioningofeachsubjectgroup was systematic, clearlyplanned, and includedprojects/activities into the teaching activities in order to develop the students according to the education standard. Inaddition,theorganizationofaninformationmanagementsystemalsocontributedtothehigherperformancelevelthanoriginallyset.Thisshowsthatthedevelopedmodelishighlyeffective.

Discussion Various issueswere encounteredduring thedevelopment of an internal quality assurancemodelforsubjectgrouplevelinbasiceducationasdiscussedbytheauthorsbelow. 1. It canbe seen that themodel brings about the teachers’ involvement in qualityassuranceinadditiontotheadministrativepersonnel.Ifeveryteacherconductsquality assurance, the successwill fall to the subject group level aswell as the institutionallevel.ThemodelalsoreducesrepetitiveworksinceitisbasedonthePDCAsystemandimplementedthroughouttheacademicyear.Itobligesalllevels,fromtheteacher,subjectgroup,andtheinstitutiontofunctionbythePDCAsystem.Therefore,affiliatedagenciesaswellasONESQAcanperformanexternalassessmentanytimewithouttheschoolhavingtopreparefortheparticularassessment.Moreover,theschooladministratorswouldbeabletoassesstheteacher’sindividualperformancewithouthavingtorequesttheteacherstoprepareaself-assessmentreport. 2. SincethemodelisbasedonthePDCAprocess,theteacher,thesubjectgroupandtheinstitutionallfunctionbasedonthePDCAprocessaswell.ThisisconsistentwithSuwimonWongwanich (2000)who researched thedevelopment of an internalqualityassessmentsystemforeducational institutes.Moreover,beingbasedonthePDCAprocess, themodel becomespart of the normal function andachieves the standardforitsutility,feasibility,propriety,andaccuracy. 3. Themodelishighlyeffectiveresultinginallsubjectgroupshavingahigherperformancelevelthantheirsetgoal.ThisisbecauseallsubjectgroupscarriedoutthequalityassurancethatwascompletelydesignedbasedonthePDCAsystemineverystep.ThisresultcorrespondstoNonglakWiratchai(2002:12)whostatedthataqualitysystemisthespecificationofstandardsorgoalsthattheschoolsneedtoachieve.


Suggestions Thefollowinglistssuggestionsforinstitutionallevelsthatusethismodel: 1. The school administrators should establish teachers’ awareness on the importanceofqualityassuranceandhowitwouldaffectthestudents.Emphasisshouldbemade that toconductqualityassurance it is important toperform their tasksas they normally would, only to provide additional focus on creating a system for controlling,monitoring, and assessing their performance clearly and objectively. Instructionsshouldbeclearlygivenbeforeallowingtheteacherstousethemodel. 2. Theschooladministratorsshouldanalyzeproblemsrelatedtoeachsubjectgroupandlisttheproblemsthatresultinthefailureofstudentdevelopment.Examplesincludereadinessofthestudents,qualityandquantityoftheteachers,availabilityofteaching equipment, an appropriate infrastructure, budget received, and the curriculumbeingutilized.Theseproblemsshouldbelistedoutandrankedinorderoftheseriousnessforseekingimprovementwithinthesubjectgroup. 3. While using themodel, school administrators shouldplan to regulate andmonitor thesubjectgroupsaswellasorganizesubjectgroupmeetings to facilitatereportingoftheirperformanceinordertoexchangeknowledgebetweenthesubjectgroupswhichcanbeusedforfutureimprovement. ReferencesMinistryofEducation.BasicEducationCoreCurriculum2008.AgriculturalCooperativesofThailandprinting,2008.

NonglakWiratchai.ReformProcesstoImprovetheQualityofLearning:AssessmentandAssurance.Bangkok:DepartmentfrontalpartsLtd.Wi.ti.TheNewCommunicationsLimited, 2002.

SuwimonWongwanich.ResearchandDevelopmentEvaluationSystemwithintheSchool.Washington,DC:OfficeofNationalEducation.PrimeMinister.Wi.ti.si.CommunicationsLimited, 2000.

DepartmentofBasicEducation.ApproachtoQualityBasicEducationStandardsforQualityAssuranceofEducation.London:OfficeofNationalBuddhism,2011.Office for National Education Standards andQuality Assessment. TheNational Education Act 2542 Amendment (No. 2), B.E. 2545.

-------------.ReportConference,“ONESQAcoveraround9yearsold.”Friday,November6,2009attheXVINavalAuditorium,2009.

PangSunKeung,Nicholas.PerformanceIndicatorsandQualityAssurance.EducationJournal,2000V28N2:137-155.


Development of Thaksin University’s Master of Education Thesis Quality Assurance System Using the Balanced Scorecard Technique

delivered by Chareefah Hutyee5, Suthasinee Boonyapithak6, Suthep Suntiwaranont7 e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Thisstudyaimedtodevelopamaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystemusingthebalancescorecard technique.Theobjectivesof thestudywere1) toanalyzebasicinformation2)todesignamaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystemand3)toevaluatethesis assurance system of master of education by using the balanced scorecard technique.Researchmethodsanddevelopmentandactionresearchwereemployedtodevelopaqualityassurancesystemincollaborationwiththelecturers,supportstaffmembers,andstudentsintheM.Ed.ResearchandEvaluationprogrammeatThaksinUniversity.Thisarticleispartofthedevelopmentthesisqualityassurancesystemasfollows:1) theresultofbasicdataanalysis2) theresultofdesignamaster’s thesisqualityassurancesystemand3) the tryingoutofmaster’s thesisqualityassurancesystem.Thefindingsofthestudywere 1. Ananalysisandsynthesisofthebalancedscorecardtheoryandapplications,commentsfrommaster’sstudentsconcerningcurrentcircumstances,problems,needsinthesiswritingsystemdevelopment,andaSWOTanalysisfoundthatstudentshaveencountereddifficultiesinthesiswritingincludingtimemanagement,inconsistencyofadvisorysessions,budget,anunderstandingofresearchmethodology,andastrategyandsupportsystemforcompletingthethesisasplanned. 2. Amaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystemwasdevelopedunderthesupervi-sionofthelecturersintheResearchandEvaluationprogramme.Theinformationfromthebackgroundstudywasusedtodevelopkeyqualityindicators.Objectives,goals,and strategieswere set by using the four perspectives of a balanced scorecard:

5 Postgraduate student, M.Ed. Research and Evaluation programme, Thaksin University

6 Lecturer, Ed.D., School of Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Education,Thaksin University, Chairperson of the thesis committee

7 Associate Professor School of Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Education,Thaksin University, Thesis committee


customer, internal business process, financial, and learning and growth. Eight indicators were developed; three focused on students, three on curriculum management, one on financialmanagement, and one on students’ learning and development.After thesystemwasdeveloped, thesystemmanualwassent tofiveexpertstoscrutinise.Itwasagreedthatthesystemandthemanualweresuitableandpractical.Theyreflectedthefourcomponentsofinput,process,outcome,andfeedback.Each component involved steps of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Themaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystemusingthebalancedscorecardtechniquehasprovedtobeanefficientmechanisminstudents’thesiswriting. 3. Duringthetrialofthemaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystemoveraperiodof 10months under the quality assuranceprojectwith students in research and evaluation program, each activity consists of 4 steps as follows: 1) planning 2) acting 3) observing and 4) reflecting. The result of all activity shows that the students’ progress in thesis writing skills. They have the ability to develop the conceptualtopictothesisproposaleffectively.

Keywords: qualityassurancesystem,thebalancedscorecard,MasterofEducation,actionresearch

Introduction Educationqualityassurance isamechanism toensure thatqualityofeducationmanagementismaintained.Therearethreestepsinqualityassurance:qualitycontrol,quality auditing, and quality assessment (AmrungJantawanich, 1999). In higher education,qualityassuranceisadoptedatalllevelsincludingatfacultyandprogrammelevelsinordertocontrol,audit,andassesseducationqualityinamoretransparentandcomprehensivemanner. AtaMaster’sdegree level, thesiswritingand thesisquality improvementplayasignificantrolefor thesuccessofeducation.Theprocessneedscollaboration inalldimensions from theprogrammeadministrators to the institutional body. The four perspectivesofabalancedscorecard:customer,internalbusinessprocess,financial,and learningandgrowth (NopadolRompho,2002)canbeused for internalquality assuranceandtoachievetheinstitution’sstrategicplanninggoals. ThisstudyaimedtodevelopThaksinUniversity’sMasterofEducationthesisqualityassurancesystemusingthebalancescorecardtechnique.Theobjectivesofthestudywere to analyse relevantbasic information and todesignamaster’s thesisquality assurance system.


Research MethodologyResearchandDevelopmentmethodologyandActionResearchwereemployedinthestudy.Twostepsweretaken1)relevantbasicinformationwasanalysed2)amaster’sthesisquality assurance systemwasdesignedwith aprocessof planning, acting, observing,andreflecting(SukanyaKovilakool,2002). Step1:Toanalysebasicinformationconcerningthesiswriting. Thebalancedscorecardtheoryandapplicationswereanalysedandsynthesised.Currentcircumstances,problems,andneedsinthesiswritingsystemdevelopmentofMaster’sstudentswereinvestigatedusinganopenendedquestionnaire.Responsesfrom thequestionnaireswereanalysedandused ina thesiswritingSWOTanalysiswhichwascarriedoutbyafocusgroupdiscussionbetweenlecturers,supportstaffmembers,andstudentsintheM.Ed.ResearchandEvaluationprogramme.Thedatafromthefocusgroupwasthendevelopedintoaconceptualframeworkforthequalityassurance system. Step2:Todesignamaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystem Amaster’sthesisqualityassurancesystemwasdevelopedunderthesupervisionof the lecturers in theResearch andEvaluationprogrammeat ThaksinUniversity. Thedatafromthebackgroundstudyinstep1wasusedtodevelopkeyperformanceindicators.Objectives,goals,andstrategiesaswellasanactionplanweresetbyusingthe fourperspectives of balanced scorecard, namely, customer, internal businessprocess, financial, and learningandgrowth.After thesystemwasdeveloped,ninequalityassurancecommitteemembers from theFacultyofEducationevaluated theappropriatenessoftheindicators.Feedbackfromtheexpertswasusedtodesignthesystemmanualwhich reflected the four components of input, process, outcome, and feedback. Themanualwas then sent to fivequality assuranceandbalanced scorecardtechniqueexpertstoscrutiniseandeditbefore itwastriedoutwithintheM.Ed.ResearchandEvaluationprogrammeatThaksinUniversity. Research results This researchstudycovered thefirstphaseofmaster’s thesisqualityassuranceprocess.Thefindingsofthestudywere 1. An analysis of basic information concerningmaster’s thesis quality assurancebothfromrelevantdocumentsandfromthegraduatestudents’commentsandfeedbackrevealedthatthethesisqualityassurancesystemwasbelievedtoenablestudentstowritetheir theseswithconfidenceandtocompletetheobjectivesof thethesis within the time limit that had been scheduled.


2. The information from the background study was used to develop key performanceindicatorsusingthebalancedscorecardtechnique.TheindicatorsweredeterminedandscrutinisedbythelecturersandsupportstaffmembersintheResearchand Evaluation programme and quality assurance committeemembers from the FacultyofEducation.Eight indicatorsweredeveloped.Three indicators focusedoncustomers whichare1)asystemandmechanismtodevelopathesiswritingcourseormodule 2) a system andmechanism to improve the learning effectiveness in accordance with student characteristics 3) a system andmechanism to give academic advice and support to students. Three indicators involved an internal businessprocess which are 1) a system and mechanism to manage a curriculum which promotes development of thesis topic, thesis proposal, and thesiswriting 2)personspecificationandcodeofethicsofthesissupervisors3)thequalityofthethesis as being published in an academic journal, a printedmaterial reviewed by experts, or being presented in an academic conferencewith a proceeding. One indicator was on financewhich was a system and mechanism for thesis writing financialandbudgetmanagement.Thelastindicatorwasonlearning and growth which was a system and mechanism for thesis writing knowledge management. Whenthequalityassurancesystemandthesystemmanualwerereviewedbythequalityassuranceexperts,itwasagreedthatthecomponentsoftheassurancesystemcould support the strategicplan. Thecomponentsconsistedofphase one: input whichincludedrationaleandunderstandingofthesisqualityassurance,thesiswritingbackground knowledge, eight keyperformance indicators, andquality assurance systemmanual;phase two: processwhichinvolvedunderstandingofthesisqualityassurance system, determining objectives, strategies and goals using the four perspectives of balanced scorecard, and performance assessment using key performanceindicators;phrase three: outcomeaspresentedinaperformancereportinaccordancewiththeeightqualityassuranceindicators,andphasefour:feedback whichwascarriedoutbyanassessmentofthesisqualityassurancesystemthroughknowledgemanagement,satisfactionoflecturers,supportstaffmembers,andstudentstowardsthesystem.ThaksinUniversity’sMasterofEducationthesisqualityassurancesystemusingthebalancedscorecardtechniquecanbeillustratedindiagram1.


Input OutcomeProcess

Feedback

Diagram1: Thaksin University’s Master of Education Thesis Quality Assurance System Using the Balanced Scorecard Technique

1. Rationale and understandingofMasterof Education thesis qualityassurancebyusingBSC2.InformationforMasterof Education thesis writing management 3.KPIs4. System manual- Part 1 system rationale -Part2KPIdevelopment-Part3qualityassurancesystem - Part 4 guidelines- Part 5 instrument

customer1. a system and mechanism todevelopathesiswritingcourse or module.2. a system and mechanism toimprovethelearningeffectivenessinaccordancewith student characteristics3.asystemandmechanismtogiveacademicadviceandsupporttostudents

internalbusinessprocess4. a system and mechanism to manage a curriculum whichpromotedevelop-mentofthesistopic,thesisproposal,andthesiswriting5.personspecificationandcode of ethics of thesis supervisors6.thequalityofthethesisasbeingpublishedinanacademicjournal,aprintedmaterialreviewedbyexperts,orbeingpresentedin an academic conference withaproceeding

finance7.asystemandmechanismforthesiswritingfinancialand budget management

learning and growth 8.asystemandmechanismfor thesis writing knowledge managementTheassessmentofthethesisqualityassurancesystem

customer

learning and growth

internalbusinessprocess finance

Objec

tive

Indica

tor

Criteria

Stra

tegy

Objec

tive

Indica

tor

Criteria

Stra

tegy

Objec

tive

Indica

tor

Criteria

Stra

tegy

Objec

tive

Indica

tor

Criteria

Stra

tegy

Visionandstrategy of thequalityassurance

system usingBSC


The abovediagram showed that a customer perspective of the thesis quality assurance systemusing thebalanced scorecard techniquepromoted aquality of learningmanagement, the learning effectiveness in accordance with student characteristics, and student advising system. For the internal business process perspective which involved curriculummanagement, the system emphasised developmentof thesis topic, thesisproposal,andthesiswriting,participationof thelecturers in themanagementof thecurriculum,and thesispublication.Thefinanceperspective promoted financial and budget management for thesis writing. The learningandgrowthperspectivepromoted students’ thesiswriting knowledgemanagement.Thequalityassurancemanualwasdesignedafterthesystemhadbeendeveloped. Themanual included the rationale of the system, theKPIs, the four perspectives of thebalanced scorecard technique, theguidelines how to use the system,anddatacollectioninstrumentaccordingtotheeightKPIs.Itwashopedthatthe manual could be distributed and used by other organisations and that the manualcoulddevelopamutualunderstandingoftheKPIswhichweredevelopedbyusingthebalancedscorecardtechnique. It could be concluded that the eight KPIs developed by this study reflected the thesis quality assurance through collaboration among stakeholders and themanagementwhich involvedcustomer, internalbusinessprocess, finance,andlearningandgrowth.TheseKPIsweretrulyakeymechanismtopromoteanefficientthesisqualityassurancesystem.

ReferencesJantawanich,Amrung(1999).Concept ofQualityAssurance toDevelopEducationQualityoftheMinistryofEducation.TeachersJourna19(3):5-9.

Kovilakool, Sukanya (2002). AnAnalysis ofHigher Education System.Bangkok: HigherEducationDepartment,FacultyofEducation,ChulalongkornUniversity.

Rompho,Nopadol(2002).BalancedScorecardandUniversitiesinThailand. Business ManagementJournal29(94):61-69.


Advisory Board • ProfessorWichitSrisa-an,Ph.D. • ProfessorMondhonSanguansermsri,Ph.D. • ProfessorTeravutiBoonyasopon,Ph.D. • SomkiatChobphol,Ph.D. • ProfessorChannarongPornrungroj,Ed.D. • Dato’SyedAhmadHussein,Ph.D. • JagannathPatil,Ph.D. Academic Board • ProfessorUtumpornJamornman,Ph.D. • AssociateProfessorChanthanaChaichit • Rev.Bro.BanchaSaenghiran,f.s.g.Ph.D. • AssociateProfessorChiradetOusawat,Ph.D. • ChantavitSujatanond,Ph.D. • SuttassiSmuthkochorn,Ph.D. • MathanaSantiwat,Ph.D.

Session Chairs • Rev.Bro.BanchaSaenghiran,f.s.g.Ph.D. • AssociateProfessorSauwakonRatanawijitrasin,Ph.D. • AssociateProfessorUrayaWeesakul,Ph.D. • ChantavitSujatanond,Ph.D. • SuttassiSmuthkochorn,Ph.D.

Committee

TheOfficeforNationalEducationStandardsandQualityAssessment(Public Organization) 24thFloor,PhayathaiPlazaBuilding,128PhayathaiRoad,TungPhayathai,Ratchathewi, Bangkok 10400 Tel:0-2216-3955ext.220,228Fax:0-2216-5043-6 e-mail:[email protected]


Reviewer • ProfessorWipadaKunavikitkulPh.D. • AssociateProfessorSurasakWataneskPh.D. • AssociateProfessorRuangsriWataneskPh.D. • AssociateProfessorDanaiBoonyakiatPh.D. • AssociateProfessorPanitKhemtongPh.D. • AssociateProfessorPorntipChaiyasoPh.D. • AssociateProfessorChidchanokChumgchowPh.D • AssociateProfessorSuphatSukamolsonPh.D. • AssociateProfessorDamrongThawesangskulthai • AssociateProfessorRachawarnKanjanapanyakom • AssociateProfessorPenrutHongvityakorn • AssociateProfessorNuanjiraPatararungrong • AssociateProfessorPramoteSivakoses • AssociateYaninOpaspattanakij • AssistantProfessorEkkarinSungtongPh.D. • OrapinSopchokchaiPh.D. • ChantavitSujatanondPh.D. • TipChaipipat Project manager • TipChaipipat

Working Group • EkaphongLauhathiansind • NawinWiyaporn • SompolJaruthanasakkoon • BrianChristopherKelley-Editor • WeeranuchSuksawang • NapapornSongsaeng • NualsupakPhunsap • PattamaSinjumpasak • AmornratMeepat • SurbpongDuanjam • AssociateProfessorPenrutHongvityakorn • AssociateProfessorNuanjiraPattararungrong • AssistantProfessorPoonpatPoonnoy,D.Eng. • AssistantProfessorJakrapongPuangngamchuen,Ph.D.

Website: • BhumitasHongvityakorn • KiltiyutPhronphibul • SaranWongtanakarn • SuwijakChaipipat