The evaluation of Thailand higher education quality assessment criteria : a case study of the office for national education standard and quality assessment (public organization)

Abstract

This research studies ONESQA’s higher education assessment indicators which assess higher education quality in the third round of external assessment work (2011-2015). The 18 indicators consist of three groups: basic, distinctive identity, and advancement measurement. The researcher believes that appropriate assessment indicators would improve Thailand’s higher education quality, allowing Thai graduates to gain more competitiveness in the ASEAN labor market.

This study aims to explain the associated problems when higher education institutes implement ONESQA’s higher education assessment indicators. Moreover, all indicators will be examined to see if they are in line with informants’ beliefs regarding higher education quality.

Qualitative research methods are used in order to identify invisible information through semi-structured interviews with predetermined questions. Thirty percent of higher education institutes in Bangkok and its vicinity where accountancy program are offered were selected by using random table numbers. However, informants without sufficient knowledge of the study’s objectives were excluded. A review was also conducted of related official documents. Evert Vedung’s Goal-Free Evaluation model was adopted as the research analysis model.

The research results reveal that there is a mismatch between ONESQA’s higher education assessment indicators and the intended results as outlined by the informants. While higher education institutes are aware of these problems, they have to abide by the indicators due to the legal enforcement of this policy.

Hence, there are a number of challenges facing higher educational institutes. Firstly, excessive indicators lead to increased workload. Instructors would not have the opportunity to prepare better content in the classroom or gain new knowledge for their students. Secondly, unclear indicators lead to a patron-client situation in which evaluators use their judgement in favor of those whom they are close to. Thirdly, the creditability of measurement leads to problems with reliability and validity of detailed data which higher education institutes submit to evaluators as points are awarded based solely on the documents provided. Fourthly, the indicators poses restrictions in terms of increased expenses and manpower requirements, leading to less time for other projects unrelated to ONESQA’s higher education assessment work. Fifthly, a mismatch exists between ONESQA’s indicators and the intended results, rendering them useless and unable to improve educational quality.

Thus, the researcher believes that Thailand’s higher education quality would be devalued by implementing those assessment indicators instead of improving them. Rather than prescribing a command and control and paper work approach (indicatorbased assessment approach), institutes can be decentralized and delegate control to the individual institutions to prove themselves that their institutes are of high quality by using their own measurements. This may prove to be a better approach than the existing approach.

Lastly, the researcher recommends the following in order to ensure Thailand’s higher education quality is maintained through the indicator-based assessment work: 1) Assessment indicators must be relevant to actual educational quality. 2) Assessment indicators must be minimized and clearly defined without any loopholes. 3) Assessment indicators should be based on program curriculum intention and measured accordingly. 4) A comparative study with other successful countries should be conducted in order to identity successful factors.