2.1 Evaluation Based on Quality Assurance Standards
The program has been implemented in compliance with the standards and has “passed” all quality assurance criteria as per the announcement of the Higher Education Standards Committee regarding the 2024 Undergraduate Curriculum Quality Standards.
| Quality Assurance Criteria | Evaluation Result |
| 1. Number of Full-Time Program Instructors | Pass |
| 2. Qualifications of Instructors Responsible for a Curriculum/Program of Studies | Pass |
| 3. Qualifications of Full-Time Program Instructors | Pass |
| 4. Qualifications of Teaching Instructors | Pass |
| 5. Specified Period of Time Within Which Curriculum Must Be Revised | Pass |
2.2 Internal Quality Assurance Evaluation Based on AUN-QA Criteria
The program has implemented internal quality assurance standards by applying the ASEAN University Network Quality Assurance (AUN-QA) Version 4.0 as a key university quality indicator.
| criteria | Items | Score |
| 1. Expected Learning Outcomes ( 5 item ) | 5 | 5 |
| 2. Programme Structure and Content ( 7 item ) | 7 | 5 |
| 3. Teaching and Learning Approach ( 6 item ) | 6 | 5 |
| 4. Student Assessment ( 7 item ) | 7 | 5 |
| 5. Academic Staff ( 8 item ) | 8 | 5 |
| 6. Student Support Services ( 6 item ) | 5 | 5 |
| 7. Facilities and Infrastructure ( 9 item ) | 9 | 5 |
| 8. Output and Outcomes ( 5 item ) | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 36 | |
| Average Score | 4.50 | |
จากตารางพบว่า หลักสูตรมีการดำเนินการตามเกณฑ์การประกันคุณภาพภายในระดับหลักสูตร โดยผลการดำเนินการในภาพรวม 8 องค์ประกอบ 53 ตัวบ่งชี้ มีคะแนนเฉลี่ย เท่ากับ 4.50 มีคุณภาพในระดับดี
เมื่อพิจารณาเป็นรายองค์ประกอบ พบว่า องค์ประกอบที่ 1 ผลการเรียนรู้ที่คาดหวัง มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก
( 5 คะแนน) องค์ประกอบที่ 2 โครงสร้างหลักสูตรและเนื้อหา มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก ( 5 คะแนน)
องค์ประกอบที่ 3 แนวทางการสอนและการเรียนรู้ มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก ( 5 คะแนน) องค์ประกอบที่ 4
การประเมินนักศึกษา มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก ( 5 คะแนน) องค์ประกอบที่ 5 เจ้าหน้าที่วิชาการ มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก ( 5 คะแนน) องค์ประกอบที่ 6 บริการสนับสนุนนักศึกษา มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก
( 5 คะแนน) องค์ประกอบที่ 7 สิ่งอำนวยความสะดวกและโครงสร้างพื้นฐาน มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับดีมาก ( 5 คะแนน) องค์ประกอบที่ 8 ผลผลิตและผลลัพธ์ มีผลการประเมินอยู่ในระดับต้องมีการปรับปรุง ( 1 คะแนน)
2.3 Summary of Implementation in Academic Year 2025
The internal quality assurance implementation for the [Program Name] was reviewed by the committee, which identified the following strengths and areas for improvement
Strengths
- The curriculum is comprehensively and contemporarily designed, aligned
with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) principles. It offers three distinct
professional tracks: Pilot Training, Aviation Communication, and Ground
Operations—providing students with flexibility and career-oriented
pathways - The program received an average score of 4.50 out of 5.00, which is rated as “Very Good” across the first seven components—namely Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs), teaching and learning approach, student assessment, academic staff, student support services, and infrastructure
- All graduates (100%) were employed within one year after graduation, with an average monthly income of 20,333 THB. This reflects both the relevance of the curriculum to industry needs and the high employability of its graduates
- All subjects in the program concentrate in practices and skills development
- All lecturers in the program specialize in the field of aeronautics
Weaknesses
–
Areas for Improvement
- Assessment methods appear underdeveloped in terms of demonstrating learning outcome achievement at both course and program levels. The program should develop and implement a program-wide assessment plan that links CLOs to assessment tasks with clear rubrics and ensure that both formative and summative assessments are aligned with the intended learning outcomes and are varied to suit different types of learning. After that, assessment data will utilize to inform teaching improvements and curriculum development
- Although quality assurance mechanisms are in place, the utilization of data for evidence-based decision-making should be enhanced. To achieve this, integrate data from tracer studies, course evaluations, and employer feedback into regular program reviews. Furthermore, use data analytics to identify trends and areas for targeted intervention. Finally, involve stakeholders (students, alumni, and employers) in reviewing data and planning for improvements
2.4 Reflection on Internal Quality Assurance Implementation
The internal quality assurance evaluation for the หลักสูตรวิทยาศาสตรบัณฑิต สาขาวิชาการบิน (หลักสูตรนานาชาติ/หลักสูตรปรับปรุง พ.ศ. 2564) in the academic year 2024, based on the St. Theresa International University Internal Quality Assurance Standards (2024), is as follows
criteria 1 : Expected Learning Outcomes
Strengths/Key Appreciations
- The learning outcomes of the program are systematically aligned with the mission, goals, needs of all stakeholders, and TQF standard reflecting the program’s commitment to producing high-quality graduates with competitive capabilities at both national and international levels
- The program presents a clear matrix mapping between Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) and PLOs, showing coherent vertical and horizontal integration. Additionally, there is evidence of a structured curriculum review process involving stakeholders, which ensures that the curriculum remains current and relevant to both national standards and industry expectations
- The program achieves 100% employment for graduates within one year, with an average monthly income above the national standard. Moreover, the program actively incorporates input from stakeholders—including industry professionals, alumni, and students—through formal consultations, which helps ensure relevance and quality in educational outcomes
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
–
criteria 2 : Programme Structure and Content
Strengths/Key Appreciations
- The alignment between Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) and Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) is constructively aligned and include feedback from stakeholders, especially external stakeholders. However, the actual mapping between CLO-PLO need more rigorous with providing evidence-based implementation across all courses
- The program provides various fields of study options. Furthermore, the revised
curriculum was specifically designed to expand students’ career opportunities by
introducing three unique professional elective tracks in their final year
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
- The program should consider about effective communication channels with stakeholders by creating a stakeholder communication plan (newsletter, biannual advisory-board meeting, online feedback form). Although communication channels are in place, there should be an analysis of whether each channel achieves its stated objectives, in line with the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) approach
criteria 3 : Teaching and Learning Approach
Strengths/Key Appreciations
- The curriculum adopts a variety of teaching approaches that align with learning outcomes and industry expectations
- Students actively participate in learning through practical methods, including
simulations - The program responds appropriately to active learning and lifelong learning
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
- The curriculum should consider improving communication efforts to become more systematic and effective. This will help all stakeholders better understand and recognize the shared direction and values that the curriculum objectives. For example, establishing diverse communication formats that cover both internal communication (teachers, students) and external communication (parents, entrepreneurs, alumni) using appropriate media such as curriculum manuals, meetings, websites, brochures, infographics, social medias, notice boards, as well as evaluating the communication channels to ensure they are effective
- The program should consider more about intrapreneurial mindset
criteria 4 : Student Assessment
Strengths/Key Appreciations
–
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
- The report describes the implementation process in a systematic manner. However, it still lacks clarity regarding the actual operations, which could be better illustrated through examples or results presented in graphs or tables. This would provide a clearer picture and better understanding of the real implementation methods
criteria 5 : Academic Staff
Strengths/Key Appreciations
- Program lecturers have been recognized with awards for their achievements in research and quality assurance
- All lecturers in the program specialize in the field of aeronautics
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
–
criteria 6 : Student Support Services
Strengths/Key Appreciations
–
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
- Benchmarking should be established for continuous and directed improvement
criteria 7 : Facilities and Infrastructure
Strengths/Key Appreciations
- The program is equipped with up-to-date practical training environments, including a modern simulation lab for aviation, which provides students with realistic, hands-on experience aligned with professional standards. This supports skill acquisition essential for real-world aviation contexts
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
–
criteria 8 : Output and Outcomes
Strengths/Key Appreciations
–
Recommendations for Quality Improvement
- Lacks benchmarking, systematic outcome tracking, and data integration
- Though the program claims that students meet the learning outcomes, this is
largely supported by descriptive observations, not actual data analytics such as
include pass rates, dropout rates, time to degree