Summary of Self-Assessment
Assessment Results Based on Quality Assurance Standards
Curriculum Standards B.E. 2565 (A.D. 2022)
| Requirement | Bachelors Program / Graduate Diploma Program | Masters Program / Doctoral Program | Pass/Fail |
| 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. Qualifications of Main Advisor for Thesis and Independent Study | – | / | pass |
| 6. Qualifications of Coadvisors for Thesis and Independent Study (if applicable) | – | / | pass |
| 7. Qualifications of Thesis and Independent Study Examiners | – | / | pass |
| 8. Publication and Dissemination of Graduate Academic Output | – | / | pass |
| 9. Workloads of Thesis and Independent Study Advisors in Graduate Programs | – | / | pass |
| 10. Specified Period of Time Within Which Curriculum Must Be Revised | / | pass |
Result………………pass……………………….
Summary of Quality Assessment Results
The internal quality assurance at the program level has been evaluated based on the ASEAN University Network Quality Assurance (AUN-QA, Version 4.0) framework.
| Criteria | Item | 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) | 6 | |
| 7 Facilities and Infrastructure (9 item) | 9 | 5 |
| 8 Output and Outcomes (5 item) | 5 | 5 |
| total | 40 | |
| Average Score | 5 | |
Result…………….pass…………………………
Overall Performance Summary
Strengths of the Program
The faculty members responsible for the curriculum possess advanced academic qualifications, strong scholarly and research achievements, and extensive professional experience in the field of educational administration. Their expertise contributes significantly to effective curriculum implementation, academic leadership, and the overall quality of the program.
Student assessment practices are closely aligned with the intended learning outcomes and employ a variety of assessment methods to comprehensively evaluate student achievement. These approaches include assessing knowledge acquisition and knowledge construction through e-portfolios, participation in knowledge-sharing and collaborative learning activities, as well as engagement in integrated project development. Such diverse assessment strategies provide meaningful evidence of students’ learning progress and competency development.
Feedback obtained from evaluation processes is systematically integrated into curriculum design and improvement initiatives. This evidence-based approach supports appropriate course sequencing and curriculum organization, thereby enhancing learning continuity and optimizing the overall educational process.
Furthermore, both academic and extracurricular learning experiences are supported through information systems and digital platforms, including webinars, conferences, and other technology-based learning opportunities. A wide range of academic resources, including books, journals, and digital databases, is also made readily available to support student learning, research activities, and thesis development, thereby strengthening academic engagement and scholarly productivity.
Weaknesses of the Program
Student performance, outputs, and program outcomes should be benchmarked against comparable or closely related programs offered by other higher education institutions. This benchmarking process aims to strengthen curriculum quality, improve operational effectiveness, and ensure that the program remains competitive and aligned with recognized academic standards and best practices.
Appropriate and high-performing benchmark indicators should be identified and established as reference points to guide continuous curriculum enhancement and operational improvement. These benchmarks can serve as a basis for evaluating performance, identifying strengths and areas for development, and supporting evidence-based decision-making for future curriculum planning.
A comparative analysis should be conducted across key performance indicators, including:
- Graduation rates – to evaluate the program’s effectiveness in supporting student completion.
- Dropout rates – to assess student retention and identify factors influencing persistence.
- Average time to degree completion – to determine the efficiency of student progression through the program.
- Self-development – to measure students’ personal growth, leadership, and lifelong learning competencies.
- Departmental development – to assess contributions to institutional and organizational improvement.
- Professional development – to evaluate career advancement, competency enhancement, and professional achievements.
- Enrollment in higher education – to examine graduates’ continuation into advanced academic studies and lifelong learning opportunities.
Conducting these comparative analyses can provide valuable insights for curriculum development and contribute to sustaining continuous quality improvement within the program.
Areas for Improvement or Program Enhancement in the Next Academic Year
There is a need to compare student competencies, program outputs, and learning outcomes with those of comparable programs at the same academic level offered by other universities. This benchmarking process is intended to enhance the overall quality and effectiveness of curriculum operations.
High-performing and exemplary programs should be identified and used as benchmarks to serve as models for guiding curriculum enhancement and improving program performance. Adopting effective practices from these benchmark institutions can support continuous quality improvement and strengthen curriculum implementation.
Furthermore, comparative analyses should be conducted using key indicators such as graduation rates, dropout rates, average time to degree completion, self-development, departmental development, professional growth, and progression to higher education. Evaluating these parameters against benchmark programs will provide valuable insights that can be used to refine, strengthen, and continuously improve the curriculum.