2015-2016 Internal Quality Assurance Report
by Sajaporn Sankham, QA Director
Asia-Pacific International University is committed to providing quality education for its students. Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) evaluations are conducted regularly by external assessors along with University faculty and staff providing the necessary reports on programs and academic and extracurricular activities. The following provides a detailed report of the assessment from June, July and September 2016.
During June 2016, each Program of Study at Asia-Pacific International University underwent an Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) visit by a 3-member assessment team. Each team consisted of two assessors from outside institutions, and an assessor from another Program of Study, with an external member chairing the team.
This year’s scores were generally overall higher than those received last year. The assessment committees reviewed each Program’s performance based on six components: 1 component that deals with regulatory standards (1 indicator), and 5 additional components with 13 indicators. The IQA regulations allow Programs that are accredited by a professional body (University) to be exempted from an annual IQA Assessment. The Mission Faculty of Nursing’s Program received a 4-year accreditation term from the Nursing Council for 2015-2019, and the University Council approved exemption for this Program from 2015-2019. So the Nursing Program is only required to report results for component 1. The following is a summary of the components and quality of scores.
• Component 1 Regulatory Standard. All programs complied with regulatory standards for 2015-2016
• Component 2 Students. Nine out of twelve programs achieved ‘Good Quality’ scores, while three program achieved ‘Medium Quality’ scores
• Component 3 Graduates. All programs received ‘Medium Quality’ scores
• Component 4 Instructors. Five out of twelve programs achieved ‘Good Quality’ scores, while seven program achieved ‘Medium Quality’ scores
• Component 5 Curriculum, Learning/Teaching, Learner Assessment. All programs received ‘Good Quality’ scores
• Component 6 Learning Resources. All programs received ‘Good Quality’ scores
The minimum passing average score at the Program level is 3.01, which is equivalent to ‘Good Quality’. Nine out of twelve programs achieved scores indicating ‘Good Quality’. The other three programs received scores indicating ‘Medium Quality’.
During July and August 2016, each Faculty underwent an internal quality assurance visit by a 3-member assessment team chaired by an external team member. These assessment committees reviewed each Faculty’s performance based on 5 components consisting of 13 indicators. The following is a summary of each component and the scores received.
• Component 1 Graduate Production. Two faculties achieved ‘Good Performance’ scores, while other four faculties achieved ‘Fair Performance’ scores.
• Component 2 Research. Two faculties achieved ‘Good Performance’ scores, while the other four faculties achieved ‘Fair Performance’ scores.
• Component 3 Academic Service. Four faculties received a score of 4 out on a ranking scale of 5.
• Component 4 Preservation of Arts and Culture. Three faculties received a full score of 5.
• Component 5 Administration and Management. Three faculties achieved scores indicating a ‘Good Performance’ level of performance.
This year all faculties received scores higher than 3.00. For most Faculties, these scores showed significant improvement from those achieved in 2014-2015. The minimum passing score at the Faculty level is 3.51, which indicates a level of ‘Good Performance’, and two out of six faculties achieved scores indicating a ‘Good Performance’ quality level. The remaining four faculties received scores indicating a ‘Fair Performance’ quality level.
On September 2, 2016, a 5-member Internal Quality Assurance assessment team chaired by an external member reviewed the performance of the Institution based on 5 components, which are comprised of 13 indicators.
• Component 1 Graduate Production. The scores for all indicators increased from last year except for Indicator 1.4 FTES, because some satisfaction scores for services provided to undergraduate students were less than 3.51.
• Component 2 Research. The indicator for this component that received a low score was Indicator 2.2, which is Financial Support for Research and Creative Works.
Component 3 Academic Service. This year’s score was lower than last year’s because of a change in the Institution’s target organization.
• Component 4 Preservation of Arts and Culture. This year the university received a full score of 5 for this indicator.
Component 5 Administration and Management. This component received scores indicating that a ‘Very Good Performance’ level of quality was achieved.
The Institution received a score for 2015-2016 which was a little higher than the previous year. The most significant area of improvement was in the scores achieved for Component 2 for Research, which average score increased from 2.91 to 3.40.