The Development of a Higher Education Qualifications Framework for Thailand DISCUSSION PAPER

Transcription

1 The Development of a Higher Education Qualifications Framework for Thailand DISCUSSION PAPER

2 The Development of a Higher Education Qualifications Framework for Thailand The education system in Thailand is in the midst of major reform following the National Education Act in The reform process affects all levels of education, involves major changes in government administrative arrangements, devolution of responsibility to institutions and communities, an increased focus in curriculum on development of skills in critical thinking and problem solving, and development of Thai values and culture. In higher education a number of additional universities are being established through the recognition as universities of Rajabhat and Rajamangala institutes, additional higher education provision is being provided in community colleges, and private universities will operate with greater independence. These changes will make higher education more diverse and more accessible. However while diversity is being encouraged, it is essential that standards are maintained, and that there is consistent use of qualification titles so that everyone, students, parents, employers, and other institutions within Thailand, have a common understanding of what skills and knowledge can be expected of graduates with different award titles. This recognition must extend outside Thailand as well. If Thailand is to keep pace with developments in the global knowledge economy and international corporations are to be willing to invest in major developments in the country they too must have confidence in the skills and knowledge of the professional and industrial workforce. Participation in international research networks, and cooperation on an equal basis with international universities for research and staff and student exchanges, all require confidence in the quality of learning that takes place, and the meaning of different qualification titles. Thailand has taken a very important step in establishing mechanisms for external quality assurance through ONESQA, and can build on important developments in internal quality assurance initiated by the Ministry of University Affairs. Many countries within the Region and elsewhere in the world are dealing with similar expansion and increases in diversity. They have the same requirements for consistent and publicly verifiable achievement of quality, and the same needs for flexible opportunities for lifelong learning. The UK, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Hong Kong are only a few examples. Like Thailand these countries have introduced systems of internal and external quality assurance. They have also taken the further step of developing a national qualifications framework to support those quality assurance processes and ensure consistent achievement of standards and reliable communication. In many cases the frameworks cover not only the programs in the higher education sector, but also vocational education and the senior levels of schooling, and in doing so clarify the special nature of programs in the different sectors, and the mechanisms for transition between the sectors with appropriate amounts of credit for work completed. The introduction of qualifications frameworks in conjunction with strengthened internal and external quality assurance processes has often been associated with reductions in detailed regulation. This has occurred for several reasons, to encourage greater flexibility for local

3 innovation and experimentation as new teaching methodologies become available, to recognize that regulations cannot guarantee the quality of teaching and that other mechanisms, consistently and rigorously applied, can be more effective, and for the very practical reason that government funding for central administrative processes relating to approvals and enforcement of regulations is being reduced. This reduction in detailed regulation (though obviously key regulations remain) is often seen as beneficial by institutions, but if it is to occur there must be very clear understanding of expectations, and governments must be confident that these expectations will be met. This confidence may take some time to develop and will depend on a very close link with internal and external quality assurance processes. Qualifications frameworks are intended to: guide institutions in planning their programs by describing required standards and the range of knowledge and skill expected in academic awards, ensure that standards for academic awards are consistent for all institutions within the country, and comparable to those of good international universities, help ensure effective communication with students and the local and international communities about the meaning of qualification titles, and reassure them about the standards of knowledge and skills, support external quality assurance processes by clearly defining the scope and standards of learning expected at all institutions. improve the mobility of graduates by establishing comparability of standards within the country, and internationally, assist in developing educational pathways between programs and between institutions for students who want to proceed to further study, reinforce national goals about the nature of teaching and learning, with an emphasis on creative problem solving and thinking skills, effective communication and use of information and computing technology, and development of values and patterns of responsible ethical behavior. For similar reasons the same step of developing a national qualifications framework has been proposed for Thailand. This paper explains some of the main features of the proposal and raises some issues for discussion. What is a Qualifications Framework? A qualifications framework is a document setting out the structure and main characteristics of qualifications, normally including the levels and standards of learning outcomes expected for each qualification or award to be granted. It does not specify the details of programs in each field of study, but may include rules for the use of field descriptors in award titles to ensure clear and consistent communication with students and community. The detailed development of programs takes place within this framework of principles and general descriptions of standards of learning outcomes, and normally expected time requirements to achieve those outcomes. A qualifications framework may be associated with other documents that set out more detailed requirements for studies in different academic, vocational or professional fields. This is sometimes done to specify requirements for graduates to be qualified to practice in a particular trade or profession.

4 Common Features of Qualifications Frameworks Levels of Knowledge and Skill Levels specify the increasing intellectual standards and complexity of learning that are expected as students progress to higher awards such as diploma, bachelor, master, and doctor. Levels are identified by these general award titles and numbered, for example from one to five, eight or ten depending on the number of levels identified in the framework. For example a qualifications framework for higher education might define level 1 as the entry level at the end of basic education, level 2 as the level of a diploma or associate degree, level 3 as the level for a bachelors degree, and so on. Levels are usually defined at points where awards are important employment qualifications, where significant numbers of students are likely to transfer into or between higher education institutions, and where major awards are granted by higher education institutions. Credits to Describe Volume of Learning Credits are used to specify the volume or amount of learning expected for different qualifications. It is difficult to accurately measure quantities of learning across widely differing fields of knowledge or modes of instruction and two approaches to specifying credits are commonly used. One approach is to use credit points to specify components of programs such as hours of instruction and other processes such as laboratory work, field work or self study, and set requirements for credits or credit hours based on these times. This is the approach currently used in Thailand, with 30 credits normally being allocated for the teaching and learning expected in an academic year at undergraduate level. The other common approach is to allocate credit points for amounts of learning expected of an average learner at the level concerned in a semester or year of study regardless of the form of instruction. Where this system based on a notional amount of learning is used, the most common allocation is one credit point for the learning expected for an average student in 10 hours of learning time at the level concerned, which could be in any mix of formal instruction, laboratory or field work or private study. The mix of components is normally left to the institution to determine, provided it results in the expected amount of learning. Extending this approach using the numbers indicated above in a normal academic year of about 1200 hours of teaching and learning, results in an allocation of 120 credit points for each years learning. This would mean 480 credit points for a four-year bachelors degree or 600 for a five-year bachelors degree. There are different assumptions behind these approaches to allocation of credit points, one focusing on the regulation of inputs and components of programs, and the other on measuring outcomes in the form of student learning. However the numbers used are arbitrary and are simply a device for communicating the volume of teaching and learning in a standard way for the system concerned. It is relatively easy to compare the credit allocations of different national systems, and when students transfer between systems, or refer to their qualifications using credit points to indicate the amount of study they have undertaken it is important to be able to do so. The following table compares the credit point allocations commonly used in some different systems to measure the amount of teaching and learning expected in one full time academic year at undergraduate level. Despite the different numbers these expectations are equivalent

5 Credit Points Allocated for One Full Time Undergraduate Year of Academic Study Jurisdiction Credit Points for One Full Time Year of Academic Study Thailand 30 Malaysia (New Framework) 120 European Community 60 (ECTS) USA 30 UK and a number of 120 Commonwealth countries Domains of Learning Descriptions of what students are expected to learn and be able to do as a result of their studies are grouped into broad categories, often called domains. Common groupings or domains are: knowledge, the ability to recall and present information, conceptual skills, the ability to analyze situations and apply conceptual understanding of principles and theories in critical thinking and creative problem solving, interpersonal skills, including the ability to work effectively in groups and exercise leadership and to plan and take responsibility for their own learning, analytical and communication skills, including the ability to use basic mathematical and statistical techniques, to communicate effectively in oral and written form, and to use information and communications technology, ethical and moral development. Frameworks normally describe in general terms the learning outcomes at each level for each of the domains that are identified. The specific knowledge and skill for different fields of study or professional occupations, and any special requirements -- such as essential amounts of field experience for particular courses, are defined separately. It is also common for individual institutions to go beyond the general framework and identify certain student attributes they try to develop as part of their special mission, and to describe and use institution wide strategies to develop these additional special skills or characteristics. Purpose of Qualifications Frameworks may describe important differences in the purpose of qualifications that have implications for teaching and learning, and for the titles of awards. In higher education one major distinction is between academic and professional programs, the former designed to develop mastery of a field of knowledge and the cutting edge research that pushes out its frontiers, and the latter developing advanced knowledge and skill required for employment in a professional field. These areas of emphasis are not mutually exclusive. It is expected in programs in the arts or humanities, or the sciences, and that are usually described as academic rather than professional, that advanced academic and theoretical studies will develop knowledge and cognitive skills that would be valuable in many areas of employment. It is also expected that in programs designed to prepare students for professional employment there will be consideration of the latest research, and that

6 graduates from these programs will be able to apply insights from that research in creative ways in dealing with issues and problems in their field. However there is a difference in emphasis that should be recognized and is usually reflected in the titles for awards. For example in bachelors or masters degrees the generic titles of Arts or Science are usually used for academic studies in the humanities or social sciences, or the natural and applied sciences, and titles such as business, engineering, medicine or education are used for programs in professional education. Guidelines for degree designations in Thailand are set out in a document published by the Commission for Higher Education Nomenclature Rules for Degree Names of the University Organization. BE 2539/AD 1996 Guidelines for Recognition of Prior Learning and for Credit Transfer There is a strong commitment in many countries to encourage lifelong learning. This gives students continuing opportunities for further study. However it is much more than a mechanism for educational opportunity. It also recognizes the need for people in many professions and occupations to keep pace with new scientific and professional developments that are occurring with increasing rapidity on a global scale. This priority to support lifelong learning has led to the inclusion in qualifications frameworks of guidelines for recognition of prior learning (RPL) and credit transfer. There are several key ideas that underlie these approaches. The first is that it is wasteful and expensive to require students to spend time studying things they already know, or to develop skills they have already acquired. A second is that it is possible for people to gain knowledge and understanding in many different ways, and mechanisms should exist for this learning to be recognized. On the other hand concerns about standards, and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the academic awards that are granted by each higher education institution mean that appropriate judgments have to be made. A balanced judgment has to be made about whether students transferring to an institution with credit for substantially equivalent studies at another institution, or for relevant professional experience, have adequate preparation for successful continuing study. The usual approach is to place responsibility for levels of credit granted for substantially equivalent learning with the receiving institution, but to provide guidelines about levels of credit that might be given and the judgments that have to be made. These guidelines commonly suggest up to 75% credit towards the award of a receiving institution for courses that are substantially equivalent, with a specified minimum period of study there before its award is granted. Principles to be applied in considering recognition of prior learning in higher education institutions in Thailand are set out in the Proclamation of the Ministry of University Affairs Concerning Principles for Recognition of Prior Learning and Transfer of Course Credits on Entry to the Formal Education Sector. BE2545/CE2002

7 Application of the General Framework to Particular Fields of Study The descriptions of learning outcomes in qualifications frameworks are expressed in general terms that apply to many different fields of study. It is normally the responsibility of individual institutions and program developers to relate those general descriptions to the requirements of different fields and disciplines as they develop detailed programs and assessment processes. However there are other closely related documents and requirements that are also considered. One of these is the preparation by groups of academic staff of statements of learning outcomes in particular academic and professional fields. The Subject Benchmark statements developed in the United Kingdom are an example of this approach. A second example is the detailed specification of requirements for programs prepared by professional associations or boards, and that set requirements if graduates are to be permitted to practice in particular professions. While these are generally consistent with the requirements of qualifications frameworks, the fact that they are developed by different organizations means that this is not always the case, and there can be inconsistent requirements unless special efforts are made to avoid this problem. In the development of the qualifications framework for Thailand there is an opportunity, as a separate but related activity, to develop more detailed statements of expectations for at least some fields of study to guide the detailed development of programs. These could be prepared in a number of academic fields. They could also be developed for selected professional fields, and this could be done in a way that ensured that the requirements for effective professional practice, and the expectations of the qualifications framework were both considered and brought together in a consistent way.

8 Discussion of the Proposed Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Thailand Relationship of the Proposed Qualifications Framework to Existing Regulations A great deal of work has been done on the development of policies and regulations for the development of programs and the granting of higher education academic awards. The qualifications framework is not meant to replace these policies, but to draw together the main elements and link them in a single document that will explain to everybody, staff, students, and the wider community, exactly what the various awards mean and how they relate to each other. Main Features of the Qualifications Framework The National Qualifications Framework has five levels after a preliminary entry level based on completion of basic education, with five higher levels for associate degree, bachelor, graduate diploma, master and doctor. A higher graduate diploma is also available as an advanced specialized professional qualification between the levels of master and doctor. The use of these levels is consistent with general international practice described above. Specifying expectations at the point of entry is intended to make clear the level of knowledge and skill expected of students when they first enter higher education, whether they come directly from secondary school or with alternative background through vocational or informal education. The next level after two years of higher education is the point at which the first higher education award might be granted and is the stage at which students from community colleges or other less than degree institutions complete those studies and either seek employment or transfer to universities. The other four levels are linked to employment qualifications, and are the other most common higher education awards offered both in Thailand and in other countries bachelor, graduate diploma, master and doctor. Honorary degrees, higher earned doctorates, and postdoctoral studies are not included in the framework and they do not correspond to additional levels of complexity of learning. However consistency in the use of these titles and forms of study is important and guidelines on their use are provided. The Commission on Higher Education may publish more detailed guidelines on the use of these titles. Credit allocations are based on the existing credit system in Thailand, with 30 credits for learning expected of undergraduate students in a full time academic year or equivalent. Five domains specified in the Framework are: Knowledge Cognitive Skills Interpersonal Skills and Responsibility Analytical and Communication Skills Ethical and Moral Development

9 In each of these domains descriptions are provided of the expected learning outcomes for each of the levels in the framework. These descriptions, though necessarily expressed in general terms, are intended to establish the standards of learning expected for the different awards. These three components come together in a framework structure as shown in the following table. (Note that in the Ethical and Moral Development Domain distinctions have not been made between the levels for a bachelors degree and a graduate diploma, or between a masters degree, a higher graduate diploma and a doctorate. There are high expectations for these levels in this domain, but it has been considered unrealistic to make fine distinctions between the expectations at these levels) Levels Minimum Credits Undergraduate Entry 1. Assoc Degree Bachelor Postgraduate 24 after 3. Grad Dip Bachelor 4. Master 36 after Bachelor 24 after Master Higher Graduate Diploma 5. Doctor 48 after Master, or 72 after Bachelor Knowledge Cognitive Skills Domains of Learning Outcomes Interpersonal Skills and Responsibility Analytical and Communication Skills Ethical and Moral Development The descriptions of learning outcomes corresponding to each of the cells in this table are designed to reflect the Objectives and Principles, and the National Education Guidelines set out in the National Education Act. They are consistent with the Education Standards developed by the Education Council. The descriptions at each level are intended to define the minimum requirements for graduates from any institution. Defining minimum standards in this way is intended to give students and the wider community confidence in the quality of an academic award, wherever it is earned. However defining minimum standards for academic awards does not limit the achievement of individual students who may learn at a higher standard. Obviously it is important that students achieve at the highest standard they can and the grades given to them should recognize outstanding performance. It is also important that institutions be able to identify areas of special interest and to define student attributes that are part of their special mission, and that go beyond the minimum requirements. Nothing in the Qualifications Framework should constrain special initiatives of this sort, but despite any variations that may develop the minimum standards described in the domains for each level must be achieved if the community is to have confidence in what the higher education system produces.

10 The descriptions of learning outcomes have to be expressed in general terms since they must be applied to different academic areas or professional fields as programs are developed. This raises a question about how to ensure that the general descriptions are interpreted and learning evaluated in consistent ways. These matters need to be considered in planning for the implementation of the Framework. Conditions of Learning There are extensive bodies of theory and research relating to the way students learn to remember information, to understand and apply theoretical principles in thinking and problem solving, and to transfer these abilities and apply them appropriately in new situations. There are very different conditions of learning that apply to the way ethical and moral principles are developed and incorporated into everyday behaviour and about how interpersonal effectiveness and capacity for leadership can be improved. Learning in these domains occurs concurrently. Students think and develop moral principles and patterns of behaviour at a very early age, and there are important interactions between their expanding store of knowledge and experience and their ability to deal with new ideas and interpersonal relationships. Curriculum developers have demonstrated that even advanced theoretical concepts can be taught in an intellectually honest form to primary school children, and then progressively refined and applied to increasingly complex circumstances over time. In higher education it is most important that all of the important domains be attended to from the beginning of students programs, though the sequencing of intellectual skills that build on prerequisite learning should be carefully planned. If the abilities described in the domains of learning are to be developed the necessary conditions of learning for the full range of learning outcomes must be established, and this will require methods of teaching that go well beyond the conventional lecture and classroom discussions that are most commonly used in higher education. This will be an important area for ongoing research and development, and exchange of ideas about strategies of teaching, but as a starting point for consideration the following conditions have been generally supported by research and appear to be necessary. For memorization the ability to remember items of knowledge, whether of specific facts or of more extensive bodies of knowledge-- it is important to provide the new information in the context of a broad overview that serves as an advanced organizer for the new information, that is understandable to the students, and that they can relate to what they already know. In essence this is comparable to establishing a mental filing system into which new information can be placed, and then recalled by reference to the file categories provided by the overview. New information should then be linked to that overview and to students existing knowledge. For cognitive skills--the ability to use appropriate concepts, principles and theoretical insights--it is important to plan a sequence of instruction beginning with simple basic understandings and progressively develop these over time to ensure that prerequisite skills and knowledge are mastered before advancing to more complex and advanced abilities. This careful sequencing of conceptual development is important both for the application of theoretical insights in solving problems, and for the effective development of abilities in mathematics, language and use of communications technology that are grouped in the Qualifications Framework under the heading of Analytical and Communication Skills.

11 Cognitive skills involve the ability to use skills and conceptual understandings when called upon to do so. However they go far beyond this to include the ability on their own initiative to identify and apply skills and understandings that are appropriate for solving new and unanticipated problems. Developing this further ability requires opportunities for open-ended problem solving, either individually or in-group situations, with help to develop improved ability to identify relevant and creative ideas. To develop high levels of creative thinking ability it is also important to arrange for students to reflect on their own thinking processes as they tackle problem solving tasks, and to progressively refine and improve the management of their own thought processes as they deal with different types of problems. Research on transfer of learning suggests that this should be done through problems in a variety of settings, including ones that are as similar as possible to the situations in which it is hoped the skills will be used in future life. Interpersonal skills, responsibility, and capacity for leadership are learned in a different way. They are partly personality characteristics, closely associated with self-concept, and developed through social interaction in a variety of settings of which the formal education program is only one. However the instructional program at an educational institution can still influence them in important ways. Necessary conditions of learning include opportunities to participate in-group activities with constructive feedback on performance. This feedback is likely to be most effective if it involves objective analysis by the students of their own behaviour in a supportive environment, and the development by them of rules for their own behaviour, which they choose to apply. Direct instruction in what they should or shouldn t do will have limited impact, particularly if students lack confidence or lack sensitivity. They are more likely to be influenced if they are exposed to positive role models with whom they are likely to identify and given opportunities to evaluate their own patterns of behaviour in comparison with them. The conditions of learning for ethical and moral development are similar to those for interpersonal skills. These characteristics are also developed over many years through many different influences including family and peer group, and other social interactions. The formal educational program is only one of many important influences, but despite this it can have an important effect if appropriate teaching strategies are used. Direct instruction about what should or shouldn t be done in different situations can be helpful, but will not be the most useful strategy. As for interpersonal skills exposure to positive role models with whom the students may identify is important, and can be combined with group discussions of moral dilemmas that help students clarify their own values and think through general principles that they believe in, and that they believe should guide their own behaviour. The principles of transfer of learning also apply in this domain, and there should be discussions of a wide range of possible situations including ones that are similar to those likely to be faced by the students in later life and employment.

12 Implementing the Qualifications Framework As noted above much of the qualifications framework is not new, though it sets out learning outcomes for award levels in a new way. However there are several elements of the framework that may require adjustments to the programs and awards offered in institutions, and that may take some time to implement. There is also some further development work that might be valuable, and some training and professional development activity that may be needed. The following suggestions are made to support implementation of the Framework: (i) Achieving consistent understanding of descriptions of learning outcomes. The descriptions of learning outcomes in the five domains at different levels of the framework are necessarily expressed in general terms, and consequently are open to differing interpretations both within and between institutions. They may mean different things to different people and unless they are interpreted consistently they will have little real value. To assist in achieving common understanding it is suggested that a series of workshops be conducted for senior staff from different institutions preferably mixing different types of institutions. At these workshops there should be brief explanations of the intentions of the various statements, together with discussions of samples of student work, and student activity and behaviour, that would illustrate the required standards of achievement at different levels. After staff representatives had participated in these workshops institutions should be encouraged to arrange their own internal follow up workshops within to ensure similar common understanding among staff. Wherever it is feasible to do so they should involve a mix of staff from their own and other institutions to help achieve inter-institutional consistency. (ii) Application of the Framework to Particular Fields of Study. The general descriptions of learning outcomes in the different domains have to be applied to a number of disciplines and fields of study. This is a further source of possible inconsistent understanding and will require some discussion and workshop activities similar to those referred to above to ensure that interpretations are consistent. To assist in achieving common understanding in different fields it may be desirable to bring together groups of academic staff familiar with the details of the framework, and with selected academic disciplines, to prepare documents similar to the UK subject benchmark statements, and which could help others developing programs in these fields to understand how the framework should be applied to their field. Whether or not that is done in general academic fields, it would be important to review the requirements for professional practice in fields such as education, engineering, and possibly a number of others, and to prepare guidelines for programs that meet both the requirements for professional registration in those fields, and the requirements of the National Qualifications Framework. As well as providing guidance about the Framework for academic staff involved in developing programs this could avoid a potential problem if there are any inconsistencies in its requirements and other separately developed specifications for particular professions. It is suggested that such statements be prepared initially in several key professional fields as a pilot project before being extended to other fields.

13 (iii) Development and use of appropriate teaching strategies. A shift from memorization to developing cognitive skill, creative problem solving skills, and ethical and moral development is already one of the important policy objectives for education in Thailand. However it is a difficult transition to make and if the qualifications described in the framework are to develop the learning outcomes expected the necessary conditions of learning must be established and appropriate teaching strategies used in all subject fields. These strategies will need to go well beyond the presentation of information and academic assignment tasks that are most commonly used in higher education institutions if the development of personal qualities of responsibility, cooperation, leadership, and the expectations for ethical and moral development are to be taken seriously. To assist in the development and use of appropriate teaching strategies it is suggested that a series of workshops for groups similar to those proposed under (i) above be organized to assist staff to introduce a wider range of effective teaching strategies to cover the range of types of learning outcomes. As for item (i) institutions should be encouraged to follow up these cross institution workshops with similar training for their own staff. (iv) Use of appropriate methods of assessment for student learning and program evaluation. Assessment of students learning and/or the evaluation of programs must relate to all the domains of learning, not just to the areas of knowledge and skill that are traditionally assessed. If these other important learning outcomes are not included in student assessments or considered in program evaluations as part of internal quality assurance they will not be taken seriously. They may be simply ignored and it will not be possible to determine the extent to which they are being developed. However there are important issues relating to how best to evaluate the personal qualities and ethical standards of students and about the extent to which these matters should be included in academic assessments. For example, is it appropriate to include ethical and moral development in normal graded student assessments in the same way as student s knowledge and use of cognitive skills? If so, what weight should be given to these elements, and how is it possible to assess the demonstration of these characteristics in later community life or employment, which is where we really want these characteristics to be demonstrated. For professional programmes that include field based practical components it should be possible to include ratings of the students abilities in the ethical dimension, and of their initiative, group participation and responsibility. Necessary requirement for this would be that the students supervisors are properly briefed on what are reasonable and appropriate requirements, and students be given opportunities to demonstrate and improve these qualities. Consequently incorporating these features in the field experience components of programmes in an equitable and reliable way imposes some requirements on the conduct of those programmes. The opportunities for this kind of development are more limited in academic programmes that are entirely campus based. However these student assessments are carried out it is also possible to define indicators for use in the evaluation of programmes. A possible alternative to giving grades for moral and ethical development, and such things as initiative and group participation is to provide descriptive comments for students rather than graded assessments, and to ensure that programmes are thoroughly evaluated using later assessments by employers of the qualities of the group of graduates as indicators of the quality of programmes.

14 Workshops similar to (or combined with) those suggested above could be provided to discuss these issues and develop skills in assessment and evaluation. (v) Inconsistencies in credit requirements and award titles. Since the credit requirements and award titles are largely based on existing practice and regulation there should be few inconsistencies. However it is expected that institutions should review all existing programs to ensure that this is the case. While this may at first sight appear a simple task it should be combined with an evaluation of whether the levels of learning outcomes specified for the different awards are being developed through appropriate teaching strategies, and whether student assessments and appropriate quality indicators show that they are being achieved. This is a much more difficult exercise. In addition to the workshops suggested under items (i), (ii) and (iii) above it may be desirable to stimulate sharing of information about good ideas, and about theory and research on the effectiveness of alternative teaching strategies for developing the different forms of learning outcomes. This could be done in several ways, through conferences and seminars where reports on research and successful practices are discussed, through grants or awards recognizing exceptional achievement, and through establishment of a website to include descriptions of successful ideas. Comments on the value of these possible activities, and additional suggestions to help with implementation, would be welcome. (vi) Time scale for implementation. A time scale for the implementation needs to be established. It is proposed that: Any new program introduced after the Framework is approved should be required to be consistent with the Framework, and include information about appropriate teaching strategies, student assessment, and mechanisms for program evaluation in relation to its requirements. Within two years from the date the Framework is approved institutions should have reviewed their program to identify changes that might be required to make them consistent with the Framework, and to have developed a strategy to achieve that result. Within five years from the date the Framework is approved all program should be consistent with the Framework, and internal quality assurance arrangements should be in place to ensure that this is done.

15 Some Questions and Answers About the National Qualifications Framework Q. Different institutions attract students of differing ability. Can the same levels be applied across different types of institution? A. The levels are meant to describe the rigour and complexity of knowledge and skill that can be confidently expected of anyone receiving the qualification concerned. Consequently students must achieve a minimum of at least that standard whatever institution they attend. It has to be acknowledged that some institutions may go further and try to achieve higher levels of performance or additional student attributes, and individual students may also perform at better than the minimum required standard. High achieving students may receive A grades, high percentage marks, or honors, depending of the grading system being used. It is also inevitable that some institutions will have a higher reputation than others. Striving for higher and higher standards should be encouraged. However despite variations for individual students, and for different institutions it must be possible for students and the community to have confidence that every academic award is of good standard. Consequently the levels as described must be achieved Q. Does a qualifications framework limit diversity between the programs of different institutions. A. To some extent it must, because it is expected that programs will develop the learning outcomes in each domain at the levels described in the framework. However the framework does not specify detailed content or the approaches to teaching and learning that an institution might choose as a means of developing those abilities, and does not prevent institutions from giving special emphasis to particular skills or providing for additional competencies or student attributes that it believes are appropriate to its particular mission and circumstances. Q. Some learning outcomes are very difficult to assess, particularly those dealing with ethics and values, and those that relate to patterns of behaviour in employment after programs have been completed. How can assessments of these outcomes be carried out? A. Assessments of students knowledge and skill can be made using normal testing procedures and evaluations of project and assignment work. These can include evaluations of contributions to group projects or work done in field experience activities. It is also possible to assess the effectiveness of programmes in developing values, initiative, capacity for leadership, and other work related abilities through surveys of employers about the abilities and performance of graduates. Although the results of these later surveys may not affect the assessments of individual students during their period of study, they can provide feedback to program developers and instructors about the effectiveness of strategies for developing these learning outcomes, and if these results are incorporated into internal quality assurance processes they can be an important stimulus for improvement.

16 Q. What can be done to ensure that descriptive statements of learning outcomes are interpreted consistently in different institutions? A. Statements about levels and descriptions of learning outcomes have to be expressed in general terms and this does leave open the possibility that they will be interpreted in different ways, reducing their effectiveness in achieving consistent standards and covering the range of desired learning outcomes. It is important that institutions take steps, as part of their internal quality assurance process, to compare the quality of student work done in different programs to ensure that the necessary levels of skill are developed in all programs they offer, and make some comparisons with work done at other institutions. As part of an implementation strategy it will also be important to provide for professional development activities in which expectations can be explained, and samples of student work discussed. Q. Is it necessary to teach students information before attention is given to development of thinking skills? A. No it is not, in fact it is would counter productive to do so. Young people are already active thinkers and their thinking skills should be progressively improved as they progressively acquire and apply new information and the concepts and theories that help them interpret it. The domains are interactive and mutually supporting, and it is most important that effective learning conditions are provided for all of them throughout programs. Your Views on the Qualifications Framework The National Qualifications Framework is intended as a major policy document to ensure equivalence in standards across all institutions, and consistency with national policy objectives. It should serve as a guide in the development of programs and consistency with its requirements should be used in internal quality assurance, and by ONESQA in external evaluations. For these reasons it is being distributed for consultation before being recommended for formal adoption. Some important questions for discussion are: 1. Is the number of levels that have been identified appropriate for the next phase of development of Thailand s higher education system? If not, what changes should be made? 2. Do the five domains that have been identified adequately cover the range of kinds of learning outcomes that should be developed to meet the higher education needs of Thailand and the national policies and guidelines that have been defined? 3. Are the descriptions of learning outcomes in each domain, and at each level, sufficiently clear to explain the type and level of knowledge and skill expected? 4. Are the levels described in each of the domains appropriate for the awards they are identified with? That is are they desirable? Are they achievable? Are they too easy? Are they too difficult?

17 If the descriptions are unclear or the levels inappropriate how should they be changed? 5. What could or should be done by (a) the Commission of Higher Education or (b) individual institutions, to ensure accurate and consistent understanding of expected learning outcomes in all institutions and in all programs? 6. What teaching strategies are likely to be most effective in developing the knowledge and skills, and the personal qualities, described in the different domains of learning? What can be done to ensure that these strategies are known about, and can be used effectively by teaching staff in all institutions? 7. What methods of assessment can be used to evaluate student learning across the range of domains of learning? Should student assessments be based on all of the domains? What methods of evaluation, or indicators of effectiveness, can be used for internal and external evaluations of programs, and of institutions, in the domains that have not traditionally been used for student assessment? 9. Are the proposals made for assistance with implementation likely to be helpful? Is the proposed time scale for implementation appropriate? 8. Are there any additional matters on which comments should be included in the Qualifications Framework to make it more useful as a planning document?