Survey findings
The participants’ responses are presented in Figure 4.3 below:
Figure 4.3: Staff perceptions of the set of standards and criteria for institutional accreditation
Almost all of the respondents (93%) either agreed or strongly agreed with Statement 1 ‘The indicators cover all the aspects of the institutional practices’ and Statement 4 ‘A balance between quantitative and qualitative indicators is ensured’. Less support was found for Statement 2 ‘The content of indicators is clear’ with 78% indicating ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’. Nearly 67% of the respondents indicated ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with Statement 3‘A balance of four types of indicators (input, output, process and outcome) is ensured’, and Statement 5 ‘The requirements from the indicators are realistic and suitable (not too high, and not too low)’. It is noted that the ‘disagree’ responses only appeared in Statement 3 and 5. Only 11 respondents (26.8%) answered the open-ended question which requested them to specify the limitations of the set of criteria and standards for institutional accreditation. Five individuals indicated their dissatisfaction with the overlaps among the indicators. Four other respondents perceived the requirements from some indicators to be unrealistic (too high compared to reality), such as those of Standard 9.2a (hostel), Standard 6.1 (library), and Standard 8.3 (finance).
Interview findings
Overall, the participants’ responses in the interviews were in line with the survey results pertaining to the set of indicators of institutional accreditation. There was a strong agreement among the interviewees that this set of indicators was comprehensive and it nearly covered all the activities of vocational training. The interviewees did not see the requirements of the indicators to be too high or too low overall. In this regard, one held a view that if the requirements were too low, all the institutions involving the process would have been certified. One other respondent added that it was not easy for her institution to get the high scores to be certified. Most of the respondents also found the balance between the quantitative and qualitative indicators generally satisfactory. One interviewee found that although the set of standards and criteria seemed to be over reliant on quantitative indicators, this approach fit well with the current conditions of accreditation in Vietnam.
However, all interviewees strongly agreed with the survey findings concerning the ‘overlaps among the indicators’. Most of them argued that this issue is caused by the repetition of the evidence required to prove some specific indicators. Some believed that this problem resulted from the fact that some indicators are not specific and clear enough. In the views of some respondents, a large amount of indicators (150 indicators) along with the repetition among the indicators made the set of standards and criteria too complicated.
The second perceived problem with the set of criteria and standards pertained to the imbalance among the four types of indicators (input, output, process and outcome). Four interviewees who rated ‘neutral’ or ‘disagree’ on Statement 3 ‘A balance of four types of indicators (input, output, process and outcome) is ensured’ in the questionnaire were asked to explain their ratings. The most common theme that emerged from the respondents’ answers is that the evaluation seemed to be too heavily reliant on the input and process rather than output and outcome. Such an approach to quality evaluation, according to them, did not force the institution to focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning. This can be seen through the following perspectives:
The focus should be on students’ performance and the achievements of an institution as input or process did not reflect the genuine quality of an institution. The current system just led to the burden of paperwork instead of the improvements of real teaching and learning (Respondent 45 - Academic leader).
The number of books a school has does not reflect the quality of that school….Output and outcome indicators are much more important (Respondent 47 - Administrative
leader).
Additionally, though the requirements from the set of criteria and standards overall were perceived not to be too high or too low, the interviews revealed the dissatisfaction of some respondents with some indicators which they perceived to be unrealistic and unsuitable. Consider, for example, the following comment of one interviewee:
About the library, the indicator requiring the number of 10 to 15 books per student is not realistic. Also, the average area required for a reading seat (1.8m2) is high. If my school had 5,000 students, there would be a giant library. That is not necessary as now we have e-library…The criterion 7 for scientific research is not too difficult for my school to meet…However, as a vocational training school, we should focus on training vocational skills for students rather than doing research (Respondent 47 - Administrative leader).
Staff perceptions of the set of criteria and standards for programme accreditation
Survey findings
Figure 4.4 reports the participants’ responses to the five statements:
Figure 4.4: Staff perceptions of the set of standards and criteria for programme accreditation
As indicated in Figure 4.4, the participants overall were positive about the set of standards and criteria for programme accreditation. Almost all of them (>93%) indicated ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the first four statements (1, 2, 3, and 4), and a lower percentage (72%) indicated ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with Statement 5.
Only four participants answered the open-ended question concerning the drawbacks of the set of standards and criteria in programme accreditation. Three of them reported that the requirements from some indicators were not realistic, and the last respondent found no significant difference between the two sets of standards and criteria used for the two processes.
Interview findings
A finding worth noting from the interview data was that the set of criteria and standards for programme accreditation is perceived to be much better than the one used for institutional accreditation. According to some interviewees, the set of programme criteria and standards has less overlaps among the indicators and is also less complicated than the set of institutional criteria and standards.
Similar to staff perspectives on the set of standard and criteria for institutional accreditation, most of the interviewees were positive towards the balance of quantitative and qualitative indicators in the programme standard and criteria. Most of them commonly agreed that the
requirements from the set of standards and criteria for programme accreditation in general were not too high and not too low.
The interviewees, however, had concerns about a number of unrealistic indicators in the set of programme standards and criteria. They did not only complain that the requirements from some indicators were too high for their colleges to meet, but also mentioned the incompatibility of some indicators with other current related regulations as well as the practical requirements. This was illustrated in the following quotes:
Regarding the indicator ‘100% of teachers have participated in composing textbooks’, obviously, this cannot be done as those who can compose books must be doctors or professors (Respondent 18 - College leader).
The indicator that requires 100% of teachers to have a vocational skills qualification is far from practice as now we do not have any mechanism or regulations about this
(Respondent 45 - Academic leader).
The panel checked the training equipment based on technical specifications as stipulated on legal documents published some years ago. However, at the time of the site visit, those specifications were out of date as technology changed (Respondent 30
- Academic leader).
Another area of some interviewees’ concern refers to the balance of input, output, process, and outcome indicators. They found the set of standards and criteria for programme accreditation not to have enough output and outcome indicators for quality evaluation. These views are not congruent with the quantitative survey findings which indicate the positive perceptions of the respondents towards the balance of four types of indicators (input, process, output and outcomes). Consider the following representative perspective:
It is evident that output and outcome elements are of importance during the process of accreditation. Nonetheless, they have not yet been fully included in the set of criteria and standards (Respondent 12 - Academic leader).
Notably, although Statement 1 ‘The indicators cover all the aspects of the institutional practices’ was supported by almost all of the survey respondents, two interviewees stressed the lack of the indicators referring to e-library in the set of criteria and standards for programme accreditation. According to them, e-library is a must-have facility in any institution in the era of technology.