Cross case analysis:

In the following section, the comparison of all Universities, regarding IQA implementation and influential factors, will be presented. The emerging theme will be also described under each variable.

4.2.1 The Quality Assurance Center (QAC): Structure and functions

Data collected through interviews showed that QACs have been formed at most of the Universities as a centralized unit with specialized staffs. There is a variety of QACs’ scale, mostly depending on the size of the University and the maturity of the QAC. Bigger Universities (VU, CTU, HSSU and EUH) have big QACs with around 7-15 specialized staffs, and the newly established Universities (HSU, DTU & BDE&TU) have smaller QACs with 2-3 specialized staffs. In terms of organizational features, most of the University has a Vice-Rector or equivalent (for example, University President) to be responsible for QA processes. Most of the Universities, especially the beneficiary Universities of international projects, have established QA satellite network at lower levels in the Universities. (See Table 7)

71   

Table 8 Structure of QACs in

Universities Degree of authorities University

supervisor

Fulltime specialized

staffs

Vinh Uni Have satellite QA officers at unit level Vice Rector 13

Can Tho Uni Have satellite QA officers at unit level Vice Rector 7

Da Nang Uni Have satellite QA teams University

President2

1

Thai Nguyen Uni Have satellite QA teams University

President

4

Hue University’s College of Education Have satellite QA officers at unit level Rector 6 Humanity and Social Sciences Uni Have satellite QA officers at unit level Vice Rector 4 Uni of Economics Ho Chi Minh City Does not have satellite QA officers Vice Rector 7

Duy Tan Uni Does not have satellite QA officers Rector 2

Hoa Sen Uni Does not have satellite QA officers Rector 3

Binh Duong Economics and Technology Uni

Does not have satellite QA officers Vice Rector 3

Most of QACs have established their functions to support the implementation of QA process in the Universities. At presents, all QACs confirm their coordinating role in assisting University’s staff members in the process of conducting institutional self evaluation. Regarding this role, most of the QACs stated that they organized training courses or workshops to help other units within the University understand more about the criteria in MoET’s accreditation standards so that they can collect right evidence information as required in the self evaluation reports (Annex 1). Apart from the requirement to coordinate with other units to conduct self evaluation reports, it was revealed in the interviews with QA staffs that the QACs also perform the administrative role as they are required to be responsible for organizing and preparing for the site visits in their Universities, carried out by external evaluation panel.       

2 _{University President is the title of the highest ranking officer within the academic administration of a regional}  University 

Beneficiary

72   

In addition, data collected from the interviews showed that among 10 Universities, there were 2 beneficiary Universities (CTU & TNU) and 2 non-beneficiary Universities ( HSSU & HSU) fulfilling the requirement on performing their interpretative role by developing criteria for internal audit at institutional level based on MoET’s accreditation standards. Also, they interpret AUN’s standards to help faculties in their Universities carry out internal program evaluation at faculty level (See Annex 1).

With respect to the supportive role, one point worth noting was that QACs tend to provide lower levels with knowledge on institutional accreditation or program accreditation, not the expertise on supporting faculties to develop their own QA processes as expected. For example, whilst CTU and TNU replied that they have regular consultancy on how to conduct program evaluation using AUN’s standards for faculties in the Universities; USSH declared that they organized seminar, workshop, and training courses about the conduct of self evaluation report and the conduct of external evaluation for managers, faculties and staff members in HSSU. Another example of this tendency showed through the case of HSE, in which they stated that they support faculties, departments and lectures to develop criteria and measures for the conduct of quality assessment activities. Other QACs did not mention this role as one of their functions with respects to QA activities.

In terms of monitoring role, most of the QACs fulfilled their responsibilities to develop the instruments for self-evaluation and regularly conduct surveys on University’s stakeholders, except for BDE&TU. Currently, the evaluation instruments to collect relevant information on different aspects of the activities in BDE&TU are still not available. Further to this role, most of QACs seem fail to meet the requirement for “pointing out the problems” as most of the QACs do not conduct institutional accreditation or equivalent, except CTU, HSSU, HSU and TNU. While CTU, HSSU and HSU carry out institutional accreditation (or internal audit) which was developed based on MoET’s standards every 2 years, TNU evaluate QA activities of the University as the whole every 6 months.

However, apart from the responsibilities for QA activities in the University, most of QACs are also responsible for testing (VU, CTU, EUH, HSSU &HUCE) or inspection (HSU, BDE&TU, TNU). Under this kind of organizational structure, one common phenomenon noted was the tendency to consider testing activities or internal inspection as main functions in some QACs. For instance, VU admitted that QA activities is overshadowed by testing activities in their QAC as, according to them, QA activities are costly while testing activities actually can help the Center with financial issue (see case 1). In the similar vein, BDE&TU stated that the main responsibility of their QAC is for internal inspection (see case 5). Also, such Universities tend to prioritize the accomplishment of self evaluation reports which are proclaimed by MoET over the development of IQA activities in their QA processes, either due to the financial constrains (VU) or due to the existence of a degree of confusion between IQA’s nature and accreditation. In this regard, when describing IQA activities, the Vice Director/Assistant Manager of QACs in EUH, BDE&TU, & DTU mentioned only activities taken for accreditation. For example, it was shown from the interview that BDE&TU described activities for IQA as collecting evidence for the conduct of self evaluation report and supporting the University to carry out self evaluation process. Similarly, while EUH’s QAC described its main functions as carrying out accreditation activities in the University (see case 6), DTU highly emphasized its coordinating role in supporting the self evaluation process of the University as the whole (see case 3). In such Universities, there are no different QA activities namely the program evaluation or internal audit other than the accomplishment of self evaluation reports in their work procedures.

In the contrary, some other Universities like CTU, HSSU & HSU have proved that their QACs were developed and gradually confirmed their position in the Universities. Even though they are also responsible for testing (CTU & HSSU) or inspection (HSU); QA activities are paid more attention in such institutions; and as revealed through the interview, the Vice-Rector of CTU also declared that testing works are not their priority. (See case 2).

73   

4.1.1.1.Observation:

To summarize, observing Table 9,one can see:

‐ All QACs fulfill the coordinating role, in which QACs coordinate with other units within the University to conduct the process of self evaluation in the University.

‐ All QACs perform the administrative role to be in charge of organizing and preparing for external evaluation process.

‐ 8 out of 10 QACs has designed evaluation instruments to collect information from internal stakeholders (students) and external stakeholders (employers); VU only design the tool to conduct survey and collect data from internal stakeholders (students), and BDE&TU has not developed any evaluation instruments.

‐ 4 QACs, 2 beneficiary Universities and 2 non-beneficiary Universities can perform the interpretive role and get involved in the process of supporting the University to point out the problems by developing and conducting internal audits and program evaluation.

Table 9: QACs’ function in 10 Universities

Functions  4 Beneficiary 

Universities