AU Internal Quality Assessment Report (AU-IQA Report)

Assumption University Internal Quality Assessment Report Academic Year 2017 (November 1st – 2nd, 2018) Office of the Vice President for Policy, Planning and Quality Assurance



i

ii

Executive Summary Assumption University empowers the Vice President for Policy, Planning and Quality Assurance to oversee the overall implementation of the AU Internal Quality Assurance through the Office of the Vice President for Policy, Planning and Quality Assurance (OPPQA). The OPPQA facilitates and liaises with the University QA Board, QA Executive for Academic Units, QA Executive for Support Units and all AU-QA Coordinators for Academic and Support units to ensure that the University’s quality assurance missions are well accomplished. The overall internal quality assurance consisted of three levels of assessment: 1. Program Internal Quality Assessment 2. School Internal Quality Assessment, and 3. AU Internal Quality Assessment In academic year 2017, Program and School levels adopted the OHEC’s IQA system. Assessment results showed that all 69 programs passed the program standard criteria. Three programs achieved ‘Very good’ and 65 programs “Good” quality level. As for 12 Schools, except Martin de Tours School of Business and Economics which adopted the EdPEx system, maintained their quality at ‘Good’ level. The University completed its AU internal quality assessment on November 1-2, 2018 with the score of 4.04, obtaining ‘Good’ level. Quality Level of Internal Quality Assessment Results Academic Year 2017 Program Level Assessment result 2017 2016 2015 2014 - - 2 5 NOT PASS (Fail) 0.00 - - 1 20 1 8 33 44 Low 0.01-2.00 65 61 35 6 3 1 1 - Fair 2.01-3.00 69 70 72 75 Good 3.01-4.00 Very Good 4.01-500 Total Number of Programs School Level (Excluding MSME) Quality Level of IQA Result 2017 2016 2015 2014 - - - - Need urgent improvement 0.00 – 1.50 - - - - 1 1 1 11 Need improvement 1.51 – 2.50 11 12 13 3 - - - - Fair 2.51 – 3.50 12 13 14 14 Good 3.51 – 4.50 Very good 4.51 – 5.00 Total Number of Schools iii

iv

CONTENTS Assumption University Internal Quality Assessment Committee i Executive Summary iii Assumption University Council iv PART I Assumption University General Information 1 1.1 Administrators 2 PART II 1.2 Academic Programs in Academic Year 2017 3 PART III 1.3 Students in Academic Year 2017 7 PART IV 1.4 Full-time Faculty Members Researchers and Support Staff in Academic Year 7 2017 10 AU Internal Quality Assurance 11 Assumption University Internal Quality Assessment Report 2017 11 3.1 Results of Internal Quality Assessment Classified by Components 11 3.2 Results of Internal Quality Assessment Classified by Indicators 13 Performance Assessment Component 1 Graduate Production 15 16 Indicator 1.1 Results of Program administration 16 17 Indicator 1.2 Full-time faculty members holding a doctoral degree 18 19 Indicator 1.3 Full-time faculty members holding an academic title 20 Indicator 1.4 Bachelor’s degree student service Indicator 1.5 Bachelor’s degree student activities 21 22 Component 2 Research 22 23 Indicator 2.1 System and Mechanism for Research and Creative Work Administration 24 and Development 25 26 Indicator 2.2 Research and Creative Work Funds 27 Indicator 2.3 Full-time faculty members’ and researchers’ academic works 29 Component 3 Academic Service 30 30 Indicator 3.1 Academic Service to Society 31 31 Component 4 Preservation of Art and Culture 32 32 Indicator 4.1 System and mechanism for preservation of art and culture 33 Component 5 Administration Indicator 5.1 University’s monitoring and following up of performance in compliance with the University’s mission, the category of the institution and the University’s uniqueness Indicator 5.2 Results of School Administration Indicator 5.3 System for monitoring Program and School quality assurance Component 6 Institution’s Identity Indicator 6.1 Achievements in the development of institution’s identity Component 7 Institution’s Uniqueness Indicator 7.1 Achievements in the development of institution’s uniqueness Appendices



PART I: Assumption University General Information Name and Location มหาวทิ ยาลยั อสั สมั ชญั อกั ษรยอ่ มอช. Name Assumption University abbreviation AU Thai Name English Name Location Hua Mak Campus 592/3 Ramkhamhaeng 24, Hua Mak Bangkapi Bangkok 10240 Thailand Tel. (662) 300-4553-62 Fax (662) 300-4563 Suvarnabhumi Campus 88 Moo 8 Bang Na-Trad Km. 26 Bangsaothong Samuthprakarn 10540 Thailand Tel. (662) 723-2222 Fax (662) 707-0395 ACC Campus 101 Soi Satorn 13, South Satorn Road, Bangkok 10120 Thailand Tel. (662) 675-5769-70 Fax (662) 675-5083 E-mail: [email protected] ABAC City Campus Zen Department Store @ Central World, 14th floor., 4,4/5 Rajdamri Road, Phatumwan Bangkok 10330 Thailand Tel. (662) 1009115-8 Fax (662) 1009119 Historical Background Assumption University was initially originated from Assumption Commercial College in 1969 as an autonomous Higher Education Institution under the Assumption School of Business. In 1972, with the approval of the Ministry of Education, it was officially established as Assumption Business Administration College or ABAC. In May 1975, it was accredited by the Ministry of University Affairs. In 1990, it was granted new status as “Assumption University” by the Ministry of University Affairs. The university is a non-profit institution administered by the Brothers of St. Gabriel, a worldwide Catholic Religious Order, founded in France in 1705 by St. Louis Marie de Montfort, devoted to education and philanthropic activities. The Congregation has been operating many educational institutions in Thailand since 1901. 1

1.1 Administrators President Emeritus University Administrators President - Rector Magnificus Vice President for Moral Development 1. Rev.Bro.Dr. Prathip M. Komolmas Education 2. Rev.Bro.Dr. Bancha Saenghiran Vice President for Student Affairs 3. Rev.Bro.Dr. Amnuay Yoonprayong Vice President for Administrative Affairs Vice President for Policy, Planning and Quality 4. Rev.Bro.Dr. Sirichai Fonseka Assurance 5. Rev. Bro. Dr. Achin Tengtrakul Vice President for Academic Affairs 6. Dr. Kamol Kitsawad Vice President for Legal and Privilege Affairs Vice President for Research and Academic 7. Dr. Vindhai Cocracul Services 8. Mr. Sompol Na-Songkhla Vice President for Information and 9. Asst.Prof.Dr. Warayuth Sriwarakuel Communication Technology The University Registrar 10. Assoc.Prof. Dr. Pratit Santiprabhob Assistant President 11. Dr. Soonthorn Pibulcharoensit 12. Dr. Krisana Kitcharoen School Administrators 1. Dr. Uree Cheasakul Dean, Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics 2. Dr. Chayada Thanavisuth Dean, Theodore Maria School of Arts 3. Asst.Prof.Dr. Nanthaphan Chinlumprasert Dean, Bernadette de Lourdes School of Nursing Science 4. Asst.Prof.Dr. Thitipong Tanprasert Dean, Vincent Mary School of Science and Technology 5. Dr. Amarit Bhumiratana Dean, Vincent Mary School of Engineering 6. Mr. Wuthichai Choonhasakulchoke Dean, Albert Laurence School of Communication Arts 7. Assoc.Prof. Pornchai Soonthornpan Dean, Faculty of Law 8. Dr. Churdchai Cheowtirakul Dean, Faculty of Biotechnology 9. Mr. Suparath Valaisathien Dean, Montfort del Rosario School of Architecture and Design 10. Dr. Vindhai Cocracul Dean, School of Music 11. Dr. Kitti Phothikitti Dean, Graduate School of Business 12. Assoc.Prof.Dr. Suwattana Eamoraphan Dean, Graduate School of Human Sciences 13. Asst.Prof.Dr. Chanintorn Jittawiriyanukoon Dean, Graduate School of eLearning 2

Support Unit Administrators Director, Office of the Vice President for 1. Rev. Bro. Dr. Sirichai Fonseka Student Affairs Director, Office of the Vice President for 2. Rev. Bro. Dr. Achin Tengtrakul Administrative Affairs Director, Office of the Vice President for Legal 3. Mr. Sompol Na-Songkhla and Privilege Affairs Director, Office of the Vice President for 4. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chitapa Ketavan Policy, Planning and Quality Assurance Director, Office of the Vice President for 5. Dr. Nathaya Pupat Academic Affairs Director, Office of the University Registrar 6. Dr. Soonthorn Pibulcharoensit Acting Director, Central Library 7. Mrs. Benjaporn Anunwanitcha Director, Office of Human Resources 8. Dr. Witaya Chareonsri Management Director, Institute for Research and Academic 9. Dr. Preecha Methavasaraphak Services Director, Office of Graduate Studies 10. Mr. Rangsan Traibutra Director, Office of Financial Management 11. Ms. Natthayamon Payonrak Director, Office of Inventory Management 12. Ms. Chongtip Nawikanjana Director, Office of Information Technology 13. Mr. Vichai Sathtachotinun Services Director, Office of Thai Art and Culture 14. Ms. Sasitorn Tassanaiyana 1.2 Academic Programs in Academic Year 2017 No. School Number of Programs 1 Martin de Tours School of Management and Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Total Economics Degree Degree Degree 14 2 Theodore Maria School of Arts 11 2 1 5 3 Bernadette de Lourdes School of Nursing Science 5- - 1 - 4 Vincent Mary School of Science and Technology (4+1) 6 5 Vincent Mary School of Engineering 4 6 Albert Laurence School of Communication Arts 1- 6 7 Faculty of Law 3 8 Faculty of Biotechnology 222 4 9 Montfort del Rosario School of Architecture and 4- - 4 6- - Design 12 - 2 10 School of Music 211 4- - 2- - 3

No. School Number of Programs Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Total 11 Graduate School of Business Degree Degree Degree 6 9 - 4 2 5 69 12 Graduate School of Human Sciences - 54 13 Graduate School of eLearning - 32 Total 38 19 12 Source: Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs Bachelor’s Degree Programs (38 programs) Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics 1 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Marketing 2 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Management-Leadership and Entrepreneurship (Suvarnabhumi Campus and ACC Campus) 3 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Finance 4 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Accounting 5 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Management Information Systems 6 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Hospitality and Tourism Management 7 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in International Business Management 8 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Insurance 9 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Industrial Management and Logistics 10 Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Real Estate 11 Bachelor of Economics Program in Business Economics Theodore Maria School of Arts 12 Bachelor of Arts Program in Business English 13 Bachelor of Arts Program in Business French 14 Bachelor of Arts Program in Business Chinese 15 Bachelor of Arts Program in Business Japanese 16 Bachelor of Arts Program in Chinese for Economy and Trade Bernadette de Lourdes School of Nursing Science 17 Bachelor of Nursing Science Program Vincent Mary School of Science and Technology 18 Bachelor of Science Program in Computer Science 19 Bachelor of Science Program in Information Technology Vincent Mary School of Engineering 20 Bachelor of Engineering Program in Electrical Engineering 21 Bachelor of Engineering Program in Computer Engineering 22 Bachelor of Engineering Program in Mechatronics Engineering 23 Bachelor of Engineering Program in Aeronautic Engineering 4

Albert Laurence School of Communication Arts 24 Bachelor of Communication Arts Program in Advertising 25 Bachelor of Communication Arts Program in Digital Media Communication 26 Bachelor of Communication Arts Program in Live Event Creation and Management 27 Bachelor of Communication Arts Program in Public Relations 28 Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts Program in Computer Generated Imagery 29 Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts Program in Visual Communication Design Faculty of Law 30 Bachelor of Laws Program Faculty of Biotechnology 31 Bachelor of Science Program in Food Technology 32 Bachelor of Science Program in Agro – Industry Montfort del Rosario School of Architecture and Design 33 Bachelor of Architecture Program in Architecture 34 Bachelor of Architecture Program in Interior Architecture 35 Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts Program in Interior Design 36 Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts Program in Product Design School of Music 37 Bachelor of Arts Program in Music Business 38 Bachelor of Music Program Master’s Degree Programs (19 programs) Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics 1 Master of Science Program in Supply Chain Management 2 Master of Science Program in Finance and Economics Vincent Mary School of Science and Technology 3 Master of Science Program in Computer Science 4 Master of Science Program in Information Technology Faculty of Law 5 Master of Laws Program (Thai Program) 6 Master of Laws Program Faculty of Biotechnology 7 Master of Science Program in Food Biotechnology Graduate School of Business 8 Master of Business Administration Program (Hua Mak Campus and City Campus) 9 Master of Business Administration Program in Hospitality and Tourism Management 10 Master of Management Program in Organization Development and Management 11 Master of Science Program in Investment Analysis and Management 5

Graduate School of Human Sciences 12 Master of Arts Program in Philosophy and Religion 13 Master of Education Program in Curriculum and Instruction 14 Master of Education Program in Educational Administration 15 Master of Science Program in Counseling Psychology 16 Master of Arts Program in English Language Teaching Graduate School of eLearning 17 Master of Science Program in Management (eLearning Mode) 18 Master of Science Program in Information Technology and Management (eLearning Mode) 19 Master of Education Program in Teaching and Technology (eLearning Mode) Doctoral Degree Programs (12 programs) Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics 1 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Business Administration Vincent Mary School of Science and Technology 2 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Computer Science 3 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Information Technology Faculty of Biotechnology 4 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Food Biotechnology Graduate School of Business 5 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Organization Development 6 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Hospitality and Tourism Management Graduate School of Human Sciences 7 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Philosophy and Religion 8 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Educational Leadership 9 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Counseling Psychology 10 Doctor of Philosophy Program in English Language Teaching Graduate School of eLearning 11 Doctor of Philosophy Program in eLearning Methodology 12 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Teaching and Technology (eLearning Mode) 6

1.3 Students in Academic Year 2017 School Number of Students Total Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral 6,950 Degree Degree Degree 3,359 170 1 Martin de Tours School of Management and 6,854 46 50 Economics 299 465 2 Theodore Maria School of Arts 3,359 - - 1,841 634 3 Bernadette de Lourdes School of Nursing 170 - - 116 Science 658 4 Vincent Mary School of Science and Technology 233 36 30 86 963 5 Vincent Mary School of Engineering 465 - - 230 123 6 Albert Laurence School of Communication Arts 1,841 - - 15,894 7 Faculty of Law 571 63 - 8 Faculty of Biotechnology 103 11 2 9 Montfort del Rosario School of Architecture and 658 -- Design 10 School of Music 86 - - 11 Graduate School of Business - 900 63 12 Graduate School of Human Sciences - 151 79 13 Graduate School of eLearning - 71 52 Total 14,340 1,278 276 Source: Office of The University Registrar: as of May 31, 2018 Number of students classified by nationality Nationality Number of student Percentage of student Thai 13,131 82.62 2,763 17.38 International 15,894 100 Total 1.4 Full-time Faculty Members Researchers and Support Staff in Academic Year 2017 Full-time Faculty Members based on the Duration of Employment School Number of full-time faculty members based Adjusted by the On 1 Martin de Tours on the duration of Leave School of Management and duration of employment employment Study Economics > 9 months 6 - 9 months < 6 months Total (Working and on Leave) 2 Theodore Maria School of Arts B M D B MD B MD B M D Total 0 204 95 0 0 1 0 14 2 316 0 204 95.50 299.50 13 4 91 27 0 2 0 0 1 1 126 4 92 27 123 2 7

School Number of full-time faculty members based Adjusted by the On on the duration of Leave duration of employment employment Study > 9 months 6 - 9 months < 6 months Total (Working and on Leave) B M D B MD B MD B M D Total 3 Bernadette de 2 9 7 0 1 0 0 2 0 21 2 9.50 7 18.50 2 Lourdes School of Nursing Science 4 Vincent Mary 0 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 7 16 23 0 School of Science and Technology 5 Vincent Mary 2 12 15 0 2 2 1 0 0 34 2 13 16 31 1 School of Engineering 6 Albert Laurence 2 48 6 0 2 0 3 3 0 64 2 49 6 57 6 School of Communication Arts 7 Faculty of Law 0 22 9 0 1 0 0 2 0 34 0 22.50 9 31.50 2 8 Faculty of 0 7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 7 14 21 0 Biotechnology 9 Montfort del Rosario 2 43 4 0 4 1 0 3 0 57 2 45 4.50 51.50 3 School of Architecture and Design 10 School of Music 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 7 6 13 0 11 Graduate School of 0 2 77 0 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 2 77.50 79.50 0 Business 12 Graduate School of 0 0 30 0 0 4 0 0 0 34 0 0 32 32 0 Human Sciences 13 Graduate School of 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 24 0 eLearning 12 452 330 0 12 9 4 25 3 Total 794 21 32 847 12 458 334.50 804.50 29 Source: Office of Human Resources Management: as of July 31, 2018 Full-time Faculty Members Classified by Academic Titles School Number of full-time faculty members adjusted by the duration of employment (Working and on Leave) 1 Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics No academic with academic title Grand Total title 2 Theodore Maria School of Arts Asst. Assoc. Prof. Total 3 Bernadette de Lourdes School of Prof. Prof. Nursing Science 276.50 21 1 1 23 299.50 4 Vincent Mary School of Science 118 320 5 123 and Technology 15.50 5 Vincent Mary School of 3 0 0 3 18.50 Engineering 8 12 2 1 15 23 6 Albert Laurence School of 27 220 4 31 Communication Arts 7 Faculty of Law 55 200 2 57 23.50 3 4 1 8 31.50 8

School Number of full-time faculty members adjusted by the duration of employment (Working and on Leave) No academic with academic title Grand Total title Asst. Assoc. Prof. Total Prof. Prof. 8 Faculty of Biotechnology 16 500 5 21 9 Montfort del Rosario School of 47.50 2 2 0 4 51.50 Architecture and Design 10 School of Music 12 100 1 13 11 Graduate School of Business 72.50 7 0 0 7 79.50 12 Graduate School of Human 19 10 3 0 13 32 Sciences 13 Graduate School of eLearning 18 420 6 24 Total 708.50 75 18 3 96 804.50 Source: Office of Human Resources Management: as of July 31, 2018 Full-time Faculty Members Classified by Nationality Nationality Number of Full-time Percentage of Full-time Faculty Member Faculty Member Thai 638 75.32 International 209 24.68 Total 847 100 Researcher (Institute of Research and Academic Services, IRAS) in Academic Year 2017 No. Name - Surname Qualification 1. Dr. Srisuda Boonyim Doctoral Degree 2. Dr. Pornpop Saengthong Doctoral Degree 3. Dr. Narue-Beth Saiprom Doctoral Degree 4. Mr. Chirasak Sombat Master Degree 5. Ms. Sakulrat Sachirawattanakul Master Degree 6. Mr. Nutpat Wongthamma Master Degree 7. Mr. Suwin Yimcharoen Master Degree 8. Ms. Jirawadee Pisalwatcharin Master Degree Source: Institute for Research and Academic Services: as of July 31, 2018 Support Staff in Academic Year 2017 Qualification Number of Support Staff Doctoral Degree 3 Master Degree 44 Bachelor Degree 264 Diploma / Certificate 164 Total 475 Source: Office of Human Resources Management: as of July 31, 2018 9

PART II: AU Internal Quality Assurance Objectives and Scope of AU Internal Quality Assessment for Academic Year 2017 Objectives: 1. To assure the administrative quality of the institution and assess the quality assurance system as stipulated by the institution 2. To consider the alignment of all components based on the institution’s quality assurance system responding to the missions and objectives of the institution by the analysis of strength and opportunities for development; and to propose suggestions for the development and improvement of education quality for effectiveness including innovation discovery and best practices 3. To follow up the operational effectiveness of improvement plans based on the suggestions rendered by the internal quality assessment committee of the previous academic year 4. To report the results of internal quality assessment based on education standards to related units and the public Scope: 1. Operational Effectiveness based on the 4 missions of the institution with regard to teaching and learning, research, academic services, preservation of art and culture and administration 2. Effectiveness of improvement plans based on the suggestions rendered by the internal quality assessment committee of the previous academic year 3. Discovery of innovation and best practices of units or the results from the operations based on educational quality assurance system Institutional Assessment Process 1. Review self-assessment report 2. Interview 3. Review evidence 4. Consensus score and recommendations 5. Report the results of internal quality assessment the University 10

PART III: Assumption University Internal Quality Assessment Report 2017 3.1 Results of Internal Quality Assessment Classified by Components Component Average score Assessment Input Process Output result Number of Assessment Indicators score 1 Graduate Production (5) 3.00 4.50 3.45 3.69 Good 2 Research (3) 2.48 5.00 4.42 3.97 Good 3 Academic Service (1) - 5.00 - 5.00 Very good 4 Preservation of Art and (1) - 3.00 - 3.00 Fair Culture 5 Administration (3) - 5.00 4.12 4.71 Very good Total Number of Indicators (13) (3) (7) (3) Assessment Score 2.82 4.57 4.00 4.04 Good Assessment Result Fair Very Good Good 3.2 Results of Internal Quality Assessment Classified by Indicators Indicator Performance outcome Score Assessment 3.45 Results 1.1 Results of program Numerator Result 5.00 administration 0.99 Fair Denominator 4.00 Very Good 1.2 Full-time faculty members Urgently holding a doctoral degree 238 5.00 3.45 scores Needs 1.3 Full-time faculty members Improvement holding an academic title 69 Good 1.4 Bachelor’s degree student 334.50 41.58% service 804.50 Very Good 1.5 Bachelor’s degree student 96 11.93 activities 804.50 Yes or No 1 234 5 6 Y YYY Y N 5 items Yes or No 1 2345 6 Y YYYY Y 6 items 11

Indicator Performance outcome Score Assessment Results Numerator Result 5.00 2.48 Very Good Denominator 4.42 Fair 5.00 Good 2.1 System and mechanism for Yes or No 3.00 research or creative work 1 2345 6 Very Good administration and Y YYYY Y 5.00 development 4.12 Fair 6 items 5.00 4.00 Very Good 2.2 Research and creative work 34.75 2.48 4.00 Good funds 14 4.42 Very Good 2.3 Full-time faculty members’ 61.90 and researchers’ academic 14 Good works Good 3.1 Academic service to society Yes or No 1 2 3 456 Y Y Y YYY 6 items 4.1 System and mechanism for Yes or No preservation of art and culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y Y YNN YN 4 items 5.1 University’s monitoring and Yes or No following up of performance in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 compliance with the University’s mission, the Y Y YYY YY category of the institution and 7 items the University’s uniqueness 5.2 Results of School 49.42 4.12 scores administration 12 5.3 System for monitoring Yes or No Program and School quality 1 2 345 6 assurance Y Y YYY Y 6 items 6.1* Achievements in the Yes or No development of institution’s 1 234 5 Y YYY N identity 4 items 7.1* Achievements in the Yes or No development of institution’s 1 2 3 45 Y Y Y YN uniqueness 4 items *Specific Indicators of Institution’s Uniqueness and Identity 12

PART IV: Performance Assessment Overall Comment & Suggestions 1. To generate more income, the University should utilize the city campus for offering non-degree programs or short courses. For example, upskilling or reskilling courses, edutainment courses, etc. 2. Training and workshops on knowledge provision regarding how to set up the project proposal should be organized to help all staff concerned understand how to develop and define objectives, target indicators, evaluation survey, etc. Also, making all understand the concept of ‘evaluation’, this will help the University make decision and plan activities for future improvement. 3. The Annual Report of each School and Unit should incorporate all necessary details including project title, responsible person(s), objective(s), target indicator(s), evaluation criterion(s), performance result(s), evaluation result(s), and improvement plan(s). These details will be beneficial information for University’s Administrative Team for future plan and improvement. 4. The University should revise the quality control system to cover all components by clearly identifying responsible unit/person of each project. Follow-up and monitoring system should be frequently implemented. Evaluations should be carried out to analyze the performance results for quality improvement. AU Score by Component Assessment Graduate Research 2015 Score Production 2016 5.00 Academic 2017 Administration 4.00 Service and 3.00 2.00 Management 1.00 0.00 Preservation of Arts and Culture 2015 Graduate Research Academic Preservation Administration Assessment 2016 Production Service of Arts and and Score 2017 3.54 3.82 5.00 Culture Management 4.00 3.65 4.01 5.00 4.18 3.69 3.97 5.00 5.00 4.30 4.04 5.00 4.68 3.00 4.71 13

AU Score by Indicator 1.1 1.2 5.3 5.00 4.00 5.2 3.00 1.3 5.1 2.00 1.00 1.4 2015 2016 0.00 2017 4.1 1.5 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.2 2015 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 2016 2.87 4.91 0.93 5.00 4.00 5.00 2.16 4.29 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.90 4.00 2017 3.31 5.00 0.94 4.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 4.53 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.04 5.00 3.45 5.00 0.99 4.00 5.00 5.00 2.48 4.42 5.00 3.00 5.00 4.12 5.00 14

Component 1 Graduate Production  Observations and Comments 1. As suggested by the Internal Quality Assessors to the Student Affairs last year concerning the student activity project evaluation, the committee still found out that some activity project evaluations are not in correspondence with the project objectives. 2. Also, some set objectives are mixed up with the expected outcomes of the project activities. 3. In terms of the provision of beneficial information and knowledge to alumni, it is obvious that no plan has been set to provide information and knowledge to AU alumni who are considered to be one of the University’s stakeholders.  Suggestions 1. Some student activities have been completed after the submission of the Office of Student Affairs’ Annual Report. The Unit should report the updated information and put a remark to note that how many projects have been achieved and how many are in the process of implementation. 2. The Student Affairs should coordinate with the Alumni Association of Assumption University, all Schools through Student Development Coordinators, and other concerned parties to set up the plans and activities to benefit AU alumni. Topics that can trigger the interest of Alumni can be surveyed from them to respond their needs and interest. 15

Indicator 1.1 Results of Program administration Type of indicator Output Assessment criteria Average score of assessment results of all programs offered by the University Score obtained = 238.00 / 69 = 3.45 scores Assessment Outcome Assumption University Average score 3.45 Scores Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 1.1 Results of program administration 3.31 scores 3.45 scores 3.45 scores Yes Indicator 1.2 Full-time faculty members holding a doctoral degree Type of indicator Input Assessment criteria Convert the per cent of full-time faculty members holding a doctoral degree to a score ranging from 0-5. 1. Criteria for Group B and Group C2 institutions 40% or higher of faculty members holding a doctoral degree = 5 scores Calculation 1. Calculate the per cent of full-time faculty members holding a doctoral degree. 334.5 x 100 /804.50 = 41.58 % 2. Convert the per cent in no.1 to a score ranging from 0-5. Score obtained = 41.58 x 5 /40 = 5.00 16

Assessment Outcome Number of full-time faculty members working and on leave Per cent of full- Score based on the duration of employment time faculty (5 = ≥40%) Bachelors’ Masters’ Doctoral Total members holding degree degree degree Ph.D. (%) 12 458 334.5 804.5 41.58 5.00 Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 1.2 Full-time faculty 40 % 41.58 % 5.00 scores Yes members holding a doctoral degree Indicator 1.3 Full-time faculty members holding an academic title Type of indicator Input Assessment criteria Convert the per cent of full-time faculty members holding an academic title to a score ranging from 0-5. 1. Criteria for Group B and Group C2 institutions 60% or higher of faculty members holding an academic title: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor = 5 scores Calculation 1. Calculate the per cent of full-time faculty members holding an academic title. 96 x 100 / 804.5 = 11.93% 2. Convert the per cent in no.1 to a score ranging from 0-5. Score obtained = 11.93 x 5 / 60 = 0.99 17

Assessment Outcome Number of Number of full-time faculty Number of full- Per cent of Score full-time members with an academic title (≥60% = 5) faculty Asst. Assoc. Prof. Total time faculty full-time members with Prof. Prof. no academic members faculty title working and on members with leave an academic title 708.00 75 18 3 96 804.50 11.93% 0.99 Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 1.00 scores 11.93 % 0.99 scores No Indicator 1.3 Full-time faculty members holding an academic title Indicator 1.4 Bachelor’s degree student service Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3-4 items 5 items 6 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. Students are provided with academic advising and counseling about how to spend their life in university and how to work.  2. Students are provided with information about service units, extra-curricular activities, full-time and part-time work placements.  3. Activities are organized to prepare students for work.  4. The quality of activities and services in no.1-3 is assessed. Each item must score more than 3.51 out of the total score of 5.  5. The evaluation results of no.4 are used for developing the service and information provision to improve the performance or meet students’ expectation.  6. Information and knowledge beneficial to careers are provided to alumni. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator 6 items outcome 4 scores (Yes/ No) Indicator 1.4 Bachelor’s 5 items No degree student service 18

Indicator 1.5 Bachelor’s degree student activities Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3-4 items 5 items 6 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. Student development activities of the University are planned. Students are encouraged to participate in planning and organizing activities.  2. For bachelor’s degree students, student development activities must include - activities to enhance graduates’ characteristics specified by the University - sports or health activities - activities for social benefits or environmental preservation - moral and ethical development activities - art and culture promotion activities  3. Activities to provide students with knowledge and skills in quality assurance are organized.  4. Achievement of the objectives of all activities is evaluated and the evaluation results are used for further development.  5. Achievement of the objectives of the plan for student development activities is evaluated.  6. The evaluation results are used for the development of the plan or student development activities. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator 6 items outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 1.5 Bachelor’s degree 6 items 5 scores Yes student activities 19

Component 2 Research  Observations 1. Four schools have not received external funds in the last three years. In academic year 2017, three schools did not obtain both internal funds and external funds. (Indicator 2.2) 2. Three schools obtain a score of research works less than 3.5. (Indicator 2.3) 3. Three schools can produce creative works. (Indicator 2.3) 4. The percentage of academic works that obtained score of 0.8 to 1.0 is reported as follows: Academic Year Percentage of academic work score from 0.8 to 1.0 2015 35.37% 2016 2017 40.52% 37.17 5. Only 14.93% of internal research funds were utilized of budget allocated decreasing from the last 2 years. Academic Year Budget allocated Research fund usage 2015 22.0 M 19.00% 2016 25.3 M 20.32% 2017 24.4 M 14.93%  Strengths Measures 1. Without making use of external funds, some schools can produce quality academic works. The University should encourage these potential researchers to seek external funds.  Improvement and Development Measures 1. The University should review the strategy on the incentives from research works to increase the number of researchers significantly. 2. The University should simplify research budgeting process. 20

Indicator 2.1 System and mechanism for research and creative work administration and development Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3-4 items 5 items 6 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. There is an information system for research and creative work administration which can be utilized for the benefit of research and creative work administration.  2. Research and creative work mission is supported at least in the following aspects: - laboratories or research units or equipment centers or counseling and research promotion centers - libraries or sources of research support data - facilities or safety while conducting research e.g. information technology system, security system in research laboratories, etc. - academic activities to promote research e. g. academic conferences, creative work exhibitions, visiting professors, etc.  3. The University allocates budgets for research and creative work funds.  4. The University allocates budgets to promote the dissemination of research and creative works in conferences or the publication of research and creative works in national or international journals.  5. The capability of researchers is developed. The University supports and appreciates researcher/ faculty members who produce excellent research and creative works.  6. There is a system and a mechanism to protect the rights of research or creative works and they are implemented accordingly. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome 5 scores (Yes/ No) Indicator 2.1 System and 6 items 6 items Yes mechanism for research and creative work administration and development 21

Indicator 2.2 Research and creative work funds Assessment criteria Score obtained at the University level is the average score of assessment results (research or creative work funds from internal and external sources) of all Schools and research units of the University. Calculation Score obtained = 34.75/14 = 2.48 Assessment Outcome Amount of research or creative work funds Score 2.48 Internal (Baht) External (Baht) Total (Baht) 3,635,344.00 24,949,463.00 28,584,807.00 Assumption University Average Score Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 2.2 Research and 2.5 scores 2.48 scores 2.48 scores No creative work funds Indicator 2.3 Full-time faculty members’ and researchers’ academic works Assessment criteria Score obtained at the University level is the average score of assessment results of all full-time faculty members’ and researchers’ academic works. Calculation Score obtained = 61.90 / 14 = 4.42 Assessment Outcome Number of creative works Score 4.42 Number of academic works 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 37 176 22 86 53 15 23 1 0 2 Assumption University Average Score Assessment Result Indicator Target Assessment Score Achievement 4.53 scores outcome 4.42 scores (Yes/ No) Indicator 2.3 Full-time faculty members’ and researchers’ 4.42 scores No academic works 22

Component 3 Academic Service  Strengths 1. The University organizes a large variety of academic services, and the services can strengthen and improve the well-being of people in the targeted communities by using interdisciplinary approaches. These projects promote social relationship among schools and enable the faculty members to work collaboratively in Thairath Wittaya 71 school and communities.  Strengthening Measures 1. The University may organize informal events or activities to gather faculty members across the University to create friendship and the atmosphere for research clusters of faculty members from different schools. For example, the project of Thairath Wittaya 71 school and communities can be a good platform for all schools to initiate clusters for multidisciplinary research projects. 2. The University should integrate more academic services with research works. For example, topics would be on social issues or environmental problems and how the community can deal with environmental changes and situations due to the increasing number of tourists around the University. 3. The University should set up more challenging KPIs to show how academic services enable the communities to continue sustainable developments. 23

Indicator 3.1 Academic service to society Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3-4 items 5 items 6 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. The University identifies target communities or organizations for academic service with the participation of Schools.  2. The target communities or organizations identified in no.1 participate in developing an academic service plan.  3. There is a clear evidence to prove that the target communities or organizations are developed and strengthened.  4. The target communities or organizations develop themselves continuously.  5. The University establishes a network of cooperation with external units/ organizations in developing the target communities or organizations.  6. At least 5% of the faculty members representing all Schools participate in the implementation of the University’s academic service plan. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome 5 scores (Yes/ No) Indicator 3.1 Academic service 6 items 6 items Yes to society 24

Component 4 Preservation of Art and Culture  Issues for Improvement 1. It is evident that there is no target indicator that is aligned with the project objectives. Therefore, the evaluation results cannot be utilized for future plan and development.  Improvement and Development Measures 1. The University should revise the set objectives to be in accordance with the target indicators to make use of the performance results for future improvement. 2. The awarded students’ projects from Schools could not be used as the evidence for the quality standard for art and culture at the national level. 25

Indicator 4.1 System and mechanism for preservation of art and culture Assessment criteria 1 score 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 1 item 2 items 3-4 items 5 items 6-7 items Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. The University assigns persons to be in charge of art and culture preservation.  2. The University formulates a plan to preserve art and culture, specifies achievement indicators according to the plan’s objectives and allocates budgets for the plan implementation.  3. The University monitors and follows up the art and culture preservation as planned.  4. The achievement indicators of the plan for art and culture preservation are evaluated.  5. The evaluation results are used for developing the plan or activities concerning art and culture preservation.  6. The art and culture preservation service or activities are disseminated to the public.  7. Quality standard for art and culture is specified and accepted at the national level. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator 7 items outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 4.1 System and 4 items 3 scores No mechanism for preservation of art and culture 26

Component 5 Administration  Strengths 1. The University developed 5-year Strategic Plan (2015-2018), the Action Plans for Strengthening Academic and Administrative unit’s Performance (ASAP) and the Financial Strategic Plan which were aligned together. In addition, the new 5-year Strategic Plan (2018-2022) has been drafted for the continuation of driving organization to the vision. Operation monitoring and the annual report (AR) with KPI of SP and ASAP were clearly shown. 2. The University always closely monitors and supports the financial data (unit costs) for all programs and Schools for further analysis the cost effectiveness of the program. 3. The University has systematically to monitor human resources development plan by implementing the faculty members’ performance evaluation form to ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of data for human resources management. Moreover, in the academic year 2017, it is evident that the University is aware of and puts more emphasis on human resource management and development. The Professional Development Plan for AU Faculty Members 2017 is initiated and implemented. With the collaboration between Academic Affairs and Office of Policy, Planning, and Quality Assurance, the online needs assessment was preliminarily conducted to survey the individual development plan.  Strengthening Measures 1. To get an effective strategic plan, annual operation plan, and financial strategic plan with the success of execution, the University should consider the following;  In strategic plan revision process, this plan should cover short – and long – term timeframe, transformational change, organizational agility, innovation, strategic challenge and strategic advantage, potential changes in regulatory and external business environment, potential blind spots in SPP. Moreover, various tools of strategic planning should be used beside SWOT analysis.  Not only budget allocation information but also information of sources of revenue, budget monitoring & auditing and cost reduction should be mentioned in The Financial Strategic Plan.  The Strategic Plan target achievement should be challenging set to reflect the University performance comparing to the previous year.  The budget allocation for implementation of projects of each School should be closely monitored to ensure that the unimplemented projects are decreased or diminished. 2. The University should take the results from unit cost financial data analysis of each program for Financial Strategic Plan to reduce the central indirect cost. In addition, the monitoring of unit cost assessment from the school should be reported to the University for further action respectively. Moreover, the unit cost should be analyzed according to the professional organizations’ requirement. 27

3. The University should review the target indicator achievement for faculty development. For example, the academic title target achievement should be set by the number of the academic title applicants rather than the number of academic title holders. By doing so, the University’s performance during the academic year has been clearly displayed. 4. The career path document should be clearer defined to ensure the transparency of specific qualifications and experiences of the job descriptions in each position. 5. The evaluation form to evaluate University supporting staff should be included the work performance aspect. 6. The University should deploy Voice of Stakeholder (VOS) receiving process in performance evaluation system to get the information for the University’s further improvement of the performance evaluation policy. 28

Indicator 5.1 University’s monitoring and following up of performance in compliance with the University’s mission, the category of the institution and the University’s uniqueness Assessment criteria 1 score 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 1 item 2 items 3-4 items 5-6 items 7 items Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. A strategic plan based on SWOT analysis is set and is in alignment with the University’s vision. It must also be developed into a financial strategic plan and annual action plan within the time frame so as to achieve the indicators as well as the objectives of the strategic plan.  2. Direct, follow up, support, and encourage each Faculty to analyze financial data composed of unit costs for each curriculum, ratios of expenses to develop students, instructors, employees, and instructional management on an ongoing basis. Analyze cost effective curricular management, effective and efficient graduate production, and opportunities to be competitive.  3. The University manages risks to reduce risks according to the risk management plan which results from the analysis and the identification of external risk factors or uncontrollable risk factors which affect the University’s administration according to its mission. The degree of risk should be lowered.  4. The University applies the 10 principles of Good Governance in Administration.  5. The University monitors and supports all units to manage knowledge according to knowledge management system.  6. The University monitors the plan for administration and development of faculty members and support staff.  7. The University monitors and supports all units in implementing the quality assurance system in compliance with the University’s system and mechanism comprising quality control, quality audit, and quality assessment. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 5.1 School’s monitoring 7 items 7 items 5 scores Yes and following up of performance in compliance with the University’s mission, the category of the institution and the School’s uniqueness 29

Indicator 5.2 Results of School administration Assessment criteria Average score of assessment results of all Schools Score obtained = 49.42 / 12 = 4.12 Assessment Outcome Assumption University Average Score 4.12 scores Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 5.2 Results of 4.04 scores 4.12 scores 4.12 scores Yes School administration Indicator 5.3 System for monitoring Program and School quality assurance Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3-4 items 5 items 6 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. A system and a mechanism for monitoring Program and School quality assurance in accordance with the components of Program and School quality assurance are set up.  2. A committee for monitoring and following up the performance specified in no. 1 is set up and the performance results are reported to the committee at the University level for consideration.  3. Resources for supporting the Program’s and School’s performance to achieve outcomes based on the components of Program and School quality assurance are allocated.  4. The Program and School assessment results are reported to the committee at the University level for consideration.  5. The assessment results and the University Council’s suggestions are used for developing the Schools continuously.  6. All programs pass all the standard control criteria specified in Component 1. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) Indicator 5.3 System for monitoring 6 items 6 items 5 scores Yes Program and School quality assurance 30

Component 6 Institution’s Identity Indicator 6.1 Achievements in the development of institution’s identity Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3 items 4 items 5 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. There is a proper and practical rationale in identifying student identity.  2. Appropriate indicators and levels of achievement are specified.  3. A system and a mechanism for continuous enhancement of the student identity are specified.  4. Students, faculty members and support staff participate fully.  5. There is an evaluation of satisfaction. The evaluation result is not less than 80%. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome 4 scores (Yes/ No) Indicator 6.1 System and 5 items 4 items No mechanism for ethics development 31

Component 7 Institution’s Uniqueness Indicator 7.1 Achievements in the development of institution’s uniqueness Assessment criteria 2 scores 3 scores 4 scores 5 scores 2 items 3 items 4 items 5 items 1 score 1 item Assessment Outcome  Standard Criteria  1. There is a proper and practical rationale in identifying the University uniqueness.  2. Appropriate indicators and levels of achievement are specified.  3. A system and a mechanism for continuous development of the University’s uniqueness are specified.  4. Students, faculty members and support staff participate fully.  5. There is an evaluation of satisfaction. The evaluation result is not less than 80%. Assessment Result Target Assessment Score Achievement Indicator outcome (Yes/ No) 4 items 4 scores No Indicator 7.1 Achievements in 5 items the development of institution’s uniqueness 32

Appendices AU Internal Quality Assessment Results Academic Year 2017 By OPPQA: as of October 12, 2018 SCHOOL LEVEL SCHOOL Assessment Results Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year Year 2016 2015 2014 2017 Score Result EdPEx System Score Result Score Result Score Result 3.49 Fair 1 Martin de Tours School EdPEx System EdPEx System EdPEx System 4.40 Good of Management and Economics 3.84 Good 3.80 Good 3.73 Good 2.97 Fair 4.15 Good 4.39 Good 4.40 Good 2.86 Fair 2 Theodore Maria School 3.25 Fair of Arts 4.47 Good 4.16 Good 3.78 Good 2.96 Fair 3.45 Fair 3.29 Fair 3.36 Fair 3.13 Fair 3 Bernadette de Lourdes 3.81 Good 3.94 Good 3.94 Good 3.90 Good School of Nursing 4.20 Good 4.42 Good 3.93 Good Science 4.34 Good 4.17 Good 3.62 Good 3.17 Fair 4.00 Good 4.18 Good 3.98 Good 3.68 Good 4 Vincent Mary School of 2.85 Fair Science and Technology 4.41 Good 4.34 Good 4.19 Good 2.81 Fair 4.37 Good 4.10 Good 4.02 Good 3.15 Fair 5 Vincent Mary School of 4.31 Good 4.07 Good 3.98 Good 3.34 Fair Engineering 4.07 Good 3.99 Good 3.90 Good 3.97 Good 6 Albert Laurence School -- -- 3.66 Good of Communication Arts -- 3.68 Good 7 Faculty of Law 8 Faculty of Biotechnology 9 Montfort del Rosario School of Architecture and Design 10 School of Music 11 Graduate School of Business 12 Graduate School of Human Sciences 13 Graduate School of eLearning 14 Graduate School of Philosophy and Religion* 15 Graduate School of English** * Merged with Graduate School of Human Sciences in Academic Year 2016 ** Merged with Graduate School of Human Sciences in Academic Year 2017 Assessment result of School level 0.00 – 1.50 Need urgent improvement 1.51 – 2.50 Need improvement 2.51 – 3.50 Fair 3.51 – 4.50 Good 4.51 – 5.00 Very good 33

PROGRAM LEVEL 69 programs Low 0.01-2.00 3 programs Fair 2.01-3.00 Academic Year 2017: Program Good 3.01-4.00 - Very Good 65 programs Very Good 4.01-5.00 - Good 1 program NOT PASS (Fail) 0.00 - Fair PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2016 2015 2014 Year 2017 Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Control Control Control Control 3.55 3.32 2.23 Pass Good Pass Good Pass Fair 1 หลักสตู รบรหิ ารธุรกจิ บณั ฑติ Pass 3.63 สาขาวชิ าการ ตลาด (Bachelor Good of Business Administration Program in Marketing) 2 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บัณฑติ Pass 3.42 Pass 3.41 Pass 3.43 Pass 2.30 สาขาวชิ าการจัดการ (Bachelor Good Good Good Fair of Business Administration Program in Management (Suvarnabhumi Campus and ACC Campus)) Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Management-Leadership and Entrepreneurship (new) 3 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บัณฑติ Pass 3.35 Pass 3.34 Pass 3.09 Pass 2.55 สาขาวชิ าการเงนิ และการธนาคาร Good Good Good Fair (Bachelor of Business Pass 3.43 Pass 3.49 Pass 3.45 Administration Program in Good Good Good Finance & Banking) Pass 3.14 Pass 2.85 Pass 2.91 Bachelor of Business Good Fair Fair Administration Program in Finance (new) 4 หลักสตู รบรหิ ารธุรกจิ บณั ฑติ Pass 3.51 สาขาวชิ าการบญั ชี (Bachelor Good of Business Administration Program in Accounting (TQF 1)) 5 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บัณฑติ Pass 3.37 สาขาวชิ าระบบสารสนเทศธรุ กจิ Good (Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Business Information Systems (TQF 1)) Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Management Information Systems (TQF 1) (new) 6 หลักสตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บัณฑติ Pass 3.40 Pass 3.33 Pass 2.86 Pass 2.47 สาขาวชิ าการจัดการการ Good Good Fair Fair ทอ่ งเทยี่ วและการบรกิ าร (Bachelor of Business Administration Program in Hospitality and Tourism Management) 34

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2014 Year 2017 2016 2015 Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score 3.37 Control Control Control Control Good Pass 2.95 Fair 7 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธุรกจิ บณั ฑติ Pass 3.44 Pass 3.53 Pass 3.34 สาขาวชิ าการจัดการธุรกจิ Good ระหวา่ งประเทศ (Bachelor of Good Good 2.50 Business Administration Fair Program in International 2.75 Business Management) Fair 8 หลักสตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บัณฑติ Pass 3.36 Pass 3.42 Pass 2.88 Pass 2.89 สาขาวชิ าการประกนั ภยั Fair Fair (Bachelor of Business Good Good 3.10 Pass 2.26 Administration Program in Good Fair Insurance) 3.31 Good 9 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บณั ฑติ Pass 3.58 Pass 3.41 Pass สาขาวชิ าการจัดการ 3.26 อตุ สาหกรรม (Bachelor of Good Good Good Business Administration 2.96 Program in Industrial Fair Management) Bachelor of 2.83 Business Administration Fair Program in Industrial Management and Logistics (new) 10 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ บัณฑติ Pass 3.48 Pass 3.36 Pass Pass 2.63 สาขาวชิ าธุรกจิ อสงั หารมิ ทรัพย์ Fair (Bachelor of Business Good Good Administration Program in Pass 2.46 Real Estate) Fair 11 หลักสตู รเศรษฐศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.44 Pass 3.48 Pass Pass 2.56 สาขาวชิ าเศรษฐศาสตรธ์ ุรกจิ Fair (Bachelor of Economics Good Good Pass 1.91 Program in Business Low Economics) Pass 2.48 Fair 12 หลักสตู รศลิ ปศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.64 Pass 3.57 Pass สาขาวชิ าภาษาองั กฤษธุรกจิ Pass 2.27 Good Good Fair (Bachelor of Arts Program in Business English) Pass 2.23 Fair 13 หลกั สตู รศลิ ปศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.60 Pass 3.54 Pass สาขาวชิ าภาษาฝร่งั เศสธุรกจิ Good Good (Bachelor of Arts Program in Business French) 14 หลักสตู รศลิ ปศาสตรบัณฑติ Pass 3.67 Pass 3.65 Pass สาขาวชิ าภาษาจนี ธุรกจิ Good Good (Bachelor of Arts Program in Business Chinese) 15 หลักสตู รศลิ ปศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.30 Pass 3.23 Pass สาขาวชิ าภาษาญปี่ ่ นุ ธรุ กจิ Good Good (Bachelor of Arts Program in Business Japanese) 16 หลกั สตู รศลิ ปศาสตรบัณฑติ Pass 2.92 Pass 2.92 Pass สาขาวชิ าภาษาจนี เพอ่ื เศรษฐกจิ Fair Fair และการคา้ (Bachelor of Arts Program in Chinese for Program closed 1/2016 Economy and Trade) (there are still students. Program is being implemented in the academic year 2017) 35

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2014 Year 2017 2016 2015 Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Control Control Control 17 หลักสตู รพยาบาลศาสตรบณั ฑติ Control 4.17 4.21 4.17 Pass 3.43 สาขาวชิ าพยาบาลศาสตร์ Pass Very Pass Very Pass Very Good (Bachelor of Nursing Science Good Good Good Program (TQF 1)) 2.95 18 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตรบัณฑติ Pass 3.31 Pass 3.21 Pass Fair Pass 2.12 สาขาวชิ าวทิ ยาการคอมพวิ เตอร์ Good Good Fair (Bachelor of Science Program in Computer Science (TQF 1)) 19 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตรบัณฑติ Pass 3.37 Pass 3.56 Pass 3.04 Pass 2.06 สาขาวชิ าเทคโนโลยสี นเทศ Good Good Good Fair ศาสตร์ (Bachelor of Science Program in Information Technology (TQF 1)) 20 หลักสตู รวศิ วกรรมศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.03 Pass 2.66 Pass 2.35 Pass 2.11 สาขาวชิ าวศิ วกรรมไฟฟ้าและ Good Fair Fair Fair อเิ ล็กทรอนกิ ส์ (Bachelor of Engineering Program in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (TQF 1)) Bachelor of Engineering Program in Electrical Engineering (TQF 1) (new) หลกั สตู รวศิ วกรรมศาสตรบัณฑติ Pass 2.47 Pass 2.28 Pass 1.98 สาขาวชิ าวศิ วกรรมโทรคมนาคม Fair Fair Low และอเิ ล็กทรอนกิ ส์ (Bachelor of Engineering Program in Pass 1.98 Telecommunications and Low Electronics Engineering (TQF Pass 2.11 1)) Fair 21 หลกั สตู รวศิ วกรรมศาสตร Pass 3.24 Pass 2.59 Pass 2.27 Pass 1.63 บณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าวศิ วกรรม Good Fair Fair Low คอมพวิ เตอร์ (Bachelor of Pass 2.44 Engineering Program in Fair Computer Engineering (TQF 1)) 22 หลักสตู รวศิ วกรรมศาสตร Pass 3.36 Pass 2.89 Pass 2.46 บัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าวศิ วกรรมเมค Good Fair Fair คาทรอนกิ ส์ (Bachelor of Engineering Program in Mechatronics Engineering (TQF 1)) 23 หลกั สตู รวศิ วกรรมศาสตร Pass 4.06 Pass 2.89 Pass 2.40 บัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าวศิ วกรรมการ Very Fair Fair บนิ (Bachelor of Engineering Good Program in Aeronautic Engineering) 24 หลักสตู รนเิ ทศศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.26 Pass 3.35 Pass 2.97 สาขาวชิ าการโฆษณา Good Good Fair (Bachelor of Communication Arts Program in Advertising) 36

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 25 หลกั สตู รนเิ ทศศาสตรบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าการสอ่ื สารผา่ นสอื่ ใหม่ Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score (Bachelor of Communication Control Control Control Control Arts Program in New Media 3.24 3.06 Pass 1.97 Communication) Bachelor of Pass 3.02 Pass Good Pass Good Low Communication Arts Good Program in Digital Media Pass 3.51 Pass 2.88 Pass 2.14 Communication (new) Pass 3.25 Good Fair Fair Good 26 หลกั สตู รนเิ ทศศาสตรบัณฑติ Pass 3.36 Pass 3.08 Pass 2.50 สาขาวชิ าการสอื่ สารการแสดง Pass 3.38 Good Good Fair (Bachelor of Communication Good Arts Program in Performance Pass 3.47 Pass 2.62 Pass 1.69 Communication) Bachelor of Pass 3.22 Good Fair Low Communication Arts Good Program in Live Event Pass 3.68 Pass 3.24 Pass 2.76 Creation and Management Pass 3.47 Good Good Fair (new) Good Pass 3.29 Pass 2.89 Pass 1.59 27 หลักสตู รนเิ ทศศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.56 Good Fair Low สาขาวชิ าการประชาสัมพันธ์ Good (Bachelor of Communication Pass 3.46 Pass 3.27 Pass 2.39 Arts Program in Public Pass 3.48 Good Good Fair Relations) Good Pass 3.42 Pass 3.25 Pass 2.84 28 หลักสตู รศลิ ปกรรมศาสตร Pass 3.56 Good Good Fair บณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ ากระบวนจนิ ต Good ภาพคอมพวิ เตอร์ Pass 3.64 Pass 3.27 Pass 2.73 (Bachelor of Fine and Pass 3.84 Good Good Fair Applied Arts Program in Good Computer Generated Pass 3.50 Pass 2.80 Pass 2.33 Imagery) Pass 3.52 Good Fair Fair Good 29 หลักสตู รศลิ ปกรรมศาสตร บัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการออกแบบ นเิ ทศศลิ ป์ (Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts Program in Visual Communication Design) 30 หลกั สตู รนติ ศิ าสตรบณั ฑติ (Bachelor of Laws Program ) 31 หลักสตู รวทิ ยาศาสตรบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าเทคโนโลยกี ารอาหาร (Bachelor of Science Program in Food Technology) 32 หลักสตู รวทิ ยาศาสตรบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าอตุ สาหกรรมเกษตร (Bachelor of Science Program in Agro–Industry) 33 หลกั สตู รสถาปัตยกรรมศาสตร บัณฑติ สาขาวชิ า สถาปัตยกรรมศาสตร์ (Bachelor of Architecture Program in Architecture) 34 หลักสตู รสถาปัตยกรรมศาสตร บัณฑติ สาขาวชิ า สถาปัตยกรรมภายใน (Bachelor of Architecture Program in Interior Architecture) 37

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2016 2015 2014 35 หลกั สตู รศลิ ปกรรมศาสตร Year 2017 บณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าการออกแบบ ภายใน (Bachelor of Fine and Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Applied Arts Program in Control Control Control Control Interior Design) 3.66 3.72 3.49 Pass 2.41 Pass Good Pass Good Pass Good Fair 36 หลักสตู รศลิ ปกรรมศาสตร บัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการออกแบบ Pass 4.02 Pass 3.63 Pass 3.50 Pass 2.65 ผลติ ภณั ฑ์ (Bachelor of Fine Very Good Good Fair and Applied Arts Program in Good Product Design) Pass 3.15 Pass 2.83 Pass 2.39 Pass 3.54 Good Fair Fair 37 หลักสตู รศลิ ปศาสตรบณั ฑติ Good สาขาวชิ าธรุ กจิ ดนตรี (Bachelor Pass 3.19 Pass 3.38 Pass 2.49 of Arts Program in Music Pass 3.38 Good Good Fair Business) Good Pass 3.21 Pass 2.91 Pass 2.08 38 หลักสตู รดรุ ยิ างคศาสตรบณั ฑติ Pass 3.43 Good Fair Fair สาขาวชิ าการแสดงดนตรี Good (Bachelor of Music Program in Music Performance) Pass 3.50 Pass 3.16 Pass 3.12 Pass 2.13 Good Good Good Fair 39 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าการ Pass 3.23 Pass 3.18 Pass 2.50 Pass 1.69 จัดการโซอ่ ปุ ทาน (Master of Good Good Fair Low Science Program in Supply Chain Management) Pass 3.19 Pass 3.28 Pass 2.47 Pass 1.35 Good Good Fair Low 40 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร มหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการเงนิ Pass 3.93 Pass 3.67 Pass 3.40 Pass 1.85 และเศรษฐศาสตร์ (Master of Good Good Good Low Science Program in Finance and Economics) Pass 3.97 Pass 3.64 Pass 2.85 Pass 2.36 Good Good Fair Fair 41 หลักสตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ า Pass 3.32 Pass 3.21 Pass 3.24 Pass 2.42 วทิ ยาการคอมพวิ เตอร์ (Master Good Good Good Fair of Science Program in Computer Science) 42 หลักสตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ า เทคโนโลยสี นเทศศาสตร์ (Master of Science Program in Information Technology) 43 หลกั สตู รนติ ศิ าสตรมหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ ากฎหมายธรุ กจิ (หลกั สตู รภาษาไทย) (Master of Laws Program in Business Law (Thai Program) 44 หลักสตู รนติ ศิ าสตรมหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ ากฎหมายธรุ กจิ (Master of Laws Program in Business Law) 45 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร มหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ า เทคโนโลยชี วี ภาพทางอาหาร (Master of Science Program in Food Biotechnology) 38

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2016 2015 2014 Year 2017 Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Control Control Control 46 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ มหาบณั ฑติ Control 3.47 3.32 3.58 2.83 (Master of Business Pass Good Pass Good Pass Good Pass Fair Administration Program (Hua Mak Campus and City Campus)) 47 หลกั สตู รบรหิ ารธรุ กจิ Pass 3.54 Pass 3.49 Pass 3.21 Not 0.00 มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าการ Good Good Good pass จัดการทอ่ งเทย่ี ว (Master of Business Administration Program in Tourism Management) Master of Business Administration Program in Hospitality and Tourism Management (new) 48 หลักสตู รการจัดการมหาบณั ฑติ Pass 3.54 Pass 3.30 Pass 3.76 Pass 3.07 สาขาวชิ าการพัฒนาองคก์ าร Good Good Good Good และการจัดการ (Master of Management Program in Pass 3.11 Pass 3.04 Pass 3.03 Organization Development Good Good Good and Management) Pass 3.37 Pass 3.06 Pass 2.33 49 หลักสตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร Pass 3.26 Good Good Fair Pass Good มหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการ Pass 3.24 Pass 2.95 Pass 1.56 วเิ คราะหแ์ ละจัดการการลงทนุ 3.42 Good Fair Low (Master of Science Program Good in Investment Analysis and Pass 3.22 Pass 3.00 Pass 2.03 Management) Good Fair Fair 50 หลักสตู รศลิ ปศาสตรมหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าปรัชญาและศาสนา Pass 3.22 Pass 2.78 Pass 1.57 (Master of Arts Program in Good Fair Low Philosophy and Religion) Pass 3.55 Pass 3.72 Pass 2.86 Pass 2.72 51 หลกั สตู รศกึ ษาศาสตร Good Good Fair Fair มหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าหลักสตู ร Pass 3.07 Pass 3.02 Not 0.00 และการสอน (Master of Good Good pass Education Program in Curriculum and Instruction) Pass 3.50 52 หลักสตู รศกึ ษาศาสตร Good มหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการ บรหิ ารการศกึ ษา (Master of Education Program in Educational Administration) 53 หลักสตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร Pass 3.43 มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าจติ วทิ ยา Good การใหค้ าปรกึ ษา (Master of Science Program in Counseling Psychology) 54 หลกั สตู รศลิ ปศาสตรมหาบัณฑติ Pass 3.51 สาขาวชิ าการสอนภาษาองั กฤษ Good (Master of Arts Program in English Language Teaching 55 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร Pass 3.16 มหาบัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการ Good จัดการ (ระบบการศกึ ษา ทางไกล) (Master of Science Program in Management (eLearning Mode)) 39

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2016 2015 2014 56 หลกั สตู รวทิ ยาศาสตร Year 2017 มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ า เทคโนโลยสี ารสนเทศและการ Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score จัดการ (ระบบการศกึ ษา Control Control Control Control ทางไกล) (Master of Science 3.01 2.83 2.23 1.85 Program in Information Pass Good Pass Fair Pass Fair Pass Low technology and management (eLearning Pass 3.27 Pass 3.24 Pass 3.00 Pass 2.06 Mode)) หลกั สตู รเดมิ Master Good Good Fair Fair of Science in Information and Communication Pass 3.60 Pass 3.38 Pass 3.01 Pass 2.47 Technology Good Good Good Fair 57 หลักสตู รศกึ ษาศาสตร Pass 3.23 Pass 3.16 Pass 2.35 Pass 1.68 มหาบณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าการสอน Good Good Fair Low และเทคโนโลยี (ระบบ การศกึ ษาทางไกล) (Master of Pass 3.33 Pass 3.18 Pass 2.01 Pass 2.05 Education Program in Good Good Fair Fair Teaching and Technology (eLearning Mode)) Pass 3.14 Pass 3.07 Pass 3.26 Pass 2.20 Good Good Good Fair 58 หลักสตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าบรหิ ารธุรกจิ (Doctor Pass 3.52 Pass 3.35 Pass 3.86 Pass 3.06 of Philosophy Program in Good Good Good Good Business Administration) Pass 3.64 Pass 3.34 Pass 3.05 Not 0.00 59 หลกั สตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ Good Good Good pass สาขาวชิ าวทิ ยาการคอมพวิ เตอร์ (Doctor of Philosophy Pass 3.45 Pass 3.38 Pass 3.02 Pass 2.37 Program in Computer Good Good Good Fair Science) 60 หลักสตู รปรชั ญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าเทคโนโลยสี นเทศ ศาสตร์ (Doctor of Philosophy Program in Information Technology) 61 หลักสตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ณั ฑติ สาขาวชิ าเทคโนโลยชี วี ภาพ ทางอาหาร (Doctor of Philosophy Program in Food Biotechnology) 62 หลักสตู รปรชั ญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการพัฒนาองคก์ าร (Doctor of Philosophy Program in Organization Development) 63 หลกั สตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการจัดการการบรกิ าร และการทอ่ งเทย่ี ว (Doctor of Philosophy Program in Hospitality and Tourism Management) 64 หลกั สตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าปรัชญาและศาสนา (Doctor of Philosophy Program in Philosophy and Religion) 40

PROGRAMS Academic Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year 2016 2015 2014 65 หลกั สตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ณั ฑติ Year 2017 สาขาวชิ าภาวะผนู ้ าทาง การศกึ ษา (Doctor of Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Standard Score Philosophy Program in Control Control Control Control 0.00 Educational Leadership) 3.38 3.04 2.55 Pass Good Pass Good Pass Fair Not 66 หลกั สตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ณั ฑติ pass สาขาวชิ าจติ วทิ ยาการให ้ คาปรกึ ษา (Doctor of Pass 3.49 Pass 3.01 Pass 2.61 Pass 1.44 Philosophy Program in Fair Low Counseling Psychology) Good Good 67 หลักสตู รปรัชญาดษุ ฎบี ณั ฑติ Pass 3.42 Pass 2.94 Not 0.00 Pass 3.17 สาขาวชิ าการสอนภาษาอังกฤษ Good (Doctor of Philosophy Good Fair pass Program in English Language Teaching) Pass 3.40 Pass 3.48 Pass 3.21 Pass 2.15 Good Fair 68 หลักสตู รปรชั ญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ Good Good สาขาวชิ าวธิ วี ทิ ยาการเรยี นทาง อเิ ล็กทรอนกิ ส์ (Doctor of Pass 3.36 Pass 3.52 Pass 3.02 Pass 1.96 Philosophy Program in Good Low eLearning Methodology) Good Good 69 หลักสตู รปรชั ญาดษุ ฎบี ัณฑติ สาขาวชิ าการสอนและ เทคโนโลยี (ระบบการศกึ ษา ทางไกล) (Doctor of Philosophy Program in Teaching and Technology (eLearning Mode)) 41