Applying ASEAN university network quality assurance for assessing the course of english for tourism at ho chi minh city open university

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY

GRADUATION THESIS
MAJOR: BUSINESS ENGLISH

Applying ASEAN University NetworkQuality Assurance for Assessing the Course
of English for Tourism at Ho Chi Minh City
Open University
Intern’s name: Le Tri Thien
Student code: 1457012325
Major: Business English
Instructor: M.Ed. Bui Do Cong Thanh

Ho Chi Minh City – 2019

1


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I want to use this opportunity to show my deep gratitude for Mr. Bui
Do Cong Thanh for being an inspiring model and an erudite mentor that leaves a remarkable
influence on my thoughts and emotions. Without his constant and thorough guidance, I
would not have the energy and commitment needed to finish this report paper. His role
model has left a long-lasting impact on my learning and studying pattern and working
attitude that has already shown positive prospect.
Furthermore, my genuine appreciations also go to my father, my mother, my little brother,
and my darling for their emotional anchors that keep me straight forward. Were it not their
support and encouragement, it would be impossible for me to tackle the problems arising
while writing the reports.
Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to all the academic staff of both the

School of Advanced Study and the Faculty of Foreign Languages for the opportunity and
experience that I have attained while working with such prominent progenitors. Also, the
hospitable and professional working environment at both the faculties will indeed lay a
strong foundation for my future career.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... i
COMMENTS OF INSTRUCTOR ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. i
TABLE & FIGURE .................................................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE REPORT ...............................................................................................1
1.1.1 Current Situation of English ......................................................................................................1
1.1.2 English in Tertiary Education Level in Vietnam......................................................................4
1.2 RATIONALE......................................................................................................................................7
1.3 METHOD DESIGN ...........................................................................................................................7
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION.............................................................................................................8
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ......................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................9
2.1 DEFINITION OF EVALUATION IN EDUCATION ....................................................................9
2.2 INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION SETTING .....11
2.3 ASEAN UNIVERSITY NETWORK – QUALITY ASSURANCE ..............................................12
2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................15

Expected Learning Outcomes ...........................................................................................................16
2.5 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................28
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................30
3.1 SETTING ..........................................................................................................................................30
3.2 PARTICIPANTS ..............................................................................................................................30
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN .....................................................................................................................31
3.4 INSTRUMENTS ..............................................................................................................................32
3.5 ETHICAL ISSUES...........................................................................................................................36
Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS .....................................................................................37
4.1 FINDINGS ARISING FROM THE SURVEY RESPONSES ......................................................37
i


4.1.1 Course learning outcomes.........................................................................................................37
4.1.2 Course specification ..................................................................................................................39
4.1.3 Course structure and content ...................................................................................................42
4.1.4 The coursebook..........................................................................................................................43
4.1.5 Teaching and Learning Approach ...........................................................................................47
4.1.6 Student assessment ....................................................................................................................51
4.2 OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................52
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................55
5.1 PROBLEMS SIGHTED DURING THE SPAN OF CONDUCTING THE RESEARCH ........55
5.2 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................56
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................57
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................59

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Questionnaire (English & Vietnamese Version)

ii


TABLE & FIGURE
Figure 3: AUN-QA Models for Higher Education.......................................................................................13
Figure 4: AUN-QA Models for Programme Level ......................................................................................14
Figure 5: Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................................15
Figure 4: Students' average satisfaction towards Course Learning Outcomes .............................................38
Figure 5: Student's average satisfaction towards Course Specification .......................................................40
Figure 6: Students' average satisfaction towards Course structure and Content ..........................................42
Figure 7: Students' average satisfaction towards the coursebook and its content ........................................43
Figure 8: Students' average satisfaction towards coursebook organisation and structure,
language, and layout.....................................................................................................................................45
Figure 9: Students' average satisfaction towards teaching and learning approach.......................................48
Figure 10: Students' average satisfaction towards the key competences of education.................................50
Figure 11: Students' average satisfaction towards student assessment ........................................................51
Figure 12: Scatter Chart ...............................................................................................................................54

Table 1: FFL Programmes Learning Outcomes ...........................................................................................19
Table 2: Course Objectives of English for Tourism.....................................................................................20
Table 3: Course Learning Outcomes of English for Tourism ......................................................................22
Table 4: Summary of students' satisfaction towards Course Learning Outcomes .......................................38
Table 5: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards the course specification .............................................40
Table 6: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards the course structure and content ................................42
Table 7: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards the content of the coursebook ...................................43
Table 8: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards organisation and structure; language;
and coursebook layout..................................................................................................................................45
Table 9: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards teaching and learning approach .................................48
Table 10: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards the key competences of education...........................50

Table 11: Summary of students’ satisfaction towards student assessment ..................................................52
Table 12: Summary of students’ average satisfaction ..................................................................................53

iii


ABBREVIATIONS
HOU: Ho Chi Minh City Open University
FFL: Faculty of Foreign Languages
ESL: English as a Secondary Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
EIL: English as an International Language
MOET: Ministry of Education and Training
AUN-QA: ASEAN University Network – Quality Assurance
VSTEP: Vietnamese Standardised Test of English Proficiency
CEFR: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

iv


ABSTRACT
With an unprecedented growth of importance of English sighted in recent years (Galloway
& Rose, 2015), there have been calls for an proper English teaching and learning model
that works beyond the native-speaking one (Sharifian, 2009). Being no outsider to an
upward trend of the world, the English teaching and learning system in Vietnam has been
undergoing drastic changes, especially in the form of programmes using English as medium
of instruction, yet the innovative implementation is not without fault (Hamid, Jahan, &
Islam, 2013; Le D. M., 2012). With this view in mind, many researchers identified problems
within the English teaching and learning in Vietnam (Hoang, 2011; Le D. M., 2012), many
of which refer to the validity of the programme. To ensure the quality of tertiary education

programme, the use of quality assurance, or accreditation has been in practice globally by
governments and recognised bodies (QAA, 2019). One of such bodies that has been
working on the betterment of education in the region, ASEAN University Network
(ASEAN University Network, 2015), has been devising and perfecting a form of quality
assurance concerning various aspects of a higher education institute on the programme
level. These standards have been applied throughout the region and at many local institutes.
In light of this fact, the paper serves as a proposal for a pilot descriptive research utilising
the format of AUN-QA to assess a course of the English Major, in the hope of contributing
to the process of continuous improvement needed for the quality assurance in immediate
future. By employing five factors among that of AUN-QA, the author aims to examine the
effectiveness of the course in the view of lecturers and students following the course.

v


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The following paper investigates the efficiency of the course book Going Places as
perceived by learners and lecturers at HOU. In this chapter, the study background will be
discussed. Then, the problem statement, the research purposes, the significance of the paper
as well as the thesis structure will be addressed.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE REPORT
1.1.1 Current Situation of English
The language of English is spoken in many parts of the world, including Asia, Europe,
Africa, the Americas, Australia, and even in some of the islands drifting amidst the Atlantic,
Indian, and Pacific Oceans. In fact, it is now acknowledged as the lingua franca or a ‘world
language’ (Viney, 2008) with the status of official language in at least 80 nations and
regions around the world as reported in Ethnologue (2019). This fact solidifies the position
of the English language with the number of non-native speakers greatly exceeding that of
native one (Galloway & Rose, 2015). Similarly, (Graddol, 2006) reported that

approximately 74% of global tourism travelling are from non-native speaking nations to
native ones, thus cemented the position of English in intercontinental communication as the
most important bridge language in this ever-changing and mobile modern world. With the
explosion of social network platforms including Facebook and YouTube, the Internet now
serves as a vital medium of the dissemination of the English language as learners
communicate and interact with others via the evolutionary platform. The high status of
English can be summarised as in Michael’s work:
“English has become a world language in both senses, international and global:
international, as a medium of literary and other forms of cultural life…; global as
the co-genitor of the new technology age… It seems that if you want to resist the
exploitative power of English, you have to use English to do it.” (Halliday, 2006, p.
362)
As English spreads further away from its birthplace, the language undergoes drastic
transformation structurally and pragmatically. Even though this transformation can be
traced back to the earlier stages of history with the expansion of the former British Empire
and the rise of the United States, the differences are more remarkable in the modern era.
ESL/EFL users do not just assimilate their native accents into the sounds of English but
also adapt their own cultural influences to English daily usages. Sharifian (2009) reported
the phenomenon of cultural conceptualisations in which non-native speakers would draw
1


on their own cultural references in making conversation in English. Notably, bilingual
speakers may use English vocabulary that delivers the polar opposite to what they want to
convey. By the same token, Honna (2000) issued the reality of creating new variants of
English that suits the “international, interethnic communication” among the communities
of Asian non-native English speakers. This occurrence can be observed throughout nations
of East Asia, thus resulted in the formation of different varieties such as Chinese-, Japanese, and Korean-influenced English. For example, Sharifian (2009) recorded a substantial
difference in meaning perceived by people from different cultural settings that can cause
misunderstanding on even a common notion such as ‘friendship’. These findings reflect a

phenomenon that can be concluded as a cultural schema that was explicitly defined in a
recent work of Shahghasemi (2017). This theory suggests that people with different cultural
identities will employ classification to comprehend each other, and then further add their
own influence into the previously existing categories. As concluded in Introducing Global
Englishes:
“There has been an explosive growth in the number of English users, thus increased
the usage on a global level has resulted in innovations in its use as it is employed by
speakers from diverse linguistic and cultural background and assumes distinct
functions and forms in different contexts.” (emphasised as in original document.)
Galloway & Rose (2015, p. x)
This phenomenal innovation puts forward suggestions of re-framing the pedagogical and
teaching English methods (Galloway & Rose, 2015). Specifically, the need of a paradigm
shift in teaching English as a global language of communication expanding beyond the NSs
model was issued by Sharifian (2009) and further fuelled the quest of establishing an
appropriate approach toward English as an International Language (hereinafter referred to
as EIL).
With no exception from the movement of the world, the shifting toward the EIL paradigm
is a matter of considerable concern for Vietnam, as the language has already played the role
of a driving force toward Vietnam’s economic, cultural, and socio-political development
ever since the economic reform known as Renovation. English’s status then continued to
receive a further emphasis after Vietnam became a member of many regional and global
associations, including the Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN), the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and most recently, the World Trade Organisation
(WTO). Since the Renovation, Vietnam has gathered considerable attention from Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI), whose interactions require English as the bridge of
communication. According to statistics collected from Vietnam’s Ministry of Planning and
Investment, Vietnam has attracted approximately 30,000 projects from foreign investors,
2


thus gaining a total registered capital of 415 billion USD (General Statistics Office, 2019).

The biggest investors are the Korean Republic, Japan, and Singapore. Henceforth, more
and more English-speaking foreign businesses have come to invest in projects in Vietnam
and bring the need for teaching English as intercultural communication language to a more
significant level. Experiencing the accelerating speed of development, English remains not
only the most preferred foreign language for learning and teaching but also the gatekeeping
tool in the societal context where English proficiency serves as a golden ticket for education
and career. This results in an unprecedented need for English thus creates a hefty power
surge in terms of the number of teachers and centres of English. Nonetheless, the previous
existing yet unarguably low-standard English teaching in Vietnam is not likely to cope with
the fast process of globalisation and cease to serve the demands being made on. In light of
this alarming situation, Decree No. 14/2001 TC-TTg was issued to call for the Renovation
of Vietnamese General Education Curriculum, thus specifically adjusted the requirements
and the tasks of Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). In the case of English, the
aims of Vietnam’s English language teaching are: providing students with the ability of
using English as a mean of communication; a general knowledge on English phonetics,
grammar and vocabulary; and understanding the native culture as well as promoting
Vietnam’s sociocultural roots.
A further effort to promote the study of English and to improve English learning and
teaching standards to contend with the globalisation and international interdependency
movement has been made with the issue of Decision No. 1400/QD-TTg on Approving the
10-year National Plan for “Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National
Formal Educational System in the Period of 2008 – 2020” (MOET). The three-phase plan
has three distinctive goals: developing and perfecting foreign language curriculum;
introducing 10-year curriculum for all levels of the general education system; and
developing intensive foreign language programmes for other education levels while
perfecting the aforementioned 10-year curriculum. Concerning tertiary education, the Plan
also establishes the 6-level testing system of Vietnamese Standardised Test of English
Proficiency (VSTEP) based on the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR) as the standard for assessing language proficiency for students as well
as encourages the creation of bilingual programmes. The current situation of English

language teaching and learning in higher education context of Vietnam will be the primary
concern in the following sections.

3


1.1.2 English in Tertiary Education Level in Vietnam
In Vietnamese higher education context, English is introduced as both a major and as a
subject. In the former, students will be trained to get a BA, an MA and even a doctoral
degree in English. Available careers for students in this major are teachers, translators or
interpreters, or researchers (English Linguistics or Language teaching methodology). There
exist many tertiary institutes that offer these courses nationwide, especially those with
foreign languages, pedagogy, social sciences, and humane orientations. Notably, Ho Chi
Minh City Open University is among the very first tertiary institutes to provide doctoral
degrees in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in this metropolitan
city.
In the latter, English receives the status of a compulsory subject applied to the majority of
majors of the higher education system in Vietnam. Research conducted in 2008 revealed
that English was dominant compared to the four other major foreign languages being taught
in the tertiary education system, namely Russian, Chinese, French, and German. (Hoang,
2011). Similarly, teaching and learning English at this level receive a further boost as the
government has encouraged the establishment of courses referred to as ‘advanced
programmes’ which involve English as the medium of instruction. Using English as the
medium of instruction on fundamental science subjects taught in senior years are also
suggested, especially at the two national universities (Hanoi National University and Ho
Chi Minh City National University). Regarding the use of English as a medium of
instruction at higher education institutions in Vietnam, Le (2012) in The Journal of Asia
TEFL considered it a positive movement. However, due to institutional inertia and
complicated mechanism existing for ages, without proper planning and specified strategies
for implementing at micro levels, the project is prone to the risk of total collapse. The reality

of failure was journalised in Hamid (2013) paper, which recorded that implementation is
“fraught with difficulties and challenges” while examining ten of Asian countries.
The seven main problems experienced by instructors in teaching English in Vietnam
context was suggested in Hoang’s (2011) paper, namely:
1. The inadequate human force working in the field of teaching English for the
population
2. Obsolete currently existing learning materials for English curricula in the modern
context

4


3. Incompetent English teaching personnel in the context of integration and
globalisation
4. The unrewarding income of English teaching personnel, ill-suited classrooms, outof-date equipment, and insufficient learning hours
5. Emphasising reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar structures instead
of promoting communication due to the faults of teaching methodology
6. The differences between testing and teaching in Vietnam compared to the NNSs
model
7. The fear of losing national identity resulting in protest on the early introduction of
English into primary schools in Vietnam
The given problems were previously recognised by Pham (1999) and reported in Hanoi
Partnership & Interaction in Language & Development International Conference with focus
on the lack of flexibility, adaptability and linkage in the curriculum, while Le (1999) in the
same conference, also suggested to culturally attuned the curriculum to make the courses
effective in Vietnam context. Le (2012) agreed with previous views of Kaplan and Baldauf
(1997) that sociolinguistic surveys are much needed to determine the community attitudes
towards language teaching, instructors, the target language, and also curriculum and
materials.
As the main focus of the thesis is higher education context, the fear of early introduction of

English in primary schools is out of concern. Moreover, the need for applying the cultural
preferences of Vietnam into the curriculum also counters the loss of national identity.
Similarly, with the rise of potent English programmes issued in the previous period, the
number of lecturers explodes, and the quality of personnel working in the field is gradually
improved; therefore, these problems are no longer the main concern in a practical setting.
On the other hand, the income of the lecturers, despite being an alarming concern, is
inappropriate to be included concerning assessing the teaching programme, the curriculum,
and the specific course in a broader sense. With this view in mind, the author recognises
the main concern being addressed in this paper is the validation of course and learning
materials.
Therefore, the author suggests a pivotal set of problems that hereafter serves as issue to be
countered in the main approach of this paper:
1. Obsolete currently existing learning materials for English curricula in modern
context
5


2. Emphasising reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar structures instead
of promoting communication due to the faults of teaching methodology
3. The differences between testing and teaching in Vietnam compared to NNSs model
These issues call for a change in the system, yet inappropriate application and adaptation
will result in further disarray in the education system. Such unwanted incident journalised
in TuoiTreOnline’s newly published issue, in which misapplications of programme
assessment are identified among tertiary education institutes (Tran, 2019). These deviations
mean there is still a need for a suitable approach toward assessing the academic programmes
in higher education settings. This will also be the case of English courses provided across
all of Vietnam’s current tertiary education institutes.
In light of this fact, however, due to limitation of capabilities and time constraint, the author
sets sight upon a smaller target, a newly published and impactful course book used for
teaching and learning tourism and hospitality for English majors at HOU entitled Going

Places. This course book is a mandatory learning document for the course of English for
Tourism offered for students in the major of English Interpretation and Translation at the
Faculty of Foreign Languages.
Compiled by two endeavouring lecturers of the Faculty of Foreign Languages, the course
book Going Places is an English-B2-graded material for tourism and hospitality that aims
to focus on providing better insight and solution for the possible incidents and situations
arising in students’ future career. By providing various situations, readings, and audio
records for a specific topic, the authors of the course book aim to teach students how to deal
with incoming sources of information while being expected to produce their own replies.
Also, the inbuilt vocabulary items and related tasks with a strong emphasis on further
development allow students to adapt themselves accordingly in their expertise context.
With permission from both the authors, the paper seeks to answer the following research
question:
How effective is the course of English for Tourism using the Course book Going Places
as perceived by learners and lecturers at HOU?
To effectively answer the research question, the author dissects it into smaller parts:
1. The effectiveness perceived by learners
2. The effectiveness compared to the expected learning outcomes
6


1.2 RATIONALE
This report aims to serve three principal objectives. First and foremost, regarding the School
of Advanced Study, undoubtedly this paper will be a useful case study of assessing the
courses and curriculum provided for its students, especially for English majors. The results
gathered from this research will also reflect the levels of satisfaction of the students towards
a particular subject for one of the most attractive majors offered at the School of Advanced
Study, thus provide the Dean of the faculty the information needed for adjustment towards
the goal of innovation, globalisation, and integration.
Secondly, in terms of the Faculty of Foreign Languages, the report is a much-needed pilot

assessment rendering assistance for the currently fully occupied lecturers, especially the
authors of the book. Accordingly, the report also works as a quick overview of the
effectiveness of the course book, thus provide beneficial insight into possible adjustments
that can be made in the immediate future. Furthermore, by dint of reviewing this
experimental approach, the Dean of the Faculty can also devise a thorough and standardised
assessment criteria that can later be applied for other courses and textbooks to suit future
demands.
Finally, concerning the students, as the result of work and research on this rather unfamiliar
field, the report is a summary of the experience during the internship and leads up to a
thesis. This invaluable experience will later prepare the author for the incoming situation
and problems that may arise in the working environment. Nonetheless, with more research
and study in this much needed yet relatively controversial aspect of education, the author,
in turn, gains valuable insight of the process of assessing and can later apply these
procedures in other aspects of working in immediate future.

1.3 METHOD DESIGN
The following research will employ the descriptive research method. In fact, based on the
insight gathered from previous studies and approaches, establishing a viable approach for
the course of English for Tourism and the course book Going Places is of great significance.
Undoubtedly, a clear and detailed approach will serve as a pilot case study and in turn will
further equip future studies with insight and knowledge to serve the purpose of enhancing
education quality on larger scale. Should this approach be employed, the process of
assessment that starts from course-level to programme-level applying to the system of
tertiary education will be thorough and systematic.
7


1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
Several limitations to this report exist. First of all, this study will focus on developing a
model assessment for a course of English major by using a model derived from previous

approaches and the AUN-Quality Assurance (AUN-QA). This model will assist the
lecturers and students in determining the effectiveness of the course which has a significant
impact on student’s immediate future career. However, since the focus of this paper is
limited to one objective, implications without modifications can be irrelevant to other
courses, not to mention higher levels such as programme-level or systemic level. The next
limitation is related to the specific research setting of this study. As the report is to be
conducted in a local public university, a study in a particular type of institution might be
limited in generalisability to other types of institutions. Also, as the staff’s level of
performance and professionalism remain the concern of the Faculty of Foreign Languages,
their characteristics will not be addressed, hypothesising that their qualities are ensured by
the governing body. Finally, due to a limitation in capabilities due to the ineluctable social
distancing, the research serves as a pilot test for a dissertation in immediate future, thus, the
process of data testing is not included.

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
This thesis is an immediate continuation of the author’s previous work on the Internship
Report conducted during the course of 3 months between September and December of
2019. The information regarding the Internship Corporate, in this case, HOU and FFL is
included in the Appendix A. The thesis is then structured into five chapters, including this
first chapter presenting the introduction. Chapter 2 examines the framework of this report,
including an approach toward assessing the course. It also presents a review of literature on
the issues regarding assessing the course. Chapter 3 elaborates on the details of the data
collection process and ethical procedures. Then, chapter 4 narrates and explains the data
accumulated during the survey. Finally, chapter 5 concludes the data and compares the
gathered results with the literature posed in chapter 2.

8


CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The current chapter reviews the literature relevant to higher education evaluation. First, the
chapter introduces the approaches of education evaluation. The immediate section provides
more insight into tertiary education assessment in practice. Then, the ASEAN University
Network-Quality Assurance (hereinafter referred to as AUN-QA) is addressed. In the final
part, the framework adapted from the model of AUN-QA that guides the thesis is posed.

2.1 DEFINITION OF EVALUATION IN EDUCATION
Evaluation is no unfamiliar notion with various definitions. Such definition was prefaced
in Richards (1985, p. 130) work as “the systematic gathering of information for purposes
of making decisions.” Despite the first impression of a serviceable definition, its reflection
remains too broad and can well be used to define other components of the curriculum
including analysis and testing. Both of these are ways of systematically collecting
information for the “purpose of making decisions”. Although the two aforementioned
notions can be included in evaluation, it does not help strengthen the given definition.
By the same token, Popham (1975, p. 8) proposed another definition as “systematic
educational evaluation consist of a formal assessment of the worth of educational
phenomena.” Contrasting to that of Richards, Popham definition is too restrictive.
Unarguably, “formal assessment” is an inherent element within a programme evaluation,
yet the fact informal activities exist is without doubt. While many of the evaluation focus
on “the worth of education phenomena”, yet there are also forms that focus on improving
the curriculum, which perhaps are the most constructive and useful of the lot.
Worthen and Sanders (1973, p. 19) offered a less restrictive alternative: “Evaluation is the
determination of the worth of a thing. It includes obtaining information for use in judging
the worth of a program, product, procedure, or object or the potential utility of alternative
approaches designed to attain specified objectives.” Not only is it less restrictive in the
sense of “the worth of a program” but it also provides the notion of judging “the potential
utility of alternative approaches.” However, with its goal of attaining “specified
objectives”, the definition unnecessarily limits and implies a goal-oriented approach, while
also ignores the potential of evaluation impact upon curriculum improvement.
A more empirical definition was issued by Brown (1989, p. 223) as “the systematic

collection of analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of
a curriculum and assess its effectiveness within the context of the particular institution
involved.” There are three important factors that make this definition more eminent
compared to remainders. Firstly, there is a requirement that information will undergo a
9


systematic gathering and analysing process that filter out irrelevant information. Moreover,
there are noticeably two purposes for the information: “to promote the improvement” and
“to evaluate the effectiveness”. Finally, this definition also includes site-specification as a
clear focus for a particular curriculum assessment. In other words, any evaluation will be
inescapably connected to the given institution(s) being evaluated. As the institutions have
been clearly defined, the process of evaluation will eventually centre on that setting.
Muhammad (2018) issued a clear line between the inarguably ambiguously used terms of
‘evaluation’ and ‘assessment’ in the field of English language Teaching (ELT). Based on
the differences from the various perspectives discussed among leading experts, Muhammad
contrasted evaluation from assessment, with the former being the process to determine
students’ academic performance, the satisfaction of learners, educators and stakeholders
towards the programme, the worth of the programme, the quality of the programme
compared to others, and its effectiveness in achieving the mix objectives. In contrast,
assessment is perceived as a narrower concept that aims to measure students’ ability
involving implementation of tests and tasks as the measurement of students’ performance
and serves the purpose of the improvement and development students’ learning.
Assessment serves many purposes including measuring students’ general ability, placement
of learners, indicating learner progress and providing feedback to students concerning the
enhancement of awareness and reflection. The data gathered in the assessment process can
be further used for the process of evaluation. In other word, evaluation focus on a broader
entity while assessment task is placed upon a narrower subject. With that view in mind,
before conducting a programme evaluation process, it is necessary to employ an assessing
scheme that aims on a narrower and more specific subject, in this case, being a course

within the programme instead of learner’s academic performance.
ASEAN University Network (2015, p. 49) refers assessment as “a general term that
embraces all methods used to judge the performance of an individual, group or
organisation” with a further focus on self-assessment involving a critical reviewing process
of one’s own performance. Quality assessment in the higher education context, therefore,
referred in ASEAN University Network (2015, p. 49) publication as “a diagnostic review
and evaluation of teaching, learning, and outcomes based on a detailed examination of
curricula, structure, resources and effectiveness of the institution, system or programme.”
Self-assessment in this view is considered as a pilot preparation before conducting any
further external assessment, accreditation or quality audits.
From the previous established points of view, the author employs the model with evaluation
being the broader concept including the narrow ‘assessment’ that centres on the setting of
10


the study. The paper is one of the possible self-assessment approaches that can contribute
to the development of quality evaluation in immediate future.

2.2 INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER
EDUCATION SETTING
Quality assurance is a notion originated in large-scale manufacturing. In fact, quality
assurance is defined in ISO (2015) as “part of quality management focused on providing
confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled”. As the industry developed and large
mechanised plants became the dominant model among manufacturing industry, there was
a suggestion of a new development of methods to reduce defects in manufactured items that
are usually referred as ‘quality control’ mechanism. With increasing efforts in improving
and developing a more complex control mechanism, the term of ‘quality assurance’
prefaces as attempts not only to prevent defects from occurring but also to check up only
finished products. Quality assurance employs knowledge from expert to develop a
systematic quality management process to check quality at all stages of the production line.

However, quality assurance is not only included in the field of manufacturing. Doctor
Marjorie Peace Lenn, the founding member of Centre for Quality Assurance in
International Education (CQAIE) was among the first pioneers of quality assurance or
quality accreditation in higher education, who provided a definition for the notion of
‘quality assurance’ on World Education News and Reviews (1992, p. 1) as “a process by
which an institution is evaluated at least in part by an external body for a level of quality in
its educational offering.” This process can be interpreted as all policies, measures, planned
processes and actions regarding maintaining and developing the quality of higher
education.
Following the trends of quality assurance in the academic society, in October 1998, The
World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action,
Qualitative Evaluation (World Conference on Higher Education, 1998) considered quality
in higher education as “a multi-dimensional concept, which should embrace all its
functions, and activities; teaching and academic programmes, research and scholarship,
staffing, students, buildings, facilities, equipment, services to the community and the
academic environment. Internal self-evaluation and external review, conducted openly by
independent specialists, if possible with international expertise, are vital for enhancing
quality.” Quality in higher education is undoubtedly not a simple one-dimensional notion
about academic quality. In view of the varied needs and expectations of stakeholders,
quality in higher education can be said to be a multi-dimensional concept. In this respect,
higher education has two different clients: students and society. The expectations of such
11


clients differ depending on whether it regards academic (science/research-driven) study
programmes or higher professional education (HPE) (labour market’s demand-driven)
programmes. It is, therefore, obvious that by putting the concept ‘quality’ into practice the
further filling in of ‘quality’ differs as well. Regarding assessment of academic
programmes, international scientific standards and research requirements are the leitmotivs
whilst concerning labour market’s demand-driven study programmes, the main emphasis

is on occupational standards being the professional requirements the labour market has
agreed on a national level. UNESCO (2003) later perfected the definition of quality
assurance in higher education as “systematic management and assessment procedures to
monitor performance of higher education institutions”.
There exist various quality assurance/ quality accreditation systems among different
institutes across the globe, serving as a national standardised requirements of tertiary
education system. For example, in United Kingdom, it is illegal to offer any higher
education qualification unless the degree itself is granted by a ‘recognised body’. Among
these bodies is the interdependent Gloucester-based Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for
Higher Education that work on checking quality and standards of higher education in
United Kingdom (2019). Some of the notable individuals and bodies responsible quality
assurance for include the QQA, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education (ENQA), Japanese Higher Education Bureau Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology. However, for the setting of this paper, it is advisable to
work on the current existing framework for quality assurance utilised by native higher
education institutes, namely the ASEAN University Network – Quality Assurance
(hereinafter referred to as AUN – QA). AUN – QA and its implementation will be discussed
in the section that follows.

2.3 ASEAN UNIVERSITY NETWORK – QUALITY ASSURANCE
At ASEAN level, the first initiatives of cooperation were prefaced in 1977 at the first
meeting of ASEAN Ministries of Education. Beerkens (2004) reported the brief history of
AUN. The concept of an ‘ASEAN University’ was discussed, however, it would not come
up again until almost 15 years later. Nonetheless, it became clear that this would present
too many problems concerning funding, location and leadership. At the second meeting of
ASEAN subcommittee on Education (ASCOE) in 1994, it was decided that the founding
of a network of existing institutions would be more feasible and a draft charter for ASEAN
University was again was prepared for its founding in November 1995. From its start in
1995, AUN now consists of 30 universities across the ASEAN, with Vietnam has 3
institutes, including Vietnam National University Ha Noi, Vietnam National University Ho

Chi Minh City, and Can Tho University.
12


AUN recognises the eminence of quality in higher education and the need of developing a
holistic quality assurance system that raises academic standards and enhance education,
research and services among its member institutes. The first version of AUN – QA was first
drafted in 1998, and AUN – QA has been promoting, developing, and being adjusted for
the implementation of quality assurance across its member universities. With the third
revised version issued in October 2015, AUN celebrated its 20-year journey and continued
to project its views in promoting and developing the standards of education in the region.
Concerning HOU guiding vision of attaining the status of leading higher education institute,
there is no doubt that meeting the framework of AUN – QA Model is an inescapable step.
The AUN – QA Models for higher education comprise three levels (i.e. strategic, systemic
and tactical dimensions) that all are subjected to both internal and external QA assessments.

Figure 1: AUN-QA Models for Higher Education
While internal QA ensures that an institution, system or programme has policies and
mechanisms in place to make sure that it is meeting its own objectives and standards,
External QA is performed by an organisation or individuals outside the institution. The
assessors then evaluate the operation of the institution, system or programme in order to
determine whether it meets the agreed upon or predetermined standards. These models are
applicable to the diverse universities in ASEAN which are also aligned to both regional and
international quality assurance frameworks. To determine the level of each standard, AUN
– QA employs a 7-point scale to determine an institute’s quality that follows:
Rating

Description

1

Absolutely Inadequate

2

Inadequate and Improvement is Necessary

3

Inadequate but Minor Improvement Will Make It Adequate
13


4

Adequate as Expected

5

Better Than Adequate

6

Example of Best Practices

7

Excellent (Example of World-class or Leading Practices)

However, as the focus of the paper is on the effectiveness of the course of English for

Tourism and the Coursebook of Going Places, the author sets sight on one part of the
Tactical Level or Programme Level among AUN-QA Model. Moreover, it is not likely that
the abstract 7-point scale will serve the purpose of the paper, therefore, another scale will
be discussed later.
The 3rd version of the AUN-QA model for programme level is illustrated as follows.

Figure 2: AUN-QA Models for Programme Level
The 3rd version of the AUN-QA model for programme level encompasses the following
11 criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Expected Learning Outcomes
Programme Specification
Programme Structure and Content
Teaching and Learning Approach
Student Assessment
Academic Staff Quality
14


7. Support Staff Quality
8. Student Quality and Support
9. Facilities and Infrastructure
10. Quality Enhancement
11. Output

2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
With the purpose of the paper is to assess the course, the criteria ranging from number 6 to
11 are unlikely to be necessary to determine its effectiveness. Therefore, the author limits
to 5 first criteria with proper adjustment to tune them into the topic of the paper, namely:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Expected Learning Outcomes
Course Specification
Course Structure and Content
Teaching and Learning Approach
Student Assessment

With this view in mind, the author adjusts the given AUN-QA model for programme level
into the framework guiding the approach of this paper.

Figure 3: Theoretical Framework
This framework starts with the stakeholders needs. These needs are later formulated into
the expected learning outcomes driving the course. The four immediate factors: (1) Course
Specification, (2) Course structure & Content, (3) Teaching & Learning Strategy, and (4)
Student Assessment in the middle of the models addresses the question of how the expected
learning outcomes are further translated into the course; and how they can be achieved from
teaching and learning approach, and student assessment. The final column addresses the
achievements of the expected learning outcomes and the course.
However, as the aim of the paper is focus on a single course in the programme, the author
also omits the continuous improvement of quality assurance system and benchmarking to

seek best practices that exist in the previous AUN – QA model, which is necessary to be
taken into consideration on the broader scales.
15


Stakeholders Satisfaction
Concerning university stakeholders, Schüller (2014) summarised a previous work of Lester
(2010), suggesting a three-tier structure concerning stakeholders, including: primary,
secondary, and tertiary level. The three categories are as follow:
1. Primary stakeholders: those whose responsibilities are to propose an evaluation
system of the rector’s work, its implantation of modification.
2. Secondary stakeholders: those who are directly dependent by the rectors’ decisionmaking and act as occasional assessors of the rector’s work.
3. Tertiary stake holders: those who are rarely in contact with the rectors, and not
usually act as assessors, but are interested in the results of the rectors’ work.
It is recognisable from this division that there are various criteria, factors, and situations to
determine each of the categories. The stakeholder groups will create a relationships network
of the university. Newman and Petrosko (2011) concluded a priority in concentrating on
stakeholders providing support to universities especially graduates being donors,
particularly donors with higher cumulative total giving and senior member. As a financial
autonomous tertiary institution, students’ tuition fees remain the major source of funding
for the existing faculties, facilities, centres and other events and activities of HOU, author
recognises that students and their parents are the main stakeholder group that influences
teaching and learning activities of HOU. Nevertheless, the other group of stakeholders that
are directly responsible for these activities, while also influence the students’ performances,
is in fact, lecturers. It is then advisable to employ a way to gather their opinions for the
process of continuous improvement in order to achieve an exemplary model piloting the
future applications.
With this view in mind, it is necessary to investigate if the current existing following factors
satisfy the needs of students, in this case, the students enrolled in the class of English for
Tourism using the course book Going Places.

Expected Learning Outcomes
The definition of outcomes-based education prefaced in a publication of Spady (1994)
suggesting a pedagogical theory that bases each stage of an educational system around
outcomes. Outcomes, as defined in Spady’s paper, do not belong to the abstract notions of
values, beliefs, attitudes nor psychological states of mind, but to the tangible application of
their process of learning instead. In other words, outcomes are what actions and
performances reflecting the learners’ competence in using their previously learned
knowledge. Instead of a single specific style of teaching or assessment tied with outcome16


based education, the process of learning that involves classes, opportunities and
assessments should be the means to help students achieve the specified outcomes.
With the view of establishing an outcomes-based education, AUN (2015) recognises that
curriculum design should be based on the knowledge that learners would achieve and the
performance they would demonstrate upon completing the study programme. The focus of
such programme is on the final results of the learning emphasising the knowledge, skills
and attitudes. These major focuses are the expected learning outcomes formulated from the
needs of the stakeholders that are determined at the beginning of the programme design. As
predetermined in Spady (1994) earlier work, an outcomes-based education system is, in
fact, conflicting with teacher’ intentions as its concerns are placed upon the achievements
of the learner. By dint of this fact, the author revises the programme learning outcomes as
the prerequisites before determining the course. There are 6 groups of Programme
Objectives further divided into 11 smaller Programme Learning Outcomes. The list of these
outcomes are tabulated as follows:
Expected
Learning
Outcomes

Description

Knowledge
PO1: Equip basic knowledge about nature, society and people to serve for
professional development and self-improvement.
PLO1: Have basic knowledge of natural sciences and mathematics to analyse and solve
problems that arise in work and life.
PLO2: Have basic knowledge of politics, law, economics and social sciences and
humanities for explaining and analysing issues in work and life.
PO2: Provide theoretical and practical knowledge about the language, culture and
literature systems of English-speaking countries to solve professional issues.
PLO.3 Apply knowledge of English language, culture and literature of English-speaking
countries in specialised activities of English Language Teaching / English Translation –
Interpretation/ Business English.

17


Expected
Learning
Outcomes

Description

PO3. Provide professional knowledge for English Language Teaching / English
Translation – Interpretation / Business English.
PLO4: Apply knowledge in specialised fields of English Language Teaching / English
Translation – Interpretation/ Business English in applying and solving professional issues.
Skills
PO4: Help learners develop cognitive skills, professional practice skills and necessary
interpersonal skills in the English Language field to carry out professional tasks
commensurate with their career positions.

PLO5: Have cognitive skills and solve complex professional issues in the field of English
teaching, English translation, and commerce.
PLO6: Have skills of practicing in the field of English Language Teaching / English
Translation – Interpretation / Business English.
English Teaching Methodology Major: Be able to understand the teaching environment,
design and practice lectures and evaluate the competence of English learners
English Translation and Interpretation Major: Have the ability to apply in-depth
knowledge and professional skills of interpreters to perform translation and interpretation
task.
Business English Major: Be competent in applying business and commercial knowledge in
professional practice in English-speaking international business environment.
PLO7: Have effective communication skills and work in an integrated environment.
PLO8: Learners use English fluently and effectively in academics, life and working
environment and communicate in another foreign language. (Chinese, Japanese, Spanish,
French).
Autonomy and responsibility

18