- Pursuant to the Decision No. 65/2007/QĐ-BGDĐT dated 01 November 2007 by the Minister of Education and Training on the stipulation of criteria for assessment of the educational quality of universities;

- Pursuant to the Circular No. 37/2012/TT-BGDĐT dated 30 October 2013 by Minister of Education and Training on the amendments to certain articles of the Decision No. 65/2007/QĐ-BGDĐT dated 01 November 2007 by Minister of Education and Training on the stipulation of criteria for assessment of the educational quality of universities; Decision No. 66/2007/QĐ-BGDĐT dated 01 November 2007 by Minister of Education and Training on the stipulation of criteria for assessment of the educational quality of colleges; and Decision No. 67/2007/QĐ-BGDĐT dated 01 November 2007 by Minister of Education and Training on the stipulation of criteria for assessment of the educational quality of vocal schools.

Faculty of Educational Testing and Accreditation provides guidelines for the universities' application of criteria for assessment of their quality from the year of 2013.

These guidelines shall replace the guidance enclosed to the Official Dispatch No. 560/KTKĐCLGD dated 06 June 2008 by the Faculty of Educational Testing and Accreditation. During the execution of this document, difficulties or proposals shall be reported to the Tertiary education and vocational education quality accreditation office (“Phòng Kiểm định chất lượng giáo dục đại học và trung cấp chuyên nghiệp”) of the Faculty of Educational Testing and Accreditation, at 30 Ta Quang Buu, Hai Ba Trung, Hanoi, telephone: 04.39747108; fax: 04.39747109; email: [email protected]./.

GUIDELINES

THE APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY QUALITY
(Enclosed to the Official Dispatch No. 527/KTKĐCLGD dated 23 May 2013 by the Faculty of Educational Testing and Accreditation)

Standard 1: Missions and objectives of a university (2 criteria)

Criterion 1.1. Missions of a university accord with its functions, duties, resources and aims for growth in adherence to the local and national strategies for economic – social development.

Keywords: Mission, accord, function, duty, resource, aims for growth, adherence

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents and written resolutions by the university’s Party committee and Councils (of management, science and training, etc.) in connection with the missions.

· Plans, strategies and short-term policies of the university;

· Plans, strategies and long-term policies of the university;

- National plans and strategies for economic - social development;

· Local plans and strategies for economic - social development;

· Statutes of organization and operation of the university;

· The website of the university;

· Other evidences: meeting records, introductory journals of the university’s missions.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) specify and describe the missions of the university?

· If yes, which of the university's documents elaborates the missions?

· Do the self-evaluation reports assert the accordance of university’s missions with its functions and duties?

· Does the content of the missions accord with the university's resources and aims for growth?

· Do the self-evaluation reports analyze the missions and aver their adherence to local and national strategies for economic - social development?

· Do the self-evaluation reports manifest the dissemination and seeping of the university’s missions to lecturers, employees and learners?

· Have the missions been popularized to relevant people outside the university? By what methods?

· Have the missions been comprehended and widely accepted by the personnel of the university?

· Do the self-evaluation reports manifest the acquisition of feedbacks and ideas from entities linked with the university’s missions?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Assess the accordance of the university's missions with its functions and duties;

· Assess the accordance of the university’s missions with its resources and aims for growth;

· Assess the accordance of the university's missions with local and national strategies for economic – social development.

· Interview: The leadership, managerial officials, lecturers and learns of the university shall be asked about their perception and attitude towards the university's proclaimed missions.

Criterion 1.2. The university’s objectives accord with the goals for university-level training as per the Law on Education and the university’s proclaimed missions, and shall be periodically examined, supplemented, amended and implemented.

Keywords: objective, accord, periodically examined, supplement, amend, implement

Evidences regarding the criterion

- The comparison of the university’s objectives with those defined in the Law on Education and the Law 2012 on University education;

· Plans, strategies and projects of the university;

· Annual plans and duties of the university;

· Plans of faculties/ affiliated schools;

· The announcement of educational/training programs;

· Other relevant evidences: records of meetings for examination, assessment and amendment to the objectives ...; summaries, assessments of implementation, and other documents related to the implementation of the university's objectives.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) analyze the accordance of the university's objectives with the educational objectives of the educational stage and level as defined in the Law on Education?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) analyze the accordance of the university's objectives with its missions?

· Have the university’s objectives periodically examined, supplemented and amended?

· Have the objectives been disseminated and implemented?

· Have the objectives been comprehended and widely accepted by the personnel of the university?

· Have the objectives been popularized to relevant people outside the university?

· Do the self-evaluation reports indicate all of the evidences? Have the evidences been expressed in an appendix?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Examine the accordance of the university’s objectives with its missions according to the documents given by the university.

· Verify the authenticity of the university’s periodic examination, supplementation and implementation of the objectives?

· Interview: The leadership, managerial officials and lecturers shall be asked about two criteria as stated above.

Standard 2: Organization and management (7 criteria)

Criterion 2.1. The organizational structure of a university conforms to the regulations of the Charter of universities and relevant laws, which are specified in the university's statutes of organization and operation.

Keyword: Organizational structure, regulations, specify, statutes

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The organizational structure, statutes and regulations of the university;

· The structure, directory and standards of the university’s human resources;

· The management structure and strategies of the university;

· Annual plans, documents describing/assigning functions and duties to each unit/division in organizational structure of the university;

· Summaries/periodic reports according to functions and duties of each unit/division of the university;

· Other evidences: the organizational structure of the university, records of field surveys of the university, etc.

Questions regarding the criterion

- Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) describe the organizational structure of the university?

· Does the organizational structure of the university deviate from the regulations in the Charter of universities?

· Does the organizational structure of the university conform to other stipulations of the laws?

· Is there any evidence that the university’s personnel comprehend its organizational structure and decision-making procedure?

· Is there any evidence of the efficiency of the university's organizational structure?

· Is there any evidence of the university’s periodic review, assessment and amelioration of its organizational structure for higher effectiveness? How often?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Peruse the organizational structure and operations of the university. Examine the lucidity and coherence of the university's regulations compared to the Charter of universities and other laws (if applicable);

· Peruse the evidences of the university’s personnel’s comprehension and compliance with its regulations;

· Peruse the evidences of the university’s investigation into society’s demands and development trends to facilitate the establishment of its development plans and strategies and adaptation of its action plans and the structures of its organization and human resources;

· Examine the records of meetings about the organizational structure, participants and results of such meetings;

· The external assessment team should examine the university’s financial documents to determine whether its resources suffice for changes of the organizational structure.

· Interview: Managerial officials, lecturers and employees shall be asked about the lucidity, transparency, rationality, efficiency, unanimity and support of the organizational structure and regulations.

Criterion 2.2. A system of documentation operates to organize and manage the university’s activities in effective manner.

Keywords: System of documentation, organize, manage, effective.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulations of the university or written guidelines, organizational statutes;

· Written guidelines and regulations on quality;

· Regulations on quality management;

· The university's system of written materials/documents on training, human resource, research, management, finance, student's activities, inspection and other sectors;

· Meeting records/ Periodic reports on the assessment of the efficiency of activities of an organization and the university;

· The website of the university;

· Other evidences related to the university's system of documentation.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Is there any evidence of the dissemination of written materials and organizational documents to the units of the university?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) analyze the effectiveness of the university’s directive documents?

Suggestions to the External assessment team

· Examine the systemization of the university’s organizational and managerial documents;

· Examine the efficiency of the management system, particularly the dissemination and execution of documents;

· Examine other evidences: website, internal journals, internal documents, financial statements, and reports on the assessed performance, Etc.

· Do details of documents/written materials differ from actual facts?

· Interview: Relevant people, managers.

Criterion 2.3. Functions, responsibilities and authority of divisions, managerial officials, lecturers and employees are distinctly defined.

Keywords: Function, responsibility, authority, distinctly define

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Statutes and regulations of the university;

· Labor contracts;

· Written materials related to the university’s organization and its changes;

· Plans, strategies, records of meetings between the university's council and other councils with deans/lecturers;

· Short-term plans (per semester or educational year), medium-term plans (per year or two years) and long-term plans (five years or more);

· The allocation of duties and delegation among members of the school councils and among lecturers;

· Documents related to the responsibilities of deans/lecturers for performing the university's assignments;

· Regulations and written guidelines for the management of the university;

· The university’s regulations on human resource management;

- The website of the university;

· Other relevant evidences on the allocation of functions, duties and authority among members or divisions of the university (e.g. written records of assignments on a program, plan or activity of the university).

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) analyze and assess the allocation/definition of functions, responsibilities/delegation and authority of each division, each title and each activity of the university?

· Do matters allocated to a faculty/office/division overlap with others' in the university?

· Is there any evidence of the university’s activities to evaluate its officials, lecturers and employees and for their self-evaluation according to the functions, duties and authority given?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Examine academic performance reports;

· Examine self-evaluation reports (if available);

· Verify whether the functions, duties and powers of offices/divisions overlap.

· Verify the existence of suits/complaints against obscure functions.

What are the reasons?

· Interview: Managerial officials, lecturers, employees and learners shall be asked about the organization and mechanism of the university, their knowledge of the duties of each individual and division.

Criterion 2.4. Party bodies and organizations in the university operate in effective manner and receive positive remarks annually. The activities of party bodies and organizations abide by the laws.

Keywords: Effective, commendation, abide by regulations

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents on the organizational structure of the Communist Party and other organizations in the university;

· Documents on the activities of organizations in the university;

· Summary reports/action plans of the trade union and Party committee of the university;

· Annual summary reports of the university’s organizations on emulation, commendation, reprimand, reminder, etc.

· Other evidences related to activities of the university’s organizations.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) analyze roles and activities of Party bodies and other organizations to verify their effectiveness and abidance by the laws? What are the lucid evidences?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) specify the activities of Party bodies and other organizations in the university, which develop the solidarity and impel the university's members to contribute to the growth of the university? - Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) disclose evidences? (e.g. meeting records, evaluation reports, etc.)

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Peruse the activities of the Communist Party and other organizations in the university, annual conclusion/evaluation of such activities;

- Examine the effectiveness of organizations’ activities by excogitating the involvement of relevant entities in the university in conformity to regulations, procedures and supervision process.

· Interview: Officials, lecturers and learners shall be asked to authenticate the evidences given.

Criterion 2.5. Tertiary education quality is assured by an organization, such as a specialized center or division. Assessments are carried out by competent officials to maintain and augment the quality of the university's activities.

Keywords: Organization, quality assured, specialized, competent, carry out, maintain, augment, activity.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Written decisions to establish the organization and assign officials specialized in assuring the quality of the university;

· The university’s regulations or written guidelines on quality assurance;

· The university’s regulations or written guidelines on management;

· Documents on the assessment of the university’s activities;

· Plans on quality assurance per year and in the last 5 years;

· Other evidences related to the organization and quality assurance of the university.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) clarify the existence of the university's division for assurance or evaluation of quality and its functions and duties?

· If yes, is there any evidence of regulations intended for the said division? What are the plans for assessment of its activities?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) specify the competence of the division’s officials to perform activities according to the functions and missions designated?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Seek evidences and documents to attest the university’s quality assurance activities through its organization. Documents include:

- The university’s regulations or written guidelines for quality assurance;

- The university’s regulations or written guidelines on management;

- Assessments of the university’s evaluation activities;

- Plans in the last 5 years.

· The website of the university.

· Interview: Lecturers and learners shall be asked to seek evidences of the dissemination of information on quality assessment, which contributes to the improvement of the university’s quality.

Criterion 2.6. The university has strategies and short-term, medium-term and long-term plans for development in accordance with its missions and aims for growth. Moreover, the university has policies and measures to supervise and evaluate the execution of its plans.

Keywords: Strategy, plans for development, accordance, policy and measures to supervise, evaluate.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Plans and strategies of the university;

· Short-term, medium-term and long-term plans for development of the university;

· Strategy management plans of the university;

· Policies and measures for supervision and evaluation of the execution of the university’s plans;

· Preliminary and summary reports, on periodic basis, on the university's evaluation of the execution of its plans and strategies;

· Other evidences related to the university’s strategies for development: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s possession of strategies, short-term, medium-term and long-term plans in accordance with its missions and aims for growth?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s policies and measures to supervise and evaluate the execution of its plans?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) demonstrate the periodic evaluation of the progress of the university’s plans for development and the timely revisions that accord with new changes of the university?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Seek information and documents that assert the university’s strategies and plans for development in the short term, medium term and long term in accordance with its missions and aims for growth;

· Seek information and the university’s documents on policies and measures to supervise and evaluate the execution of the university's plans;

· Seek information and documents on the evaluation of the performance of the university’s plans.

· Interview: Certain managers of the university, faculties and branches or lecturers shall be asked about:

- What is the basis of the university’s short-term and medium-term plans?

- Does the university set up schemes and strategies to execute the plans?

- Does the university have an Advisory council or organize regular meetings with relevant external entities to establish and modify its plans for development?

Criterion 2.7. Periodic reports are fully submitted to superior organizations and activity managing authorities. Moreover, the university’s reports are fully retained.

Keywords: Periodic, activity, retain.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulations by superior organizations and managing authorities on reporting;

· Records of meetings with superior organizations and managing authorities;

· Annual reports given to superior organizations and managing authorities;

· Report archives in the last 5 years;

· Other evidences related to activities of the university’s reporting and archives: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s submission of periodic reports to superior organizations and managing authorities?

· How do the university's production and delivery of reports occur? Have reports been on schedule?

· How often must the reports be submitted?

· What are the university’s regulations on document retention?

· How does the university's document retention proceed? How long are documents retained?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Examine periodic reports that the university has sent to superior organizations and managing authorities. Do the reports fully manifest the university’s activities?

· Do archives conform to regulations?

· Examine archives deemed as evidences.

· Interview: Officials from functional divisions shall be interviewed to authenticate the university's reports and document retention.

Standard 3: Academic program (6 criteria)

Criterion 3.1. The university constructs academic programs in conformity to effective regulations of the Ministry of Education and Training. Moreover, the university has contemplated academic programs of local and international universities of great prestige. Furthermore, scientists, lecturers, managerial officials, representatives of social – occupational organizations, recruiters and graduates have made their contributions.

Keywords: Program, construct, contemplate, contribution.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Academic programs of the university;

· Student manuals;

- The website of the university;

· Particulars (detailed outline) of academic programs;

· The university's internal documents regarding its policies for program development, teaching methodology and educational goals;

· Documents on policies by other authorities (Government, Ministry of Education and Training, etc.)

· Procedures for supervision of faculties’ performance or for acquisition of feedbacks on failure;

· Details/records of academic program construction and development meetings by scientists, lecturers, managerial officials, representatives of social - occupational organizations, recruiters, graduates, etc.

· Other evidences related to the university’s academic programs: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) elucidate the abidance of the university's construction and development of academic programs by effective regulations of the Ministry of Education and Training, its contemplation of academic programs of international and domestic universities of great reputation and the sufficiency of participants as per the criterion?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s periodic revision, supplementation and development of the system of academic programs?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Scrutinize the consummation of the university's current programs and procedures for program development;

· Examine the evidences (e.g. meeting records) of the participation of relevant people (e.g. scientists, lecturers, managerial officials, recruiters, graduates) in the construction of academic programs. What are the results of such meetings? Have the participants’ contributions and opinions been acknowledged and implemented?

· Is there any evidence of the academic programs' conformity to effective regulations of the Ministry of Education and Training?

· Evidences of the participation of representatives of social – occupational organizations and recruiters in the construction of the goals of academic programs.

· Interview: Learners and lecturers shall be interviewed to verify the consummation and availability of academic programs for learners and lecturers to imbibe. The school council (or the board of directors in private universities) and, in particular, deans, lecturers and accountable individuals, representatives of recruiters, graduates shall be asked about the proceedings of their construction and development of academic programs.

Criterion 3.2. Academic programs have lucid and specific goals, logical structure and systematic design. Moreover, they satiate requirements on tertiary education’s standards of knowledge and skills and the labor market’s demands of human resources.

Keywords: Program, goal, structure, design, satiate.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Academic programs of the university;

· Procedures for construction of the university’s academic programs;

· Student manuals;

- The website of the university;

· The detailed outlines of each educational unit/module/subject;

· The programs' explication of the university’s objectives (knowledge, skills, attitude and general capacity of graduates) for each discipline and the philosophy and teaching methodology targeted. Information for learners, such as educational courses, goals and content of subjects, reference documents, methods of teaching, learning and evaluation for each educational unit/module/subject;

· The university's internal documents regarding its policies for program development, teaching methodology and educational goals;

· Documents on policies by other authorities (Government, Ministry of Education and Training, etc.)

· Procedures for supervision or acquisition of feedbacks on the implementation of academic programs at various echelons;

· Details/records of academic program meetings between lecturers and heads of faculties;

· Ministry of Education and Training’s regulations on academic programs;

· Learners’ remarks and feedbacks on academic programs;

· Records of academic program meetings with recruiters;

· Educational contracts and programs with foreign partners;

· Lecturers’ internal documents related to the construction and development of academic programs;

· Details/records of academic program meetings with relevant local/national/international entities;

· Research programs and their connection with the university's regulations on construction and development of academic programs;

· Records of meetings with representatives of similar program lecturers from other universities;

· The university's regulations on the establishment of academic programs' goals;

· Details/records of meetings on academic programs;

· Other documents related to the construction and development of academic programs;

· Other evidences related to the content and structure of the university’s academic programs.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) show that the university's academic programs have lucid and specific goals, logical structure and systematic design?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) affirm that the university’s academic programs satiate requirements on standards of knowledge and skills and the labor market's demands for human resources?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Have the program’s goals and graduates’ capacities been described in clear details?

· Have the goals of each level of the university’s academic programs been clearly defined?

· Do the programs apportion general knowledge and specialized erudition in logical manner?

· Do the programs arrange units/modules/subjects in rational manner?

· Do the programs satisfy each educational level’s requirements on knowledge and skills? How are requirements satisfied in details?

· Are methods of teaching and evaluation for educational units/modules/subjects closely linked with educational goals? Are requirements of subsequent specialized training programs satisfied? Have recruiters' demands and learners' needs been satisfied?

· Is there any evidence of the university’s excogitation of learners’ needs? Have such needs been integrated into program development?

· Does the university present evidences of its perception of domestic and foreign labor markets’ demands?

· Does the university have any measure or approach (evaluation methods) to survey the contentment of people concerned by the programs, particularly the learners?

Criterion 3.3. Full-time programs and continuing education courses are designed for quality assurance according to regulations.

Keywords: Program, full time, continuing, design, according to regulations, quality.

Evidences of the criterion

· Full-time academic programs;

· Continuing education courses;

· Regulations of the Ministry of Education and Training and the university on full-time academic programs and continuing education courses;

· Records of summary/assessment of the quality of full-time and/or continuing education;

· Other evidences related to the assurance of quality of full-time academic programs and continuing education courses.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the compliance of the design/construction of full-time academic programs and continuing education courses with regulations?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the quality assurance of the design/construction of full-time academic programs and continuing education courses?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s application of a standard program and universal benchmark for full-time academic programs and continuing education courses?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Examine full-time academic programs and continuing education courses;

· Do full-time academic programs differ from continuing education courses? What are the differences?

· Does the benchmark for full-time academic programs differ from that of continuing education courses? What are the differences?

· Does the university plan to have an affiliate manage full-time academic programs and continuing education courses in general? If yes, describe procedures and working methods of the affiliate;

· Examine the university’s system of management and educational quality assurance, if available;

· Examine the level of contrast between full-time academic programs and continuing education courses;

· Interview:

- Training management officials shall be asked about the regulations of the Ministry of Education and Training and the university on full-time academic programs and continuing education courses;

- Lecturers and learners shall be asked about the quality of full-time academic programs and continuing education courses;

- Training management officials and deans shall be asked about the university’s plans for assurance of quality of full-time academic programs and continuing education courses.

Criterion 3.4. Academic programs are supplemented and modified on periodic basis with reference to advanced international programs, feedbacks from recruiters, graduates, educational organizations and others in order to satiate local and national demands for human resources for economic - social development.

Keywords: Program, supplement, modify, reference, feedback, satiate.

Evidences of the criterion

- As per Criterion 3.1;

· Records of meetings between officials and lecturers on revision and supplementation of academic programs, learners' feedbacks;

· Internal documents related to academic programs;

· Educational and frameworks programs, and their goals in the last 5 years;

· Records of academic program meetings by professional/occupational organizations, recruiters and alumni;

· Other evidences related to the supplementation and revision of the university’s academic programs.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) manifest the university’s periodic supplementation and revision (official and non-official) of academic programs?

· Is there any evidence of changes of academic programs/courses/subjects as a result of the process of supplementation and revision?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) manifest that academic programs have been supplemented and modified with reference to advanced international programs, ideas from recruiters, graduaters and relevant organizations in order to satiate demands for human resources in economic - social sectors, particularly in local areas?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Examine the revisability of academic programs;

· Examine the frequency of additions and revisions of academic programs/

· Determine the faculties/branches in need of reexamination of academic programs;

· Do plans for supplementation and revision of academic programs consider the university’s actual conditions with reference to other universities? (in particular, universities with rival programs);

· Have academic programs been updated as per specialist aspects of disciplines? Have recruiters participated in the renovation of the university's academic programs?

· Does the university set up procedures to examine the congruity and updates of academic programs on periodic basis? Is there any evidence of the university’s procedures for supplementation and revision of academic programs as a result of its examination?

· Does the university contemplate advanced programs (particularly rival academic programs) across the world and in other nations?

· Does the university obtain feedbacks from the alumni when reviewing academic programs?

· Interview: Lecturers, officials managing academic programs, certain members of the School council, deans, recruiters and alumni.

Criterion 3.5. The design of academic programs enables bridge to other levels of education and academic programs.

Keywords: Program, design, bridge

Evidences of the criterion

· Academic programs are designed for upward bridge, aligned bridge, internal bridge and external bridge;

· Records of meetings on bridge program design;

· Records of meetings with other universities/colleges on educational bridge;

· The detailed outlines of each unit/module/subject of bridge programs;

· Agreements with other universities/colleges on educational bridge;

· Internal documents related to bridge programs or agreements among universities regarding academic programs for learners' advancement to a higher educational level/program upon their completion of the lower ones.

· Other evidences related to the bridging of the university’s academic programs.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s design of academic programs for upward and aligned bridge? What are the results?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) manifest that the design of academic programs upholds level-based bridge and conforms to regulations on credit transfer for educational bridge?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Do the university’s academic programs manifest the connection of various levels of education?

· Do teaching methods vary at different levels of education?

· Is learners’ advancement from an educational level to a higher one accessible?

· Is it simple to change from a full-time program to a part-time one or vice versa?

· Is it straightforward to transfer from a university to another?

· Does learners’ self-study degree ascend during their pursuit of education in the university or upon their advancement to a higher level? Is such degree defined in lecturers’ teaching objectives?

· Do learners’ quality (knowledge, skills, etc.), upon graduation, correspond with requirements of academic programs?

· Interview:

- Lecturers, managerial officials, certain members of the school council, deans, managerial officials responsible for construction, design and development of academic programs, and relevant entities shall be asked about bridge programs;

- Lecturers shall be asked about procedures for academic program design and methods to cooperate with other universities/colleges;

- Learners advancing to higher education levels shall be asked about the issues for transfer from an educational level to another;

· Is there any evidence of agreements on educational bridge and plans for implementation?

· Do academic programs obstruct learners' transfer from a university to another or from an educational level to another?

· Determine academic programs to be reformed to facilitate learners' easy transfer from an educational level to another or from a university to another;

· Discuss plans/activities for improvement of bridge programs’ quality.

Criterion 3.6. Academic programs are assessed on periodic basis and the findings of such assessments facilitate the augmentation of programs’ quality.

Keywords: Program, assess, augmentation, quality.

Evidences of the criterion

. Documents/evidences that describe principles, regulations and procedures for assessment of academic programs;

· Documents/evidences that describe the university’s quality management systems;

. Documents/evidences of academic programs, details/records of meetings on assessment and augmentation of programs;

· Management mechanism, resources (human resource, finance) for assessment and augmentation of programs;

· Surveys on lecturers' and learners’ opinions on programs’ quality;

· Other evidences related to the assessment and augmentation of the quality of the university’s academic programs.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s periodic examination of academic programs?

· If yes, how many programs have been examined in the past time?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate that findings of the assessments contribute to the augmentation of the quality of programs? Is there any evidence?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university establish a council to examine the assessments and the programs augmented?

· What are the opinions of managerial officials and lecturers about the findings of the assessments of programs?

· What are the programs augmented?

· Do plans for periodic assessment and educational quality augmentation apply to every program of the university?

· Is there any program not periodically assessed and augmented?

· Discuss plans/activities for assessment and augmentation of the quality of programs.

Standard 4: Training activities (7 criteria)

Criterion 4.1. Training modes are diversified and satiate learners’ educational needs according to regulations.

Keywords: Diversify, training mode, satiate, regulation.

Evidences of the criterion

· The university’s regulations on academic programs and training modes;

· Student manuals;

- The website of the university;

· Contracts, records, work agendas with universities that learners attended;

· Other evidences related to the diversification of the university’s training modes.

Questions regarding the criterion

- Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) describe the university’s existing modes of training?

· Do the reports indicate that the university's existing modes of training satiate learners’ educational demands?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university verify learners’ demands?

· Does the university provide training modes according to the following assessments:

- Previous knowledge and experience of new learners;

- Strategies for fortification and assistance of learners’ education;

· Is there any evidence that the university/faculties/branches have planned schedules, budget, personnel to assess and examine the congruence and feasibility of various training modes in order to meet educational demands?

· Interview: Officials managing academic programs and assuring quality, deans, educators, lecturers, learners and graduates shall be asked about:

- Academic programs and training modes, their suitability and learners’ educational demands;

- Faculties/branches or academic programs, whose training modes and teaching methods do not meet learners’ demands;

- Plans/activities for improvement of training modes and teaching methods to meet learners' demands.

Criterion 4.2. Learners’ academic results are certified through year-based and unit-based systems. Plans are formulated to convert year-based educational procedures to the flexible and conformable credit-based system that supports learners.

Keywords: Academic result, year-based, unit, plan, educational procedures, credit-based system

Evidences of the criterion

· Particulars/detailed outlines of programs and subjects;

· Plans for conversion of year-based system to credit-based system;

· The university’s credit-based academic programs;

· System for assessment;

· Details/records and working agendas with officials managing programs and lecturers;

· Plans for assurance of programs’ quality;

· Program management activities in the last 5 years and subsequent years;

· Documents/evidences regarding academic results and programs or regulations on program structure (e.g. amount of credits per course);

· Other evidences related to year-based and credit-based systems.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate that procedures and regulations on certification of learners’ academic performance are year-based and unit-based or credit-based?

· Do the reports assert the university’s plans for conversion from year-based to credit-based education?

· Are there other educational systems that are flexible and suitable to support learners?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university operate a system to retain learners’ year-based or credit-based academic results?

· Do lecturers and learners comprehend the operational method of the system?

· Are plans for conversion subject to the courses' educational goals?

· Does the university set up a credit-based system or other educational systems that are adaptive, flexible, transparent and conformable to learners' demands? What are the evidences?

· Interview: Managerial officials, lecturers and learners shall be asked about:

- Current educational systems and plans of the university

- The flexibility and congruence of the credit-based system or other educational systems that the university has planned to implement

· Identify faculties/branches or academic programs, whose certification of learners’ academic performance is not flexible, favorable and conformable to learners’ demands.

· Discuss plans/activities for improvement of the certification of learners’ academic performance in their favor.

Criterion 4.3. The university has plans and methods to evaluate lecturers' teaching activities in rational manner. The university focuses on the renovation of teaching and learning methods and approaches for assessment of learners' academic results towards the development of learners’ capacities for self-learning, self-research and teamwork.

Keywords: Plan, evaluate, teaching activity, renovation, teaching and learning method, assessment of academic results.

Evidences of the criterion

· Particulars/detailed outlines of academic programs;

· Plans for assurance of quality of lecturers and learners (What is assessed? Who conducts assessments? How do assessments occur? How often do they happen? How long do they take place?);

· Program management activities in the last 5 years and subsequent years;

· Documents/evidences regarding methods of teaching/assessment;

· Internal documents on lecturers’ teaching methodology;

· Written materials/documents on research activities of the university/lecturers;

· Details/records of meetings on the implementation and renovation of teaching methods;

· Budget for supplementary courses for lecturers to improve teaching methodology and percentage of lecturers attending such courses.

· Remarks on the effectiveness of the courses;

· Written materials/documents on competency assessment, implementation and renovation of lecturers' methods of teaching, testing and evaluation of academic performance;

· Other evidences related to the renovation of methods of teaching, learning and assessment, and the evaluation of the university’s lecturers;

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s plans and methods to evaluate lecturers’ teaching activities?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s renovation of teaching and learning methods and assessment approaches to uphold self-study, self-research and teamwork?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university have procedures to evaluate teaching activities?

· Does the university have plans to evaluate lecturers?

· Does the university have policies and regulations to encourage lecturers’ renovation and improvement of teaching methods?

· Does the university provide lecturers with technical/information technology aids? (Ask for documents, if available)

· Are lecturers’ assessments of learners’ academic performance considered effective?

· Do lecturers consider guidance on learners’ self-study/self-research/project-based tasks/teamwork as an effective teaching method? Do lecturers implement such methods?

· Do learners acknowledge their right to provide feedbacks on teaching quality?

· Interview: Deans, lecturers, education management officials, employees and learners shall be asked about the said matters. The interview may cover this criterion and the Criterion 4.1 simultaneously.

· Identify faculties/branches or academic programs whose assessment of teaching quality has not been conducted or has been unproductive;

· Identify faculties/branches or academic programs, in which guidance on learners’ self-study/self-research/project-based tasks/teamwork has not been gained attention and has not been provided;

· Discuss plans/activities for renovation of teaching quality assessments and provision of guidance on learners’ self-study/self-research/project-based tasks/teamwork;

· Can learners evaluate and comment on lecturers’ teaching quality? What are the methods and procedures?

· Do lecturers receive constructive ideas from managerial officials/colleagues? What are the methods and procedures?

· Does the university carry out schemes to improve and renovate teaching methodology? Are such schemes subject to the said assessments of teaching quality?

Criterion 4.4. Methods and procedures for testing and assessment are diverse, solemn, unbiased, precise, just and conformable to training modes, learning types, subjects' goals in order to maintain the quality standard of training modes, to assess learners’ level of amassment of specialist knowledge, practical skills and abilities to identify and solve issues.

Keywords: Method, procedure for testing and assessment, diverse, solemn, unbiased, precise, just, conformable to training modes, quality assurance, assess the level of amassment.

Evidences of the criterion

· Particulars/detailed outlines of subjects;

· Plans for assurance of academic programs’ quality;

· Documents on testing and assessment, including relevant statutes and regulations on test question design and grading, publication of testing and assessment methods, grading records, complaints, decisions on establishment of councils of examination, testing and assessment, etc.;

· Other evidences related to the university's testing and assessment of academic performance.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s implementation of methods and procedures for testing and assessment, which maintain the quality standard of training modes and have been diverse, solemn, unbiased, precise, just, conformable to training modes, learning types, subjects' goals and?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s methods and arrangements for testing and assessment, which assess learners’ amassment of specialist knowledge, practical skills and abilities to identify and settle issues?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Evaluate the university’s methods and procedures for testing and assessment

· Do the university’s methods and procedures for testing and assessment maintain their solemnity, impartiality, equality and accordance with training modes? Is the quality standard of training modes maintained?

· Do the university’s methods and procedures for testing and assessment assess learners’ amassment of specialist knowledge, practical skills and abilities to identify and solve issues?

· Detect faculties/branches or academic programs, whose methods and procedures for testing and assessment are not just, precise or conformable to educational objectives;

· Discuss plans/activities for amelioration of methods and procedures for testing and assessment;

· Examine answer sheets/homework/essays from previous years;

· Examine evidences of the testing system’s assessment of learners’ practical skills and abilities to identify and settle issues;

· Interview: Deans, educators, lecturers, learners and alumni shall be asked if the university's testing and assessment activities fulfill requirements of the criterion.

Criterion 4.5. Learners’ academic performance is promptly notified and archived fully, accurately and safely. The conferment of degrees and certificates abides by regulations and is announced on the website of the university.

Keywords: Academic performance, notify, archive, accurate, safe, degree, certificate, abide by regulations, announce.

Evidences of the criterion

· Educational institutions' documentation for the management of learners' academic performance in one or two recent years, including:

- Academic performance that is stored safely and is accessible to entities bearing responsibilities and right to access;

- The university’s ICT system is precise and credible;

- Is the university’s storage system capable of retaining all information?

· Signed receipts and archives of degrees and certificates;

· The website of the university;

· Internal documents related to learners’ academic performance;

· Other evidences regarding the announcement and storage of learners' academic performance. . .

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) describe and furnish evidences of the prompt notification and full, precise and safe storage of academic performance?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) illustrate the compliance of the conferment of degrees and certificates with the regulations and the announcements on the university's website?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university have policies for testing and assessment?

· Where is learners’ academic performance stored (in documents or in computer files)? Is it secured (storage location, grade entry regulations, pass codes, fire safety, data safety via backup)?

· Does the university carry out measures to preclude wrongdoings in grade revision, degree conferment and grade-related document retention? (the university's seal, signatures, measures for retention of degree templates, printing, etc.);

· How is learners’ academic performance is notified?

· Do proceedings abide by regulations? E.g. the university’s information system, record system and grade entry system (ICT and documentation);

· Do errors occur profusely? How serious are they? What are the university’s solutions?

· Examine the university’s academic performance management system. Examine the punctuality of the notification of learners’ grades and the sufficiency and safety of documentation and conferment of degrees and certificates;

· Is academic performance notified to online learners?

· Identify procedures for management of learners’ academic performance and conferment of degrees and certificates to avoid possible errors. Discern the approaches for avoidance of errors;

· Examine complaints or criticism against errors and safety level of document retention;

· Identify mistakes in data security or degree conferment;

· Discuss plans/activities for improvement of systems for grade entry, storage and degree conferment.

· Interview: Deans, managers, lecturers, employees, learners and graduates. Focus on opinions of lecturers and learners on the university's approaches to fulfill the criterion’s requirements.

Criterion 4.6. The university has databases on its academic activities, graduation, post-graduation employment and earning.

Keywords: Database, graduation, employment, earning.

Evidences of the criterion

· Database on the university’s academic activities (documentation, ICT system);

· Database on graduation, post-graduation employment and earning;

· Research on employment of graduates of the university and other universities;

· Other evidences regarding the university’s databases.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) demonstrate the university’s database on its academic activities?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) affirm the university’s database on graduation and graduates’ employment and earnings?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university survey graduates’ circumstances? If yes, how often do surveys occur?

· What is the annual graduation rate of the university?

· How many graduates are employed in 3 months, 6 months and one year upon graduation?

· How much do graduates earn?

· How many graduates are pleased with their jobs?

· Examine databases on the university’s academic activities

· Verify the university’s surveys on graduates’ earnings. Are surveys official or not? Are they reliable?

· Does the university survey the level of graduates’ contentment at their occupations?

· Interview: Concerned individuals, such as managerial officials or personnel from faculties/branches, shall be asked about the university’s databases.

Criterion 4.7. The university has plans to evaluate learners’ educational quality after graduation and to adapt its academic activities for social demands.

Keywords: Plan, evaluate, quality, adapt, academic activity.

Evidences of the criterion

· Plans for evaluation of the university’s quality in education;

· The university’s annual plans, including those for education;

· Plans for tracking of graduates;· Surveys on graduates;

· Learners’ remarks on educational quality;

· Social investigations into educational quality and recruiters' standpoints;

· Plans for revision and supplementation of academic programs with feedbacks, including those from graduates;

· Other evidences related to the assessment of graduates’ quality and revision of academic programs for heightened quality.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) manifest the plans for assessment graduates’ educational quality?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) demonstrate the plans for adaptation of academic activities to social demands?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· How are the university's plans for evaluation of educational quality established?

· How do educational plans materialize?

· Does the university have plans for tracking of graduates? How are the plans carried out?

· Does the university conduct surveys on graduates? How are the surveys conducted? · If surveys occur, what are learners’ remarks on the university’s quality in education?

· Does the university conduct social investigations into educational quality and recruiters’ opinions? What are the findings?

· Does the university have plans to revise and supplement academic programs with feedbacks, including those from graduates? Request evidences.

· Interview: Managerial officials, lecturers and graduates shall answer the questions above.

Criterion 5: Managerial officials, lecturers and employees (8 criteria)

Criterion 5.1. The university has plans to recruit, cultivate and develop lecturers and employees; to organize the appointment of managerial officials who fulfill objectives, functions, duties in accordance with the university's specific conditions. The university has clear and transparent criteria for recruitment and appointment.

Keywords: Plan, recruit, cultivate, develop, organize, appointment, fulfill, accordance, procedure, criteria, clear, transparent.

Evidences of the criterion

· The university’s regulations or written guidelines on human resource management;

· The university’s regulations or written guidelines on recruitment and human resource management;

- The website of the university;

· Self-evaluation by each official, lecturer or employee;

· Documents on human resource management for the university/faculties/branches, including personnel development plans in previous years, current year and subsequent years;

· Lists of courses and seminars that the university's officials have participated in;

· Other evidences related to the university’s development of lecturers and handling of managerial officials.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s annual plans for recruitment, cultivation and development of lecturers and employees?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s arrangements for appointment of managerial officials who fulfill objectives, functions, duties in accordance with the university's specific conditions?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university's clear and transparent procedures and criteria for recruitment and appointment?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university posses evidences regarding its plans for development and cultivation of personnel?

. If yes, do the plans illustrate procedures for training and development of capacities and professional competency?

· Is there any evidence of the implementation of the plans? Do evidences indicate the personnel's acquisition of training as planned?

· Is there any evidence of the university’s periodic evaluation and review of plans for development and cultivation of its personnel?

· Examine documents/evidences as stated above and plans for development of the university’s human resources.

· Interview: Lecturers and employees shall be interviewed to verify evidences regarding the Criterion.

· If documented evidences do not suffice, further interview should be carried out on managerial officials, lecturers, employees and learners to determine the university’s fulfillment of this Criterion.

Criterion 5.2 Democratic rights of managerial officials, lecturers and employees in the university are assured.

Keywords: Official, lecturer, employee, democratic rights assured.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents on the organizational structure of the university, that illustrates the School council, science council, etc.;

· Regulations on democratic rights in the university;

· Written records of annual employees’ meetings;

· Written records of meetings over the evaluation of officials and lecturers;

· Written records of the Party committee's meetings;

· Written accusations, complaints;

· People’s inspectorate's reports on settlement of accusations and complaints;

· Other evidences regarding the assurance of democratic rights in the university.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s regulations and activities for assurance of democratic rights of its personnel?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Is there any evidence of the compliance of the university’s organizations with democratic principles? Do they operate effectively?

· Does the university have a school council? Do science advisory councils exist? Is a people’s inspectorate available?

· Do these organizations’ duties and authority conform to regulations? How often do the organizations hold meetings? Are written records of the meetings available?

· Interview: University-level management officials, deans, lecturers, employees and learners shall be asked about:

- The university’s regulations and activities for assurance of democratic rights

- Their faith in their democratic rights’ being assured by the university's current statutes.

Criterion 5.3. The university has policies and measures to enable managerial officials and lecturers to engage in domestic and overseas professional and specialist activities.

Keywords: Policy, measure, enable, engage, professional, specialist, domestic and overseas.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s policies for development of its personnel’s professional capacities;

· Regulations of the university/faculties/branches on budget, policies and rules that facilitate lecturers' search for sponsorship of their professional development;

· Lists of officials and lecturers participating in domestic and overseas seminars/science training;

· Decisions on human resources in connection with professional and specialist activities;

· Other evidences related to policies and measures for the university’s officials’ professional activities.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate policies and measures that the university has implemented to spur managerial officials and lecturers to participate in domestic and overseas professional activities?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the results of the university’s policies and measures to encourage managerial officials and lecturers to take part in domestic and overseas professional activities?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Is there any evidence of the university’s stimulation of the engagement of managerial officials and lecturers’ engagement in domestic and overseas professional activities?

· Is there any evidence of the university’s contracts and cooperation agreements with foreign partners? Such evidences may be found in the university’s personnel’s professional activities (e.g. meeting records, seminars taken, etc.)

· Examine the workload of managerial officials and lecturers to determine whether they have adequate opportunities to develop professional capacities/occupational skills?

· Interview: University-level management officials, deans, lecturers and employees shall be asked about:

- The university’s programs to develop specialties of managerial officials and lecturers. The efficiency of such programs.

- Opportunities for managerial officials and lecturers to participate in domestic and overseas seminars?

- Opportunities for managerial officials and lecturers to engage in domestic and overseas seminars of their choice.

- The university’s policies/regulations for lecturers to devote time to research.

Criterion 5.4. Managerial officials possess moral qualities, professional managerial capability and accomplish duties assigned.

Keywords: Managerial official, moral quality, managerial capability, accomplish duties.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents on human resources, including:

· Managerial officials' science records, which indicate their management experience;

· Assessments of managerial officials' performance of management duties, specialties and moral qualities;

· Managerial officials’ self-evaluations of their performance of management duties, specialties and moral qualities;

· Feedbacks from lecturers and employees on managerial officials’ performance of management duties, specialties and moral qualities;

· Decisions on disciplinary forfeits (if any)

· Statements, accusations, complaints;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) demonstrate the moral qualities and professional managerial capability of the university’s managerial officials?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) demonstrate the managerial officials’ accomplishment of duties assigned to them?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Are evidences of managerial officials’ specialties, moral qualities and fulfillment of duties assigned, as per self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion), truthful?

· Interview: Deans, lecturers and employees shall answer these questions:

- Do the university’s managerial officials possess adequate moral qualities to fulfill their representation of the university on internal and external matters? Does reprimand occur?

- Do the university's managerial officials abide by its procedures and policies when organizing their tasks?

- Do the university’s managerial officials usually peruse and settle essential needs of the university’s specialist units (research or teaching)?

- Are the university’s managerial officials’ democratic rights assured on campus?

Criterion 5.5. The quantity of lecturers suffices to implement academic programs and science research and to accomplish educational development strategies’ targets for reduction of average student/lecturer ratio.

Keywords: Lecturer, quantity suffices, implement, target, ratio.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s educational development strategies;

· The full list of the university's lecturers;

· The ratio of learner to lecturer in each discipline;

· Internal documents of faculties/branches on the ratio of learner to lecturer;

· The list of the university’s annual science studies;

· The website of the university;

· Does the quantity of academic programs/lecturers conform to the university’s regulations? If not, please state reasons.

· Documents on human resource management, including:

· Percentage of personnel absent/sick/quitting (quantity, frequency, time and regulations, etc.);

· Lists of tenure and visiting lecturers by subject;

· The quantity of lecturers per subject;

· Other evidences regarding the gradual reduction of the university’s learner/lecturer ratio.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the university’s sufficiency of lecturers to implement academic programs and conduct science research?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate the gradual standardization of the lecturer/learner ratio?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Does the university have evidences of its procedures/policies/regulations on supervision of the structure and performance of lecturers?

· What is the ratio of learner to lecturer?

· What is the lecturers' ratio of teaching to research?

· Peruse and examine all documents/evidences as stated above

· Examine the ratio of lecturer over learners and lecturers’ ratio of teaching to research.

· Interview: Deans, lecturers, employees, learners and alumni shall answer these questions:

- What is the average quantity of learners in a class? Does such quantity impoverish the effectiveness of teaching and learning?

- Does the number of lecturers suffice for each academic program? Are the university’s regulations observed? Is it what the university has announced to learners?

- Does the university give titles to lecturers (teaching assistants, lecturers, main lecturers, etc.)? Are there regulations and policies for each title?

- Is there any difficulty in assigning duties to lecturers in any academic program? If yes, what are the solutions?

Criterion 5.6. Lecturers meet competence standard through educator’s training as per regulations. Lecturers teach according to their trained specialties, achieve professional structure and competence standard as per regulations and possess capacities for foreign language and computing to meet demands in education and science research.

Keywords: Lecturer, competence standard, structure, foreign language, computing.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Summary science records of lecturers;

· Lecturers' degrees and diplomas in their specialties, computing and foreign language;

· Each academic faculty’s list of its lecturers;

· Science studies by lecturers in the last 5 years;

· Science publications (books, articles, science discussion, etc. by lecturers in the last 5 years);

· Evidences of lecturers’ engagement on domestic and overseas science seminars and presentation of their research findings;

· Other evidences regarding specialties, foreign language and computing level of the university's lecturers.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) assert the university’s lecturers’ professional competence as per regulations?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) affirm that the university’s lecturers achieve educational structure and give lessons as per their specialties?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) indicate sufficient evidences that the university’s lecturers possess capacities for foreign language and computing to meet demands in education and science research?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Is there adequate evidence of lecturers’ specialties and structure?

· Is there evidence of lecturers’ diplomas in foreign language (e.g. TOEFL or IELTS for English)?

· Is there evidence of lecturers’ diplomas in computing (e.g. level A, B or C in computing)

· Interview: Deans, lecturers, employees, learners and alumni shall be mainly asked about:

- Learners’ evaluation of lecturers’ level of specialty;

- Lecturers’ capacity for foreign language and learners’ justifications of their conclusions.

- Lecturers’ capacity for computing and learners’ justifications of their conclusions.

- Lecturers’ updates to their specialties.

Criterion 5.7. Lecturers’ specialist experience and age reduction are balanced as per regulations.

Keywords: Lecturer, balance, experience, age reduction.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Policies on management and development of the university’s human resources, budgets;

· Budget plans for development of lecturers;

· Plans and campaigns for recruitment of lecturers;

· Documents and records of the university's lecturers, which specify their work experience and age;

· Human resource documents and plans for training and cultivation of the university's lecturers;

· Personnel's self-evaluation reports and appendices (managerial/guiding officials’ remarks, certificates of merit, disciplinary measures, etc.);

· Other evidences regarding the balance of seasoned and inexperienced lecturers.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) illustrate and evince the balance of experience and young age of the university’s lecturers?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Is there evidence of the university’s policies for training and cultivation of lecturers?

· Is there evidence of the university’s policies for recruitment or retention of young lecturers of qualified caliber to meet the needs of personnel development?

· How many young people are there in the university’s lecturers? How many young lecturers are there in each of the university’s faculties?

· Do the university’s young lecturers meet requirements of competency and teaching capacity?

· Does the university have policies for guiding/assisting young lecturers? Is there budget for cultivation of young personnel?

· Interview: Young and veteran lecturers shall be asked about the university's regulations on its personnel. Questions may include:

- Does the university have exclusive programs for young lecturers?

- Does the university have policies and regulations to assure professional training and cultivation of young lecturers as per its requirements?

- Do young lecturers possess diplomas and capacities as per the university’s requirements? If not, does the university have policies and budget to support their pursuit of further education for regulated diplomas according to the university’s requirements?

Criterion 5.8. Technicians and employees suffice in quantity, possess professional capacities and receive periodic training to provide effective supports to teaching and learning activities and science research.

Keywords: Technician, employee, quantity, capacity, training, effective.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Policies on management and development of the university’s human resources, budgets;

· Plans of budget for development of personnel, including technicians;

· Documents and records of all technicians of the university;

· Documents on human resources and policies for training and cultivation of the university's technicians;

· Other evidences related to the university’s technicians and employees.

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) illustrate and evince the sufficiency, professional capacities and regular training of the university’s technicians and employees to provide effective supports to the university's activities of teaching and science research?

· Do the self-evaluation reports (particulars regarding the criterion) illustrate and evince the efficiency of services by the university’s technicians and employees?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Seek all documents/evidences of the university’s technicians and employees and their professional diplomas.

· Seek written summaries and assessments of the quality and performance of the university's technicians and employees;

· Examine technicians' absence and resignation (frequency, transfer, etc.)

· Interview: Managerial officials, lecturers, employees and learners shall be asked about the capacities of technicians and their services (effects on teaching and learning activities and science research). Questions may include:

- How many technicians are there in the University or in a faculty/branch? Do technicians suffice in quantity?

- Do technicians in the University/faculties/branches possess adequate professional capacities?

- Do technicians in the University/faculties/branches receive regular professional training?

- Does the university carry out or outsource the training?

- Are technicians in the University/faculties/branches, when in need, always available to support managerial officials, lecturers, employees and learners? How is technicians' sense of responsibility? Do they provide effective supports to the university’s teaching and learning activities and science research?

Standard 6: Learners (9 criteria)

Criteria 6.1. Learners are given full guidance on academic programs, testing and assessment and the Ministry of Education and Training's regulations on training.

Keywords: Full guidance, academic program, testing and assessment, regulations on training.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s regulations on provision of written guidelines on academic programs and relevant regulations to learners;

· The university’s annual work schedule;

· Documents on educational objectives as announced at the start of a course;

· Documents on academic curriculum as announced upon the commencement of a course;

· Guiding documents on the enforcement of the Ministry of Education and Training's regulations on training;

· Measures for promulgation of regulations on training and guidelines;

· Documents on academic programs’ entry and exit standards of knowledge and skills;

· Documents that regulate testing and assessment of academic performance;

· Findings of surveys or interviews with learners, managerial officials, lecturers on the said matters;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university implement measures to provide learners with information on academic programs and training regulations?

· What are the university’s measures to promulgate or provide information to learners?

· Are evaluation results or learners’ remarks on written guidelines and measures of promulgation available? What are the results of evaluation?

· What are the remarks of lecturers and managerial officials on the guidance given to learners on the said matters?

· Do learners receive sufficient information to comprehend academic programs and the Ministry of Education and Training’s regulations on training, courses’ particulars and goals and graduation requirements?

· Are learners informed of regulations on testing arrangements of each subject? What is the method of academic grading? What are the requirements on eligibility for graduation examination?

· Do the university’s website and bulletins give information on general academic programs? What are the particulars of the subjects? What are other relevant regulations? Is information up-to-date?

· Does the university have a Student manual?

· Does the university have booklets/flyers? Do such materials mention the requirements of this criterion?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· The core requirement of this criterion is the university's actual provision of full information to learners and its supportive activities and timely elucidation of such information;

· Discern these matters upon examination of documents and written evidences retained at the university:

· Is the information in documents/ written materials from the university reliable? (date of issue, zero difference or discrepancy in statistical figures in the documents);

· Do academic programs specify educational goals? Are there general regulations on examination or testing?

· Do particulars of each subject state its specific regulations on examination/testing and requirements for learners? Is there a reference list?

· Examine statistical figures on learners violating training regulations (over-extended absence, breach of regulations on testing/examination, etc.);

· Examine reports and evaluation results of the university, faculties and organizations (particularly the student association and the youth union) regarding the guidance given to learners on academic programs and relevant regulations.

· Interview: The leadership, specialists from the faculty of training, faculties of political affairs and students' affairs, representatives of learners and organizations shall be interviewed.

Criterion 6.2. Learners have assured social benefits, health examination as per regulations on school-based health care, favorable conditions to engage in musical activities, physical exercises and sports, and safety in the university’s premises.

Keywords: Social benefit, favorable conditions for activities, health examination, musical activity, physical exercise and sport.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents on social benefit policies related to learners, as announced at the beginning of a course;

· Measures to disseminate or update social benefits to learners;

· The public list of learners eligible for social benefits;

· Documents on the university’s schemes and regulations on implementation of various authorities’ social benefit policies;

· Personnel held responsible for implementing social benefit policies;

· Plans and reports on enforcement of regulations on learners’ health examination;

· Reports on musical activities, physical activities and sports;

· Musical events, physical activities and sports that occur on annual basis;

· Quantity of musical contests;

· Quantity of physical and sport competitions;

· Regulatory documents on security measures in the university;

· Documents/reports on responsibilities of the university’s guards;

· Survey results or learners’ remarks on the said activities;

· Preliminary/summary reports on the implementation of social benefit policies and recommendations for improvement of such activities;

· Statistics o commendation for the implementation of social benefit policies for learners;

· Statistics on commendation for musical events, physical activities and sports;

· Internal regulatory documents and regulations on safety of laboratories, workshops, dormitories, etc.;

· Number of cases of order disturbance and insecurity in the university’s premises on annual basis;

· Surveys and reports that compile learners’ opinions or remarks on the said activities;

· Annual schemes for student activities;

· Regulations on security and social safety in the university's premises;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Information regarding this criterion may be retained by the political affair faculty, student affair faculty, offices of organizations (Youth Union, Student Association, etc.), internal medical room (if any), student service divisions such as dormitory and clubs.

· Does the university provide services to support learners?

· Is health care service available? Is that service given gratis or paid?

· Do learners receive periodic health examination?

· Does the university have a medical room? Does the university hire physicians and nurses? How many are there?

· Are learners’ events and social activities conducted in the university's premises on annual basis? How often?

· Does the dormitory meet learners’ need of boarding? How much of the need is satisfied?

· Do the dormitory's facilities and services meet learners’ demands?

· To what extent do the services meet learners’ demands?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on facilities' conditions, regulations and implementation of social benefit policies to assure social benefits, health-related needs, physical and spiritual activities and safety for learners.

· Analyze and assess relevant information in documents from the university to elucidate the questions above;

· Visit the university’s clubs (if any), sports grounds, medical room and dormitory of the university.

· Interview: The leadership and specialists from the faculties of political affairs and student affairs; dormitory management board, medical room's personnel, learners’ representative and alumni shall be interviewed.

Criterion 6.3. Training in politics, ideology, ethics and conduct for learners is effective.

Keywords: Training in politics, ideology, ethics, conduct, effective.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulatory documents on learners’ training;

· Evidences of the dissemination of regulatory documents on learners’ training;

· Newspapers/written materials for learners’ training;

· Annual plans and preliminary/summary reports on political affairs and student affairs;

· Plans/regulations on learners’ extracurricular activities in domestic and global news, economics, politics and social affairs;

· Statistical figures and reports on annual extracurricular colloquies;

· Events that encourage learners to peruse and study politics and ideology;

· Percentage of learners participating in such events;

· Social work;

· Percentage of learners engaging in social events;

· Prizes/certificates of merit for engagement in such events;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· What activities and events manifest learners' training in politics, ideology, ethics and conduct in the university?

· Do activities and campaigns occur effectively? What figures and evidences demonstrate the efficiency of such activities?

· Is there any evidence, apart from the said documents, of the results of the university's political activities and student events?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Analyze and assess information and statistical figures from the university.

· Interview: Learners’ representative, alumni, leadership and specialists from faculties of political affairs and student affairs, officials from relevant organizations, etc.

Criterion 6.4. Activities for the Communist Party and relevant organizations produce good effects on learners’ training in politics, ideology, ethics and conduct.

Keywords: Activities for the Communist Party, organization, good effect, training in politics, ideology, ethics, conduct.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Directive documents from the university’s Party committee for the Youth union and learners' training in politics and ideology;

· Descriptive documents on functions and duties of organizations specialized in Youth union, Student association;

· Action plans of Youth unions in the university and faculties;

· Plans for Youth union’s activities in faculties and youth union sections;

- Descriptive documents on organizational structure and activities of the university's Student association;

· Documents and statistical figures on allocation of funds for the activities of the Youth union and Student association;

· Evidences of the collaboration between the university’s Party committee and governmental authorities on steering the activities of the Youth union and Student association in the university;

· Plans by the university’s Party committee on organization of activities in politics and in edification of learners joining the Communist Party;

· The list and percentage of learners taking Communist sympathizer classes;

· Percentage of learners who are the Youth union's members and commended for their achievements in events for training in ideology, ethics and conduct;

· Percentage of learners taking criticism or reprimand for their conduct violations;

· Percentage of learners breaching regulations on ideological and ethical training;

· Percentage of learners admitted into the Communist Party on annual basis;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· What have the university’s organizations done to support learners’ training in politics, ideology, ethics and conduct?

· Do learners participate in activities by the Student Association and the Ho Chi Minh City’s Youth Union? Why do/don’t they participate in such activities?

· Does the university evaluate learners’ political and ideological training halfway and at year’s end? If yes, is there summary report on the results? Does the university generate relevant statistical figures?

· Does the annual percentage of learners admitted into the Communist Party increase or decrease? Is there any report on reasons and improvements?

· Is there annual report on the evaluation of the said activities at various echelons, faculties or by students? What are the achievements and obstacles? What were the solutions to surmount obstacles?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on statistic figures on the results of political events and student events;

· Analyze and assess reports and statistic figures above to appraise the level of achievement and efficiency.

· Interview (groups and individuals): Representatives of learners and alumni, representatives of managerial officials from faculties of political affairs and student affairs, Party committee’s office, Youth union and Student association.

Criterion 6.5. Particular measures are implemented to provide constructive assistance to learners’ education and activities.

Keywords: Particular measure, constructive assistance to education and activities.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Artistic and musical clubs for learners in the university’s premises;

· Arenas for learners’ physical activities and sports in the university’s premises;

· Governmental authorities' collaboration with the Youth union and Student association to seek accommodation for learners (if the dormitory does not meet demands of boarding);

· The university provides services that lend or lease apparatus to learners at reasonable prices commensurate with learners’ financial conditions;

· Supportive actions for operation of refectories, canteen, credit grants, etc. for learners;

· Annual extracurricular activities for learners;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· What were the university's regulations and approaches to support learners’ education and activities?

· How are supportive services for learners’ education and activities provided? (e.g. health care, social activities, accommodation, dormitory, sports arenas, self-study areas, etc.)

· Do learners incur no charge when engaging in cultural and artistic clubs in the university?

· Do learners incur no charge when engaging in physical and sports activities at the university's arenas?

· The percentage of annual extracurricular activities for learners;

· Does the university conduct periodic surveys on students’ opinions on supportive actions for their education and activities in order to augment its satisfaction of learners’ demands?

· Have the findings of such surveys been publicized?

· Do reports on survey results offer any recommendations?

· Does the university consider and realize learners’ suggestions and reports on the said activities?

· Is there any salient issue regarding the order and security of the university and dormitory?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the examination of the constructive effects of the university's past actions and services to assist learners' education and activities. Are learners’ demands satisfied? If not, what are the reasons?

· Are the said actions assessed and enhanced on annual basis? Who carries out assessments (e.g. organizers, learners, organizations)?

· How does the university handle the results and recommendations of such assessments?

· Visit the dormitory, refectory, arenas, clubs, library, cultural and artistic areas in the university (if available).

· Interview: Representatives of learners from various courses, learners holding positions in the leaderships of organizations, officials from the university's Party committee, dormitory management personnel, employees from the refectory and canteen, etc.

Criterion 6.6. The university regularly propagandizes and edifies learners on ethics, sound conduct, sense of responsibility, law abidance, resolutions, policies and directions of the Communist Party and the Government, and the university’s internal regulations.

Keywords: Propagandize, edify, ethics, conduct, law, resolution, direction, policy, internal regulation.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s regulatory documents on responsibilities and personnel held responsible for propagandizing and edifying learners on ethics and sound conduct;

· Plans and past activities for learners’ study of politics, resolutions and policies of the Communist Party and Government, and the university’s regulations.

· Annual reports summarizing and evaluating the activities of propagation and edification;

· Awards and commendations given at various echelons for the said activities;

· The university’s solutions to prevent learners’ breach of laws and general regulations;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· How does the university conduct activities of propagation and inculcation of the resolutions and policies of the Communist Party and Government and general regulations? Is a faculty or organization designated to assume responsibilities for making plans and organizing the said activities?

· Does the university have documents to propagandize and guide students on ethical actions and desirable values? Where are such documents retained? Are they available gratis?

· Does the university evaluate the quantity of learners supporting and participating in the activities and the degree of their supports and participation? Which divisions organize surveys and assessments?

· Can learners give opinions and contribute to such assessments?

What are assessment results? Are results publicized?

· Does the university conduct measures to improve activities after assessments? Do learners advocate such improvements?

· What activities produce constructive effects?

· Is there any activity that gains no interest or low engagement rate from learners? If yes, does the university search for reasons? Have the activities been revised and ameliorated? (require specific comments)

· Do learners breach laws (traffic law, marriage law, copyright law, intellectual property law, etc.)? What is the annual rate of violations of laws? Does the rate falls or hikes? What leads to fluctuation?

· Does the university summarize the percentage of participants in events on study of laws and directions, resolutions and policies of the Communist Party and Government? What is the annual rate of participation?

· Is there any violation of regulations on examination? Is there any case of disciplinary forfeit against bad morality or conduct? Is there any case of reprimand or disciplinary forfeit against poor sense of academic responsibilities? What is the annual rate of such violations? What leads to the fluctuation of the rate of such violations? What are the preclusive and education measures?

· How many students are commended for their sense of responsibility in academic matters, activities and events? Have merit certificates or awards been bestowed at various echelons?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the constructive effects of the edification and propagation on learners’ awareness and actions.

· Does the university evaluate and improve the activities on annual basis?

· Interview: Representatives of learners from various courses, representatives of the Youth union and Student association, the leadership and specialists from faculties of political affairs and student affairs and from the library, representatives of lecturers, the university’s heads in charge of managerial tasks and organizations.

Criterion 6.7. The university undertakes efficient supportive activities to boost the rate of graduates’ employment commensurate with their fields of education.

Keywords: Support, efficient, boost the rate, employment commensurate with fields of education.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Annual reports on the university's coaction with enterprises and recruiters to provide learners' internship, to conduct technology research and transfer that involve learners being employed, and to recruit learners for organizations and companies;

· Annual summary reports on the number of learners performing practical work and research in businesses, organizations and recruiters' offices;

· Documents on the establishment of students' career counseling units and on their functions and duties;

· Documents or images of annual recruitment exhibitions for learners and graduates;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university have career counseling units responsible for facilitating students' search for jobs?

· Does the university engage in undertakings or coaction with recruiters and companies to provide them with graduates?

· Does the university hold annual job fairs for learners?

If yes, is there any report on the results of such job fairs (the number of learners finding work through the fairs)? Do learners’ jobs correspond with their education? What experience was gained from the job fairs?

· Apart from job fairs, does the university run seminars for enterprises, organizations and recruiters to present special matters and converse with learners and lecturers on annual basis?

· Does the university consult recruiters about its students’ knowledge and skills every year? Does the university, thence, update knowledge and professional skills in academic programs for senior students?

· Do learners receive aids from the university, faculties and organizations to prepare their hunt for jobs after graduation?

· Do learners receive advices on writing job applications and curriculum vitas and attending interviews?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on supportive activities that actually boost the rate of learners' appropriate employment after their graduation;

· Analyze summary reports on the number of learners finding work through job fairs;

· Does the rate of employment go up or down?

· Verify whether learners’ job search skills and social knowledge are enhanced through extracurricular or curricular events every year;

· What are the remarks of lecturers and learners on such events?

· Does the university connect with its alumni to establish sources of employment for learners?

· Interview: Representatives of senior learners, representatives of the Youth union, Student association, representatives of the university’s employment support divisions (if any) or faculties of political affairs and student affairs, representatives of companies and organizations that connect with the university.

Criterion 6.8. Learners are capable of finding and creating professions after graduation. In the first year after graduation, over 50% of the graduates find jobs conformable to their education.

Keywords: Capable for finding and generating professions, first year, over 50%, conformable to education.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Activities of the alumni association;

· The list of the university's alumni and their contact addresses;

· Annual reports on surveys of employment in the first year after graduation, including procedures, tools and findings of the surveys.

· The university's employment support divisions' activities that assist learners to create jobs for themselves or other people;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university have divisions specialized in maintaining contact and managing data on graduates? If yes, what are their annual activities?

· Does the university carry out annual activities to rendezvous or communicate with graduates?

· Does the university provide aids or the alumni themselves organize an alumni association?0} If there is an alumni association, does it provide data or cooperate with the university to investigate into the employment of students who graduated 1 year ago or have just completed education?

· What measures has the university exploited to survey and collect data on graduates' employment?

· Does the university organize meetings for itself, alumni and senior students to discuss job search and creation skills and to maintain contact with each other for reciprocal supports?

· What is the annual percentage of graduates creating their own professions?

· What is the annual percentage of graduates creating jobs for other people?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the efficiency of the compilation of figures on graduates' employment and the revision of the university's database.

· Analyze the yearly fluctuation of the employment rate;

· Examine survey sheets and measures to acquire figures to determine the reliability of such figures. Are the figures obsolete or up-to-date?

· Interview: Alumni association or faculties of political affairs and student affairs, student management division, representatives of senior learners, alumni, recruiters, representatives of the Youth union and Student association, the university’s heads in charge of political affairs, organizations, representatives of heads of faculties, and lecturers.

Criterion 6.9. Learners can engage in the assessment, at the end of a subject, of the lecturer's caliber of tutelage and participate in the evaluation of the university’s educational quality before graduation.

Keywords: Assessment, caliber of tutelage, educational quality upon graduation.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Do the university’s documents stipulate learners' engagement in the assessment of lecturers' caliber of tutelage at the end of subjects;

· Do the university’s documents prescribe that learners participate in the evaluation of the university’s educational quality before graduation?

· Do the university’s documents define functions and duties of divisions that plan and organize learners' engagement in the assessment of the caliber of tutelage and the quality of academic programs?

· Do the university’s documents set procedures for learners to assess the caliber of tutelage and the quality of academic programs, for the processing of figures and reports and response to assessment results, and for post-assessment activities?

· Reports on learners’ post-subject assessment of lecturers’ caliber of tutelage at the end of the first semester and the year, which indicate procedures, tools and findings;

· Annual reports on learners’ assessment of the university's educational quality before graduation, which indicate procedures, tools and findings;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· When (month/year) did the university generate regulatory documents on learners’ engagement in the assessment of the caliber of tutelage and the quality of academic programs?

· Do regulations define procedures for assessment and response to assessment results?

· What division is assigned to manage and organize the work?

· What division is responsible for designing and revising survey forms?

· What division is responsible for processing and retaining survey figures?

· Do the university and internal organizations propagandize to learners the meaning and benefits of their participation of assessments?

· What is learners’ attitude when they engage in assessments?

· Do learners’ assessments abide by general regulations by the Ministry of Education and Training, the university and faculties?

· Does the university arrange reviews of learners' assessments and improve procedures every year?

· Does the university peruse results of learners' assessments and, thence, improve teaching methods, modify academic programs and augment education supporting actions for learners?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion's core requirement is that learners can engage in the assessment of the caliber of tutelage and the quality of academic programs with standardized survey forms and that the assessments produce constructive effects;

· Analyze regulations and procedures for assessment to determine whether the university clearly stipulates duties, authority, schedule for assessment, collection and processing of assessment data;

· Read annual reports on analysis of assessments of subjects and the university’s academic programs;

· Read summary reports on evaluation of the organization of learners’ assessment of the caliber of tutelage and the university's educational quality;

· Verify the university’s procedures for handling recommendations or exploiting assessment results to ameliorate the quality of tutelage and education.

· Interview: Representatives of learners from every course, representatives of branches and lecturers, heads of faculties, the university’s leadership, divisions assigned to organize assessments, process and retain data, and representatives of alumni who have recently graduated.

Standard 7: Science research, application, development and transfer of technology (7 criteria)

Criterion 7.1. The university establishes and implements science and technology action plans commensurate with its missions of research and development.

Keywords: Establish, implement, science and technology plans, commensurate, mission.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents on the university’s medium-term and long-term strategies for science and technology development;

· Plans for the university's annual science and technology activities;

· Regulatory documents on procedures for setting up and conducting the university’s science studies; standards for ratification of science works and studies in the university and faculties;

· The record of funds allocated to the university's annual science and technology activities;

· Written records of approvals of annual science and technology works and projects in the university and faculties;

· The list of annually approved science and technology works and projects of the university and faculties;

· Summary reports on annual science and technology activities and reports on annual evaluation, at various echelons, of science and technology plans and the growth of the university's science and technology activities in scale and efficiency;

· Activities for training and enhancement of lecturers’ abilities to make science and technology plans and perform science studies; regulatory documents and activities for association of educational activities with science research.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· How does the university implement procedures for planning the university’s science and technology activities in long term, medium term and short term?

· Who plays the main role in such procedures?

· How do faculties and individuals ratify the university’s annual science and technology works and projects?

· How many science works are registered in the university every year? What is the scale of registered works and projects?

· What is the ratio of science and technology works and projects annually approved over those registered and defended?

· How many science seminars related to annual science works and research projects have been held?

· What is the percentage of works and projects audited by the annual time limit for registration?

· Have science and technology works and projects truly reflected the level of the university's research personnel and lecturers?

· Do funds for investment in science studies correspond with the university’s missions of research and development? If not, what causes poor investment? Why does the university not have large-scale science and technology works and projects commensurate with the university’s missions?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the compliance of the university’s long-term, medium-term and short-term plans for science and technology with its missions. Are capacities of the university’s officials and lecturers fully employed?

· Have the science and technology plans been launched?

· Does the university evaluate and revise the science and technology plans halfway? · Does it adjust investments in science and technology activities?

· Do faculties and lecturers associate science research with education?

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of science and technology, head and specialists of the science research division, heads of faculties and research centers, representatives of lecturers and researchers in the university.

Criterion 7.2. Works and projects are implemented and audited according to plan.

Keywords: Implement, review for acceptance, plan.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The annual statistics on the quantity and percentage of science studies implemented at various echelons and audited as per the plans approved;

· Project audit reports and written records of meetings by councils that audit annual science and technology works and projects in the university;

· Annual summary reports on the quantity of works and projects not completed on schedule;

· Regulatory documents on sanctions against works and projects not finished punctually;

· Supportive activities that curtail delays of the execution of science and technology works and projects.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the university and faculties regulate sanctions or aids to uphold the punctuality of the execution and audit of works and projects?

· What causes delays in the progress of science and technology works and projects?

· What has the university done to curb deferrals in the progress of the works?

· Does the university stipulate the quantity and scale of works and projects that a person or entity is entitled to register, defend and, with approval, implement?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· Examine the list and percentage of the university’s works and projects audited on schedule;

· Analyze reports on the reasons of delays in the progress of the works and projects;

· Examine ancillary solutions that prevent deferrals in the progress of science works and research projects.

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of science research, head and specialists of the science research division, heads of faculties and research centers, representatives of lecturers and researchers.

Criterion 7.3. The quantity of articles on national and international academic journals correlates with the number of science research works and accords with the university’s orientation of research and development.

Keywords: Quantity of articles, correlate, number of science research works, accord.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The list of articles on national and global academic journals;

· Annual statistics of the number of registered works and projects to be published;

· The ratio of works and projects published over the annual amount of projects and works;

· Database on the quantity of articles and works published or publicized on academic journals and science journals on nation-wide and global scale every year.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university stipulate the required amount of articles of each science work or project at each echelon?

· What is the ratio of works announced annually over the number of permanent lecturers in the university?

· Does the university regulate and encourage its officials’ and lecturers’ writing articles for national and international conferences and seminars and for science journals?

· Do articles and works published diffuse evenly among faculties and centers or congregate in certain research-based and academic disciplines and majors?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on science works and research projects whose findings have been published on national and international academic journals.

. Analyze the list and data on the university’s works and articles published and the correlation between the amount of publications and the number of works and projects executed every year.

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of science research, head and specialists of the science research division, heads of faculties and research centers, representatives of lecturers, researchers.

Criterion 7.4. The university’s science research and technology development make new contributions to science and generate practical values to resolve issues of economic - social growth on local and nation-wide scale.

Keywords: New contribution, practical, resolve, economic – social, local, nation-wide.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The list of science and technology works and projects approved and audited every year;

· The list of technology transfer contracts with companies and social organizations, etc. in local areas and throughout the nation;

· Summary reports on audit of science and technology works and projects;

· Written audits and assessments by councils that audit science and technology works and projects;

· Contracts on fulfillment of technology transfer services with local and national enterprises and social organizations, etc.

· Annual statistics on the quantity and percentage of science and technology works and projects executed in contracts for specialist and technical consultancy or technology transfer;

· Annual statistics of the number and percentage of science and technology works and projects published or presented in textbooks, reference materials, specialist documents, academic programs, training course or studies for economic – social development;

· The list of award-winning and patented science research works and technology projects;

· The ratio of award-winning ones over the annual quantity of works and projects.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university define regulations and stimulant policies for works and projects that make new contributions to science or practically integrate into economic - social matters?

· What is the annual percentage of the university’s science and technology works and projects implemented in practical circumstances?

· What is the annual percentage of the university’s science and technology works and projects that make new contributions to science?

· What were the outstanding contributions to science and technology in the last 5 years?

· What were the preeminent findings from science studies, which have been applied in real economic - social situations in local areas or across the country, in the last 5 years?

· Do the university, faculties and internal organizations enter contracts and partner with local and national enterprises and organizations to advertise, pilot and utilize findings and products from the university's science studies?

· What is the annual percentage of findings from science and technology works and projects, which have been employed in academic contents of other universities and educational facilities?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion's core requirement is to clarify the percentage and values of findings of the university’s annual science studies in the settlement of science, economic, social and educational issues.

· Interview: Representatives of companies, organizations, authorities, Faculty and Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment shall be interviewed about the university's contracts for technology transfer or pilot launch of products of science research. Moreover, the university’s heads in charge of science research, head and specialists of the science research faculty, heads of faculties and centers, representatives of lecturers and researchers shall be interviewed.

Criterion 7.5. Science research and technology transfer generate incomes equal to or greater than university’s spending on such activities.

Keywords: Science research generates equal or greater incomes, the university’s spending.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s regulatory documents on spending and incomes from science and technology works and projects, technology transfer contracts, science and technology services;

· Statistics on the university’s spending on science research and technology transfer per year;

· Statistics on total funds from administrative emoluments through annual science research and technology transfer;

· Annual statistics on the ratio of spending and incomes of science and technology works and projects and contracts for technology transfer or for science and technology services;

· The list of contracts for technology transfer and for science and technology services and annual earnings.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university define regulations or stimulant policies to increase incomes from its science and technology activities and services, transfer of technology?

· Does the university regulate the allocation of parts of incomes from science and technology activities and transfer of technology for reinvestment in its activities? If yes, how much is allocated for reinvestment every year? What is the ratio of such reinvestment over funds for science research?

· Does the university summarize and compare administrative emoluments from science and technology activities of the university's faculties and research centers every year?

· Does the university carry out assessments and reviews to draw experience, make revisions or establish new regulations to spur the hike of incomes from science and technology activities?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion's core requirement is that science research must provide incomes to the university;

· Inquire into and collect answers to the said questions if the university’s self-evaluation reports do not indicate the content as suggested above.

· Interview: Representatives of companies, organizations, authorities, Faculty and Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment shall be interviewed about the spending on contracts for technology transfer or pilot launch of products of science research. Moreover, the university’s heads in charge of science research and planning - finance, head and specialists of the science research division, head of the financial division, heads of faculties and centers, representatives of lecturers and researchers shall be interviewed.

Criterion 7.6. The university’s science research and technology development are associated with education and connected to science research institutes, universities and companies. The results of science and technology activities contribute to the development of the university’s resources.

Keywords: Connect, education, research institute, university, company, development of resources.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s regulatory documents on the association of education with science research and the requirements for science and technology works and projects at various echelons; and regulations on criteria for selection of works and projects;

· The list of science works and research projects approved per year;

· The percentage of science studies associated with undergraduate and postgraduate programs of the university.

· The list of learners engaging in science research in faculties and research centers and in the entire university every year;

· The list of the university’s annual activities related to technology, science and technology transfer, which are connected with other organizations, institutes and universities across the nation and the globe;

· The list of activities regarding technology, science and technology transfer, which the university’s officials and lecturers jointly perform with other domestic and international universities and institutes;

· The list and annual percentage of doctoral dissertations and master’s theses realized or associated with the university’s science works and research projects;

· The list and total pecuniary value of science and technology equipment, laboratories, teaching instruments from internal works and research projects through science and technology activities in the last 5 years;

· The list of learners, officials and lecturers who receive local and overseas training by engaging in science and technology works and projects.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university regulate or standardize the total levels of spending at which the works and projects must contribute to postgraduate education? If yes, what is the annual ratio of science works and research projects, which make contributions, over the total number of projects and works in the university?

· The quantity of learners, officials and lecturers of the university, who acquire training through science and technology works and projects, in the last 5 years.

· Does the university define regulations or policies to encourage the expansion and connection of its science and technology works and projects with local and foreign partners?

· How many works and projects are connected with local partners or foreign partners? What is the ratio of such over total number of works and projects per year?

· What is the quantity and percentage of outputs, findings and products of the works and projects, which have been published in reference books and materials for education or research, in the last 5 years?

· Does the university define regulations or stimulant policies to inspire learners’ engaging in science studies or participating in science research works with lecturers and researchers in the university?

· Do the university or faculties regulate that postgraduate students and research students participate in science research works of such faculties/branches or the university?

· What is the percentage of postgraduate and research students joining the university's lecturers in science research works?

· What are the achievements and findings of science and technology activities and technology transfer, which augment material capacities and modernize science and technology activities of the university? e.g. equipment, machinery, software, procedures for production and service, education, management and others are standardized, optimized ...

Suggestions to the external assessment team

This criterion's core requirement is that science and technology works and projects have utilized resources from external entities and from learners to enhance the university’s resources.

· Analyze self-evaluation reports and interviews to determine the level of the university's fulfillment of requirements as suggested in the questions above.

· Interview: Partners in activities related to science and technology, transfer of technology and postgraduate education, the university's heads in charge of science research and planning - finance, head and specialists of the science research division, head of the financial division, heads of faculties and centers, representatives of lecturers and researchers, representatives of current and former postgraduate and research students.

Criterion 7.7. The university stipulates specific standards of competence and morality for participants in science and technology activities as per regulations and has measures to assure intellectual property rights.

Keywords: Standard, competence, morality, measure, intellectual property right.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s regulatory and guiding documents on standards of competence and morality for participants in its science and technology activities and on intellectual property rights;

· The university’s regulatory documents on the participation of its personnel with various titles and academic distinctions in science and technology activities;

· Documents that disseminate information and guidance on the assurance of intellectual property rights;

· Written records of penalties against the breach of standards of competence and morality, and intellectual property rights (if violated).

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university stipulate standards of competence and morality for participants (e.g. officials, lecturers, learners) in science and technology activities? Does the university regulate titles and academic distinctions requiring the bears of which to participate in science and technology activities? If yes, do the regulations specify requirements?

· If the university does not define such regulations, what are the grounds for evaluation of lecturers' fulfillment of their duties of teaching and science research?

· Does the university propagate general information of intellectual property rights to all personnel (officials, lecturers, employees and learners)?

· Are the said documents (if available) observed and executed in the university?

· Was there any violation of science research’s ethical standards or intellectual property rights in the last 5 years? If yes, what were the university’s actions?

Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion’s core requirement is the issuance of regulations on standards of competence and morality for participants in science and technology activities and on intellectual property rights, which the university observes;

· Analyze the university’s self-evaluation reports and interview the following individuals with the questions as stated above.

· Interview: Representatives of partners in science and technology activities and technology transfer, the university’s heads in charge of science research, political affairs and ideology, head and specialists of the science research division, heads of faculties and centers, representatives of lecturers, researchers and learners.

Standard 8: International cooperation (3 criteria)

Criterion 8.1. International cooperation activities abide by the regulations of the Government.

Keywords: Abide by regulations.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university’s regulatory and guiding documents on management of international cooperation activities;

· The university’s documents on unambiguous apportionment of duties and powers over the management of international cooperation activities to faculties and divisions of the university;

· Written records of meetings on policies, resolutions and strategies for the development of international cooperation activities;

· Annual summary and assessment reports on the university’s international cooperation activities;

· The list of international partners that have engaged in cooperation memorandums with the university;

· The list of officials, lecturers and learners who were sent abroad to study or work and returned or did not return or overstayed;

· The list of foreign experts working with the university on relevant visas that were solicited by the university;

· Written records of working sessions with authorities at various echelons on the assurance of cultural safety in connection with foreign experts in the university (if any).

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university stipulate regulations or guidance on its international cooperation activities in conformity to general regulations by the Government?

· Does the university propagate general regulations and guidelines on international cooperation to its officials, lecturers, employees and learners? What have been the university’s common methods of propagation?

· Was there any violation of regulations on international cooperation in the last 5 years?

· What is the role of the university's divisions, faculties and centers, apart from the international cooperation division, in international cooperation activities?

· Do the faculties and divisions undertake the university’s international cooperation activities by the functions and powers apportioned to them?

· Does the university evaluate and revise regulations on international cooperation according to new circumstances?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the university’s conformity to the Government’s regulations on international cooperation activities;

· Consider the said questions to examine self-evaluation reports and information from interviews to determine the university’s compliance with regulations on international cooperation.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of international cooperation, head and specialists of the international cooperation division, heads of faculties and research centers, some lecturers and researchers from the university's faculties and centers.

Criterion 8.2. The efficiency of international cooperation activities is manifest in programs for education cooperation and academic discussion, exchange of lecturers and learners, visits, aids, upgrades of the university's facilities and equipment.

Keywords: Efficiency, education cooperation, academic discussion, exchange of lecturers and learners, visits, facilities, equipment.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Agreements on education cooperation and academic discussion with foreign partners;

· Results of the execution of international cooperation agreements in education;

· The list of collaborative academic programs with foreign partners in Vietnam and in partners’ premises;

· Lists of scholarship exchange programs and the university‘s lecturers and learners sent to foreign partners’ premises to study, work or conduct research in the last 5 years;

· The list of foreign lecturers and learners studying, working and conducting research in the university in the last 5 years;

· Statistics on the quantity of officials, lecturers and employees on overseas trips;

· The list of collaborative academic programs with foreign partners, which receive subsidy or material aids;

· Statistics on the number of students sent abroad to study every year;

· Statistics on the annual number of students on overseas study trips;

· Reports on overseas study trips;

· Evaluation reports on practices or constructive effects on education management and implementation of academic activities (changes in academic programs, approaches for teaching, learning, testing and assessment, education management methods) from the overseas trips of the university's lecturers and officials or from foreign experts working with the university;

· Statistics on the quantity of equipment, materials, books and software gained through collaborative academic programs and academic discussions with foreign partners;

· Annual summary reports on the results of collaborative academic programs, academic discussions, scholarship exchange, visits with foreign partners.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university define stimulant regulations for collaborative academic programs and academic discussions with foreign partners?

· How many agreements has the university entered for education cooperation and academic discussion with foreign partners?

· Have the signed agreements been executed? If not, what were the reasons? What have been the university's solutions to speed up cooperation activities?

· What are the university’s constructive changes in academic capacity, managerial capability, methods for teaching, testing and assessment, improvements and updates to academic programs, modernization of instruments for teaching and management through cooperation activities with foreign parties?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on constructive changes to the university’s resources through international partnership in educational and academic matters;

· Base on the said questions to authenticate information in self-evaluation reports and use such questions in interviews.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of international cooperation, head and specialists of divisions of international cooperation and training, heads of faculties and research centers, representatives of lecturers and researchers from the university’s faculties and centers, representatives of learners and the university’s organizations.

Criterion 8.3. The efficiency of international activities for scientific research cooperation is manifest in the implementation of projects and schemes for scientific research cooperation and technology development, programs for practical application of findings from science and technology research, joint scientific conferences and seminars, publication of joint scientific works.

Keywords: Scientific research cooperation, efficiency, project, scheme, application of findings from science research, conference, seminar, announcement of works.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Documents on meetings, conferences and seminars jointly held with foreign partners or having foreign participants.

· Statistics on the quantity of scientific meetings, conferences or seminars with foreign participants in the last 5 years;

· The list of science and technology works and projects jointly done with foreign partners in the last 5 years.

· The list of lecturers and researchers who carried out scientific studies, projects and schemes with foreign partners in local premises or in foreign partners' premises in the last 5 years;

· The list of works, published locally and abroad, from joint scientific studies, projects and schemes with foreign partners in the last 5 years;

· Annual summary and evaluation reports on the results of international partnership in the university’s science and technology activities;

· Statistics on award-winning international cooperation works, projects and schemes in science and technology in the last 5 years;

· Contracts for transfer of technology gained from works and projects under international partnership;

· Receipts from international partnership in science and technology;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university define stimulant regulations for international partnership in science and technology?

· Does the university plan and allocate annual funds to conferences and seminars jointly held with foreign partners?

· How many works and projects in science and technology were conducted and audited in the last 5 years?

· Does the university have database for management of works, projects, achievements and findings of studies jointly held with foreign partners?

· Does the university review international cooperation in science research with foreign partners to gain experience? What experience was gained?

· What changes have been made to the university's resources via international partnership in scientific research works and projects?

· Does the university have plans and strategies to exploit all potentials of international partnership in science research?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on constructive changes to the university’s resources through international partnership in science research.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of international cooperation, head and specialists of the international cooperation division, head and specialists of the science research division, heads of faculties and research centers, some lecturers and researchers from faculties and centers of the university.

Standard 9: Library, learning equipment and other facilities (9 criteria)

Criterion 9.1. The university’s library has sufficient books, textbooks and reference documents in Vietnamese and foreign languages to meet demands of officials, lecturers and learners. An electronic library is online to provide effective services for teaching, learning and science research.

Keywords: Sufficient, book, textbook, reference document, meet demands, electronic library, service, effective.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulatory documents on using the library's services and its work hours;

· Written guidelines on using the electronic library and searching for electronic materials;

· Books, magazines and reference documents administered via library management software;

· The list of books, journals and reference documents for the university’s academic disciplines and science research;

· Statistics on the quantity and ratio of reference documents and written materials for each academic discipline over the number of relevant lecturers and learners;

· Written undertakings by regional universities on permission for utilization of electronic libraries in the region/across the world;

· Statistics on the amount of international science journals that the university provides every year or put online;

· Annual statistics on the number of the library's readers (e.g. lecturers, officials, learners) and their academic disciplines;

· Statistics on the quantity of books, magazines, books, other materials by academic discipline, which are borrowed and read by academic every year;

· The amount of books and materials updated annually;

· Annual survey reports on the degree of the library’s satisfaction of demands of officials, lecturers and learners, which demonstrate procedures, tools and findings;

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the library have an automatic system that totals up readers' access to its electronic materials?

· Does the library have an automatic system for management of books and materials borrowed and returned? Is information on the number of books and materials, which are borrowed by learners, officials and lecturers per year, accessible? What type of books is most borrowed?

· Does the library have a system for readers to subscribe their borrowing of books?

· Does the library regulate in writing the amount of books that each learner, official, lecturer or researcher can borrow? How long can books be borrowed?

· Does the university define procedures and regulations on updating, increasing and purchasing books and materials?

· Does the university have strategies for international partnership and cooperation to use electronic materials from foreign partners’ libraries?

· Does the library survey readers’ opinions on their demands of books and materials and on the library’s service quality? If yes, what improvements were effected after each year's surveys?

· What were the university's efforts to augment the library's service capacity?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the extent of the library's fulfillment of demands in education and science research;

· Verify whether the university's self-evaluation reports satisfy the questions as suggested above;

· If not, such questions shall be posed to interviewees in the university;

· Visit the library and the university’s documentation rooms, examine the library's network for management of books and materials, the university’s electronic material system and its connection to foreign partners’ systems (if their relationship is established).

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of its facilities, heads and employees of the library, representatives of the library's readers (e.g. officials, lecturers and learners).

Criterion 9.2. The university has sufficient classrooms, large lecture halls, workshops and laboratories for activities of teaching, learning and science research to satiate the demands of each academic discipline.

Keywords: Sufficient, classroom, lecture hall, workshop, laboratory, satiate, each academic discipline

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The quantity of classrooms, large lecture halls, workshops and laboratories by academic discipline;

· The quantity of classrooms, large lecture halls, workshops and laboratories by academic discipline;

· Annual assessment reports on the level of satisfaction of demands for classrooms, large lecture halls, laboratories and workshops for the university's activities of education and science research;

· Building designs of classrooms, lecture halls, workshops and laboratories in conformity to construction standards of Vietnam;

· Written records of the use of classrooms, workshops and laboratories;

· Annual assessment reports on the demands and efficient use of classrooms, lecture halls, workshops and laboratories by faculties and centers of the university;

· Floor plans of the university;

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Do the quantity and size of rooms (small rooms, lecture halls, laboratories, etc.) in the university meet the demands in education and science research from the university's faculties and centers?

· Does the university have to schedule classes in 3 periods of the day?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion’s core requirement is that the capacity and quantity of rooms satisfy the university’s demands in education and science research;

· Consider the said questions to evaluate and verify the information given by the university;

· Visit classrooms and lecture halls of some faculties or the university.

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of its facilities, representatives of lecturers, researchers and learners from various courses in faculties and centers of the university.

Criterion 9.3. Teaching and learning equipment suffices in quantity, possesses guaranteed quality and manifests efficiency, when in use, to support activities of education and science research and to meet the demands of academic disciplines.

Keywords: Suffice, equipment, quality, use, efficiency, satisfy, academic discipline.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The list of teaching and learning equipment by academic discipline;

· Annual inventory and quality assessment reports on the university’s apparatus;

· Written records of the use of equipment for education and science research;

· Findings of surveys on users' contentment (e.g. officials, lecturers, learners) in apparatus that facilitate their needs in teaching, learning and science research;

· The list of teaching and learning equipment shared with the university’s partners and relevant cooperation agreements or facility use contracts;

· Regulatory and guiding documents on the use of the university’s apparatus;

· Regulatory documents on periodic maintenance and repair of equipment;

· Regulatory documents on procedures and finance for addition of equipment for the university's activities of education and science research.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university keep written records or use software to monitor and manage the quantity of equipment for activities of teaching, learning and science research in the university?

· Does the university regulate asset depreciation and furnish more apparatus for activities of education and science research?

· What division of the university is held responsible for managing the university’s equipment in general?

· Who is authorized to request replacements of broken equipment and machines?

· Are requests by lecturers and learners for repair of broken machines and equipment settled in timely manner?

· Is there procedure or regulation on the promptitude of repair or technical support?

· What division is held responsible for planning replacements or purchases of equipment for classrooms, workshops and laboratories?

· What are the grounds of such plans?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion's core requirement is that the equipment gratifies the university's activities of education and science research;

· Visit equipped laboratories, workshops and large lecture halls;

· Use the said questions to interview the following individuals.

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of facilities, lecturers, technicians and learners from various faculties and courses.

Criterion 9.4. Information technology equipment is adequately furnished to support activities of teaching, learning, science research and management in effective manner.

Keywords: Adequately, information technology equipment, support, teaching, learning, science research, management, effective.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulatory documents on new purchase, depreciation, replacements of computers and electronic equipment for computerization of the university's activities of teaching, learning, science research and management;

· The list of assets of the said type in each division of the university;

· The list of the said assets in each division of the university;

· Layouts of computer networks of the university and faculties (if available separately);

· Regulatory and guiding documents on the use of computers, Intranet and Internet in the university;

· Regulatory documents on functions and duties of the network administration division of the university;

· Software specialized in computerization of the university’s managerial tasks;

· Computer systems and multi-purpose equipment rooms of the university;

· Annual inventory reports (details of electronic equipment for computerization);

· Assessment reports on the computerization of activities of teaching, learning, science research and management.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university have an Intranet?

· Are the university’s computers connected to the Internet? How is the connection speed?

· Is wireless network available in the university’s premises?

· Is Internet provided gratis to the university’s officials, lecturers and researchers? If yes, is it limited?

· Do learners pay for using Internet-connected computers?

· Does the university give free email accounts to its officials, lecturers, researchers and learners?

· What is the ratio of computers for managerial tasks over the number of managerial officials in divisions?

· The average ratio of computers furnished to faculties and centers over the quantity of permanent lecturers and researchers;

· The ratio of computers for learners over the total amount of learners in the university.

· What division is held responsible for establishing and ratifying plans for replacements and new purchases of information technology equipment in the university?

· Does the university have technicians to provide supports and guidance for officials, lecturers and learners to use information technology equipment?

· Does the university use software specialized in managing student data (academic performance and general profile) and data on officials and lecturers?

· Does the university use a universal accounting software for all of its units that own private accounts?

· Does the university have a security system for its computers?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the computerization of the university’s activities of teaching, learning, science research and management, level and efficiency of computerization.

· Choose questions as stated above to conduct interviews and verify the university's self-evaluation reports;

· Visit computer rooms, multi-purpose rooms, computer system in the library and inspect the connection speed of Internet and Intranet in the university.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of facilities and finance, head and technicians of divisions of network administration and information technology support, representatives of officials and lecturers in the university, representatives of lecturers from various courses of the university's faculties.

Criterion 9.5. The university has sufficient classroom floors, as per regulations, for teaching and learning activities, provides boarding students with dormitory and adequate space for accommodation and daily living activities, and furnish equipment and areas for activities related to culture, art and sports according to regulations.

Keywords: Sufficient, classroom floor, dormitory, space for accommodation, equipment, areas, as per regulations.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university's master plan of buildings in use;

· Construction plans for subsequent years (if available);

· Regulatory documents on arrangement and apportionment of classrooms and areas in the university and on designation of divisions held responsible for managing and supervising such tasks;

· Layouts of existing classrooms, computer rooms, workshops and laboratories in the university (with details on the size of each room and description of its equipment);

· Layouts of rooms in the university’s dormitory (with details on the size of each room and description of its equipment);

· Layouts of areas for physical activities, sports and entertainment in the university;

· Statistics on total area of classrooms and average ratio of classrooms over total amount of learners by academic discipline;

· Statistics on total area of accommodation in the dormitory and percentage of students who desire to board at the university's dormitory;

· Statistics on total floor of areas for sports and average ratio of such areas over total number of learners;

· The list of equipment for sports, physical and artistic activities;

· Annual summary and assessment reports on the ambiance, security and safety of the dormitory;

· Findings of surveys of learners’ contentment in conditions for learning, activities, sports and artistic avocations;

· Findings of surveys on opinions of officials, lecturers and learners as to the capacity and efficiency of classrooms, lecture halls and activity areas.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university regulate and publicize the arrangement and apportion of classrooms and activity areas?

· Does the university stipulate criteria for eligible boarders in the dormitory? · Is there any privilege for individuals receiving special social benefits?

· What procedure is adopted in the plans for construction of classrooms, dormitory and areas for physical activities and sports?

· Do the university and internal organizations carry out annual surveys on learners’ needs of classrooms, dormitory accommodation, areas for sports, physical, cultural and artistic activities?

· What division considers and responds to learners' recommendations or feedbacks?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion’s core requirement is that the classroom floor suffices for the university's educational scale as per current regulations. Moreover, learners in need of boarding are accommodated while areas for physical activities and sports meet learners’ demands;

· Consider the said questions to verify the information given by the university;

· Visit academic places, dormitory, artistic and cultural areas, arenas.

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of facilities, heads of faculties, Youth Union and Student Association, representatives of learners from various courses, alumni.

Criterion 9.6 Office space suffices for permanent officials, lecturers and employees as per regulations.

Keywords: Sufficient, office space, as per regulations.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university's master plan of buildings in use;

· Construction plans for subsequent years (if available);

· Regulatory documents on arrangement and apportionment of the university’s office space to divisions and officials of faculties and centers;

· Regulatory documents on functions and duties of the division responsible for managing facilities (office space);

· Regulatory documents on floor area and minimum conditions of office space, new purchases or replacements and repairs of office equipment;

· Layouts of offices (with details of their size and description of their equipment);

· Statistics on total area and quantity of offices and the ratio of total permanent officials, lecturers and employees in each faculty, division or center of the university to office space;

· The list of equipment inside offices.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university regulate the minimum area and work conditions per official, lecturer or research?

· Do the university’s actual facilities conform to its regulated minimum requirements?

· Does the university have plans to construct or expand office space for officials and lecturers?

· Does the university regulate repairs and upgrades of its offices? If yes, is repair and upgrade feasible in reality?

· Does the university inquire its officials and personnel about their opinions on needs and conditions of office space on periodic basis? If yes, are opinions promptly processed?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the disposition of adequate office space and equipment for permanent officials, lecturers and employees in the university;

· Use the said questions to interview the individuals below;

· Visit certain offices in the university.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s leadership, heads of faculties, divisions and centers, representatives of permanent managerial officials, specialists, lecturers and employees of the university.

Criterion 9.7. Land area suffices according to the standard TCVN 3981-85. General floor area passes the minimum level regulated.

Keywords: Suffice, land area, standard TCVN 3981-85, floor area.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Decisions on higher management bodies' allotment of lands to the university;

· The university's master plan of buildings in use;

· The university’s land plan for long-term development, which was ratified by the Government;

· Regulatory documents on the use of lands under the university’s management;

· Documents and plans on the use of lands allotted;

· Decisions on allotment of lands to the university’s units (if available);

· The university's agreements with other organizations and companies on their lease and lending of areas for the university's activities (if available).

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university's current land area pass the minimum level regulated by the Government?

· If not, how did the university settle land problems?

· Does the university have plans and strategies to expand the usable land area?

· What are the university's plans and strategies to optimize the use of land area under its management for its educational objectives?

· Does the university hold meetings to obtain opinions from its officials, lecturers and employees before issuing decisions on the plans for allotted land use?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses the university’s attainment of sufficient land area according to the Government’s regulations.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s leaderships, heads of faculties, divisions and centers, representatives of permanent managerial officials, lecturers and researchers.

Criterion 9.8. The university’s schemes and strategies contain the general plan on the use and development of its facilities.

Keywords: General plan, use, development, facilities

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Plans and strategies for medium-term and long-term development of the university;

· The general plan on the use and development of the university’s facilities;

· The outline of the general plan ratified by competent authorities;

· Periodic assessment reports on the implementation of the general plan;

· Reports on revisions of the general plan, schemes and strategies for development of the university's facilities (if revised);

· Authorities' written approvals of plans, schemes, strategies and their apportion of relevant funds and areas.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university consult experts and its officials and lecturers during the establishment of the general plan for development of its facilities?

· Has the university's general plan for the use and development of its facilities been approved at relevant echelons?

· Have the use and development of the university's facilities been periodically assessed? If yes, have revisions occurred after assessments?

· Does the university have regulations and procedures for management and supervision of the implementation of the general plan for the use and development of its facilities?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the university’s possession of a rational general plan for the use and development of its facilities, which has been approved and implemented.

· Use the said questions to examine information.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s leadership, the Communist Party, organizations, heads of faculties, divisions and centers, and representatives of the university's managerial officials and permanent lecturers.

Criterion 9.9 Assets, order and safety of managerial officials, lecturers, employees and learners are safeguarded through efficacious measures.

Keywords: Measure, efficacious, safeguard, asset, order, safety.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulatory documents on functions, responsibilities and authority of the division specialized in securing the university and maintaining order;

· Regulatory documents on professional standards and requirements for guards;

· Documents on the planning the quantity of guards in the university and their essential equipment;

· The list, guidelines and diagrams of modern equipment for prevention of fire, explosion and theft in the university;

· Periodic reports of professional training for the university’s guards;

· Regulatory documents of maintaining order and securing the university;

· Documents on cooperation or partnership with the Government’s armed forces for training the university's guards;

· Annual assessment reports on the security of the university.

· Other relevant evidences: ...

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university stipulate the planning of its guards?

· Does the current number of guards suffice for assignments?

· Was there any incident of security and order in the university in the last year?

· What measures has the university implemented to secure assets and people in its premises?

· What is the process for reports and assessments of the security of the university’s assets and order?

· Are the guards properly trained and equipped?

· Does the university partner and cooperate with the adjacent Government’s armed forces to maintain general safety and train the university’s guards?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses the strict compliance with regulations on safety and security, which are prescribed by the Government and the university;

· Base on the questions and evidences suggested to verify information from the university.

· Interview: The university’s heads in charge of facilities, organizations, representatives of permanent managerial officials, lecturers, researchers and employees of the university.

Standard 10: Finance and financial management (3 criteria)

Criterion 10.1. The university has solutions and plans for financial autonomy and generates legitimate financial sources to facilitate its educational activities, science research and other activities.

Keywords: Solution, plan, autonomy, generate, legitimate source, facilitate, education, science research, other activities.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· The university's regulatory documents on strategies to increase non-business sources of income;

· Short-term, medium-term and long-term plans for the university’s exploitation of non-business sources of income;

· Internal regulations on the use of non-business sources of income;

· Plans for estimation, allocation and disbursement of incomes on educational activities, science research and other activities;

· Written approvals of the allocation of annual governmental funds for the university's activities and units;

· Annual Income and expense statements on spending, budgets and non-business incomes for the university's activities;

· Statistics on the percentage of non-business incomes spent on educational activities, science research, international cooperation and other activities;

· Assessment reports on the efficiency of financial investments into the university's activities and directions for subsequent years.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university have stimulant regulations for its units and personnel to use legitimate non-business incomes for the university in active and creative manners?

· Does the university regulate the percentage of non-business incomes allocated to its educational activities, science research, international cooperation and other activities?

· What measures has the university implemented to effectively boost sources of income to invest in its educational activities, science research and other activities?

· What is the ratio of the spending from non-business incomes to the governmental spending in educational activities, in science research and in other activities?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the total amount of non-business incomes properly spent on educational activities, science research and other activities of the university;

· Analyze self-evaluation reports and seek more information to find answers to the said questions to verify the university’s fulfillment of the criterion.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of planning and finance, head and specialists of the financial division, heads of faculties, divisions and centers of the university, representatives of organizations (Party Committee, Trade Union, Youth Union) and the Inspectorate, representatives of the university’s officials, lecturers and employees.

Criterion 10.2. The university’s financial planning and management are standardized and disclosed in transparent manner and as per regulations.

Keywords: Planning, management, standardize, disclose, transparent, as per regulations.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Records of meetings by the university's units on the establishment of annual financial plans;

· The university’s annual financial plans;

· Financial plans for objectives in the university’s development schemes;

· Assessment reports on the feasibility of plans (investment source, schedule, conformity to the university’s schemes);

· Annual summary reports on the university’s finance;

· Written guidelines on the use of software for the university’s financial management;

· Annual financial accounting reports and records of inspection;

· Annual audit reports;

· Assessment reports on the efficiency of financial allocation and management;

· Findings of surveys and interviews, if available, on the officials’ and lecturers’ opinions on the reasonability and relevant matters of financial planning, allocation and management in the university;

· Summary reports from annual financial meetings and employees’ meetings of the university.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university stipulate regulations and procedures for annual financial planning?

· If yes, do units of the university abide by such regulations and procedures?

· Are such procedures and regulations disclosed?

· Does the university hold annual financial meetings?

· Are financial activity reports presented in annual employees' meetings?

· If regulation is not defined, how does the university carry out procedures and activities for financial planning and management?

· Are financial plans, after approved at various echelons, disclosed to the units of the university?

· Does the university evaluate and review financial planning activities on periodic basis to gain experience?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the standardization of financial planning activities.

· Base on the questions above to find answers to such questions to verify the university's fulfillment of the criterion.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of planning-finance, head and specialists of the financial division, heads of faculties, divisions and centers in the university, representatives of organizations (Party Committee, Trade Union, Youth Union) and the Inspectorate, representatives of the university’s officials, lecturers and employees.

Criterion 10.3. The allocation and use of finance for the university's units and activities are rational, transparent and effective.

Keywords: Allocation, spending, rational, transparent, effective.

Evidences regarding the criterion

· Regulatory documents on principles for the allocation of finance to the university’s units;

· Regulatory documents on principles of the use of funds allocated;

· Annual expenditure estimation sheets of the university’s units and the combined estimation sheet of the whole university;

· Official documents on annual financial allocation in the university;

· Income and expense statements on annual receipts;

· Annual accounting reports;

· Annual reports on the use of funds by each unit of the university;

· Financial assessment reports of the university’s units;

· Annual audit reports;

· Statistics on the percentage of funds dedicated to various areas of activity (training, research, international cooperation, others) in the university;

· Summary and assessment reports on the use of funds for the university's activities;

· Changes or revisions following the assessments of the allocation and use of funds.

· Other relevant evidences: …

Questions regarding the criterion

· Does the university regulate the annual financial allocation? If not, what are the grounds for the university’s allocation of finance to its activities and units?

· Does the university regulate the use of funds?

· Do the allocation and use of funds abide by such regulations?

· Have the regulations been revised? If yes, what justifies the revisions? How often do revisions occur?

 Suggestions to the external assessment team

· This criterion focuses on the effective allocation and use of finance;

· Base on the said questions to verify information that the university provides and collect more information through interviews. Such questions may be posed in the interview.

· Interview: Representatives of the university’s heads in charge of planning - finance, head and specialists of the financial division, heads of faculties, divisions and centers of the university, representatives of organizations (Party Committee, Trade Union, Youth Union) and the Inspectorate, representatives of the university’s officials, lecturers and employees.