Study on criteria to evaluate research projects in educational science in line with international standdards

 TẠP CHÍ KHOA HỌC 
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM TP HỒ CHÍ MINH 
Tập 17, Số 5 (2020): 829-843 
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION 
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 
Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
ISSN: 
1859-3100 Website:  
829 
Research Article* 
STUDY ON CRITERIA TO EVALUATE RESEARCH PROJECTS 
 IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE 
 IN LINE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDDARDS 
Dinh Thi Kim Thoa
1*
, Tran Van Cong
1
, Tran Thi Thu Anh
2
1 
VNU University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam 
2 
Center of Quality Assurance – University of Hanoi Industrial Textile, Vietnam 
*
Corresponding author: Dinh Thi Kim Thoa – Email: thoadtk@vnu.edu.vn 
Received: March 10, 2020; Revised: April 05, 2020; Accepted: May 27, 2020 
ABSTRACT 
This study focused on finding out the criteria to evaluate research projects in education. We 
used a mixed methods research, including a literature review, focus group interviews with experts, 
and a survey of 140 lecturers from 5 universities of education in Vietnam and 33 lecturers who are 
teaching four majors from the University of Education, Vietnam National University. The necessity, 
suitability, and reliability of the set of criteria in evaluating the thesis in the field of educational 
science were examined. Two independent experts reviewed 146 master theses based on the set of 
criteria. The results showed that the evaluation of the 2 experts for 38 evaluation criteria is very 
similar, matched 85.6% to 100%. The Kappa correlation coefficient was above 0.7. The set of 
criteria is highly reliable in evaluating the quality of scientific projects. 
Keywords: criteria; international standards; educational science; evaluation; literature review 
1. Introduction 
According to the classification of science and technology research in 
Vietnam, educational science belongs to social sciences. Educational science includes 
general education, pedagogy, educational theory, and special education (i.e., people with 
disabilities) and other educational issues (Ministry of Science and Technology, 2008). In 
the world, the criteria for evaluating research in general and research in the field of 
education, in particular, are clear. The clarity is reflected in the research works and the 
proposed evaluation criteria as well as the requirements of research projects. Some authors 
(Stiles, 1993; Wu, Thompson, Aroian, McQuaid, & Deatrick, 2016; Fossey, Harvey, 
McDermott, & Davidson, 2002; Anderson, 2010: McMillan & Wergin, 1998; Clissett, 
2008; Howe & Eisenhart, 1990; Malterud, 2001; Taylor, Beck, & Ainsworth, 2001; 
Cite this article as: Dinh Thi Kim Thoa, Tran Van Cong, Tran Thi Thu Anh (2020). Study on criteria to 
evaluate research projects in educational science in line with international standdards. Ho Chi Minh City 
University of Education Journal of Science, 17(5), 829-843. 
HCMUE Journal of Science Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
830 
Horsburgh, 2003; Sukamolson, 2010) have proposed a system of criteria for evaluating 
research, which includes qualitative and quantitative studies. 
Regarding the current status of evaluating scientific research in Vietnam, Vu (2014) 
mentioned the irrationality in passing a project, along with the set of criteria to assess the 
results. Tran (2007) considers that the evaluation of the council is based on the following 
criteria: novelty in science, the authenticity of the results, the suitability of the 
methodology, and the applicability of the project. There are many unreasonable points, 
which are not suitable for scientific research. For example, a project may be considered 
low-quality by the council because it is contrary to the scientific perspective of the 
majority of its members although it has the prospect of opening a new research direction. It 
can be seen that, in reality, up to now, many unreasonable things still exist in evaluating 
research. Therefore, a number of authors have investigated and piloted some sets of criteria 
to evaluate research projects or products (Nguyen, 2008; Tran, 2013). 
In Vietnam, firstly, in research report forms, most requirements in the report are still 
formal, many parts are duplicated, while the core and essential components such as 
research questions, methods, reliability, validity of the research tools, discussion, data 
processing have not received enough attention. Secondly, the existing criteria were 
established based on a small sample size and applied for sciences or social sciences in 
general (but not specifically for educational sciences). The development of the criteria for 
each specific industry is still lacking (Tran, 2013). Moreover, there has been limited 
research projects on developing criteria for evaluating educational research projects in line 
with international standards. Therefore, this study aims to develop a set of criteria for 
assessing research projects in education in line with international standards, contributing to 
improving the quality of education research, supporting the management agencies during 
the evaluation process of educational projects, promoting the development of quantity and 
quality of international publications. 
2. Methodology 
 A mixed methods research was used in the current study, including a literature 
review, focus group interviews with experts, and a survey. An overview of the scientific 
research related to this topic was established. Based on the analysis of the interviews with 
the experts and focus group discussions, 11 core criteria and 45 specific criteria to evaluate 
the quality of master thesis in educational Science were proposed. 
2.1. Procedure 
By using surveys, we collect information from experts (lecturers, managers) about 
the necessity of the criteria set in evaluating master thesis in the field of educational 
sciences through a questionnaire with 0 = Unnecessary, 1 = Somewhat necessary, 2 = 
Necessary, and 3 = Completely necessary. 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
831 
Developing and testing, and forming the evaluation criteria: (1) Literature review, (2) 
In-depth interview with two lecturers (1 person with more than 30 years of experience and 
another with over ten years of working experience), and (3) Focus group (six lecturers). All 
of the participants have postgraduate qualifications and have more than 15 years of 
working experience. 
We tested the criteria on 146 completed theses (from four majors of the VNU 
University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi) which were selected 
randomly over the years. 
Test procedure 
Step 1: Build a checklist based on the criteria 
Step 2: Prepare the data (146 theses in VNU University of Education, Vietnam 
National University, Hanoi) 
Step 3: Contact two experts, send the experts the checklist, and 146 theses. The two 
experts evaluated them independently. 
Step 4: Collect the evaluation results from the two experts. 
Step 5: Enter data into SPSS 22.0 
Step 6: Analyze and report the results 
The checklist was constructed using the scale with three answering options: 0 = 
None, 1 = Present but not clear (there is a bit), 2 = Present and clearly expressed. 
2.2. Sample 
Collecting data: 150 lecturers of 5 Universities (Hanoi National University of 
Education; Thai Nguyen University of Education; Da Nang University of Education, Hue 
University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education). 
Collecting data (the second time) at the VNU University of Education, Vietnam 
National University, Hanoi: 35 lecturers who were teaching educational majors such as 
educational management; theory and teaching methods; children and adolescent clinical 
psychology, and measurement and evaluation in education. 
2.2. Developing the criteria for evaluating theses in the field of educational science 
 First, an overview of scientific research related to the research was built. Then the 
opinions of experts through semi-structured interviews were analyzed. We have proposed 
11 core criteria and 45 specific criteria to evaluate the quality of master thesis in the field 
of educational science (Table 1). 
HCMUE Journal of Science Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
832 
Table 1. The development of the evaluation criteria 
 Criteria Source 
A1.Title 
A1.1 Reflect the main content (independent and dependent 
variables) of the study 
O’Brien et al. (2014) 
Sukamolson (2010) 
A1.2 Mention the participants and the study areas Qualitative research 
A2.Abstract 
A2.1 Accurately reflect the content of the study Qualitative research 
A2.2 The author addresses the problems they intentionally solve Qualitative research 
A2.3 The author briefly stated how to organize and research 
methods 
Wu (2016) 
O’Brien et al. (2014) 
A2.4 The author briefly stated the main results of the study 
A3. Introduction 
A3.1 Describe the reason (theoretical and practical basis): why it 
is selected as a research problem 
Nair et al. (2014) 
A3.2 The purpose of the study: they do this study for what? Qualitative research 
A3.3 The main content needs to be expressed in the form of a 
question to answer 
Qualitative research 
A4. Literature review 
A4.1 Overview of studies related to the content of the topic 
(independent and dependent variables) 
Qualitative research 
A4.2 Point out what has been done and research gaps (things that 
have not been done yet) in relevant studies 
Russell (2005) 
Qualitative research 
A4.3 Identify the main concepts of the study Russell (2005) 
Creswell (2002) A4.4 Identify the theoretical content related to the study 
A5. Research procedure 
A5.1 Describe steps in conducting the study Qualitative research 
Frankel and Devers 
(2000) 
O’Brien et al. (2014) 
A5.2 Describe the sampling procedure and the characteristics of 
the sample 
A6. Methodology 
A6.1 Methods of conducting research methods (approach to the 
research subjects, methods to collect data) 
Russell (2005) 
Qualitative research 
A6.2 Describe research tools (selection, development, adaptation, 
reliability, and validity) 
Nair et al., 2014 
A7. Data analysis and interpretation 
 For quantitative research 
A7.1 
Statistical analysis is consistent with research questions, 
hypotheses, variables, and measurement tools 
Frankel and Devers 
(2000) 
Russell (2005) 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
833 
 Criteria Source 
A7.2 Analyze appropriate data to solve research problems Creswell (2002) 
A7.3 
The data is fully presented in tables and charts 
Qualitative research 
Russell (2005) 
A7.4 The results correctly answer the research question, and/or 
hypothesis 
Qualitative research 
 For qualitative research 
A7.5 
Practical and accurate results answer to the research 
questions 
Frankel and Devers 
(2000) 
O’Brien et al. (2014) 
A7.6 The data analysis steps are used to draw conclusions based 
on evidence 
Redfield (2004) 
A7.7 The results are presented in themes and categories so that 
multi-dimensional perspectives can be easily seen 
Redfield (2004) 
 For empirical research 
A7.8 The study clearly describes the experimental / intervention 
procedure (including (i) implementer/supervisor, recipient, 
and cost of implementation; (ii) what are the differences 
between the experiment and control group; and (iii) how the 
logic of the intervention might affect the outcome). 
Creswell (2002) 
Redfield (2004) 
A7.9 Experimental and control groups were randomly selected Redfield (2004) 
A7.10 There was a similarity in signs between the experimental 
group and the control group before the experiment 
Qualitative research 
A7.11 The instrument accurately measures the variables affected 
by the intervention 
Redfield (2004) 
A7.12 The stability of the number of participants in experimental 
research should be ensured 
Qualitative research 
A7.13 The study collected data on the long-term results of the 
intervention, showing that the impact of the intervention 
was sustained over time. 
Redfield (2004) 
A7.14 State the effective scope of intervention Qualitative research 
A8. Discussion 
A8.1 
The author compares the main results with the published 
data, in the most objective way possible 
Creswell (2002) 
Russell (2005) 
O’Brien et al. (2014) 
A8.2 The author discusses the limitations of the research and 
highlights what they have done 
Creswell (2002) 
Nair et al., 2014 
A8.3 Analyze the advantages and limitations of the current 
situation of the research problem, providing the foundation 
for the proposed solutions. 
Russell (2005) 
HCMUE Journal of Science Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
834 
 Criteria Source 
A9. Conclusions and recommendations 
A9.1 The author repeated the research question and commented 
on the level to which it was solved. 
Creswell (2002) 
A9.2 The author makes recommendations to overcome such 
limitations or provides future research directions 
Nair et al., 2014 
A10. Some requirements for presenting research 
 For quantitative research 
A10.1 The structure of the research is generally consistent with the 
topics covered in a quantitative study 
Qualitative research 
A10.2 The terms social science and education are dependably 
defined 
Redfield (2004) 
A10.3 Variables are labeled (named) throughout the study Qualitative research 
A10.4 The research report uses extensive references Qualitative research 
A10.5 The report is presented in accordance with the target 
audience (readers) 
Qualitative research 
 For qualitative research 
A10.6 The report is scientifically written Qualitative research 
A10.7 The report is not written from an individual standpoint Qualitative research 
A10.8 The written report includes metaphors, unexpected details, 
details, complicated conversations 
Qualitative research 
A10.9 The report is made in a consistent and logical way between 
scientific hypotheses, questions, and research results. 
Qualitative research 
A11. About the presentation structure: 
0. Abstract (1 page) 1.11. New contributions to the study 
1. Introduction 1.12. The structure of the study 
1.1. Reason to choose a topic/issue 2. Theoretical framework 
1.2. Research objectives 2.1. Literature review 
1.3. Research questions 3. Organization and research methods 
1.4. Study hypotheses 3.1. Research organization (process, sampling) 
1.5. Study tasks 3.2. Research methodology (describe in detail) 
1.6. Methodology 4. Results 
1.7. Participants 5. Discuss (analyze) research results 
1.8. Research objects 6. Conclusions and recommendations 
1.9. Scope of the study References 
1.10. Research plan Appendix 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
835 
3. Results 
3.1. The views on the necessity of the evaluation criteria for scientific research in 
educational science 
 In the focus group, the experts discussed the necessity and suitability of each 
criterion in the survey. The results showed that the expert ... t was not necessary. The 
criterion: need to ensure stability in the number of participants in the experimental study 
has a low level of agreement (64.5% disagreed). 
The data collected from 33 lecturers from the University of Education showed that 
the set of criteria has the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.659, indicating acceptable 
reliability. Typically, if Cronbach's Alpha coefficient ranges from 0.8 to 1.0, the 
measurement is considered to be good. However, according to some researchers, the 
Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.6 or higher can be used in tests (Peterson, 1994; Slater, 
1995). Combined with the high concurrence of the necessity of the criteria set through 140 
lecturers from 5 pedagogical universities and the agreement of 33 lecturers in charge of 
teaching subjects in 4 majors of the University of Education, it can be affirmed that the set 
of criteria is appropriate and has sufficient face reliability and criterion reliability so that 
the testing can be applied to the master thesis of the University of Education. 
3.2. Pilot and data analysis 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
837 
Table 3. The percentage table is similar and correlated between two lecturers evaluating 
the structure of the thesis (146 master theses) 
Structure of the thesis 
Percentage of 
similarities 
Kappa correlation 
coefficient 
Abstract (1 page) 100% - 
1. Introduction 100% - 
1.1. Reason to choose a topic/issue 100% - 
1.2. Research objectives 99.3% 0.797 
1.3. Research questions 100% - 
1.4. Study hypotheses 100% - 
1.5. Study tasks 100% - 
1.6. Methodology 100% - 
1.7. Participants 100% - 
1.8. Research objects 100% - 
1.9. Scope of the study 98.6% 0.826 
1.10. Research plan 100% - 
1.11. New contributions to the study 97.3% 0.939 
1.12. The structure of the study 99.3% 0.797 
2. Theoretical framework 99.3% - 
2.1. Literature review 100% - 
3. Organization and research methods 95.2% 0.823 
3.1. Research organization (process, sampling method) 98.6% 0.969 
3.2. Research methodology (describe in detail) 100% - 
4. Results 100% - 
5. Discuss (analyze) research results 99.3% - 
6. Conclusions and recommendations 100% - 
References 100% - 
Appendix 100% - 
The results showed that the evaluations of the two lecturers on 23 items in the thesis 
are very similar, the percentage of agreement ranged from 95.2% to 100%. The Kappa 
correlation coefficients are all over 0.7, there are items that cannot produce results when 
running the correlation coefficients because the data have no variations or the margin is too 
small. It can be seen that the evaluation results of the two lecturers in the content of the 
theses are quite accurate. Kappa (K) is a coefficient used to evaluate the percentage of 
consensus between two people (two raters) when assessing the same content (problem) 
after eliminating the role of risk. According to Viera and Garrett (2005), the K> = 0.61 is 
similar from the good level upwards. Specifically, the K: 
HCMUE Journal of Science Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
838 
Kappa Agreement 
<0 Poor 
0.01 - 0.20 Slight 
0.21 - 0.40 Fair 
0.41 - 0.6 Moderate 
0.61 - 0.80 Substantial 
0.81 - 0.99 Almost perfect 
 The results in Table 4 showed that the evaluation opinions of the two lecturers on 38 
criteria are very similar, the percentage of similarities ranged from 85.6% to 100%; Kappa 
correlation coefficients are over 0.7. It can be seen that when using the set of criteria in 
evaluating the thesis of educational science at the University of Education, the evaluation 
results of the two lecturers are quite similar. These results confirm the high reliability of 
the criteria set. 
Table 4. Percentage of similarities and correlation between the two lecturers' evaluations 
(146 theses) 
Criteria 
Percentage of 
similarities 
(%) 
Kappa 
correlation 
coefficient 
Title B2.1. Reflects the main content 
(independent and dependent variables) of 
the study 
85.6 - 
B2.2. Referring to the object and study 
area 
92.5 0.847 
Abstract (1 page) B2.3. Accurately reflect the content of the 
study 
100 - 
B2.4. The author briefly stated how to 
organize and research methods 
100 - 
B2.5. The author briefly stated the main 
results of the study 
100 - 
Introduction B2.6. Describe the reason (theoretical and 
practical basis) why it is selected as a 
research problem 
85.6 0.711 
B2.7. The purpose of the study is to 
answer the question: they do this study for 
what? 
93.8 0.762 
Literature review B2.8. Overview of studies related to the 
content of the topic (independent and 
dependent variables) 
89.7 0.826 
B2.9. Point out what has been done and 
research gaps (things that have not been 
done yet) in relevant studies 
89.0 0.828 
B2.10. Identify the main concepts of the 
study 
94.5 - 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
839 
Criteria 
Percentage of 
similarities 
(%) 
Kappa 
correlation 
coefficient 
B2.11. Identify the theoretical content 
related to the study 
92.5 - 
Research 
organization 
B2.12. Describe the steps to conduct the 
study 
89.0 0.780 
B2.13. Describe the sampling procedure 
and describe the characteristics of the 
sample 
86.3 0.769 
Methodology B2.14. Methods of conducting research 
methods (approach to the research 
subjects, methods to collect data) 
87.7 0.757 
B2.15. Describe research tools (selection, 
development, adaptation, reliability and 
validity) 
98.6 0.958 
Data analysis in 
quantitative 
research 
B2.16. Consistent statistical analysis, 
consistent with research questions, 
hypotheses, variables, and measurement 
tools 
92.5 0.860 
B2.17. Analyze appropriate data to solve 
research problems 
94.5 0.898 
B2.18. The data is fully presented in 
tables and charts 
98.6 0.972 
Data analysis in 
qualitative 
research 
B2.19. The results correctly answer the 
research question, and / or hypothesis 
100 - 
B2.20. The results are presented in themes 
and categories so that multi-dimensional 
perspectives can be easily seen 
100 - 
Data analysis in 
empirical 
research 
B2.21. The study clearly describes the 
experimental / intervention procedure 
(including (i) implementer/supervisor, 
recipient, and cost of implementation; (ii) 
what is the difference between the 
experiment and control group; and (iii) 
how the logic of the intervention might 
affect the outcome). 
A7.9 Experimental and control groups 
were randomly selected 
93.2 0.871 
B2.22. Experimental and control groups 
were randomly selected 
100 - 
B2.23. There was a similarity in signs 
between the experimental group and the 
control group before the experiment 
100 - 
B2.24. The instrument accurately 
measures the variables affected by the 
100 - 
HCMUE Journal of Science Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
840 
Criteria 
Percentage of 
similarities 
(%) 
Kappa 
correlation 
coefficient 
intervention 
B2.25. The stability of the number of 
participants in experimental research 
should be ensured 
100 - 
B2.26. The study collected data on the 
long-term results of the intervention, 
showing that the impact of the 
intervention was sustained over time. 
100 - 
B2.27. State the effective scope of 
intervention 
99.3 0.986 
Discussion B2.28. The author compared the main 
results with the published data, in the 
most objective way possible 
100 - 
B2.29. The author discusses the 
limitations of the research and highlights 
what they have done 
100 - 
Conclusion and 
recommendation 
B2.30. The author repeated the research 
question and commented on the level to 
which it was solved. 
89.7 0.773 
B2.31. The author makes 
recommendations to overcome such 
limitations or provide future research 
directions 
89.7 0.734 
Some 
requirements for 
the presentation 
of quantitative 
research 
B2.32. The structure of the research is 
generally consistent with the topics 
covered in a quantitative study 
94.5 0.870 
B2.33. The terms social science and 
education are defined grounded 
94.5 0.640 
B2.34. Variables are labeled (named) 
throughout the study 
97.9 - 
B2.35. The report is presented in 
accordance with the target audience 
(readers) 
100 - 
Some 
requirements for 
qualitative 
research 
presentation 
B2.36. The report is scientifically written 100 - 
B2.37. The report is not written from an 
individual standpoint 
100 - 
B2.38. The report is made in a consistent 
and logical manner between scientific 
hypotheses, questions, and research 
results. 
100 - 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
841 
4. Recommendation and conclusion 
The results showed that the criteria set have high reliability. In addition, the criteria 
set can be used as a basis for instructors to guide students to conduct research, write reports 
(master thesis) more easily. The set of evaluation criteria should be made public for 
students from the start of their study, and this will help learners be more active in 
determining their study pathways, acquire knowledge, and have a good orientation in the 
writing process. The set of criteria can be replicated to evaluate dissertations and theses in 
the field of educational science. 
 Conflict of Interest: Authors have no conflict of interest to declare. 
 Acknowledgements: This research is funded by Vietnam National University, Hanoi 
(VNU) under project number QG.17.52. 
REFERENCES 
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American journal of 
pharmaceutical education, 74(8), 141. 
Clissett, P. (2008). Evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 12(2), 99-105. 
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating 
quantitative. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River. 
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating 
qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732. 
Frankel, R. M., & Devers, K. (2000). Qualitative research: A consumer's guide. Education for 
Health, 13(1), 113. 
Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of clinical nursing, 12(2), 
307-312. 
Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A 
prolegomenon. Educational researcher, 19(4), 2-9. 
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The lancet, 
358(9280), 483-488. 
McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (1998). Understanding and Evaluating Educational Research. 
Prentice-Hall, Inc., One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. 
Ministry of Science and Technology (2008). Decision on promulgating a number of scientific and 
technological statistical classification tables, No. 12/2008 / QD-BKHCN. 
Minister of Science and Technology (2004). Circular No. 11/2014/TT-BKHCN. 
HCMUE Journal of Science Vol. 17, No. 5 (2020): 829-843 
842 
Nair, P. R., & Nair, V. D. (2014). Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format. 
In Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources (pp. 13-25). 
Springer, Cham. 
Nguyen, Q. V. (2008). Building evaluation criteria for scientific research to perform the function 
of scientific research at Hai Duong Vocational College, Master thesis in Business and 
Management, University of Social Sciences and Humanities. 
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Validity. Psychometric theory, 3, 99-132. 
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for 
reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 
1245-1251. 
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of consumer 
research, 21(2), 381-391. 
Redfield, D. (2004). A closer look at scientifically based research: How to evaluate educational 
research. THE Journal, 31, 24-25. 
Russell, C. L. (2005). Evaluating quantitative research reports. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 32(1), 
61-64. 
Slater, S. F. (1995). Issues in conducting marketing strategy research. Journal of strategic 
Marketing, 3(4), 257-270. 
Stiles, W. B. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical psychology review, 13(6), 
593-618. 
Sukamolson, S. (2010). Fundamentals of quantitative research. Language Institute, Chulalongkorn 
University. 
Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A 
peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33(2), 163-179. 
Tran, H. T. (2013). Building a system of criteria to evaluate the results of scientific research in 
social sciences at the University of Science, Thai Nguyen University, Master's thesis in 
Business and Management. University of Social Sciences and Humanities 
Tran, M. T. (2007). Scientific research activities of lecturers in universities and methods of 
assessment and acceptance of the topic, Van Lang University - Journal of Science and 
Training, (6), 54-59. 
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa 
statistic. Fam med, 37(5), 360-363. 
Vu, D. C. (2014). Scientific research methodology, Science and Technology Publishing House. 
Wu, Y. P., Thompson, D., Aroian, K. J., McQuaid, E. L., & Deatrick, J. A. (2016). Commentary: 
Writing and evaluating qualitative research reports. Journal of pediatric psychology, 41(5), 
493-505. 
HCMUE Journal of Science Dinh Thi Kim Thoa et al. 
843 
CƠ SỞ KHOA HỌC CỦA BỘ TIÊU CHÍ ĐÁNH GIÁ CÔNG TRÌNH 
NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC GIÁO DỤC THEO CHUẨN QUỐC TẾ 
Đinh Thị Kim Thoa1*, Trần Văn Công1, Trần Thị Thu Anh2 
1 Trường Đại học Giáo dục, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, Việt Nam 
2 Trung tâm Đảm bảo chất lượng, Trường Đại học Công nghiệp Dệt may Hà Nội, Việt Nam 
*
Tác giả liên hệ: Đinh Thị Kim Thoa – Email: thoadtk@vnu.edu.vn 
Ngày nhận bài: 10-3-2020; ngày nhận bài sửa: 05-4-2020; ngày duyệt đăng: 27-5-2020 
TÓM TẮT 
Nghiên cứu tập trung trình bày cơ sở khoa học của hệ thống tiêu chí đánh giá các công trình 
nghiên cứu khoa học giáo dục theo chuẩn quốc tế. Chúng tôi sử dụng kết hợp nghiên cứu lí luận 
với phỏng vấn, thảo luận nhóm chuyên gia, khảo sát 140 giảng viên của 5 trường đại học sư phạm 
tại Việt Nam và 33 giảng viên phụ trách giảng dạy các bộ môn thuộc 4 chuyên ngành của Trường 
Đại học Giáo dục. Mức độ cần thiết, sự phù hợp, độ tin cậy của bộ tiêu chí trong việc đánh giá 
luận văn thuộc lĩnh vực khoa học giáo dục đã được kiểm tra. Hai chuyên gia tích kiểm độc lập 146 
luận văn dựa vào bộ tiêu chí, kết quả cho thấy ý kiến đánh giá của 2 chuyên gia đối với 38 tiêu chí 
đánh giá rất tương đồng với nhau, tỉ lệ trùng khớp nhau từ 85,6% đến 100%. Hệ số tương quan 
Kappa đều trên 0,7. Bộ tiêu chí có độ tin cậy cao trong đánh giá chất lượng công trình khoa học. 
Từ khóa: tiêu chí; chuẩn quốc tế; khoa học giáo dục; đánh giá; cơ sở khoa học