National Institute of Technology, Sendai College
1. Decision of institutional certified evaluation and accreditation
The National Institute of Technology, Sendai College, complies with the Standards for the Establishment of Collegesof Technology and other relevant laws and regulations and meets the Standards for Evaluation and Accreditation ofColleges of Technology set by the National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher
Education (NIAD-QE). It fulfills all the requirements defined as priority evaluation items in Viewpoint 1-1.
The best practices identified by the review committee include the following:1)

As part of its comprehensive student support system, Sendai College set up a study support room (SSR),
in which three education coordinators provide individual study guidance daily. It also stationed two fulltime counselors in the student counseling room to facilitate the “Delivery Type Psycho-Education
Workshop.”2)

Sendai College, as a base school in the IoT field for “COMPASS 5.0, a project to develop future technology
human resources suitable for Society 5.0,” designed a new curriculum and created teaching materials forthe development of IoT human resources. To promote education in the IoT field at institutes of technology
across the country, the college distributed the designed curricula and teaching materials to 11 institutesnationwide.

3)

As part of their course internship in the third quarter of their first year, which aims to improve problemsolving skills, students helped local companies by identifying and solving company issues.

4)

The employment rate (the number of students employed divided by those seeking postgraduate employment)
for associate and diploma courses is extremely high, with graduates employed in manufacturing and otherindustries to which the engineers that the college hopes to produce are well-suited. The rate of students
advancing to higher education (the number of students advancing to higher education divided by those wishing
to do so) for associate and diploma courses is also extremely high, with graduates advancing to diploma courses
at colleges of technology, engineering faculties, or graduate schools related to their associate and diploma
courses.

Points to be improved:1)

The system used for collecting and accumulating data and materials, which serve as the basis for selfassessment, is not clearly defined [Viewpoint 1-1-(2)].

2)

Responses to the improvement points indicated in the previous institutional certified evaluation andaccreditation report have not been discussed by the relevant internal quality assurance committees[Viewpoint 1-1-(4)].

3)

The following points, as indicated in the previous institutional certified evaluation and accreditation report,
have not been addressed: “Some course subjects have used the same exam questions for several years, orin the final exam and re-examination,” “Grade evaluations for some course subjects were not employed as

described in the syllabus, or exam answers were not graded appropriately,” and “Grade evaluation materials
such as student answer sheets, which should have been collected and stored in the Academic Affairs
Planning Office and the Department Planning Office, were not stored properly” [Viewpoint 1-1-(4)].
4)

Oral examinations given to students with poor grades do not ensure the objectivity and rigor of performance
evaluations [Viewpoint 5-3-(1)].

5)

No organizational check system is in place to ensure objectivity and rigor in grade evaluations. Additionally,
the evaluation system is not functioning adequately [Viewpoint 5-3-(1)].

6)

It is unclear how interviews are evaluated in the admissions selection process (academic ability selection)
for the diploma course [Viewpoint 8-2-(1)].

The NIAD-QE has translated this document with consent from the college for reader information only.