University Accreditation Results(Results for Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for University)

Nagoya University of Commerce & Business

Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: Private

Location: Aichi, Japan

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2020
Accreditation Status: accredited （Accreditation Period: April.1.2021 – March.31.2028）

Nagoya University of Commerce & Business

Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Resultsfor Nagoya University of Commerce & Business
Overview
The “Frontier Spirit” is the founding mission of Nagoya University of Commerce &Business (hereafter referred to as the “University”). The University’s mission is “To
educate innovative and ethical leaders who possess a ʻFrontier Spiritʼ and to createknowledge that advances business and society. Our undergraduate students will develop
the ability to bridge the gap between New Asia and the rest of the world”. To realize themission and vision of the University, a five-year strategic plan is formulated under theleadership of the Dean's Committee. The Strategic Plan formulated in AY 2017 consistsof fourteen categories set below five main goals. Within this umbrella, a total of sixtyfour action plans and twenty-one benchmarks were outlined in the University’s Strategic
Plan aimed to enhance its education and research.
The Dean's Committee acts as a university-wide organization responsible for thepromotion of internal quality assurance. The Committee, consisting of the President, theVice President, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Dean of each Faculty, and theAssistant to the President (in charge of research), enables the promotion of universitywide internal quality assurance. In addition, the University Evaluation Implementation
Committee has been established as an organization to manage tasks such as thepreparation of “self-assessment reports” and the implementation of University Evaluation.
However, it is important to note that the University Evaluation Implementation
Committee does not function as an independent organization, nor are the actual authority
and division of roles between other internal organizations clear. Furthermore, checks andreviews at the level of each Faculty of the University and at the Graduate School are notcarried out independently or systematically. Hence, it cannot be said that a sufficientinternal quality assurance system based on the results of checks and reviews of each
Faculty and the Graduate School is in place. Moving forward, there is a need to review
the internal quality assurance system, including the division of authority and roles, andhow collaborations should be established between faculties to realize the process ofimprovement and enhancement based on self-inspection and evaluation.
Regarding education, the University has established a degree award policy thathighlights the distinctive features of the field of study for each degree awarded, in addition
to a university-wide degree award policy (diploma policy) based on the University'smission, purpose, vision, etc. The university-wide degree award policy describes the1Nagoya University of Commerce & Businessknowledge, skills, and attitudes students must acquire to obtain a degree. To certify thestudents have achieved the level of learning outcomes outlined in the degree award policy,
the learning outcomes are ascertained and assessed using a measurement index based on
the standards of the international accreditation bodies. The University is striving toimprove the education programs through this quality assurance effort. In this regard, theUniversity combines the two vectors in measuring learning outcomes: LGs (LearningGoals), which are consistent with the overall degree-award policy, and LOs (LearningObjectives), which explicitly indicate the specific abilities the students must acquire. TheLGs and LOs have shown continuous improvement since 2006. Currently, there are LGs
common to both the Faculties and the Graduate School as well as LGs unique to theGraduate School. Eight LGs have been established in total which consist of four common
LGs for the Faculties and the Graduate School as well as their respective LOs. Regarding
measurements of learning and learning outcomes, the University is making advanced
efforts such as using the rubrics created based on the LOs.
In terms of excellent initiatives, not only does the University comply withinternational accreditation standards, each Faculty and the Graduate School also create
their original “AOL Report” (AOL: Assurance of Learning) based on LG achievement
evaluation. The AOL Report summarizes the regular inspections and evaluations
conducted, and information gathered for each LG every year (numerical results, datacollection methods, results and analysis, and action plans for the next academic year).
Such a framework for continuous ingenuity and improvement is commendable. It is alsocommendable that by constructing a student profile system reflecting AI predictions of
the graduation results of each individual student, the University employment rate exceedsthat of the national average and it has realized an efficient employment support systemby means of data analysis. Also, in an effort to maintain a system that can adequately
accommodate international students by assigning foreign staff and staff members who arefluent in English to each Faculty, the University conducts surveys specifically forinternational students, enabling support for students both on/off campus. These effortsare practical and highly commendable as an approach toward internationality.
However, there are several issues that should be addressed. Regarding internal
quality assurance, as previously stated, there is a need to review the system, including thedivision of authority and roles, and how collaborations should be established between
faculties to actualize the process of improvement based on checks and reviews andenhance the functions of internal quality assurance. In the last five years, the average
ratios of freshman enrollment to the freshman enrollment cap and the ratios of studentenrollment to the student enrollment cap have been low in several of the University2

Nagoya University of Commerce & Business

Faculties. Hence, correction is needed to ensure thorough quota management for theseFaculties.
Moving forward, further progress is expected through future efforts to fully
demonstrate the functions of internal quality assurance, solving problems that need to beimproved through internal quality assurance efforts, and further developing theUniversity’s distinctive initiatives.
Notable Strengths
Educational Program and Learning Outcomes
The AOL Report (Assessment Report) is created each year, based on the evaluationof the achievement level of LGs, which is an index to measure learning outcomes.
The report summarizes the numerical results, data collection methods, results andanalysis, and action plans for the next academic year for each LG. Regularinspections and evaluations are carried out, and the benchmarks are also establishedin the Assessment Report itself. It is commendable that the University has establisheda framework for such continuous improvement.

Student Support
 Constructing the mechanism of the student profile system led to ascertaining thestudents' status of learning all the while realizing smooth communication between
the secretariat, faculty members, and students. At the same time, by taking anapproach to raise awareness of careers starting in the first year, the students' interest
in finding employment was stimulated from an early stage. Data obtained from thestudent profile system, such as GPA, examination classification at the time ofadmission, club memberships, housing situation (in dorms or otherwise), areanalyzed to realize efficient employment support. It is commendable that theseefforts have achieved a higher employment rate than the national average.
 By conducting surveys specifically for international students and utilizing it’s results,
the University is working to create a system to support students in their activities bothon/off campus. It is commendable that promoting practical international initiatives
such as offering courses in English, providing materials to students in English, andimproving the ability to accommodate international students by assigning foreign
3

Nagoya University of Commerce & Business

staff and staff members who are fluent in English to each Faculty has led to tangible
results.
University Management and Finance
The University has abolished it's gradational salary system for faculty and staff. For
staff personnel, the University conducts business evaluations on 15 levels of criteria
based on personnel assessment. In addition, by introducing a reward system (for eachindividual and department), the University has created an environment in which
individuals and teams can work together. Regarding personnel affairs of faculty
members, efforts are being made to specifically ascertain and evaluate theachievements of faculty members' education and research through performance
reports, etc. It is commendable that through these initiatives, the University hasrealized increased motivation and acquisition of skills in staff, and recruitment ofexcellent teachers from overseas with more ease.

Recommendation
Internal Quality Assurance The “Dean’s Committee” acts as a “university-wide organization responsible for thepromotion of internal quality assurance” and the “University Evaluation
Implementation Committee” was established as an “organization to manage thepreparation of reports for university-wide self-inspection and evaluation”. However,the University Evaluation Implementation Committee is only held as a part of theDean’s Committee. It does not function as an independent organization, nor are theactual authority and division of roles clear. In addition, checks and reviews are notconducted independently or systematically in each Faculty or the Graduate School,
so it cannot be said that a system leading to improvement and enhancement based on
the results of checks and reviews of each Faculty and Graduate School division isactually functioning. Corrections are desired to improve the efficiency of internal
quality assurance by; 1. clarifying the role of each Committee, Faculty, and Graduate
School division concerning Internal Quality Assurance, 2. implementing inspections
and evaluations for each Faculty and Graduate School division, and 3. establishing asystem capable of improving and enhancing the internal quality assurance system.

4