Evolving

Institutional
Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation

Verification Report on the First Cycle (2005 - 2011)
and Improvements for the Second Cycle (2012 -2018)

March 2013© National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation 2013

Contact:
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation
1-29-1 Gakuen-Nishimachi, Kodaira, Tokyo 187-8587 Japan
www.niad.ac.jp

Evolving
Institutional
Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation

Verification Report on the First Cycle (2005-2011)
and Improvements for the Second Cycle (2012-2018)

March 2013

National Institution for Academic Degrees
and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)

Preface
The National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE) is anorganization certified by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
We began the certified evaluation and accreditation (CEA) of universities and juniorcolleges in 2005, and the first cycle of evaluation was completed in 2011.

We alsoestablished an optional evaluation program in which we conduct external evaluation for
universities and junior colleges at request. The first cycle of evaluation involved the CEAof 145 universities including 13 junior colleges and the optional evaluation (items A and B) of
66 universities including 6 junior colleges.
NIAD-UE published a report in Japanese verifying the performance of the first cycle ofinstitutional CEA and optional evaluation based on analyses of the evaluation results andannual surveys carried out by distributing a questionnaire to subject institutions andexternal evaluators. The report clarifies the effectiveness, impact, and problems of the
CEA evaluation and gives a glimpse of the current status of Japanese universities revealed
through the evaluation.
Based on the results of the analyses, we revised the university evaluation standards andoptional evaluation system in preparation for the second cycle of institutional CEA andoptional evaluation starting in 2012.

The report additionally provides backgroundinformation on the new standards and systems.
This English version of the verification report covers the essential parts of the Japaneseoriginal, mainly focused on institutional CEA. NIAD-UE’s institutional CEA aims to maintainand enhance the level of education and research in universities and colleges and contributeto their unique and diverse development. We hope the publication of this report willfurther the international community’s understanding of NIAD-UE’s CEA and its futurechallenges, and show how university education is making steady improvement in Japan.

National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation
President
Tomoyuki NOGAMI, Ph.DThe full text of the report in Japanese is available from:http://www.niad.ac.jp/n_hyouka/jouhou/1220651_989.html

iContents

Preface…

i

Executive Summary

…

1

…
…
…
…
…
…

2

…
…

6

…
…
…

8

…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…

12

1. NIAD-UE Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation (CEA)
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6

PurposeFundamental Policy
Implementation System
Methodology and Evaluation Process
Evaluation Schedule
Evaluation Results

2
3
3
4
5

2. Institutions within the Period of 2005-2011
2-1
2-2

CEA: Universities
CEA with Optional Evaluation Items

6

3. Verification of the CEA Process by Annual Surveys
3-1
3-2
3-3

Result and Impact of CEA
Workload of the Process/Cost Performance
CEA Process

1011

4. Analysis of the CEA Results on Universities
4-1
4-2

Overview of the Results
Analysis by Standard
4-2-1

Standard 1:

Purpose of the University

4-2-2Standard 2:

Education and Research Structure

4-2-3Standard 3:

Academic Staff and Education Supporting Staff

4-2-4Standard 4:

Student Admission

4-2-5

Standard 5:

Academic Programs

4-2-6Standard 6:

Effectiveness of Institutional Performance

4-2-7

Standard 7:

Student Support

4-2-8

Standard 8:

Facilities

4-2-9Standard 9:

Internal Quality Assurance System

4-2-10 Standard 10:

Finance

4-2-11 Standard 11:

Management

ii

15
15
16
17
19
21
24
25
27
28
29
29

5. CEA Standards for the Second Cycle in the Period of 2012-2018
5-1
5-2

Revision of Standards
Thematic Assessments

Institutions Undertaking Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
between 2005-2011
Appendix B: Questionnaire Results (Universities)
Appendix C: Questionnaire Results (External Evaluators)

…
…

31

…
…
…

34
36
45

32

Appendix A:

iii

Executive Summary
The National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)
produced a report regarding the first cycle of institutional certified evaluation andaccreditation (CEA) conducted from 2005 to 2011 based on analyses of theevaluation results and annual surveys carried out by distributing a questionnaire to
subject institutions and external evaluators.

The main findings about the first cycle verification are as follows: A total of 132 universities and 13 junior colleges were subject to the CEA
evaluation, of which 131 universities and 13 junior colleges satisfied the university(junior college) evaluation standards and one university failed.
 The survey results were analyzed in terms of the target attainment levels, effects
and impact of the evaluation, appropriateness of the evaluation process,workload of the evaluation, and other aspects, and the results indicated that thefirst cycle of CEA was effective and appropriate overall. The analysis also
identified many areas that require improvement, such as the need to reduce theevaluation workload.
 Based on the analysis of the evaluation results, the report clarifies how
NIAD-UE’s CEA has positively pointed out good practices, many of which were
initiatives regarding academic programs (Standard 5), student support (Standard7), and internal quality assurance system (Standard 9). It also pointed out
many areas for improvement regarding student admission (Standard 4,
especially the management of graduate school student numbers), facilities(Standard 8), and academic staff and education supporting staff (Standard 3).
 An assessment was made regarding the problems shared by many universities(credit substantiation, internal quality assurance system, etc.), though few werepointed out as areas for improvement in the first cycle.
 Based on the Report with the Central Council for Education and the first cycle
verification results, the university evaluation standards and viewpoints wererevised for the second cycle of CEA, placing more focus on learning outcomes,
internal quality assurance system of teaching and learning, and public
information on teaching and learning, as well as reducing the evaluation
workload.
 NIAD-UE’s optional evaluation was established as external evaluation
independent of CEA, with three areas of evaluation: research activities,
community engagement, and internationalization of higher education.

1

1.

NIAD-UE Institutional Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation (CEA)

The overview of the National Institution for Academic Degrees and University
Evaluation (NIAD-UE)’s first cycle of certified evaluation and accreditation (CEA) andoptional evaluation of universities and junior colleges from 2005 to 2011 is asfollows.

Institutional CEA
Universities and junior colleges are obligated to undergo an evaluation performedby an organization certified by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT) at least once every seven years to enhance the quality of
their education and research level. The evaluation examines their comprehensive
status of education and research, organization and management, and facilities andequipment. (School Education Law Article 109 and School Education Law Order for
Enforcement Article 40)
Under this framework, NIAD-UE was certified by MEXT as a CEA organization in
January 2005 and began the evaluation of universities and junior colleges in the2005 academic year.

1-1. Purpose
The CEA evaluation was conducted with the objectives listed below to maintain andenhance the educational and research level of universities and junior colleges andcontribute to their unique and diverse development in Japan.
(1) To assure the quality of education and research by regularly evaluating
universities in accordance with the standards set by NIAD-UE: quality assurance(2) To provide high quality evaluation reports to universities for the quality
improvement of their education and research: quality enhancement(3) To assist universities in fulfilling accountability to the general public on theirstatus as public organizations, by clarifying the condition of their education andresearch: accountability

1-2. Fundamental Policy
To attain the above targets, NIAD-UE’s CEA is based on the following fundamental
policies:
1. Reference to the Standards for Evaluation and Accreditation of Universities
2. Focus on educational activities
3. Contribution to the development of individuality
4. Evaluation and accreditation based on self-assessment
5. Use of peer review
6. A highly transparent system21-3. Implementation System
To conduct the CEA evaluation, NIAD-UE set up a committee comprised of relevant
people from national/municipal/prefectural/private universities, along with experts
in economics, culture, and other various fields, and evaluation subcommittees wereformed according to the specific evaluation needs of the subject university or juniorcollege.
Special experts were assigned accordingly to the subcommittees for the
department or unit of the subject university or junior college to address diverse
educational fields and conditions.

1-4. Methodology and Evaluation Process
The overview of the methodology and evaluation process is as follows:(1) Self-assessment by universities or junior colleges
Each university or junior college carried out a self-assessment according to the
Guidelines for Self-Assessment and produced a self-assessment report, which wasthen submitted to NIAD-UE.
(2) NIAD-UE evaluation
NIAD-UE’s evaluation was conducted through document analyses and site visits.
a) The document analysis involved the study and assessment of the current
status of the subject university or junior college based on the Evaluation
Manual, self-assessment report submitted by the subject university or juniorcollege (including material and data submitted as the bases for theirself-assessment), and independent material and data studied and collected by
NIAD-UE.
b) Site visits were conducted based on the Guidelines for Site Visit, mainly
examining the items that could not be confirmed by the document analysis.
c) After giving due consideration to the self-assessment report, NIAD-UE thenevaluated by each standard, judging whether or not the university or juniorcollege met the standards as a whole, and citing reasons.
Many of the standards are stipulated according to content, and theviewpoints are set based on this content. An evaluation of whether or not
an institution satisfies a standard was conducted through a comprehensive
analysis of the viewpoints for each standard. Many of the viewpoints are
related to the Standards for Establishment of Universities (junior colleges)
formulated by laws, and as a general rule, any violation of the Establishment
Standards was deemed as a failure to meet the evaluation standard.

3d) If the university or junior college as a whole met all standards, NIAD-UE
recognized and published that it satisfied the Standards for Evaluation andAccreditation on an institutional level.
On the other hand, if the university or junior college failed to meet even one
evaluation standard, NIAD-UE recognized and published that the university or
junior college as a whole failed to meet the Standards for Evaluation andAccreditation.
Furthermore, good practices and areas for improvement, if any, were also
pointed out for each standard.

1-5. Evaluation Schedule
NIAD-UE conducted its evaluation each academic year according to the schedule
below.
(1) CEA briefings and training programs for internal self-assessment evaluators
Briefings explaining the system and methodology of institutional CEA were
held around June of the academic year previous to the CEA for relevant
people in national, municipal/prefectural, and private universities or juniorcolleges. Training programs were also held for self-assessment evaluators
on how to document the self-assessment reports.
Training programs were held for self-assessment evaluators around Decemberof the academic year preceding the CEA until 2009.
(2) Application
The university or junior college submitted its application to NIAD-UE from Julyto September of the academic year preceding the evaluation.
(3) Training programs for external evaluators
Training programs were held for external evaluators regarding the objectives,content, and methodology of university evaluation in June of the academic
year when the evaluation was to be conducted.
This enabled the external
evaluators to conduct their business smoothly in a just and appropriatemanner based on a common understanding.
(4) Submission of self-assessment reports
The subject university or junior college submitted its self-assessment report at
the end of June of the academic year when the evaluation was to be
conducted.
(5) Evaluation work
The evaluation work schedule after the university or junior college submitted
its self-assessment report is as follows.

4Universities
July

Document analysis

August to
September- CEA subcommittees and finance subcommittees; assessing
document analysis results, identifying the items to be confirmed onsite visits, and determining roles in site visits.
- Management subcommittees; coordinating cross-sectional items
between subcommittees.

October toDecember

Site visits; studying the subject universities, focusing on the items that
could not be confirmed by document analysis.

DecemberManagement subcommittees, evaluation subcommittees, and financesubcommittees; preparing preliminary evaluation results.

Junior colleges
July

Document analysis

August to
September

CEA subcommittees and finance subcommittees; assessing document
analysis results, identifying the items to be confirmed on site visits,
and determining roles in site visits.

October toDecember

Site visits; studying the subject junior colleges, focusing on the items
that could not be confirmed by document analysis.

December

Evaluation subcommittees and finance subcommittees; preparing
preliminary evaluation results.

1-6. Evaluation Results
Based on the research analysis, the preliminary evaluation results were determinedat the CEA committee in January of the academic year when the evaluation was
conducted.
The university or junior college was given the chance to state any objections
regarding the preliminary results, and the final evaluation results were fixed after
the evaluation committee review in March of the same academic year. NIAD-UE
notified each institution/establishing entity of the evaluation results at the end of
March, published the results on the NIAD-UE website, and reported to MEXT.

52．Institutions within the Period of 2005-2011
2-1. CEA: Universities
Table 1 shows the total number of universities and junior colleges subject to
NIAD-UE’s first cycle of institutional CEA from 2005 to 2011. The evaluation results
revealed that 131 universities and 13 junior colleges satisfied NIAD-UE’s university(junior college) evaluation standards, and 1 university failed.
Table 1. CEA: Universities
National
2
7
37
4
27
7
1

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Municipal/prefectural
4 (2)*
4 (1)
1 (1)
7 (2)
11 (1)
20 (5)
5

Private
0
0
2 (1)
2
0
3
1

Total
6 (2)
11 (1)
40 (2)
13 (2)
38 (1)
30 (5)
78 (1)145 (13)Total
85
52 (12)*The numbers in ( ) refer to junior colleges.

2-2. CEA with Optional Evaluation Items
NIAD-UE also established an optional evaluation framework with two evaluation
items to assess university activities in terms of aspects other than the university
evaluation standards: optional evaluation item A examining research activities, andoptional evaluation item B examining educational services offered to students otherthan full-time students. The optional evaluation was carried out at the request of
the university or junior college, and Table 2 shows the number of universities andjunior colleges subject to this evaluation.
Table 2. Optional Evaluation Items: Universities and junior colleges
Optional evaluation item A: Research activities
National

Municipal/

PrivateOptional evaluation item B: Educational services

Total

National

prefectural

Municipal/

PrivateTotal

prefectural

2005

－

－

－

－

2005

0

0

0

0

2006

7

1

0

8

2006

3

1

0

4

2007

8

1 (1)*

0

9 (1)

2007

8

1 (1)

0

9 (1)

2008

0

1

1

2

2008

0

4 (2)

0

4 (2)

2009

0

2

0

2

2009

1

2

0

3

2010

0

7

0

7

2010

0

12 (2)

2

14 (2)

2011

0

1

0

1

2011

0

2

1

3

Total

15

13 (1)1

29 (1)Total

12

22 (5)

3

37 (5)*The numbers in ( ) refer to junior colleges.

6Evaluation results are as follows:
Optional evaluation item A:-

Target attainment level is excellent:

1 university-

Target attainment level is good:

25 universities, 1 junior college-

Target attainment level is fair:2 universities

Optional evaluation item B:-

Target attainment level is excellent:

4 universities-

Target attainment level is good:

27 universities, 5 junior colleges-

Target attainment level is fair:

1 university

73. Verification of the CEA Process by Annual
Surveys
Each academic year NIAD-UE conducted questionnaire surveys comprised ofmultiple-choice (5 levels and 2 levels) and free answers. These surveys were
performed with the subject institutions and external evaluators immediately after
the CEA, and the analyzed survey results were published. Tables 3 and 4 show thesurvey response rates for the first cycle.
Table 3. CEA survey responses
Number of responses

Rate of responses

Subject institutions

143 out of 145 institutions

99%

External evaluators

312 out of 426 external evaluators

73%

Table 4. Optional evaluation survey responses
Number of responses

Rate of responses

Subject institutions

47 out of 49 institutions

96%

External evaluators

115 out of 174 external evaluators

66%

The survey results of the first cycle were analyzed comprehensively, verifying theeffectiveness and appropriateness of CEA and optional evaluation. The overview
of the verification results is shown below.

3-1. Result and Impact of CEA
In the surveys, the subject institutions gave their views on whether or not
NIAD-UE’s evaluation had attained its three targets: assuring quality, helping quality
enhancement, and assisting universities in fulfilling accountability to the generalpublic. As Figure 1 shows, there was a high percentage of positive answers at
approximately 80% for the first two targets. Meanwhile, the percentage of
positive responses for the third target of accountability of universities to thegeneral public was lower at approximately 50%. More or less the same results wereobtained with the external evaluators. Thus it may be said that, of the three
NIAD-UE objectives, the targets of assure quality and helping quality enhancement
were achieved in general, but the target of assisting university for accountability stillrequires more initiatives and efforts.

8

Figure 1. Attainment level of the evaluation targets (subject institutions)

From the survey results of the subject institutions, Figure 2 is an excerpt of the 10questions regarding the effects and impact of conducting a self-assessment prior to
CEA, and the effects and impact of receiving the evaluation results.

Figure 2. Effects and impacts of self-assessmentand evaluation results (subject institutions)9As the figure shows, while production of self-assessment reports is quite important
for an institution to contribute to the understanding of conditions and challenges
regarding its educational and research activities, the CEA evaluation, i.e., an external
review, does serve as a kind of pressure or incentive, in addition to the institution’s
own initiatives, in help improve and raising awareness of staff in relation toevaluation of the organization.
It may be said that CEA, including its
encouragement of self-assessment, was effective in assure quality and help improvein universities.
The survey also asked the subject institutions what they thought of the impacts ofthe evaluation results, and as Figure 3 (a) shows, there was an extremely high rateof positive answers at approximately 95% on how useful the evaluation results
report had been. Moreover, as Figure 3 (b) shows, approximately 90% of thesubject institutions responded that the items pointed out as areas for improvement
had already been corrected or were to be corrected by the time of the survey.

(b) An improvement was made(a) Evaluation results report
was useful/not useful.

based on the evaluation results
report.

Figure 3. Impacts of the evaluation results (subject institutions)3-2. Workload of the Process/Cost Performance
Figure 4 shows that almost all of the subject institutions described the workload for
preparing the self-assessment reports as large. However, asked whether or not
the workload was worth the objective of the evaluation, as shown in Figure 5, they
believed the cost performance of assure quality and help improve was high at
approximately 65% and 75%, respectively. Thus, it may be said that despite thesizeable workload, the evaluation was worth the objectives on the whole, though
efforts to reduce the workload and enhance cost performance are still necessary.

Figure 4. Workload of the evaluation (subject institutions)10Figure 5. Cost performance of the evaluation (subject institutions)3-3. CEA Process
The results of the surveys regarding the self-assessment reports, document
analyses, site visits, and evaluation results (evaluation reports) revealed that the
NIAD-UE evaluation was conducted based on a common understanding shared by
the external evaluators and subject institutions, and the evaluation process for the
first cycle was appropriate in general. It may also be said that the evaluation
standards and viewpoints, as well as the briefings and training sessions, wereappropriate overall.
The analysis of the survey results also sheds light on many areas for improvement,such as the need to reduce the workload, and efforts are being taken to addressthese issues as much as possible for the second cycle of evaluation.

11

4. Analysis of the CEA Results on Universities
4-1. Overview of the Results
NIAD-UE’s institutional CEA provides feedback to the subject institutions so that
educational and research activities can be improved at each university or juniorcollege; it points out “good practice” and “areas for improvement” in theevaluation results for this purpose.
Some of them are pointed out as “main”
good practices and “main” areas for improvement. NIAD-UE’s Research
Department analyzed the remarks for good practices and areas for improvement
for a total of 132 institutions. It then clarified the characteristic features of
NIAD-UE’s institutional CEA and also provided observations regarding the current
state of university education in Japan revealed from those remarks.

Analysis of “good practices” and “areas for improvement”
There was a total of 1,964 remarks for good practices (14.9 remarks/institution) and
296 for areas for improvement (2.2 remarks/institution). This is an indication of
NIAD-UE’s determination to point out good practices in its CEA evaluation.
Figure 6 shows the number of remarks for good practices by standard. Standard 5
for “academic programs” garnered the most number of “good practice” remarks(849 remarks; approximately 43% of the total), and these pointed out the
GP/COE(Good Practice/Center of Excellence) projects that gain competitive funds
from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, as well as
many other initiatives that develop and implement academic programs. Standard 7
for “student support” accounted for the second-most remarks (236 remarks;
approximately 12%), and these pointed out the many initiatives supporting student
life (including career support), guidance/counseling/support services for study,
financial aid, or maintenance on environments that offer learning support.
Standard 9 for “internal quality assurance system” had the third-most remarks (169
remarks; approximately 9%), and these pointed out the initiatives using student
evaluation to improve lectures, and various faculty development (FD) activities.

12

Figure 6. “Good practices” by standard(Standard 1: Purpose of the University; Standard 2: Education and Research Structure; Standard 3: Academic
Staff and Education Supporting Staff; Standard 4: Student Admission; Standard 5: Academic Programs; Standard
6: Effectiveness of Institutional Performance; Standard 7: Student Support; Standard 8: Facilities; Standard 9:
Internal Quality Assurance System; Standard 10: Finance; and Standard 11: Management)

Figure 7 indicates the number of remarks for areas for improvement by standard.
Standard 4 for “student admission” accounted for the most remarks (106 remarks;
approximately 36% of the total), of which most applied to graduate programs.
(Undergraduate programs were found to have managed their student admission
well.) More than half the universities failed to fill their student capacity1 and/or
had graduate programs with enrollment exceeding capacity. Standard 8 for“facilities” had the next-most remarks (44 remarks; approximately 15%), and thesepointed out a failure to address antiquated/small facilities, or provide barrier-freeaccess or quake-proofing. On the other hand, many universities also received“good practice” remarks for Standard 8, indicating a discrepancy between
universities in this standard. Standard 3 for “academic staff and education
supporting staff” had the third-most remarks for areas for improvement (42remarks; approximately 14%), and these pointed out the inappropriate assignmentof full-time academic staffs to principal subjects, though. No universities werepointed out to be in violation of the Standards for Establishment of Universities orother relevant laws.

1. In Standard 4, it is determined that the number of students enrolled is to be appropriate relative to theadmission capacity of the university.

13

Figure 7. “Areas for improvement” by standard(Standard 1: Purpose of the University; Standard 2: Education and Research Structure; Standard 3: Academic
Staff and Education Supporting Staff; Standard 4: Student Admission; Standard 5: Academic Programs; Standard
6: Effectiveness of Institutional Performance; Standard 7: Student Support; Standard 8: Facilities; Standard 9:
Internal Quality Assurance System; Standard 10: Finance; and Standard 11: Management)

Proposals for the second cycle
Some of the common problems shared by many universities are as follows, though
they were rarely pointed out as areas for improvement in the first cycle.
Academic staff arrangement (especially for liberal arts subjects)Credit substantiation: securing the hours of study

Evaluation of learning outcomes:
rate of graduation/acquisition of qualifications, career paths after graduation,
feedback from students, and feedback from graduates/employers

 Establishment of internal quality assurance system
In addition, in the hope that the evaluation results will contribute to the further
improvement of universities, better ways to write up the evaluation reports must be
considered, for example, not only point out “areas that require improvement,” butalso point out “areas where improvement is desired.”14

4-2. Analysis by Standard
4-2-1. Standard 1: Purpose of the University
Good practices
There were 64 remarks for good practices, of which 29 were for main goodpractices. The main good practices were related to the items below.
1) Clarification of university objectives and features:
2) Awareness and disclosure of the objectives: 15

16

For 1), remarks pointed out the clarification of ideals, missions, features, or
near-future visions by, for example, establishing university charters or “vision 20XX”
plans. Keywords describing university features included “global (international),”“leading role in Japan,” “regional,” and/or “research-oriented,” and“education-oriented.” Some municipal/prefectural universities also emphasized“urban” as well as “regional.”
For 2), remarks pointed out initiatives to raise the awareness of university objectives
and features among students through introductory education such as entry levelcourses and specific courses about the university. Other remarks pointed out the
introduction of university ideals and features in multiple languages (English, Chinese,and Korean) on official university websites, and regular communication of university
activities through television broadcasts or newspaper articles.
Areas for improvement
The one remark for areas for improvement for Standard 1 was related to theawareness and disclosure of university objectives. It pointed out that somestudents and academic/administrative staff felt the university should increase its PR
activities to enhance its recognition.
The document analysis also revealed that the objectives of some faculties andgraduate programs had not been stipulated in their university codes. Nonetheless,if pointed out in the evaluation process and addressed appropriately by the time ofthe evaluation results, they were not pointed out as areas for improvement.
Discussion
In the past, many universities used to copy the exact wording from the School
Education Law for their university objectives, and this was pointed out as an areafor improvement in the Reports with the Central Council for Education 2 . As
mentioned above, however, there have been fewer such cases in recent years, andmany universities are now capable of clarifying their distinctive features.
2

The council set up in the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) to discuss key
issues in the development of education, sports, and the cultivation of human resources via the promotion of
lifelong learning, in response to the request of the Minister. Among several working groups is the
Subdivision on Universities, which is in charge of important matters in higher education.

15

4-2-2. Standard 2: Education and Research Structure(Implementation System)
Good practices
There were 134 remarks for good practices, of which 72 were for main goodpractices. The main good practices were related to the following.
1) Use of centers and attached facilities: 31
2) Distinctive graduate programs and organizations:3) Distinctive undergraduate programs: 164) Liberal arts education system: 15

21

For 1), remarks pointed out the establishment of “university education centers” forresearch, planning, and coordination of education from an institution-wide
perspective, “education and R&D centers” for the research and practice ofadvanced education methods in specific fields, and many “centers/research
institutes,” which were established for the research of specific fields, providing
facilities to conduct lectures or practical works as well as the staffs instruct
graduate students. Other remarks pointed out how the establishment of
university art museums or performance art centers at art universities also
contributes to student learning.
For 2), many remarks pointed out graduate education programs structured in
response to university goals such as “interdisciplinary,” “internationalization,
global/highest global standards,” “education and research base in a specific field inJapan,” and “regional research.” These not only referred to traditional academic
units such as faculties and graduate schools, but also to those established throughthe adoption of unique educational/faculty units, and new independent graduate
programs or special education/research courses.
For 3), many remarks pointed out the adoption of combined faculties or course
systems, establishment of courses that allow interdisciplinary learning, and otherinitiatives that enable flexible career choices. Other remarks pointed out the
separation of educational units (degree programs) and faculty units (divisionsystems), establishment of unique departments addressing the needs of local
communities or helping sustain traditional art, general deployment of full-timeacademic staff for communications subjects (English subjects), and provision ofevening courses.
For 4), remarks pointed out the extensive deployment of full-time academic staff
through the establishment of faculties of liberal arts and university-wide general
education centers.

16

Areas for improvement
There were 11 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 6 were for main areas
for improvement. Many of the areas for improvement were related to thefollowing.
1) Liberal arts education system:

7

The remarks pointed out, for example, that campuses or faculties were performing
liberal arts education independently of each other, resulting in insufficient
discussion and coordination between staff regarding the principles for general
education.
Discussion
As mentioned above, many of the remarks for areas for improvement in Standard 2
were related to the framework of liberal arts education. On the other hand, morethan a few universities received remarks for good practice for the same aspect.
This is the viewpoint where results were divided depending on the university.
Before the so-called deregulation of university education, many universities
established liberal arts faculties responsible for liberal arts education. After the
deregulation, however, many liberal arts faculties were dismantled, and some saythat the responsibilities of liberal arts education have become ambiguous under the
institutional collaborative system. It is necessary to continue paying attention to
the liberal arts education framework during the second cycle.

4-2-3. Standard 3: Academic Staff and Education Supporting Staff
Good practices
There were 119 remarks for good practices, of which 69 were for main goodpractices. The main good practices were related to the following.
1) Stimulation of academic staff activities: 442) Regular evaluation of the educational activities of academic staff:

22

For 1), remarks pointed out the adoption of fixed-terms or tenure tracks, timely andappropriate deployment such as posts being assigned at the dean’s discretion,
gender-equality initiatives, aggressive hiring of female academic staff, awards of
excellence for academic staff, sabbaticals, and aggressive hiring of foreign academic
staff.
For 2), remarks pointed out the regular performance evaluation of academic staff
and incorporation of the results into staff salaries or research fund distribution.
The performance evaluation usually covers four areas: education, research,
institutional management, and contribution to society. (Five areas for medicine,with “clinical treatment” added to the four.)
Other remarks pointed out mock-lectures to evaluate teaching skills or international
recruitment for the new hire of academic staff.

17

Areas for improvement
There were 42 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 31 were for main areasof improvement. Standard 3 accounted for the third-most remarks by standard.
Most of the remarks were related to the following.
1) Lack of academic staff:

26

Education and research in professional training courses at graduate programs are
conducted based on the framework for major courses, and thus the number ofacademic staff required in major courses is applied to professional training thecourses. Most, or 20, of the above remarks were related to the lack of academic
staff according to the requirements in Standards for the Establishment of Graduate
Schools, especially in graduate programs of pedagogy. Other specific remarks
pointed out the lack of academic staff in comments such as “a low rate of full-time
professors or associate professors assigned to principal subjects,” “a highdependency on part-time lecturers in liberal arts subjects,” or “an extremely highnumber of hours assigned to full-time academic staff.”
Furthermore, the document analysis stage identified that some departments andmajors lacked the number of academic staff required by the Establishment
Standards. However, if the site visit confirmed the extent, reason, and duration of
the staff shortage, and it was low at around one person and for a short duration anddue to be resolved within the academic year, these cases were not raised as areas
for improvement.
Other remarks included comments such as “insufficient regular evaluation of
educational activities of academic staff” and “imbalance in the age distribution ofacademic staff.”
Discussion
For the performance evaluation of academic staff, regular evaluation andincorporation of the results into staff salaries and research funds have been
described as good practice (22 institutions; approximately 17%). In February 2008,
Shimada et al. conducted a survey of all universities (excluding junior colleges)
regarding the performance evaluation of academic staff, and the results revealed
that performance evaluation had been introduced at approximately 80% of national
universities, nearly 40% of municipal/prefectural universities, and nearly 30% ofprivate universities, and that the evaluation results were reflected in staff salaries orbonuses to a certain extent. Though NIAD-UE did not conduct a follow-up study of
CEA, Shimada’s study results suggest there is a rapid spread of institutions engaging
in performance evaluation.
For the deployment of full-time academic staff, numbers are stipulated in the
Establishment Standards. As mentioned before, the CEA evaluation found nouniversity to be in violation of the Establishment Standards. However, when theactual state of the academic unit suggested it was a major course rather than a18

professional training course, it was found that many graduate programs lacked thenumber of academic staff required in the Establishment Standards.

4-2-4. Standard 4: Student Admission
Good practices
There were 62 remarks for good practices, of which 26 were for main goodpractices. Many of these were related to the following.
1) Measures in entrance exams:

14

The remarks pointed out appropriate AO (Admission Office) entrance exams,
regional features by setting regional quotas or preferred application systems,
categorized entrance systems that do not require students to choose specificfaculties at the time of enrollment, special selection through unique high school anduniversity partnerships in coordination with affiliated high schools, and entrance
exams at venues away from the university campus.
Other remarks pointed out institutions performing follow-up studies after entrance
on an institutional level and using the results to improve student selection.
Areas for improvement
Standard 4 had 106 remarks for areas for improvement, accounting for the mostremarks by standard. Nearly all, or 101, of the remarks were related to improving therelationship between student capacity and actual enrollment.
This viewpoint not only conducted an analysis by each major course of thedepartment or major course in graduate school, but also by organization if students
were enrolled by the faculty or other organizational unit. If the average
percentage of student enrollment per faculty or graduate school against capacity
was 130% or above over the last five years, it was described as a high rate ofexceeding the student capacity, and an average percentage of 70% or less was
described as a low rate of fulfilling the student capacity, and these were pointed out
as areas for improvement. If further examination for smaller academic units suchas departments in the faculty or major courses in the graduate school revealed alarge excess or lack of students, they were also pointed out as areas for
improvement. Table 5 shows an overview of the remarks on student capacity.

19

Table 5. Remarks on student capacity
Undergraduate programs
Enrollment above or below first-year capacity
Above and below first-year capacity
Above first-year capacity
Below first-year capacity
Enrollment above or below transfer admission capacity
Above and below transfer admission capacity
Above transfer admission capacity
Below transfer admission capacity
Graduate programs (including professional degree programs)
Enrollment above or below graduate school capacity
Above and below graduate school capacity
Above graduate school capacity
Below graduate school capacity

30
4
1
3
0
26
5
10
11
86
86
28
33
25

Discussion
For undergraduate programs, only four institutions (approximately 3%) received
remarks for the excess or lack of student enrollment in the faculty first-year. Moreinstitutions (26 institutions; approximately 20%) received remarks for the enrollmentof transfer admissions, probably because universities set a smaller transfer
admission capacity and the small fluctuations in student enrollment can easily pushthem over the threshold. In an age of diminishing student populations, someuniversities now suffer from a severe lack of students, but this was not observedwith the universities subject to NIAD-UE’s CEA. It may be said that in general theundergraduate programs of the universities subject to NIAD-UE’s evaluation
managed their student enrollment well.
For graduate programs, a large number of universities (86 universities;
approximately 66%) had graduate programs with an unreasonable number ofstudents: 61 universities (approximately 47%) had graduate programs withenrollment above student capacity, 53 universities (approximately 40%) had
graduate programs with enrollment below capacity, and 28 universities(approximately 22%) had enrollment both above and below capacity. Thus,
graduate schools cannot be described as managing their student enrollment well.
This is probably due to the fact that many graduate schools have a smaller student
capacity compared to undergraduate programs, and except for graduate schoolsfor professional degrees, graduate school education mainly consists of writing
master’s or doctoral dissertations in laboratories, which requires less schooling, anduniversities believe a lack of academic staff poses little impediment in terms ofeducation.
Furthermore, a very small number of graduate schools with small student capacity
also received remarks for their small number of applicants or an extremely small
percentage of applicants fulfilling the student capacity. Since the main learning
process in graduate schools is conducted in laboratories, there is much to learn
from senior students or colleagues besides academic staff, and thus, a severe lackof enrollment may prove problematic in terms of graduate school education.

20

4-2-5. Standard 5: Academic Programs
Good practices
There were 849 remarks for good practices, which was the most by standard andapproximately 43% of the total, and 633 remarks were for main good practices.
The analysis for Standard 5 was performed for each undergraduate program,
graduate program, and professional degree program, and the number of remarks
for good practices was 456, 323, and 70, respectively. It is believed that Standard 5
accounted for so many remarks because it involved many viewpoints as a result ofassessing each academic program, and because GP/COEs and other education
projects that gained competitive funds from the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology were pointed out as main good practices, and that
number alone reached as many as 500 remarks. Since GP/COEs were adopted
according to theme and their characteristics are clear, this session will describe thecharacteristics of the 133 other main good practices that were related to thefollowing.
§ Undergraduate programs
1) Initiatives in developing academic programs: 362) Initiatives in implementing academic programs: 56
The remarks for 1) included the structured development of academic programs,
practical education, broad studies, and efforts for internationalization.
Structured development of academic programs: “target attaining academic
programs” clarifying the educational objectives of each faculty or department
and the type of graduates they wish to produce, academic programs
standardizing the content and level of each course with a benchmark system,etc.

Practical education: focus on internships in medicine/education/engineering,field studies, and project learning.



Broad studies: sub-major systems, multidisciplinary courses through partnershipwith other universities, credits cutting across faculties and departments, etc.



Efforts for internationalization: double-degree programs with universities
abroad, subjects focusing on enhancing comprehensive communication abilities
or English abilities required by specific subjects, encouragement of studies
abroad or compulsory studies abroad, encouragement of TOEIC exams or
recognition of TOEIC exams as credits, etc.

Other remarks pointed out the adoption of undergraduate-master’s courses,
evening courses that facilitate the attendance of students in employment, and early
admission. The establishment of unique subjects such as the study of local
communities, women’s studies at women’s universities, and four-year career
education for female students were also included.

21

For 2), remarks pointed out the use of ICT, extensive instruction, and small-group
instruction.
Use of ICT: self-education through CALL or other e-learning systems,
administrative communication/distribution of educational material/submissionof reports via the internet, interactive remote lecture systems between several
campuses, etc.

Extensive instruction: course instruction based on a GPA system (providing
awards or scholarships to students with excellent performance, and warnings
to underperformers), use of curriculum models and course trees, instruction ofunderperformers by supervisory teachers, use of feedback papers (students
writing questions, ideas, and comments on each lecture), etc.



Small-group education: thorough implementation of small-group education inlanguage education or seminar instruction.

Other remarks pointed out initiatives for credit substantiation (effective CAP andpromotion of extracurricular learning by setting detailed assignments), andenhancement of syllabus content (clarification of targets).

§ Graduate programs (including professional degree programs)
1) Initiatives in developing academic programs: 272) Initiatives in implementing academic programs: 29
For 1), remarks pointed out advanced liberal arts education, interdisciplinary
education and research, and easier learning environments for students in
employment.
Advanced liberal arts education: establishment of common courses at graduate
schools to develop broader perspectives.

Interdisciplinary education and research: interdisciplinary education andresearch through partnership with other graduate programs and graduate
schools, cooperative graduate school systems, multiple degree (sub-major)
systems, etc.

Easier learning environments for students in employment: day and evening
courses system and long-term enrollment systems.

Other remarks pointed out the adoption of undergraduate-master’s education
programs, implementation of double-degree systems with universities abroad,separation of research courses and clinical research courses in medical doctor
programs, establishment of ethics subjects (medical ethics and science technology
ethics), and establishment of education programs specializing in regional
characteristics.

22

For 2), as with undergraduate programs, remarks pointed out the use of ICT andtreatments for internationalization. Planned instruction of dissertations was also
raised as a graduate school specific remark.
Planned instruction: students prepare research and study plans, and academic
staff prepare instruction plans based on the students’ plans, thus allowing
students and academic staff to share study and instruction plans.

Other remarks pointed out the implementation of qualifying examinations (forsubmitting doctoral dissertations), and the preparation of English syllabuses forinternational students.
Areas for improvement
There were 28 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 16 were forundergraduate programs, 12 for graduate programs, and none for professional
degree programs. Most of the remarks were related to the following.
1) Issues with the implementation of academic programs:

24

Most of the remarks above were related to the syllabus (15 remarks) and pointed
out the varying amount of detail, as seen in comments such as “a large discrepancy
in the amount of detail for subjects or academic staff, and some are even without
any specific description of the lectures for each week.”
Other remarks pointed out the lack of a system enabling students to appeal grades,
insufficient planning/disclosure of the standards for awarding degrees, past
misconduct regarding degree awarding, and excessive credit averages related tocredit substantiation (160 credits or more).
Discussion
Standard 5 evaluates educational content and methodology and is one of the mostimportant standards in the evaluation of university education. Besides the
projects that gained competitive education funds from the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, educational content received “goodpractice” remarks for the many initiatives in developing academic programs, andeducational methodology for the many initiatives in implementing academic
programs.
Meanwhile, there were no remarks for areas for improvement regarding
educational content, and remarks for educational methodology were mostly
regarding discrepancies in the amount of syllabus detail.

23

4-2-6. Standard 6: Effectiveness of Institutional Performance
Good practices
There were 121 remarks for good practices, of which 71 were for main goodpractices. The main good practices were related to the following.
1) Career paths after graduation: 222) Graduation/acquisition of qualifications: 193) Feedback from graduates/employers: 134) Result of student feedback: 7
For 1), remarks were mainly related to high employment rates that corresponded tothe type of students the universities wish to develop.
For 2), remarks pointed out the high pass rate of national exams for professionals,
such as medical doctors, nurses, health nurses, mid-wives, social workers,
physiotherapists, and dieticians, as well as awards (academic presentations,competitions, exhibitions, and performances).
For 3), remarks pointed out the high satisfaction rates revealed in surveys ofgraduates or surveys/interviews with employers.
For 4), remarks pointed out the high student satisfaction rates regarding education
at their university, and assessment of the target attainment levels of academic
programs as a whole.
Other remarks pointed out the comprehensive verification of the outcomes or
impact of institutional performance.
Areas for improvement
There were 17 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 5 were for main areas
for improvement. The areas for improvement were related to the following.
1) Comments of graduates/employers: 102) Status of graduation/acquisition of qualifications:5

For 1), remarks pointed out the insufficient feedback from graduates, and theacademic deficiency of graduates (mainly inadequate communication skills in
foreign languages) revealed by the feedback from graduates/employers.
For 2), remarks pointed out the low rate of degree acquisition in graduate programs,
and the high rate of holdover students in some faculties.

24Discussion
The most remarks for good practices were related to career paths after graduation,
mainly pointing out the high rate of employment corresponding to the type ofstudents the universities wish to develop. The next-most remarks were related tothe status of graduation (degree acquisition) or the acquisition of qualifications,mainly referring to the pass rate of national exams. The most remarks for areas
for improvement were related to the lack of feedback from graduates or employers,
and the academic deficiency of graduates revealed by the feedback. The
next-most remarks, though extremely few, pointed out the low success rate ofacquiring academic degrees, and the high rate of holdover students.
Standard 6 evaluates the effectiveness of institutional performance (learning
outcomes), and is a standard that has become particularly important in theevaluation of university education in recent years.

4-2-7. Standard 7: Student Support
Good practices
There were 236 remarks for good practices, of which 109 were for main goodpractices. This was the second-most after Standard 5, and many initiatives werehighly evaluated by the external evaluators. The main good practices were related
to the following.
1) Student life support: 422) Guidance, advice, and other learning support: 27
3) Financial aid: 26
4) Environment for learning support (study rooms, ICT, etc.):

21

For 1), remarks pointed out the establishment of on-campus childcare facilities,
long-term study programs that recognized the needs of women taking care ofchildren or providing long-term care, support for depressed reclusive students,organization of joint-company briefing sessions, courses for government employee
exams, and job support through career support offices.
For 2), remarks pointed out learning support and counseling provided by students(undergraduate and graduate school students) through study help desks or study
advisers, support for disabled students provided by volunteers (note takers, etc.),
extensive learning/student life support for international students through theassignment of tutors (students), and university support for extracurricular activities
or volunteer activities.
For 3), remarks pointed out scholarship programs that are unique to universities,
encouragement of gifted students to continue doctoral programs with scholarships,
scholarship/accommodation support for international students, and support forsuper short-term studies abroad.

25

For 4), remarks pointed out the establishment of extensive library reading
rooms/study rooms, student plazas with various functions to support students,
extensive facilities and equipment for extracurricular activities, provision of one
computer per student, lecture archives and online English language learning
systems through the use of ICT, 24-hour computer rooms, extensive counselingsystems via email or video phone, and full boarding.
Other remarks pointed out “liberal arts education students committees” mainlycomprised of students, and identification of student needs through regularcommunication conferences attended by university and student representatives.
Areas for improvement
There were 20 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 12 were for main areas
for improvement. The areas for improvement were related to the following.
1) Facility and equipment:2) Support system: 4

14

For 1), remarks pointed out the slow progress in creating barrier-free environments,
lack of facilities and equipment (lack of study rooms and learning equipment, andfailure to address aging extracurricular facilities and student dormitories), andrequests for longer open hours for university libraries and graduate school study
rooms.
For 2), remarks pointed out the lack of measures for preventing harassment andproviding countermeasures, and student dissatisfaction towards financial aid andcareer support.
Furthermore, since the remarks for 1) are related to facilities and equipment andtheir operation, they are also related to Standard 8.
Discussion
Standard 7 had the most number of remarks for good practices after Standard 5 andfew remarks for areas for improvement. It may be said that the external evaluatorsconceived a high opinion of student support offered at universities.

26

4-2-8. Standard 8: Facilities
Good practices
There were 114 remarks for good practices, of which 60 were for main goodpractices. The main good practices were related to the following.
1) Facilities and equipment in general: 252) Libraries (including digital archives): 30
3) ICT environment: 15
For 1), remarks pointed out spacious campus and school building areas, extensive
and effective use of education and research facilities, effective use of attachedcenters, creation and use of environmentally friendly campuses, and creation of
barrier-free environments.
For 2), remarks pointed out the large quantity and variety of books, collection of
educational libraries matching student needs, 24-hour libraries, establishment anddigital archiving of rare collections appropriate to university features, student
plazas (areas for refreshments, mobile phone use, and conversation in libraries),
and utilization of student library staff.
For 3), remarks pointed out extensive ICT environments such as an ample numberof computers and networks for students and active learning, and remote lecture
systems to cover the disadvantages of dispersed campuses.
Areas for improvement
There were 44 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 30 were for main areas
for improvement. Standard 8 received the second-most remarks by standard.
Furthermore, no universities were pointed out as failing the requirements for areas,etc., stipulated in University Establishment Standards for university property andbuildings. The areas for improvement were related to the following.
1) Overall facilities and equipment:2) Libraries: 20

21

For 1), remarks pointed out the lack of measures to address antiquated/small
facilities or buildings without quakeproofing, and the lack of measures to create
barrier-free environments.
For 2), remarks pointed out the lack of books (including online journals), lack ofmeasures to improve small facilities and barrier-free environments, and short open
hours.
Discussion
Standard 8 received the second-most number of remarks for areas for improvement
by standard. Meanwhile, many universities also received remarks for this standard
as good practice, indicating a discrepancy between universities. Any improvements
to facilities and equipment need budget consideration, and since many of theuniversities subject to NIAD-UE’s evaluation are national or municipal/prefectural27

universities, it is essential for them to gain the understanding of the national orregional entities that operate them for budget allocation. It is hoped these
entities will respond to the NIAD-UE evaluation results.

4-2-9. Standard 9: Internal Quality Assurance System
Good practices
There were 169 remarks for good practices, of which 73 were for main goodpractices. Standard 9 received the third-most remarks after Standard 7. The
main good practices were related to the following.
1) Faculty and staff development (FD/SD): 52
2) Opinions of university members (including lecture evaluation by students):
19
For 1), remarks related to FD pointed out mutual lecture observation/evaluation byacademic staff, mock lectures delivered by outstanding academic staff,
workshops/FD seminars, student FD committees or student participation in
education workshops which provide activities to improve education through thecooperation of academic staff and students, accumulation/sharing of improvement
records made by academic staff to enhance lecture quality, daily exchange between
academic staff and after-sessions after the end of term, FD with the participation ofpart-time lecturers, self-inspection through video recording, and introduction anduse of teaching portfolios. Remarks related to SD pointed out the implementationof structured training programs for administrative staff, cooperation between
academic staff/education supporting staff (administrative staff or technicalstaff)/TAs, and attendance at teaching subjects to enhance the quality ofadministrative staff.
For 2), remarks pointed out the sharing of lecture evaluations performed by
students, comments in reports by academic staff regarding the student evaluation,
requests for improving the quality of supervisory teachers, interim surveys, reaction
papers, coordination of lecture evaluations with FD, and preparation of lecture
improvement handbooks.
Areas for improvement
There were 13 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 5 were for main areas
for improvement. The areas for improvement were related to the following.
1) FD/SD (Faculty/Staff Development): 62) Opinions of university members (including lecture evaluation by students):3

For 1), remarks pointed out the almost non-existence of FD/SD activities, andinsufficient participation of academic staff other than regular staff involved in FD
activities.
For 2), remarks pointed out the partial implementation of lecture evaluation surveys
by students, lack of survey feedback to academic staff, and insufficient disclosure of28

the results to students.
Discussion
Considering the long history of universities, lecture evaluation by students and FD
are new initiatives introduced only in recent years. As seen above, however, thepractice of students evaluating lectures is becoming established in most universities,
and the results are being used to improve the lectures. Meanwhile, FD has also
spread, showing diverse development since the initial organization of FD training
sessions that invited external lecturers. It is believed that both initiatives havecontributed to improving university education to a certain extent.

4-2-10. Standard 10: FinanceGood practices
There were 3 remarks for good practices, of which none were raised as main goodpractices.
Areas for improvement
There were 5 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 2 were for main areas for
improvement. The two main areas for improvement applied to private universities,
pointing out inappropriate audits, tight financial balances, and insufficient
disclosure of financial plans to academic and administrative staff, students, andguardians.
Discussion
There were few remarks for good practices or areas for improvement for Standard
10. This may be because many of the universities subject to NIAD-UE’s evaluation
are national or municipal/prefectural universities with little fear of financial
bankruptcy, and also because many universities have been implementing
appropriate financial measures.

4-2-11. Standard 11: Management
Good practices
There were 93 remarks for good practices, of which 39 were for main goodpractices. The main good practices were related to the following.
1) Dean leadership and effective decision-making: 82) Self-assessment and improvement initiatives: 83) Communication of university information: 7
4) Initiatives to enhance the quality of staff: 65) Identification and reflection of needs: 5
For 1), remarks pointed out the strategic deployment of staff through reform ordean designated posts under the leadership of the dean, blend of top-down

29

leadership from the dean and bottom-up leadership from academic staff, andunique management systems to perform planning and execution.
For 2), remarks pointed out the appropriate implementation of self-assessment,
establishment of extensive university information databases, and initiatives toimprove university administration.
For 3), remarks pointed out the establishment of official websites that offer easy
access to desired information, disclosure of annual self-assessment reports on
websites, and public distribution of magazines offering university/local news.
For 4), remarks pointed out structured staff training mainly comprised of off-the-job
training/on-the-job training/self-training based on specific “training programs,”
provision of self-education material such as university staff career guides andhandbooks for new staff, and planned increase of employment staff (atmunicipal/prefectural universities).
For 5), remarks pointed out the identification/reflection of stakeholder needs
through wide-ranged surveys of students/guardians/alumni associations,organization of home-coming days to gain feedback from graduates, andestablishment of regional partnership promotion committees to gain the input of
external parties in local communities.
Other remarks pointed out activities to prevent earthquake disasters.
Areas for improvement
There were 9 remarks for areas for improvement, of which 3 were for main areas
for improvement. More than half of the remarks were related to the following.
1) Self-assessment:

4

Remarks included comments such as “the self-assessment report submitted for thisinstitutional CEA displays insufficient analysis and documentation of university
activities,” or “it cannot be said that the university is collecting data andinformation regarding its activities on an organizational level.”
Other remarks included comments such as “the relationship between corporate
and university organizations, and the relationships between council, university-widecommittees, and faculty councils are unclear,” or “the features of educational andresearch activities and their achievements are not sufficiently communicated tosociety.”
Discussion
For self-assessment, while some universities received remarks for good practice,others received remarks for areas for improvement. This is a viewpoint where
results were divided depending on the university.

30

5. CEA Standards for the Second Cycle in the
Period of 2012-2018
In view of the revision of laws related to University Establishment Standards, trendsof university evaluation in other countries, and verification and analysis results ofthe first cycle of CEA, it was decided that the standards for the second cycle ofinstitutional CEA and optional evaluation from 2012 should be revised.

5-1. Revision of Standards
Table 6 shows the university evaluation standards for the second cycle. Bothstandards and viewpoints were revised, placing more importance on “learning
outcomes”, “internal quality assurance system of teaching and learning”, and“public information on teaching and learning”.
Table 6. University evaluation standards(New)Standard 1: Mission of the University
Standard 2: Teaching and Research StructureStandard 1:
Standard 2:

Standard 3:

Academic Staff andTeaching Supporting Staff
Standard 4: Student Admission
Standard 5: Academic Programs Undergraduate programs
 Graduate school programs(including professional degree programs)
Standard 6: Learning OutcomesStandard 3:

Standard 7:

Facilities and Student Support

Standard 8:

Internal Quality Assurance System
of Teaching and Learning
Finance and Management

Standard 7:
Standard 8:
Standard 9:

Standard 9:
Standard 10:

Standard 4:
Standard 5:

Standard 6:(Old)
Purpose of the University
Education and Research Structure(Implementation system)
Academic Staff and
Education Supporting Staff
Student Admission
Academic Programs Undergraduate programs
 Graduate school programs
 Professional degree programs
Effectiveness of Institutional
PerformanceStudent Support
Facilities
Internal Quality Assurance System

Standard 10: FinanceStandard 11: Management

Public Information on Teachingand Learning

Besides revising the standards according to the changes in viewpoints, thestandards and viewpoints were also assessed, integrated, deleted, and amended toenhance the cost performance.
The 11 standards in the first cycle were reduced
to 10, and the 99 viewpoints to 81. In addition, the word limits placed on the
self-assessment reports were relaxed; the “standards overview” was deleted, theviewpoints in the revised Guidelines for Self-Assessment and related laws wereclarified with extensive notes, and “law check sheets” were added to ameliorate
the workload of the subject institutions and external evaluators.

31

Better ways to document the evaluation results are also being considered, forexample, including within the text remarks for “areas that desire improvement,” in
addition to “areas that require improvement,” to contribute to the further
development of the subject institutions.

5-2. Thematic Assessments
In the first cycle, NIAD-UE also established optional evaluation items besides theuniversity evaluation standards for CEA. The evaluation was conducted at therequest of the subject university, and this had to be conducted at the time when theinstitution was undergoing NIAD-UE’s CEA.
In the second cycle, this optional evaluation was replaced by the thematic
assessment that would be performed as external evaluation conductedindependently of CEA. This will make it possible for universities that haveundergone evaluation by other CEA organizations to choose only NIAD-UE’sthematic assessment, or universities can be subject to NIAD-UE’s CEA one year andthen the thematic assessment in another.
Thematic assessments theme are as follows:
A: Research activities
B: Community engagement
C: Internationalization of higher education
Figure 8 indicates the relationship between university missions/roles and NIAD-UE’s
evaluation (CEA and thematic assessments).
The CEA evaluates thecomprehensive status of university education and research, with a focus on“education.” Thematic assessment theme A was established to enable a detailed
evaluation of “research.” Education and research are the “classical” mission androle of universities, but universities are now also required to share their knowledge
assets accumulated through educational and research activities more directly withsociety. Thematic assessment theme B was established for this purpose.
With internationalization of higher education also a CEA viewpoint becoming more
important in recent years, thematic assessment theme C was established toperform the evaluation from this perspective.

Figure 8. University missions/roles and NIAD-UE’s evaluation

32

Furthermore, thematic assessment theme C not only assesses the target attainment
levels, but also evaluates the three aspects; developing an internationalized
academic program in an appropriate learning environment, admitting ofinternational students, and dispatching domestic students abroad in four levels.

33

Appendix A: Institutions undertaking Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation between 2005-2011
2005

 Aichi University of Education
 Mie University
 Kyoto University
 Osaka Kyoiku University
 Hyogo University of Teacher Education
 Nara Women’s University
 Wakayama University
 Tottori University
 Okayama University
 Naruto University of Education
 Ehime University
 Kochi University
 Kyushu University
 Nagaski University
 Miyazaki University
 Kagoshima University
 National Institute of Fitness and Sports in
Kanoya The Graduate University for Advanced
Studies Japan Advanced Institute of Science andTechnology

National University (2 institutions) Nagaoka University of Technology
 Toyohashi University of Technology
Public University (2 institutions) Future University Hakodate
 Oita University of Nursing and Health
Sciences
Public Junior College (2 institutions) Niimi College Nagano Prefectural College

2006
National university (7 institutions) Hirosaki University
 Iwate University
 Akita University
 Yamagata University
 Tokyo University of Agriculture andTechnology
 Kyoto University of Education
 The University of Tokushima

Private University (1 institution)
 Otsuma Women’s University

Public University (3 institutions) Nara Medical University
 Okinawa Prefectural University of Arts Okinawa Prefectural College of Nursing

Public Junior College (1 institution) Yamagata Prefectural Yonezawa Women’s
Junior College

Public Junior College (1 institution)
 Kawasaki City College of Nursing

Private Junior College (1 institution)
 Otsuma Women’s University – JuniorCollege Division

2007
National Universities (37 institutions) Muroran Institute of Technology
 Asahikawa Medical University
 Kitami Institute of Technology
 Tohoku University
 Fukushima University
 Chiba University
 Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
 Tokyo Institute of Technology
 Hitotsubashi University
 Yokohama National University
 Niigata University
 Joetsu University of Education
 Kanazawa University
 University of Yamanashi
 Shinshu University
 Gifu University
 Hamamatsu University School of Medicine
 Nagoya University

2008
National University (4 institutions) Utsunomiya University
 Tokyo University of Marine Science andTechnology
 Kyoto Institute of Technology
 Kobe University
Public University (5 institutions) Akita International University
 Kanagawa University of Human Services
 Osaka City University
 Onomichi City University
 Miyazaki Prefectural Nursing University
Private University (2 institutions) Japan College of Social Work The Graduate School for the Creation of
New Photonics Industries34 University of Tsukuba
 Tokyo Gakugei University
 Tokyo University of the Arts
 University of Toyama
 University of the Ryukyus
 National Graduate Institute for Policy
StudiesPublic Junior College (2 institutions) Akita Municipal Junior College of Arts andCrafts（Junior College that has stopped
student's recruitment）
 Otsuki City College

2009
National University (27 institutions) Hokkaido University
 Hokkaido University of Education
 Otaru University of Commerce Ibaraki University
 Gunma University
 Saitama University
 The University of Tokyo
 Tokyo Medical and Dental University
 Ochanomizu University
 The University of Electro-Communications
 University of Fukui
 Shizuoka University
 Nagoya Institute of Technology
 Shiga University
 Shiga University of Medical Science Osaka University
 Nara University of Education
 Shimane University
 Hiroshima University
 Yamaguchi University
 Kagawa University
 Fukuoka University of Education
 Kyushu Institute of Technology
 Saga University
 Kumamoto University
 Oita University
 Nara Institute of Science and Technology

Public University (15 institutions) The University of Aizu
 Fukushima Medical University
 Tokyo Metropolitan University
 Niigata College of Nursing Ishikawa Prefectural University
 Shizuoka University of Art and Culture Aichi University of the Arts Nagoya City University
 The University of Shiga Prefecture Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine
 Nara Prefectural University
 Kyushu Dental University
 Fukuoka Prefectural University
 Fukuoka Women’s University
 Oita University of Nursing and Health
Sciences
Private University (3 institutions) Tokyo University of Career Development
 Osaka Jogakuin University
 The Open University of Japan
Public Junior College (5 institutions) Junior College of Aizu
 Tsu City College
 Kurashiki City College
 Kochi Junior College
 Oita Prefectural College of Arts andCulturePublic University (10 institutions) Gunma Prefectural Women’s University
 Maebashi Institute of Technology
 Yokohama City University
 Toyama Prefectural University
 Kyoto Prefectural University
 Osaka Prefectural University
 University of Hyogo Okayama Prefectural University
 University of Kochi
 The University of Kitakyushu

2011
National University (1 institution)
 Tsukuba University of Technology
Public University (5 institutions) Future University Hakodate
 Gunma Prefectural College of Health
Sciences Yamanashi Prefectural University
 Aichi Prefectural University
 Prefectural University of Hiroshima

Public Junior College (1 institution) Gifu City Women's College

Private University (1 institution)
 Seitoku University

2010
National University (7 insitutions) Obihiro University of Agriculture andVeterinary Medicine

35Appendix B: Results of the Questionnaire Surveys
for Verification concerning Certified Evaluation
and Accreditation (CEA) (Answers from thechoices provided)【Universities】
1. Standards and viewpoints for CEA【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely

1-1)

The organization and content of the CEA

1: Completely disagree】

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

19

109

14

1

0

143

4.02

13%

76%

10%

1%

0%

100%

20

108

14

1

0

143

14%

76%

10%

1%

0%

100%

13

78

49

3

0

143

9%

55%

34%

2%

0%

100%

32

95

15

0

1

143

22%

66%

10%

0%

1%

100%

standards and viewpoints were appropriate forassuring the quality of your education, researchand other activities.

1-2)

The organization and content of the CEA

4.03

standards and viewpoints were appropriate forencouraging you to improve your education,
research and other activities.

1-3)

The organization and content of the CEA

3.71

standards and viewpoints were appropriate forhelping you gain understanding and support fromsociety for your education, research and otheractivities.

1-4)

It was appropriate that the organization andcontent of the CEA standards and viewpoints
were centered around educational activities.

4.10【2: Yes 1: No】

1-5)
1-6)

2

1

Total

Avg

There was a CEA standard(s) and/or viewpoint(s) that made it

55

72

127

1.43

difficult to conduct a self-assessment.

43%

57%

100%

There were overlapping CEA standards and/or viewpoints.

64

74

138

46%

54%

100%

36

1.46

2. Methodology and content of CEA(1) Self-assessment【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

2-(1)-1)

You were able to conduct a self-assessment
appropriately in accordance with the CEA
standards and viewpoints.

2-(1)-2)

You were able to prepare documents andmaterials

tobeattached

to

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

30

101

11

1

0

143

4.12

21%

71%

8%

1%

0%

100%

2

53

31

52

5

143

1%

37%

22%

36%

3%

100%

2.97

the

self-assessment report using those alreadyaccumulated.

【2: Yes 1: No】
2

1

Total

Avg

2-(1)-3) You wondered what kind of documents and materials should

27

59

86

1.31

be prepared and attached to the self-assessment report.

31%

69%

100%

【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】
5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

23

84

33

3

0

143

3.89

16%

59%

23%

2%

0%

100%

You were satisfied with the quality of the

20

97

23

3

0

143

self-assessment report.

14%

68%

16%

2%

0%

100%

2-(1)-6) The limitation on the number of letters to use

22

47

45

25

4

143

was sufficient to compile a self-assessment

15%

33%

31%

17%

3%

100%

2-(1)-4) You

were

able

to

compileaneasy-to-understand self-assessment report inorder to gain understanding from various
membersofsocietyforthegeneralconditions of your school.

2-(1)-5)

3.94
3.42

report.

【2: Yes 1: No】

2-(1)-7)

2

1

Total

Avg

The self-assessment reports of other schools that had

124

12

136

1.91

undergone NIAD-UE’s CEA were used for reference to compile

91%

9%

100%

a self-assessment report.

37

(2) Site visit【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

2-(2)-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

22

105

13

3

0

143

4.02

15%

73%

9%

2%

0%

100%

27

97

15

4

0

143

site visit was appropriate.

19%

68%

10%

3%

0%

100%

Questions asked by NIAD-UE’s external

32

89

18

3

0

142

23%

63%

13%

2%

0%

100%

28

82

25

2

0

136

21%

60%

18%

1%

0%

100%

34

87

18

4

0

143

24%

61%

13%

3%

0%

100%

33

80

29

1

0

143

23%

56%

20%

1%

0%

100%

You think that NIAD-UE’s external evaluators

31

76

32

2

0

141

conducting the site visit were well trained.

22%

54%

23%

1%

0%

100%

The content of the “findings of document
analysis” presented prior to the site visit wasappropriate.

2-(2)-2)

The content of the “matters to be clarified

4.03

during the site visit” presented prior to the

2-(2)-3)

4.08

evaluators (excluding administrative staff;
this also applies hereafter) during the site
visit were appropriate.

2-(2)-4)

The items implemented during the site visit

3.99(on-site inspection, examination of thelearning environment, and interviews withthose responsible for and involved in yourschool, academic and other staff, andstudents and graduates) were appropriate.

2-(2)-5)

You were able to share an understanding of

4,06

the conditions of your education, researchand other activities with NIAD-UE’s external
evaluators during the site visit.

2-(2)-6)

The number and composition of NIAD-UE’s
external evaluators conducting the site visit
were appropriate.

2-(2)-7)

4.01

3.96

(3) Statement of objection(s)【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】
2-(3)-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

36

91

12

3

0

142

4.13

25%

64%

8%

2%

0%

100%

36

69

29

1

0

135

handled” were included in the CEA report.

27%

51%

21%

1%

0%

100%

NIAD-UE appropriately handled the remark(s)

9

15

7

1

0

32

and/or objection(s) you made.

28%

47%

22%

3%

0%

100%

The process and schedule for schools making
remark(s)and/orobjection(s)wereappropriate.
2-(3)-2)

It was appropriate that the “remark(s) and/or

4.04

objection(s) made and how they were
2-(3)-3)38

4.00

3. Workload, schedule, etc., for the CEA process(1) Workload required for the CEA process/Work periods set by NIAD-UE【5: Very heavy 3: Moderate 1: Very light】＜Workload＞

3-(1)-1)

Compilation of the self-assessment report.

3-(1)-2)
3-(1)-3)

Handling of the “matters to be clarified
during the site visit” presented prior to thesite visit.
Preparation for the site visit.

3-(1)-4)

Undergoing the site visit.

3-(1)-5)

Making remark(s) and/or objection(s).

5
88
62%
5
4%

4
44
31%
62
44%

3
9
6%
72
51%

2
1
1%
3
2%

1
0
0%
0
0%

Total
142
100%
142
100%

Avg
4.54

7
5%
2
1%
0
0&

58
41%
37
26%
10
7%

74
52%
99
70%
105
77%

3
2%
4
3%
13
9%

0
0%
0
0%
9
7%

142
100%
142
100%
137
100%

3.49

3.49

3.26
2.85

【5: Very long 3: Moderate 1: Very short】＜Work periods＞

3-(1)-1)

Compilation of the self-assessment report.

3-(1)-2)
3-(1)-3)

Handling of the “matters to be clarified
during the site visit” presented prior to thesite visit.
Preparation for the site visit.

3-(1)-4)

Undergoing the site visit.

3-(1)-5)

Making remark(s) and/or objection(s).

5
33
23%
0
0%

4
17
12%
11
8%

3
69
49%
81
57%

2
22
15%
46
32%

1
1
1%
4
3%

Total
142
100%
142
100%

1
1%
0
0%
0
0%

15
11%
10
7%
5
4%

89
63%
125
88%
119
87%

33
23%
6
4%
9
7%

4
3%
1
1%
4
3%

142
100%
142
100%
137
100%

Avg
3.42
2.70

2.83
3.01
2.91

(2) Efforts taken in the CEA process【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

3-(2)-1)
3-(2)-2)
3-(2)-3)

Efforts taken in the CEA process were
worthwhile to assure the quality of youreducation, research and other activities.
Efforts taken in the CEA process were
worthwhile to further improve youreducation, research and other activities.
Efforts taken in the CEA process were
worthwhile to gain understanding andsupport from society for your education,
research and other activities.

5
14

4
81

3
38

2
8

1
0

Total
141

10%

57%

27%

6%

0%

100%

21

83

30

7

0

141

3.84

15%
9

59%
70

21%
51

5%
10

0%
0

100%
140

3.56

6%

50%

36%

7%

0%

100%

(3) Schedule for the CEA process
3-(3)-1)
3-(3)-2)

Avg
3.72【2: Yes 1: No】

The deadline for submission of the self-assessment reports(by the end of June) was appropriate.
The implementation period of the site visits (from early
October to mid-December) was appropriate.

39

2
102
71&
137
96%

1
41
29%
6
4%

Total
143
100%
143
100%

Avg
1.71
1.96

4. Briefing, training and other sessions

4-1)
4-2)
4-3)
4-4)

4-5)

4-6)
4-7)

4-8)
4-9)

【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】
5
4
3
2
1 Total Avg
Handouts at the briefing sessions were easy 13 105 221
0
141 3.92
to understand.
9% 74% 16% 1% 0% 100%
Explanations at the briefing sessions were 15 105 2100
141 3.96
easy to understand.
11% 74% 15% 0% 0% 100%
The briefing sessions were helpful.
29 100 11
0
1
141
4.11
21% 71% 8% 0% 1% 100%
Handouts at the training sessions for those 18
99 25 00
142 3.95
involved in self-assessment at the schools 13% 70% 18% 0% 0% 100%
were easy to understand.
Explanations at the training sessions for 18 104 191
0
142 3.98
those involved in self-assessment at the
13% 73% 13% 1% 0% 100%
schools were easy to understand.
The training sessions for those involved in 32
95
14
1
0
142
4.11
self-assessment at the schools were helpful.
23% 67% 10% 1% 0% 100%
The Guidelines for Self-Assessment and other 37
95
10
0
0
142 4.19
booklets handed out by NIAD-UE were
26% 67% 7% 0% 0% 100%
helpful.
Briefings given by NIAD-UE at the schools 49
53
18
1
0
121
4.24
were helpful.
40% 44% 15% 1% 0% 100%
NIAD-UE’s administrative staff responded 43
86
11
1
0
141
4.21
appropriately (to questions, etc.) at the 30% 61% 8% 1% 0% 100%
briefing, training and other sessions.

40

5. CEA results (CEA report)(1) Content, etc., of the CEA report【5: Strongly agree

5-(1)-1)

5-(1)-2)

5-(1)-3)

5-(1)-4)
5-(1)-5)

3: Cannot say definitely

The content of the CEA report was sufficient
to assure the quality of your education,
research and other activities.
The content of the CEA report helped
improve your education, research and otheractivities.
The content of the CEA report helped andencouraged you to gain understanding andsupport from society for your education,
research and other activities.
The content of the CEA report wasappropriate to the purpose of your school.
The content of the CEA report reflected thereal conditions of your school.

5-(1)-6) The content of the CEA report took into

5-(1)-7)

5-(1)-8)

consideration the size, resources, systems,
etc., of your school.
The content of the CEA report gave you new
perspectives on education, research andother activities.
The structure and content of the CEA reportwere easy to understand.

5-(1)-9) On the whole, the content of the CEA report
was appropriately described by NIAD-UE.

1: Completely disagree】

5
30
21%

4
99
69%

3
14
10%

2
0
0%

1
0
0%

Total
143
100%

Avg
4.11

27
19%

99
69%

17
12%

0
0%

0
0%

143
100%

4.07

23

78

39

3

0

143

3.85

16%

55%

27%

2%

0%

100%

33
23%
40
28%
32
22%

98
69%
94
66%
77
54%

10
7%
9
6%
29
20%

1
1%
0
0%
5
3%

0
0%
0
0%
0
0%

142
100%
143
100%
143
100%

17
12%

62
43%

61
43%

3
2%

0
0%

143
100%

3.65

32
22%
39
27%

93
65%
98
69%

17
12%
6
4%

1
1%
0
0%

0
0%
0
0%

143
100%
143
100%

4.09

4.15
4.22
3.95

4.23

(2) Publication of the self-assessment report and CEA report【2: Yes 1: No】

5-(2)-1)

5-(2)-2)

The self-assessment report compiled to undergo this CEA has
been made public on the website and/or through othermeans.
The CEA report has been made public on the website and/or
through other means.

2
120
94%

1
7
6%

Total
127
100%

Avg
1.94

120
95%

6
5%

126
100%

1.95

(3) Reports by mass media and others on the CEA results【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

5-(3)-1)

The CEA results were appropriately reportedby the mass media and others.

41

5
5
4%

4
27
21%

3
75
57%

2
15
11%

1
9
7%

Total
131
100%

Avg
3.03

6. Effects and influences brought about by undergoing CEA(1) Were the following effects and influences brought about by conducting aself-assessment?
【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

6-(1)-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

58

79

5

1

0

143

4.36

41%

55%

3%

1%

0%

100%

39

95

9

0

0

143

27%

66%

6%

0%

0%

100%

6

56

72

8

1

143

4%

39%

50%

6%

1%

100%

3

60

70

9

1

143

2%

42%

49%

6%

1%

100%

15

89

35

4

0

143

activities were further improved.

10%

62%

24%

3%

0%

100%

It helped you draw up a future plan.

5

61

58

3

0

127

4%

48%

46%

2%

0%

100%

You were encouraged to improve school

5

83

50

5

0

143

management.

3%

58%

35%

3%

0%

100%

You were encouraged to start distinctive

10

59

68

6

0

143

projects and programs.

7%

41%

48%

4%

0%

100%

Your academic and supporting staff became

8

63

63

8

1

143

6%

44%

44%

6%

1%

100%

7

71

45

4

0

127

6%

56%

35%

3%

0%

100%

You were able to grasp the generalconditions of your education, research andother activities.

6-(1)-2)

You were able to grasp the challenges to be

4.21

tackled concerning your education, researchand other activities.

6-(1)-3)Your academic and supporting staff became

3.41

aware of the importance of conducting
education, research and other activities
systematically.

6-(1)-4)

The attitude of each academic staff member
toward education, research and other3.38

activities improved.

6-(1)-5)
6-(1)-6)
6-(1)-7)
6-(1)-8)
6-(1)-9)Your

education,

research

and

other

aware of the importance of conducting
self-assessments.

6-(1)-10)The

attitudes

of

your

academicandsupporting staff toward CEA and theirknowledge and skills on CEA methods
improved.

42

3.80

3.54

3.62

3.51

3.48

3.64

(2) Will the following effects and influences be brought about by receiving CEA
results from NIAD-UE?
【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

6-(2)-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

You will be able to grasp the general

41

88

16

0

0

143

4.17

conditions of your education, research and

29%

60%

11%

0%

0%

100%

34

97

12

0

0

143

24%

68%

8%

0%

0%

100%

9

69

62

3

0

143

6%

48%

43%

2%

0%

100%

8

70

61

4

0

143

6%

49%

43%

3%

0%

100%

other activities.

6-(2)-2)

You will be able to grasp the challenges tobe tackled concerning your education,
research and other activities.

6-(2)-3)Your academic and supporting staff will

4.15

3.59

become aware of the importance ofconducting education, research and otheractivities systematically.

6-(2)-4)

The attitude of each academic staff
member toward education, research andother activities will improve.

6-(2)-5)6-(2)-6)
6-(2)-7)
6-(2)-8)
6-(2)-9)

Your

15

100

24

4

0

143

activities will be further improved.

education,

research

and

other

10%

70%

17%

3%

0%

100%

It will help you draw up a future plan.

10

70

43

4

0

127

8%

55%

34%

3%

0%

100%

You will be encouraged to improve school

13

88

38

4

0

143

management.

9%

62%

27%

3%

0%

100%

You will be encouraged to start distinctive

15

67

58

3

0

143

projects and programs.

10%

47%

41%

2%

0%

100%

Your academic and supporting staff will

12

72

53

5

1

143

become aware of the importance of

8%

50%

37%

3%

1%

100%

The CEA results will become well known

11

76

54

2

0

143

among your academic and supporting staff.

8%

53%

38%

1%

0%

100%

The attitudes of your academic and

10

77

35

5

0

127

8%

61%

28%

4%

0%

100%

The quality of your education, research and

26

89

27

1

0

143

other activities will be assured.

18%

62%

19%

1%

0%

100%

You will be able to gain understanding and

6

43

87

7

0

143

4%

30%

61%

5%

0%

100%

You will be able to gain understanding and

11

59

66

7

0

143

support from various members of society.

8%

41%

46%

5%

0%

100%

You will learn good practices from the CEA

13

82

44

3

1

143

results of other schools.

9%

57%

31%

2%

1%

100%

3.57

3.88
3.68
3.77
3.66
3.62

conducting self-assessments.

6-(2)-10)
6-(2)-11)

3.67
3.72

supporting staff toward CEA and theirknowledge and skills on CEA methods will
improve.

6-(2)-12)
6-(2)-13)

support from students (including students
in the future).

6-(2)-14)
6-(2)-15)

43

3.98
3.34

3.52
3.72

7. Use of CEA results(1) What’s changes or improvements do your institution plan through this CEA?
(Omission)(2) Do you intend to use the CEA report in the following ways?
are possible.)
1(Multiple answers

Will publish the CEA results in your public relations brochure.

2 Will publish the CEA results on your website.
3

Will refer to the CEA results in applications for funds.

4

Will use the CEA results to recruit students.

5 Will refer to the CEA results in pamphlets, etc., produced to look for partner companies
in joint research and other projects.
6

Other ways.
1

2

3

4

5

6

58

136

9

27

4

8

44

Appendix C:
Results of the Questionnaire
Surveys for Verification concerning Certified
Evaluation and Accreditation (CEA) (Answers fromthe choices provided)【External evaluators】
1. Standards and viewpoints for CEA【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

1-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

70

213

24

3

0

310

4.13

23%

69%

8%

1%

0%

100%

68

216

25

2

0

311

its

22%

69%

8%

1%

0%

100%

The organization and content of the CEA

53

189

61

7

0

310

17%

61%

20%

2%

0%

100%

113

163

32

3

0

311

36%

52%

10%

1%

0%

100%

The organization and content of the CEA
standards and viewpoints were appropriate forassuring the quality of the school’s education,
research and other activities.

1-2)

The organization and content of the CEA

4.13

standards and viewpoints were appropriate forencouraging

theschooltoimproveeducation, research and other activities.

1-3)

3.93

standards and viewpoints were appropriate forhelping the school gain understanding andsupport from society for its education, researchand other activities.

1-4)

It was appropriate that the organization andcontent of the CEA standards and viewpoints
were centered around educational activities.

【2: Yes

1-5)
1-6)

4.24

1: No】

2

1

Total

Avg

There was a CEA standard(s) and/or viewpoint(s) that made it

108

135

243

1.44

difficult to conduct an evaluation.

44%

56%

100%

There were overlapping CEA standards and/or viewpoints.

81

196

277

29%

71%

100%

45

1.29

2. Methodology, content and results of CEA(1) Self-assessment report【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

2-(1)-1)
2-(1)-2)

2-(1)-3)

The self-assessment report of the school waseasy to understand.
The self-assessment report was appropriately
compiled in accordance with the CEA
standards and viewpoints.
The necessary relevant documents andmaterials were cited in and attached to theself-assessment report.

5
22
7%
15

4
165
54%
174

3
92
30%
103

2
27
9%
14

1
2
1%
2

Total
308
100%
308

5%

56%

33%

5%

1%

100%

19

163

99

24

2

307

6%

53%

32%

8%

1%

100%

Avg
3.58
3.60

3.56

(2) Document analysis【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

2-(2)-1)
2-(2)-2)

NIAD-UE’s document analysis forms wereeasy to fill out.
It would have been more helpful if
reference information (objective data, etc.)
other than that submitted by the school
had been available for the document
analysis.

5
56
19%
11

4
168
57%
58

3
61
21%
123

2
12
4%
87

1
0
0%
18

Total
297
100%
297

4%

20%

41%

29%

6%

100%

Avg
3.90
2.86

(3) Site visit【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

2-(3)-1)

2-(3)-2)
2-(3)-3)

2-(3)-4)

2-(3)-5)2-(3)-6)

The answers by the school to the “mattersto be clarified during the site visit” wereappropriate.
Unclear items were fully clarified throughthe site visit.
The items implemented during the site visit(on-site inspection, examination of thelearning environment, and interviews withthose responsible for and involved in theuniversity (or junior college), academic andother staff, and students and graduates)
were appropriate.
During the site visit you were able to sharewith the school an understanding of theconditions of its education, research andother activities.
The number and composition of NIAD-UE’s
external
evaluators(excluding
administrative staff) conducting the site
visit were appropriate.
NIAD-UE’s administrative staff acted
properly during the site visit.

46

5
59
20%

4
191
65%

3
37
13%

2
5
2%

1
0
0%

Total
292
100%

Avg
4.04

108
37%
96

157
54%
147

19
7%
30

5
2%
4

1
0%
0

290
100%
277

4.26

35%

53%

11%

1%

0%

100%

60

189

38

4

0

291

21%

65%

13%

1%

0%

100%

88

164

27

12

0

291

30%

56%

9%

4%

0%

100%

170
59%

112
39%

3
1%

1
0%

0
0%

286
100%

4.21

4.05

4.13

4.58

(4) CEA results【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

2-(4)-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

The results of the document analysis and site

105

177

18

2

0

302

4.27

visit you were assigned to were fully reflected

35%

59%

6%

1%

0%

100%

It was appropriate that whether the school

77

183

41

3

1

305

met the criteria was judged in accordance

25%

60%

13%

1%

0%

100%

The volume of the CEA results presented to

55

160

66

22

1

304

the school was appropriate.

18%

53%

22%

7%

0%

100%

114

148

37

2

1

302

38%

49%

12%

1%

0%

100%

in the CEA results.

2-(4)-2)

4.09

with Standard 1 to Standard 11.

2-(4)-3)

2-(4)-4) It was appropriate that the school’s “good

3.81
4.23

practices” and “areas for improvement” aswell as the decision of institutional certified
evaluation and accreditation were presented
at the beginning of the CEA report.

3. Training programs【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

3-1)
3-2)
3-3)
3-4)
3-5)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

Handouts at the training programs were easy

70

170

41

4

0

285

4.07

to understand.

25%

60%

14%

1%

0%

100%

Explanations at the training programs were

88

156

34

6

0

284

easy to understand.

31%

55%

12%

2%

0%

100%

The training programs were helpful.

86

146

45

6

0

283

30%

52%

16%

2%

0%

100%

The simulations of document analysis were

80

135

58

9

0

282

helpful.

28%

48%

21%

3%

0%

100%

The length of time spent on training was

58

134

77

14

1

284

appropriate.

20%

47%

27%

5%

0%

100%

47

4.15
4.10
4.01
3.82

4. Workload, schedule, etc., for the CEA process(1) Workload required for the CEA process/Work periods set by NIAD-UE＜Workload＞【5: Very heavy 3: Moderate 1: Very light】
5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

Document analysis of the self-assessment

91

101

99

2

0

293

3.96

report

31%

34%

34%

1%

0%

100%

4-(1)-2)

Participation in the site visit

39

69

174

4

2

288

14%

24%

60%

1%

1%

100%

4-(1)-3)Compilation of the CEA results (draft)

20

54

298

15

0

287

7%

19%

69%

5%

0%

100%

4-(1)-1)＜Work periods＞

4-(1)-1)
4-(1)-2)
4-(1)-3)

3.48
3.28

【5: Very long 3: Moderate 1: Very short】
5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

Document analysis of the self-assessment

41

65

153

35

4

298

3.35

report.

14%

22%

51%

12%

1%

100%

Participation in the site visit.

21

58

192

19

3

293

7%

20%

66%

6%

1%

100%

12

37

211

28

4

292

4%

13%

72%

10%

1%

100%

Compilation of the CEA results (draft)

3.26
3.09

(2) Efforts taken in the CEA process【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

4-(2)-1)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

Efforts taken in the CEA process were

61

163

66

8

1

299

3.92

worthwhile to assure the quality of the

20%

55%

22%

3%

0%

100%

Efforts taken in the CEA process were

49

173

70

6

1

299

worthwhile to further improve the school’s

16%

58%

23%

2%

0%

100%

44

142

102

11

0

299

15%

47%

34%

4%

0%

100%

school’s education, research and otheractivities.

4-(2)-2)

3.88

education, research and other activities.

4-(2)-3)

Efforts taken in the CEA process were
worthwhile

to gain understanding andsupport from society for the school’s
education, research and other activities.

(3) Hours spent on the CEA process(Omission)

48

3.73

5. Operation of the subcommittee【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

5-1)

The number and composition of the members of

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

85

186

31

4

0

306

4.15

28%

61%

10%

1%

0%

100%

131

156

15

1

1

304

43%

51%

5%

0%

0%

100%

the Subcommittee for Certified Evaluation andAccreditation

or

the

subcommittee

wereappropriate.

5-2)

The subcommittee was operated smoothly.

4.37

6. This CEA on the whole【5: Strongly agree 3: Cannot say definitely 1: Completely disagree】

6-1)
6-2)
6-3)

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Avg

This CEA will assure the quality of the school’s

57

191

52

6

0

306

3.98

education, research and other activities.

19%

62%

17%

2%

0%

100%

This CEA will help further improve the school’s

53

200

49

4

0

306

education, research and other activities.

17%

65%

16%

1%

0%

100%

This CEA will help develop understanding and

34

147

114

12

0

307

support

11%

48%

37%

4%

0%

100%

You were able to make good use of your

33

169

88

8

3

301

expertise and abilities in the CEA process

11%

56%

29%

3%

1%

100%

74

127

65

16

5

287

26%

44%

23%

6%

2%

100%

This CEA assignment for NIAD-UE was a

153

129

17

4

1

304

valuable experience on the whole.

50%

42%

6%

1%

0%

100%

from

societyfortheschool’s

3.99
3.66

education, research and other activities.

6-4)

3.73

including compiling the results.

6-5)

You were able to apply knowledge gained fromthis CEA process to, for example, the operationof the organization you belong to.

6-6)

49

3.87

4.41

Evolving Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation
Verification Report on the First Cycle and Improvements for the Second Cycle

March 2013
Published by:
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation
1-29-1 Gakuen-Nishimachi, Kodaira, Tokyo 187-8587 Japan
http://www.niad.ac.jp