特別 寄稿※

A Model for “Student Learning OutcomesSpace” and Mobilization of International
Exchange Programs, With Reference toRecent Reforms in Japanese Higher Education
Norihiko SUZUKI DBAPresident,Akita International University, Japan

Hitoshi MURANAKA Ph. D.

Associate Professor
Tokiwa University,
Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan

Key Words: the course numbering system, the undergraduate scholastic ability space, the balanced/unbalanced

undergraduate program, the learning outcomes point, the international undergraduate scholastic ability space

1. Japan’s Educational Reform: From a Senmon Gakubu System to a Gakushi Katei System
The Central Educational Council of Japan, an advisory board for the Ministry of Education, Science andTechnology, released in December 2008 its final report on the comprehensive educational system of Japan. The
report, titled “Toward Building Undergraduate Education in Japan”（ⅰ）, focuses on emphasizing that higher
education in Japan change its objectives and structure from the established 100-year old “Senmon Gakubu”（SG–専門学部）system of education to one it calls a “Gakushi Katei”（GK– 学士課程）education system.
The existing SG system of education is characterized by the following: 1）students and faculty are rigidly
placed into academic departments, 2） applicants （high school students） declare their choice of department（faculty/major）when they take university entrance exams, 3）the content of entrance exams differs dependingon the department a student hopes to enter, and 4）after entering the department stated for their entrance
exam, students stay in that department until graduation, with little possibility of changing departments. In thissystem, students take designated courses for their bachelor’s degree with some room for electives. By
graduation they are expected to have gained expertise for given professions.
The GK system advocated in the report emphasizes levels of learning outcomes for students to attainregardless of their department. In the report, learning outcomes that students are commonly expected to attainare defined in levels from basic to advanced, including such levels as:（1）knowledge and understanding;（2）universally applicable skills（e. g., communication skills, information technologies）;（3）attitude and behavioral
skills; and（4）comprehensive learning experience and creative thinking, in that order. Students, regardless of
their department/major, are expected to obtain the above abilities/attributes.
Changing emphasis of the objectives and structure of higher education in Japan from the SG to the GK
system has raised a series of discussions among Japanese colleges and universities. Some believe the direction
advocated by such reforms appropriately provides what Japanese society needs to move forward with theglobalized society of the 21st century. Others express great confusion and resistance. Confusion appears to stemfrom the fact that the report focuses mainly on the U. S. model of education, that it remains abstract andconceptual, and that it pays insufficient attention to the reality of Japan’s system of higher education, which isstill SG centered.

− 79 −

大学評価研究第13号

2014年８月

This paper examines the problems and prospects of today’s higher education in Japan. Furthermore, by
proposing a three-dimensional “student learning outcomes space” it attempts to formulate a generic model ofhigher education curriculums applicable to any department/major at a Japanese university. The paper also
indicates the importance of the course numbering system and proposes a possible path for Japanese higher
education towards international student exchange and a credit transfer system, which are indispensable for theinternationalization of university education in the 21st century.

2. 1991 Reforms: New Freedom in Curricular Changes（With Confusing Results）
The year 1991 is often seen as a landmark in the history of Japan’s higher education. Before that, Japan’s “School
Education Law” and “Standards for the Establishment of Universities” strictly regulated university educational
programs to a specific level of detail. In 1991, the then Ministry of Education relaxed the regulatory intensity ofthese laws and standards, allowing freedom to universities to develop flexible curricula, including freedom foruniversities to combine general education courses and specialized courses. This resulted in a shift of who isresponsible for assuring the quality of a university’s education, namely, the university is now responsible and not
the regulations of the Ministry of Education or its detailed system of control over schools. Each university is
now to be primarily responsible for assuring the quality of its education, which is reviewed and accredited by
Japan’s current university accreditation system. A positive consequence of this change has been the increased
freedom with which universities may now develop or reform their curricula. However, problems persists,including one that influences the character of Japanese higher education, viz. after the 1991 reforms, many
universities moved their previous general education courses to specialized courses, majors, and programs. This
resulted in universities’ general education programs disappearing and being absorbed across their specialized
areas, thus jeopardizing the balance between general education courses and specialized courses and majors.
Reports assert that the freedom granted to the universities in the combination of general education courses andspecialized courses and majors has made it possible for them to develop so great a number of new programs
that Japanese universities now offer more than 800 different types of undergraduate degrees.

3. A Second Report from the Central Educational Council （2008）: It’s Aftermath andRecommendations for Returning the “Whole Person Education” to the University Curriculum
By emphasizing the importance of general education, the Central Educational Council’s 2008 report, theaforementioned “Toward Building Undergraduate Education in Japan,” was critical to remedying this confusion.
The report stressed the fact that universities were ignoring the important role of general education andappealed to universities to strengthen efforts to return general education programs to their previous position
vis-à-vis specialized courses.
In March 2012, the Central Educational Council released another report, this time focusing on the amountof time and level of intensity college students devote to their studies. It had been observed that the Japanesecollege students were not spending on their studies the minimum amount required by the standards by which
Japan allows universities to be chartered（ⅱ）（i. e., one course credit is to equate to forty-five hours of course
work per semester（typically 15 weeks）, with fifteen of these hours for in-class lectures and thirty hours forwork outside the classroom）. The report also observed that in a comparison of the number of hours U. S. andJapanese students spend on their studies, the former exceeded the latter greatly. The report urged universities
to realize and substantiate courses that met the criteria of the standards for their charters.
On the other hand, universities’ faculty have been increasingly found to offer more courses than before.
This reflects the increase in the number of university programs and degrees while decreasing the time which
faculty have for research.
More seriously, the result of these trends on both sides ─ students’ decreased engagement in their studies
and faculty’s increased teaching commitments ─ is believed to be the inevitable lowering of the standards,− 80 −

A Model for “Student Learning Outcomes Space” and Mobilization of International
Exchange Programs, With Reference to Recent Reforms in Japanese Higher Education

quality, and intensity of university education in Japan.

4. Use of Course Numbering System for Quality Assurance
An orderly system of offering courses in Japan is also key to a discussion of assuring the quality of the country’s
higher education.
U. S. colleges and universities have long used systems of representing courses with three-digit numbers:
numbers in the 100s represent introductory courses, 200s intermediate courses, 300s advanced courses, and 400s
capstone courses such as those for independent studies or writing senior theses. This course numbering system
helps universities create an orderly and systematic structure throughout their programs. To both the students
taking the courses and to the general public affected by the universities’ in their communities, the system helps
to offer comprehensive information on the objective, structure, and content of each course and the curriculum,thus helping to make clear universities’ bodies of programs and the final level students must reach to obtain
their degrees.
Japanese colleges and universities, however, rarely number courses. This results in a lack of structure in
the way in which courses are positioned and, accordingly, a lack of structure in curricula and programs as awhole. In extreme cases, the curricula of some Japanese college and universities, particularly for those studying
the humanities and social sciences, are simply composed of courses developed randomly and approved and listedby the faculty. It is for this reason that there is no assurance of the quality of higher education, and degrees
granted by universities are not backed by any actual quality their educational programs may possess.
This ambiguity in the curricular structure is a serious concern for society, which is affected by its
universities, and questions whether Japanese colleges and universities offer university-level education of a
sufficiently high quality to meet the global move toward greater quality assurance in university education.
Additionally, the deficiency in commitment among students in class participation and faculty in classmanagement has been attributed in part to this absence of a course numbering system.
Why, then, has a course numbering system not been adopted, if it limits Japan’s ability to assure thequality of its educational programs? The Central Council of Education has observed that faculty, who in Japanare customarily seen as having authority over the development of their curricula and courses offered, arereluctant to have their courses reduced to a three-digit number due to a misconception that the numbers denoteimportance. Due to this misunderstanding they see teaching courses with low numbers as a loss of face.

5. Components of Three Issues Confronting Japanese Higher Education
Based on the above observations, higher education in Japan confronts difficulties largely in the following threeareas: 1）difficulty transitioning from the Senmon Gakubu（SG）system to the Gakushi Katei（GK）system, 2）
composition of general education courses vs. specialized/major courses, and 3） quality assurance through acourse numbering system. These issues are largely technical and practical in the nature but fundamental for
improving quality in Japanese higher education.
First, in changing the systems and principles of Japan’s higher education from a Senmon Gakubu（SG）
system to a Gakushi Katei （GK） system, Japan’s Central Educational Council emphasized that instead ofcontaining students in specialized majors （and thus equipping them with specific skills and knowledge）,
students are to achieve overall learning outcomes attainable regardless of their major. The council’s reportclassifies these outcomes conceptually into the four stages of:（1）knowledge and understanding;（2）universallyapplicable skills;（3）attitude and behavioral skills; and（4）comprehensive learning experience and creativethinking.
Second, although universities have been urged to achieve a balanced composition of general education
courses and specialized/major courses in their curricula, the difficulty lies in the fact that Japanese universities
further subdivide these two kinds of courses into the following four subcategories（from basic to advanced− 81 −

大学評価研究第13号

2014年８月

courses）:（1）general education courses for first-year students;（2）foundation and/or intermediate courses forsecond-year students;（3）advanced courses for third-year students; and（4）capstone courses such as those forindependent studies and writing senior theses.
Third, a discussion on the adoption of a course numbering system grants insight into the systematicstructure for curricula at colleges and universities. The three-digit course numbering system describes a course
as belonging to one of four levels:（1）100-level courses mainly for first-year students;（2）200-level courses
mainly for second-year students; （3） 300-level courses mainly for third- and fourth-year students; and （4）400-level courses for fourth-year students（courses such as senior thesis writing）.
These three urgent issues concerning Japan’s higher education are found to possess four subdivided andstepwise stages. The question arises as to how these three issues（and their four stepwise stages）can beintegrated so that we can consider them altogether from a macro level examination.

6. Constructing “Student Learning Outcomes Space”
Figure 1 illustrates three axes with four stepwise stages, from basic to most advanced levels of academicachievement.
The first axis, at left, represents the Gakushi Katei education system, with four stepwise stages of thelearning outcomes arrayed along it. The stages are:（1）knowledge/understanding;（2）universally applicableskills;（3）attitude and behavioral skills; and（4）comprehensive learning experience and critical thinking. The
second axis, concerning the combination of general education courses and specialized/major courses, is also
divided into four stepwise stages:（1）general education courses mainly for first-year students;（2）intermediatecourses mainly for second-year students;（3）advanced courses for third-year and fourth year students; and（4）capstone courses for graduating fourth-year students. Finally, the third axis refers to the course numberingsystem by which all courses are assigned three-digit numbers, with the first digit indicating:（1）100-level basiccourses;（2）200-level intermediate courses;（3）300-level advanced courses; and（4）400-level capstone courses.
It becomes possible then to integrate the above three axes into one framework by forming a three-dimensional
space as denoted in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Three Axes with Four Stepwise Stages− 82 −

A Model for “Student Learning Outcomes Space” and Mobilization of International
Exchange Programs, With Reference to Recent Reforms in Japanese Higher Education

Figure 2. Three-Dimensional Gakushi Katei SpaceIn Figure 2, the space at the far left-hand bottom is the point of origin（“A” in Figure 2）. A course at this point
has the following characteristics:⑴ provided mainly to first-year students with basic knowledge and understanding;⑵ a general education course; and⑶ a 100-level course, according to the course numbering system.
On the other hand, a course represented by a point in the far upper right-hand corner（point “B”）has thefollowing characteristics:⑴ in terms of content, it teaches students comprehensive learning experience and critical thinking;⑵ a capstone course; and⑶ a 400-level course, the highest level course in the curriculum.
In Figure 2, a diagonal line can be drawn from A to B within the space. The direction of the diagonal issignificant in that courses located along and/or near this diagonal may be assessed as a “well balanced” course.
Point “C” along the diagonal, for example, would represent a course with the following characteristics:⑴ aims to teach students “universally applicable skills”;⑵ an intermediate course; and⑶ a 200-level course.
A course located at point C, therefore, is regarded as well balanced in these three dimensions.
On the other hand, the direction of courses offered along the space from “A” to “D” in Figure 2 indicates coursesthat are poorly balanced and inconsistent because, for example, a course located at point D has the following
unbalanced characteristics:⑴ teaching students comprehensive learning experience and critical thinking;⑵ a capstone course; but⑶ listed as a 100-level（introductory）course.
Thus, the curriculum and course offerings whose courses are located along and/or near the diagonal arebalanced, whilst the curriculum and course offerings located far from the diagonal are unbalanced. It is important
to note that this Gakushi Katei educational space contains 64 sub-spaces in it（4×4×4 = 64）. Additionally, interms of so-called “curriculum reform,” such reforms should be regarded as a process of relocating the− 83 −

大学評価研究第13号

2014年８月

curriculum/course offerings originally located far from the diagonal in Figure 2, to the sub-space along or near
the diagonal.

7. Using Gakushi Katei Educational Spaces for International Exchange Programs
The Gakushi Katei educational space can be constructed for different curricula for different programs for anyuniversity. The positioning of courses within the Gakushi Katei educational space enables us to assess to what
extent courses and curricula accord with or divert from the diagonal line indicating balanced courses in anundergraduate program. Assuming individual universities are equipped with their own conceptual Gakushi
Katei educational space, student exchange programs between universities in different countries can be viewed
as the transfer of courses taken by the students at an overseas host university to their own universities. Figure
3 illustrates a case of this transfer of courses and credits earned by students through study abroad programs
between two schools in two countries.
In order for both universities to run their study abroad programs and thus offer an exchange of course
credits, an articulation of the courses ought to be conducted. Faculty and administration of two schools need toexamine the contents and levels of courses to be transferred and confirm that courses are equivalent or identicalto one another. Figure 4 shows an example of the articulation of courses in the exchange program between
Figure 3. International Transfer of Students and Credits Earned

Figure 4. ICU-UC Credit Transfer System through Student Exchange Program
EDUCATION ABROAD PROGRAM
CURRENTLY APPROVED ICU COURSESUC EAP Course No. UC EAP Course Title

ICU Course No.

ICU Dept.

ICU Unit

ANTH50PRINCIPLS/ANTHROUC EAP Unit ICU Course Title
4.0

Principles of Anthropology

ANT 103EAnthropology

3.0

BEG
1012

END
1511

ANTH

142

MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

4.0

Medical Anthropology

ANT 206E

Anthropology

3.00904

1403

ARTHS

12HIS OF EASTERN ART

4.0

Introduction to Eastern Art

ARA 101E

Art and Archaeology

3.00809

1308

BUS A

10

INTRO: BUSINESS ADM

4.0

Introduction to Business Administration

BUS 102J

Business

3.009091408

BUS 208E

Business

3.00812

1311

CHEM

132 A

ORGANIC CHEMISTRY

2.5Organic Chemistry Ⅰ

CHM 231J

Chemistry

2.50804

1303

COMM

BUS A

102115INTERPRETING IN SOC

MARKETING

4.04.0Interpreting in Society

Marketing

MCC 102JE

Media, Communication and Culture

3.00909

1408

COMM

128

TECH & COMMUNICATION

4.0

Technology and Communication

MCC 275E

Media, Communication and Culture

3.01004

1503

CP S

25

INTRO TO COMPUTERS

4.0

Foundation of Computers

CSC 103E

Computer Science

3.00804

1303

ECON111

ECONOMIC GROWTH

4.0

Economic Growth

ECO 332J

Economics

3.007121211

ECON113

ECON DEVELMNT JAPAN

4.0

Economic Development of Modern JapanECO 253E

Economics

3.00909

1408

ED118

COMPARATIV & INTL ED

4.0

Fundamentals of Comparative and International Education

CED 205E

Comparative Education

3.01004

1503

ED124

APPROACHE TO TEACH

4.0

Approaches to the Subordination of Teaching

LED 211E

Language Education

3.01009

1508

FR10

ELEMENTARY FRENCH

5.0

French 1

WFR 101JE

World Languages

4.01004

1503

HIST

100 C HISTORY OF JAPAN

4.0

History of Japan（Modern）Ⅲ

HST 106E

History

3.008121311− 84 −

A Model for “Student Learning Outcomes Space” and Mobilization of International
Exchange Programs, With Reference to Recent Reforms in Japanese Higher Education

International Christian University in Japan and the University of California in the U. S.

8. Conclusion
This paper endeavored to explain several issues that Japan’s higher education now seeks to resolve andpresented a conceptual three-dimensional Gakushi Katei educational space in which courses offered in acurriculum can be positioned. To what extent the courses and/or curricula are balanced （or not） can bemeasured by their distance from the diagonal line in the space. Student exchange programs between schools indifferent countries（more concretely, the transfer of credits by students of such programs）are viewed as theinter-space moves of them across the countries as indicated in Figure 3. Ideally, student exchange programs
should be carried out between schools whose curricula are both viewed as balanced and thus equivalent. Somejoint effort needs to be made between two schools in order to install an articulation mechanism smoothly.
At present, discussions and proposals are being made for the future installment of double-degree and dualdegree programs among schools in different countries. The E. U.’s Bologna Process and its ERASMUS Project
are creating a large flow of students moving within the E. U. In Asia, it is expected that a similar flow ofstudents within Asia will emerge in the foreseeable future, for which analytical observations of higher
educational systems in Asia will become meaningful and necessary.

Notesⅰⅱ“Gakushi Katei Kyoiku no Kochiku ni Mukete”（学士課程教育の構築に向けて）.
Standards for University Chartering, article 21, clause 2.
※

 の論文は，『大学評価研究』第11号（2012年６月刊行）に投稿論文「学士力空間の構築と国際単位互換制度─高等教
こ育国際化の基礎─」として掲載されたものである。その後，同論文の内容をもとに，執筆者のひとりである鈴木氏が，2012年6月に香港で行われた学会「一般教育と大学のカリキュラム改革」において発表を行った。今回は，編集委員会より，執筆者に学会発表の内容をふまえたこの論文の英語版の作成を依頼し，掲載したものである。
This article was originally presented at the General Education and University Curriculum Reform: An International
Conference in Hong Kong, held at the City University of Hong Kong on June 12-14, 2012. The Japanese version ofthis article appears as Norihiko Suzuki & Hitoshi Muranaka. （2012）, “Constructing “gakushiryoku” space andinternational degree exchange systems: A foundation for internationalization of Japan’s higher education.” University
Evaluation Review, 11, 83-92, 2012.

− 85 −