Joint Guidelines for
Monitoring International
Cooperative Academic
Programs in CAMPUS Asia

June 2017

Higher Education Evaluation Center of Ministry of Education (HEEC)
National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education (NIAD-QE)
Korean Council for University Education (KCUE)

Contents
1. Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
2. Objectives of the guidelines ------------------------------------------------------------- 2
3. Guidelines -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
3-1. General principles --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
3-2. Implementation system -------------------------------------------------------------- 2
3-3. Procedures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
3-4. Criteria and viewpoints --------------------------------------------------------------- 4
3-5. Considerations when conducting monitoring ---------------------------------------- 7
3-5-1. Considerations for the quality assurance agencies ------------------------ 7
3-5-2. Considerations for the reviewers ------------------------------------------- 8

1. Introduction
CAMPUS Asia (Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia) is a
program launched based on a trilateral summit agreement among the governments of China,
Japan, and Korea, and is designed to carve out a better future for Asia. Its objectives are topromote exchange and cooperation with quality assurance among higher education institutions(HEIs) in the three countries, create a shared sense of community in terms of history and culture
in Northeast Asia, and nurture in future leaders a vision of regional peace and coexistence throughtrilateral educational exchanges. In 2010, the three governments agreed to commence the
CAMPUS Asia pilot program, and 10 pilot programs were selected for participation in October 2011.
Three quality assurance agencies—i.e., the Higher Education Evaluation Center of the
Ministry of Education in China, the National Institution for Academic Degrees and University
Evaluation (currently the National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement ofHigher Education) in Japan, and the Korean Council for University Education in Korea—set up the
China-Japan-Korea Quality Assurance Council in 2010. Recognizing the modality of quality
assurance in international education as a common issue, the Council agreed to carry out quality
monitoring of the CAMPUS Asia pilot programs. This monitoring was intended not to confirm
attainment of minimum quality standards, but to identify good practices from the standpoint ofeducational quality and disseminate them at home as well as abroad.
The three quality assurance agencies conducted monitoring activities twice for the 10 pilot
programs. The first monitoring was conducted independently in each country in 2013, following
the country’s relevant regulations, quality assurance system, and methods. After that, themonitoring criteria and each country’s methods were comparatively analyzed and the threeagencies jointly established a common framework for quality assurance, which includes criteria,
principles, and processes, before conducting the second monitoring in 2015. In the second
monitoring, panel members from the three countries jointly performed document reviews and site
visits, based on common self-assessment reports provided by the consortium for each CAMPUS
Asia program. The monitoring results were compiled in a report featuring examples of goodpractices, which was widely disseminated.
The three governments then promoted CAMPUS Asia as a full-fledged program following
the completion of the pilot period, selecting a total of 17 programs (including 9 new ones) for
participation in the fall of 2016. They also agreed to continue discussing the feasibility of further
expansion to other nations in Asia. The three quality assurance agencies plan to conduct
monitoring on the full-fledged programs as well. In so doing, they are expected to refer to theseguidelines and further expand their monitoring efforts based on the experience gained in the pilot
period and the structure of close cooperation established among the three countries while
collaborating with the national governments and the participating HEIs.
We hope that these monitoring activities and the ongoing dissemination of good practices
contribute to the enhancement of the quality of international cooperative academic programs
including CAMPUS Asia, to the fostering of excellent students who acquire appropriate learning
outcomes with respect to the goals of the respective programs and strengthen international
cooperation among the quality assurance agencies.

12. Objectives of the guidelines
The three quality assurance agencies formulated these joint guidelines based on
experiences gained through the establishment of a common quality assurance method for future
quality assurance initiatives on CAMPUS Asia programs.
The first objective of the guidelines is to specify a method of monitoring international
cooperative academic programs so that the three agencies and the reviewers can clearly
understand the monitoring criteria, processes, and methods and, thereby, carry out the monitoringof CAMPUS Asia programs in a consistent fashion.
The second objective is to serve as a helpful model for other quality assurance agencies
conducting monitoring or evaluation of international cooperative academic programs, especiallywhen working with partner agencies in other countries, and for HEIs in their internal quality
assurance work with regard to international cooperative education.
Through their experience of joint monitoring of CAMPUS Asia, the three quality assurance
agencies developed the unified quality assurance framework described here and also built a senseof mutual trust. This encourages them to apply the common quality framework to conduct theirmonitoring activities in an abridged form (e.g., joint recognition of monitoring results obtained byeach country).
We hope that these guidelines will contribute to the improvement of quality assurance
initiatives both within and beyond the three participating countries. The three agencies involved
will review these guidelines periodically and improve them as needed in light of global trends inquality assurance and the circumstances of international collaborative education at each
institution.
3. Guidelines
3-1. General principles
Promote quality enhancement of international collaborative academic programs
Conduct monitoring based on joint criteria and procedures
Review consortium-wide progress and achievements to identify the programs’ goodpractices
Examine the degree of cooperation among participating HEIs with respect to resource
integration and quality assurance activities as international collaborative academic
programs
Examine each program’s continuous quality improvement
Value students’ opinions and ideas regarding CAMPUS Asia
3-2. Implementation system
The Joint Monitoring Committee is the decision-making body for conducting the monitoring.
A Monitoring Panel is set up under the Committee to carry out the actual process.
The Joint Monitoring Committee consists of three experts from each of the three countries who
are designated by the quality assurance agencies. One from each country represents the country’s

2

quality assurance agency. The Committee exists to confirm, finalize, and officially release the joint
monitoring report. It is preferable for Joint Monitoring Committee members to have knowledge andexperience of international collaborative academic programs and quality assurance.
The Monitoring Panel consists of three experts from each country appointed by each country’s
quality assurance agency, serves to review self-assessment reports and write document review
reports, conduct site visits, and write final monitoring reports on each consortium.
●

It is preferable for Monitoring Panel members to have knowledge and experience ofinternational collaborative academic programs and their quality assurance as well as those of
the field of specialization of the program to be reviewed. Roles within the Monitoring Panel,such as those of its chairperson and coordinator, should be clarified.
The members of the Joint Monitoring Committee and the Monitoring Panel are not entitledto be part of the decision-making process on any matter pertaining to programs with which they
are associated.
3-3. Procedures
The overall procedures for monitoring are as follows:
1. The quality assurance agencies hold an orientation program for Monitoring Panel members
to enable them to deepen their knowledge and understanding of monitoring activities.
When holding different orientation programs separately in different countries, the three
quality assurance agencies should cooperate for the content to be the same at all the
programs.
2. The quality assurance agencies hold an orientation program for the consortia to explain theobjectives of monitoring and its implementation. They cooperate so as to provide the sameor similar information for institutions in all countries.
3. Each consortium is required to produce and submit one common (joint) self-assessment
report produced by all participating HEIs in the consortium, describing its good practices
and issues for improvement under each criterion.
4. Monitoring Panel members conduct document reviews based on the submitted
self-assessment reports.
5. Monitoring Panel members conduct site visits to ask about matters that are not clear fromdocument reviews. Interviews with the officials responsible for the program, with faculty
and staff members involved in the program, and with students are included in the site visit
schedule. An exchange of views and opinions with the officials responsible for the program
takes place at the end of the visit. It is preferable to conduct site visits at a time whenrepresentatives of the participating HEIs in each country can be present.
6. Monitoring Panel members produce a draft monitoring report on a consortium based on the
results of their document review and site visit. If the draft report is produced in the local
language, a version in English is also prepared.
7. Monitoring Panel members share the draft monitoring report on a consortium with all panel3members from the three countries so as to collect their comments and revise the draft
report where necessary.
8. Before finalizing the draft monitoring report on a consortium, the consortium itself has theopportunity to review it and ensure that there are no factual errors. If any errors were to be
identified, Monitoring Panel members would conduct deliberations and revise the report
where necessary.
9. Monitoring Panel members then share finalized monitoring reports on a consortium withthe three quality assurance agencies, which will draw up a draft joint monitoring reportbased on the monitoring reports on each consortium.
10. The Joint Monitoring Committee finalizes the joint monitoring report.
11. The quality assurance agencies make the finalized joint monitoring report widely available
to the public in book form, online, and at symposia.
3-4. Criteria and viewpoints
To ascertain the current status of each program and its quality enhancement initiatives, thefollowing monitoring criteria on quality should be applied. When monitoring with respect to eachcriterion, refer to the viewpoints listed thereunder. However, the envisioned viewpoints are notlimited to those listed here.
1. Objectives and Implementation
1-1. Achievement of Objectives•

The vision for fostering human resources is clearly defined via discussion among theparticipating institutions.

•

The goals are clearly articulated, including expected learning outcomes in terms ofstudents’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Participating institutions exhibit a sharedrecognition of these program goals.

•

The program goals are shared among the staff members and students of the participating
institutions and are understood in the same, unequivocal way at each institution.

•

The program goals function as guidelines for developing and implementing the academic
program.

1-2. Organization and Administration•

Basic policies on the multi-institutional operational structure, institutions’ responsibilities
with regard to students, and the allocation of expenses are clearly articulated in a writtenagreement signed and put into effect by the participating institutions.

•

Periodic meetings are held among the participating institutions; a mechanism forreviewing program implementation and related issues is established, and responsibility foraddressing common issues is shared.

•

Where academic supervision is applicable, an appropriate supervisory system isestablished and implemented cooperatively among the participating institutions.

•

Within each institution, responsibility for conducting the international collaborative4

academic program is clearly defined along with a suitable support system involving otherdivisions (e.g., international, student support, and quality assurance).
•

The participating institutions have agreed to sustain the program, and the operational
structure

and

plans

for

sustaining

theprogramareactively

reviewed.

Also,

institution-wide approval to sustain the program is obtained from the management ofeach institution.
2. Collaborative Development of Academic Program
2-1.Curriculum Integration•

The curriculum is jointly designed by the participating institutions.

•

Information on curriculum and courses at each institution is shared by and across theparticipating institutions.

•

The educational content is suited to achieving the program goals.

•

The educational content complies with the expected learning outcomes (e.g., student
knowledge, skills, and attitudes).

•The educational content and methods are suited to international collaborative education.

•

The relationship between the teaching methods and content and the expected learning
outcomes is clarified.

2-2. Academic Staff and Teaching•

A sufficient number of qualified faculty and staff members are deployed for the sustained
implementation of the international collaborative academic program.

•

The system for the provision of educational content (e.g., joint supervision by dispatchingfaculty, distance learning) which faculty members of partner institutions join is
implemented.

•

Faculty and staff development and capacity building for attaining international
competencies are conducted.

•

Incentives and a support for the work environment are provided to attract faculty and staff
members who are skilled in international education and can contribute to the sustainabilityof the program.

•

The teaching methods used are acceptable and suitable for international students (e.g.,multilingual textbooks, classes taught in English and access to after-class or
extracurricular tutorials).

3. Student Support
3-1. Student Admission•

Information on the program is disseminated widely in order to recruit motivated students.

•

The student selection process (selection criteria and system) is suited to the educational
objectives and content and are jointly established and carried out by the participating
institutions.

•

The expected number of students has been secured.

5•The academic level of admitted students is appropriate for the program’s objectives andcurriculum.

3-2. Support for Learning and Living•

Participating institutions share with students the information necessary for course
selection and enrollment, including sufficient guidance prior to participating students’
departure from their home countries.

•

Various types of learning support are provided for participating students, including
language training, supplemental classes, and support from teaching assistants.

•

Various types of living support are provided for the participating students, including
orientation, counseling, disaster risk management, and career support.

•

A sufficient learning environment is provided for participating students, including libraries,
information technology, and laboratory facilities.

•

Sufficient scholarships and accommodation support are provided appropriately forparticipating students.

•

Participating institutions support exchange and interaction among students and alumni.

4. Added Value of the Collaborative Program (Outcomes)
4-1. Student Satisfaction•

Based on the expected learning outcomes, an appropriate method for measuring learning
outcomes is established, and learning outcomes are measured regularly.

•

The relationship among students’ course enrollment, credit acquisition, and learning
outcomes is analyzed.

•

Appropriate learning outcomes aligned with the program objectives are achieved.

•

Students are highly satisfied with the program content and exhibit high levels ofachievement.

•

The results of a student satisfaction survey and student achievement survey are sharedacross participating institutions.

•Learning outcomes with added-value resulting from the international collaborative
program are obtained.

•

The status of graduates is tracked regularly and is shared among the participating
institutions.

4-2. Credit Transfer and Degree Awarding•

The credit systems of the partner institutions are mutually understood, and a
program-based credit transfer system is established.

•

As regards a program that awards two degrees upon completion, criteria for awarding
degrees and methods of review at each institution are shared, and the criteria andmethods of review are discussed periodically among the participating institutions.

•

Grading methods are coordinated among the participating institutions with each
institution conducting strict assessments so as to ensure the validity of the awarded6credits.
•

As regards a program that awards two degrees upon completion, the achieved learning
outcomes are appropriate for a CAMPUS Asia program.

5. Continuous Quality Improvement•

Feedback from students is periodically gathered in multiple ways, in such manners as
through questionnaires, interviews, and student participation in review committees, and isincorporated into the program review.

•

A program review is carried out based on an analysis of information gathered on thelearning progress of students, learning outcomes achieved, curriculum, teaching and its
contents, and other information.

•

An external review, including inputs from an advisory committee, is conducted.

•

The results of program reviews are shared and discussed among the participating
institutions to contribute toward further program improvement and development.

•

Participating institutions discuss and consider measures for quality improvement andfuture initiatives based on the self-assessment results.

•

The results of the review are appreciated by the international affairs, quality assurance,and student support divisions of each institution, and necessary measures are taken at theinstitutional level.

•

The participating institutions agree to sustain and enhance the program through quality
improvement. Also, institution-wide approval from the management of each institution tosustain the program is obtained.

•

Some effects of the program’s implementation on students who are not in the program arerecognized.

3-5. Considerations when conducting monitoring
3-5-1. Considerations for the quality assurance agencies(1) Adequate and appropriate resources, both human and financial, should be available tocarry out consistent monitoring. It is preferable to obtain financial support from thegovernment in one’s own country.
(2) Objectivity, transparency, and independence of the quality assurance agencies should bemaintained. The independence of the reviewers should be ensured to carry out objective
and fair monitoring.
(3) Active communication and cooperation among quality assurance agencies from the three
countries, participating institutions, and organizations concerned should be ensured in all
monitoring activities.
(4) Systems leading to continuous improvement through quality assurance activities should be
developed.

73-5-2. Considerations for the reviewers(1) Active communication and cooperation: Reviews are to be conducted with active
communication and cooperation among the reviewers from the three countries.
(2) Monitoring documents and information: Documents and information obtained during
monitoring are not to be used or provided for purposes other than monitoring activities.
(3) Liaison and coordination: If uncertainties or inquiries about the CAMPUS Asia programs
are recognized during the document review and the preparation of reports, the quality
assurance agency in charge of queries should be contacted. Directly contacting the HEIs is
discouraged.
(4) Objective and unbiased review: Reviews are to be conducted objectively and in an
unbiased manner.
(5) Dialog during site visit:● Before each interview, the reviewers should hold a meeting to thoroughly discuss the facts
to be confirmed and remarks to be made during the interview.
● Regarding inquiries from the HEIs during the site visit, the reviewers carrying out the site
visit should, in principle, be unanimous on their responses. Should you wish to offer yourpersonal opinions, it would be appropriate to convey to the interviewees that the views
are personal and not those of the review team.
● The reviewers should refrain from asking interviewees about personal issues.
● The reviewers should take care so that interviewees are not detrimentally affected by their
responses but ensure confidentiality.
● The reviewers should not debate with interviewees or criticize the HEIs.
● Should the interviewees criticize CAMPUS Asia initiatives or the monitoring process, itwould be advisable to listen for the reasons behind their opinions and avoid making any
counterarguments. However, if there are misunderstandings, correct information should
be conveyed.
● At the end of the site visit, the reviewers should thoroughly discuss the facts to be includedin the report.
(6) Points to keep in mind when producing each report (document review report, site visit
report, and final report)● Reports should be produced with objectivity and fairness based on the facts verified in the
document review and the site visit.
● Especially when making negative observations, care should be taken to provide detailed
and objective reasoning that led to that observation.
Any contradictions should be avoided within a report.

8