神戸大学 大学教育推進機構 大学教育研究
第 17 号（2008 年度） 2008 年 9 月 30 日発行：31−42

Outcomes-Based Approach in Japanese Higher
Education:Emerging Concerns and Challenges (*)(**)

Tatsuo KawashimaOutcomes-Based Approach in Japanese Higher Education:
Emerging Concerns and Challenges (*)(**)
Tatsuo Kawashima(Kobe University)

The words “assessment” and “outcomes” are now a kind of “fad” all over theworld. Japan is not an exception, although if the meanings and importance of themfor higher education are fully understand uncertain.
Today I will talk first a little bit about my institution, Kobe University andthen give you the general picture of Japanese higher education. After that I willtell you the direction toward which higher education in Japan is now moving, thatis, outcome-based approach for quality assurance. In order for you to understandthis direction, some information of environmental changes should be mentioned
nationally as well as internationally, since higher education cannot be an ivory
tower anymore. We must adapt to ever-changing environments to survive. Finally
I will state some challenges we are now facing to transform Japanese higher education
into outcomes-based approach, which may be shared with you while introducing several
good practices of pioneering institutions.

Introduction of Kobe University
My institution, Kobe University was founded in 1902 as the second Higher
Commercial School in Japan by the national government. In 1929 it was given the
power to award academic degrees, thus upgraded to the University, Kobe Universityof Commerce. Having merged with many HEIs in the region after World War II, now
it is one of the biggest and best universities in Japan. We have 13 Faculties,
from humanities, to social sciences, to natural sciences, to life sciences including
medicine and nursing.

We offers bachelor, master, doctoral and professional

programs. The number of students is 16,000 in total. Among them, the number ofundergraduate students is 11,000 and that of postgraduate students is 5,000
including 1,000 international students from 70 counties and regions all over theworld. Regarding staff, we have 1,400 academic staff along with 1,600 non-academic
staff. We are making an effort to be one of world-class universities by 2015.

Higher Education in Japan
Higher education in Japan started some hundred fifty years ago, thus rather young
system compared to European and even American counterparts. But now it is one of
the largest systems in the world.

We enroll 2.85 million students; among themundergraduate programs enroll most, 2.5 million students.

The total number of

institutions is 1,182 with 765 for 4-year institutions and 417 for 2-year
institutions. 4-year institutions are more popular among applicants so that many
2-year institutions tend to upgrade to 4-year institutions.
In addition to size, “diversity” characterizes higher education in Japan. In
terms of types of control, we have national, local and private universities. The
biggest sector is private one, which enrolls three quarters of all students.

What is the Outcomes-Based Approach?
I think many of you are already familiar with outcomes-based approach (OBA) toteaching and learning. So I just briefly mention it now. OBA is the way to improve
the quality of learning and teaching by prioritizing what the students actuallylearn and master rather than what professors teach and the content covered.”
OBA has three components;(1)1. The statement of intended/expected learning outcomes.
2. The design of teaching and learning activities to increase the likelihood of
the most students achieving the outcomes.
3. The assessment to check if each student actually achieve or not.
As I will tell you later, many systems in the world are now moving toward OBA
to some extent.

Background of Outcomes-Based Approach in JapanWhy Japanese higher education is moving toward OBA? There are many changes in
the national context as well as international one, which necessitate this move.
First I will mention five national factors followed by four international factors
among them.
1. Changes in the National Context(1) The Coming of Knowledge Society
Since the last quarter of 20th century, the coming new millennium would be andshould be a knowledge society, in which it is more critical both for nations andindividuals to create new knowledge than to produce goods. Because people is thecreator of new knowledge, even the artificial intelligent system has advanced
enormously, many advanced countries as well as less-developed countries haveinvested in higher education as the main strategic target of the human capitaldevelopment.
TheKnowledge society;• Requires people to learn for life, thus to learn how to learn.
• Means the ability/competence to utilize, apply and create knowledge is more
important than the possession of knowledge as such.
• Requires the change of the way of instruction from delivering of knowledge like
lecture to active learning like project/problem-based learning.
In a word, in the knowledge society it is more important for students what they
can do with what they know than what they know.
(2) Universal Participation in Higher Education
Like other developed countries, Japanese higher education has grown gradually,
but steadily since WW II and now more than half of 18-year youth enroll in higher
education and reached at the “Universal Stage” called by Dr Martin Trow. This
universalization of higher education means that the holders of Bachelor degree willbe the core workforce of Japan soon, thus all universities have the responsibility
to develop full potential of students.

At the same time, however, theunivesalization of higher education also has brought the more diverse student bodyin terms of academic ability, motivation and interests, so that we have toindividualize instruction and to be more student-centered in order for all graduates
to be competent workers.
(3) The Decrease of Young Population and the Consequent Relaxation of the Entrance
Examination
The universalization and diversification of higher education led to the serious
concern about the quality of higher education. In addition the decrease of young
population combined with the increase of new universities resulted in the relaxationof entrance examination. Japan has been once notorious for her harshness of theentrance examination. It is true for some elite institutions like Tokyo University
and Keio University, but in theory more than 90 percent of applicants can getadmission from some universities. Many universities, especially new ones, admit
applicants without any examination just to fill their student places. Once theentrance examination in Japan functioned as the quality control mechanism, but now
its function has weakened except for some elite institutions. This also turns ourattention from the entry to the exit, the quality of the graduates.
(4) The Demand from the Industry
Japanese companies used not to be interested in what graduates had actually learnt
at the universities. Rather they have selected and recruited graduates according
to which university they graduated from, since the highly competitive entrance
examinations at the age of 18 could function to screen out the brightest and others.
In addition the companies preferred and could afford to give training and education
to new employees by themselves because of the life-time employment system.
However, since Japanese economy has stagnated in the last two decades, they could
not afford to give their own training anymore. Instead they complained that thegraduates are not well-prepared to work and not equipped with generic skills suchas team-working, communication skill, problem solving, analytical reasoning andtime management.
Speaking for the industry, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
proposed “Shakaijin Kisoryoku (Social Foundational Capabilities) necessary fora functional member of society.
1)

Ability to act: ability to act independently, to involve others, and topractice.
2) Ability to think: ability to identify the problem, to think systematically,
and to create something new.
3) Ability to work with others: ability to voice, to listen, to adapt, to grasp
the situation, to control oneself and to manage stress.
Having recognized the complain from the industry, the higher education sector
has to be concerned with the employment and employability of graduates.
2. Changes in International Context
Since higher education is literally “universal” in nature, we cannot help but
being concerned with what is happening in the other countries. In this sense, themost critical players are Europe and US.

(1) “Bologna Process” in Europe
Since I think many of you here have already had more information about “Bologna
Process than I, I will touch upon briefly now.
“Bologna Process” is now ongoing to construct European Higher Education Area
(3-2-3 cycle) by 2010 to enhance mobility of students, to be comparable andcompatible, to be competitive and attractive and to assure and improve the qualityof higher education in 46 countries.
The main tools for “Bologna Process” such as a Qualification Framework forEuropean Higher Education Area, National Qualification Frameworks, Tuning Projectand Quality Assurance System are constructed on using aggressively “learning
outcomes”. United Kingdom, one of participating countries, is also heavily using“learning outcomes” for quality assurance system such as the Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications and Subject Benchmark Statement.
(2) Accountability and Assessment Movement in USA
I am sure that USA is more familiar with you than I am, thus again I just mention
here summative information on what is happening up there.
Skyrocketing tuition and fees for higher education moved US Department of
Education to set up the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education in2005 and published a report, “A Test of Leadership: A Carting the Future of U.
S. Higher Education (Spellings Report)” in 2006. In this process, US Secretaryof Education, Ms Spellings and her colleagues of the committee strongly insisted
each university and college has to show the evidence of value-added to be accountable.
To do so, they proposed possible use of the standardized test to measure thestudentsʼ learning outcomes.
Having responded to Spellings Report, associations of public universities havemade “A Voluntary System of Accountability” in which each university collects
and publishes information about characteristics of entering students, experiences
students can engage and learning outcomes measured by standardized tools such as
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and Collegiate Learning Assessment(CLA).
(3) Globalization of Higher Education in Japan
Japan is now enjoying 7th place to attract international students and about
120,000 international students are studying in Japan. The government recently set

the target to increase international students up to 300,000 by the year of 2030
partly because they bring the diversity, hence improve the vitality of Japanese
HEIs as well as society at large, and partly because they will make up for thedecreasing number of Japanese youngster.
In order to attract more international students to Japan, Japanese higher
education has to assure and improve the quality education and to be transparent
about what they can get from Japanese universities.
(4) Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) by OECD
Recognition of the critical role of higher education in the knowledge society
and globalization of higher education, it is natural for many are interested in
to measure and compare the outcomes of higher education. OECD is one of the leadinggroups based on their successful experience of PISA for the secondary education.
OECD will conduct a feasibility study to measure the learning outcomes of higher
education across countries, that is, a kind of “PISA for Higher Education”, andJapan decided to participate in the feasibility study. The feasibility study willdevelop1) the assessment methods of generic outcomes using CLA.
2) the assessment methods of subject outcomes in Economic and Engineering.
3) the methods to measure the value-added.
4) the instruments to capture the contextual measures and the indirect proxiesof learning outcomes.
Although it is not and should not be the prime objective of AHEL to rank thecountries based on the results, we cannot help but be concerned with the performanceof our students even in the feasibility study.

Implication for Japanese Higher Education (JHE)
Then what do all national and international changes imply for Japanese higher
education?
National factors necessitate;
1. JHE to establish the clear and transparent standards to award academic degrees
both at national and institutional levels in order to maintain the trust from thesociety at large as well as from the students.
2. JHE to shift from the quality control of the input, that is, the academic quality

of the applicants, to the quality assurance of the graduates.
3. JHE to change the goal of higher education from the delivery of knowledge tothe development of the ability to use of knowledge they learn.
4. JHE to reconsider and reconstruct its quality assurance system.
International factors necessitate;
1. JHE to be compatible and comparable with European and American higher education.
2. JHE to be transparent in terms of what students can learn from JHE in order toattract more international students.
Both national and international factors strongly suggest JHE has to transform
itselftobe“student-centered”

and“learning-centered”,

that

is,

“outcomes-based” approach to learning and teaching.
Then what policy options do we have to take?

Policy Agenda
Having recognized the national and international environmental changes of JHE,
the University Sub-Committee of the National Council for Education issued the policy
paper, “The Future Image of Higher Education in Japan” in 2005, in which requires
each HEI to establish three policies, “Diploma Policy”, “Curriculum Policy”
and “Admission Policy” to assure the quality of higher education.
1. Diploma Policy is a statement of learning outcomes that all students are expected
to master to be awarded degrees.
2. Curriculum Policy is a statement of learning and teaching strategy to enable
all students to master learning outcomes.
3. Admission Policy is a statement of requirements of learning outcomes at highschool for applicants necessary for experiencing CP, and resultant mastery of DP.
To promote and implement the policy toward “outcomes-based” approach, theUniversity Sub-Committee of the National Council for Education is now almost
finalizing another policy paper specially for the undergraduate education, “Toward
the Construction of Undergraduate Program”, in which proposes a list of learning
outcomes called “Gakushiryoku” or “Graduate Capabilities”, as a guideline for
HEIs, that all graduates have to master regardless of their major.

Proposed “Gakushiryoku” or “Graduate Capabilities” as a Guideline
Knowledge and understanding:
1. Other cultures and multiculturalism.
2. Human culture, society and the nature.
Generic Skills:
1. Communication skills
2. Quantitative reasoning
3. Information literacy
4. Logical thinking
5. Problem solving
Attitudes and orientation:
1. Self-management
2. Teamwork and leadership
3. Ethical reasoning and action
4. Civic responsibility
5. Learn how to learn
Integrative Learning and Creativity:

Although in Japan “outcomes-based” approach has just commenced, someinstitutions head-started. Among them, those are;-Kanazawa Institute of Technology (www.kanazawa-it.ac.jp)-Hiroshima University (www.hiroshima-u.ac.jp)-Yamaguchi University (www.yamaguchi-u.ac.jp)-Kansai University of International Studies (www.kuins.ac.jp)
But I am afraid that all information is provided in Japanese only.

Some Challenges for US
In order to fully implement “outcomes-based” approach, we are facing somechallenges.
1. Each institution has to produce the statement about the ideal graduate, and thenturn it into clear statement of learning outcomes she/he is expected to achieve.
(Diploma Policy)

2. Each institution has to assure that all students have the opportunity to develop
all learning outcomes by spreading and embedding into curriculum. (Curriculum Map)
3. Each institution needs to change teaching methods or pedagogy fromteacher-centered lecture to learner-centered active learning. (Pedagogy Reform)
4. Each institution should develop the way to collect information on studentsʼ
learning. (Assessment)

First challenge for us is to produce university-wide “Ideal Graduate” or“Graduate Attributes”.

It is rather difficult for academics to reach theconsensus on what kinds of person we would like our students to be when they graduate,
especially at large institutions.

From this April the Ministry of Education

requires all HEIs to produce the statement on the Ideal Graduate and to materialize
it into clear learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve. However,
only few institutions have done so far.
After producing the university-wide “Ideal Graduate”, we need to materialize
it into a set of learning outcomes. “Learning outcomes are statements that specify
what learners will know or be able to do as a result of a learning activity. Outcomesare usually expressed as knowledge, skills or attitudes.”(American Associationof Law Libraries) Expected/Intended learning outcomes should be 1) specific, 2)
measurable, 3) achievable, 4) relevant, and 5) time scaled. When you are producing
learning outcomes, it may helpful to refer to well-established Bloomʼs Taxonomy,in which specify three domains of learning outcomes, such as cognitive, affective
and psychomotor.(2)The second challenge for us is to assure all students have the opportunities todevelop learning outcomes through the curriculum. It is very important to embedthe opportunities into curriculum. How do we this? To make a curriculum map isvery useful, but in reality it is hard, since most academics are used to make ateaching plan by themselves alone so far. It is impossible to make a curriculum
map without cooperation among academics.
The third challenge for us is the transformation of instruction or pedagogy.
Since the knowledge society requires not only knowledge itself but competence likethe ability to do something with what they know, students cannot develop suchcompetence by just listening what the professor is speaking in the classroom. They

have to experience by themselves.

We, academics, have to change the method of

instruction from lecturing to active learning by students themselves to engage themwith learning. However, it is difficult for us, since it means we have to change
our behaviors in the classroom. Many past studies on learning found active learning
one of the most effective ways for mastering and understanding.
The last, but not the least challenge for us is how we know that students achieve
the learning outcomes. We have to collect information on studentsʼ learning ina systematic way and assess as objective as possible.

In order to assure thevalidity and reliability of assessment of learning, it is better to have as many
opportunities as possible to assess studentsʼ learning and to produce the criterion(rubric) against which studentsʼ performance are judged prior to assessment.
Since we are used to assess studentsʼ performance only by the essay or the written
examination at the mid-term or/and the end of the semester, it is hard task for
us to diversify assessment tasks and make criterion explicit rubric.(3)Summary of Outcome-Based Approach

Knowledge
SkillsCompetence

CURRICLUM DESINGUNIVERSITY LEARNINGOUTCOMESPROGRAM LEARNINGOUTCOMESCOURSELEARNING
OUTCOMESASSESSMENT

I
D
E
A
L
G
R
A
D
U
A
T
E

Japanese higher education has just started to transform itself towardoutcomes-based approach to learning and teaching to assure the quality of degree
we award to the graduates. As I talked, there are many challenges we are facing
ahead. I believe, however, many academics are now start to understand the meaning
and the significance of OBA, since it is academics themselves those who mostly careabout studentsʼ learning. I am not sure, however, my presentation today here may
give you some learning for all of you. But I am sure that I have learnt a lot fromyou and it was worth to travel almost half around the globe from Japan to Bogota,
Colombia. I am very grateful to Columbia Ministry of Education, and especially
Dr Torres, for providing the opportunity with me to present my lecture.
Thank you very much for your attention and kindness.

NOTE(*) This paper was presented at FORUM ON LEARNING EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
in Bogota, Columbia, November 5-6, 2008.
(**) This study is partly supported by a Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research, Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science, 2008-2010.
(1) Driscoll, Amy and Swarup Wood (2007), Developing Outcomes-based Assessment for

Learner-centered Education: A Faculty Introduction, Stylus Publishing.
(2) Anderson, Lorin W. and David R Krathwohl eds. (2001), A Taxonomy for Learning,

Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloomʼs Taxonomy of Educational Objectives(Abridged Edition), Longman.
(3) Moon, Jennifer (2002), The Module & Programme Development Handbook: A practicalguide to linking levels, learning outcomes & assessment, Kogan Page.

Outcomes-Based Approach in Japanese Higher Education:
Emerging Concerns and Challenges
Tatsuo Kawashima(Kobe University)

This paper examines the emerging concerns with outcomes-based approach inJapanese higher education.

First, what is outcomes-based approach(OBA) is

explained. OBA has three components;
1. The statement of intended/expected learning outcomes.
2. The design of teaching and learning activities to increase the likelihood of
the most students achieving the outcomes.
3. The assessment to check if each student actually achieve or not.
Then the changes in international as well as domestic environment such as
globalization, universalization of participation, and the coming of knowledge
society are mentioned.
In this context the National Council for Education published the policy paper,

Toward the Constructing Undergraduate Education in 2008, which proposed“Gakushiryoku (Graduate Capabilities)” as the common set of learning outcomesfor undergraduate program in order to assure the quality of it.
Finally, some challenges have to be mentioned to implement OBA fully in Japan.
These are;
1. Each institution has to produce the statement about the ideal graduate, and thenturn it into clear statement of learning outcomes she/he is expected to achieve.
(Diploma Policy)
2. Each institution has to assure that all students have the opportunity to develop
all learning outcomes by spreading and embedding into curriculum. (Curriculum Map)
3. Each institution needs to change teaching methods or pedagogy fromteacher-centered lecture to learner-centered active learning. (Pedagogy Reform)
4. Each institution should develop the way to collect information on studentsʼ
learning. (Assessment)