Tokyo University of Technology（東京工科大学）
Evaluation summary
This university has demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the standards of the Japan
Institution for Higher Education Evaluation.
Standards

Evaluation result

Standard 1. Mission and Objectives, etc.

SatisfiedStandard 2. Students

SatisfiedStandard 3. Educational Curriculum

SatisfiedStandard 4. Faculty and Staff

SatisfiedStandard 5. Management, Administration and Finance

SatisfiedStandard 6. Internal Quality Assurance

Satisfied

Good practices○Students’ attendance information collected through network services and various other data are
put together in the university’s core database, creating a system that enables the university to
discover issues quickly by being aware of students’ situations. This initiative is worthy ofevaluation.
○The university’s proactive use of low-entry and low-floor busses as school busses is worthy ofevaluation from a barrier-free perspective.
○The university regularly implements class observations by faculty members, participation in which
is mandatory for faculty members in the first year after their appointment. Providing suchopportunities for faculty to discuss and exchange opinions regarding teaching methods is worthyof evaluation as a measure aimed at improving educational capabilities throughout the university.
○The university has established a Self-development Support System for staff and proactively
promotes staff members’ self-development efforts in line with the times, such as support for staff
to attend graduate school while working, and encouraging staff to obtain qualifications and data
science technology. There is a good track record for staff utilizing this system, and the university
is endeavoring to improve the quality and skills of staff that are necessary not only today but also
in the future. These initiatives are worthy of high evaluation.
○The university has established the Artificial Intelligence Research Group, which functions as asystem in which the faculty and students of multiple schools participate in research on variousthemes. This enables not only a diversity of perspectives to be incorporated into research, but also

faculty interaction and the construction of cooperative relationships. These initiatives are worthyof high evaluation.
○By establishing the Nanotechnology Center, where laboratory equipment can be used jointly, theuniversity is endeavoring to not only facilitate the introduction of expensive high-performanceequipment but also boost utilization rates, thereby achieving good cost-effectiveness. In terms ofmanagement, too, the university is functioning effectively. These initiatives are worthy ofevaluation.
○The Incorporated Entity Managers’ Meeting—the meeting body of the administrative organizationof the university's incorporated entity—and the Joint Managers’ Meeting—which brings together
Assistant Directors and higher managers of educational institutes established by the incorporated
entity—are convened on a regular basis. At these meetings information is shared among people
involved, beginning with the President, and opinions are coordinated. These initiatives are worthyof evaluation.
Recommendations for improvement○ For the Master’s Program of the Sustainable Engineering Program, Graduate School ofEngineering and the Ph.D. Program of the Bionics Program, Graduate School of Bionics,
Computer and Media Sciences, the rate at which the total capacity is exceeded is high. Accordingly,improvements are required.
○In the graduate schools, no criteria for evaluating dissertations have been stipulated, and so
improvements are required.
○With regard to listing the instructors in charge of each course subject in the syllabus, despite acourse being taught by multiple faculty members, only the course representative is listed.
Accordingly, improvements are required from the perspectives of the syllabus’s purpose andconsideration to students.
○ The criteria for evaluating graduate school dissertations are not publicly disclosed on theuniversity’s website, etc. Accordingly, improvements are required.
○There are points requiring improvement, such as no criteria for reviewing dissertations being
stipulated or publicly disclosed, and insufficient syllabus entries, and improvements are requiredwith respect to efforts to achieve internal quality assurance.