University Accreditation Results(Results for Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for university)

Saitama Prefectural University

Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: PublicLocation: Saitama, Japan

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2018
Accreditation Status: accredited （Accreditation Period: April.01.2019 – March.31.2026）

2

Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Resultsfor Saitama Prefectural University
Overview
Saitama Prefectural University (hereafter, the University) is committed to the purpose of“teaching and researching advanced and specialized knowledge and skills in the fields ofhealth, medical care, and welfare to contribute to higher levels of public healthcare andwelfare,” and conducts educational and research activities as a public university that
contributes to the local community as a hub for education and research on healthcare andsocial services. After establishing the Doctoral Course in the Graduate Course of Healthand Social Services in fiscal 2015, the University adopted “cultivation,” “enterprise,” and“emergence” as its basic principles. Based on the medium-term goals defined by Saitama
Prefecture as required by law, the University formulated the six-year medium-term planstarting in fiscal 2016 with the key pillars of “further advancing professional career
education,” “promoting pioneering and practical research that responds to regional trends
and needs,” and “strengthening social contribution aimed at regional problem solving andrevitalization through educational and research activities.” The University pursues theseobjectives to realize its mission and purpose and contribute to the local community.
The University also undertakes educational activities based on its educational
policy of “collaboration and integration.” The undergraduate program introduced “healthand social services subjects” to progressively provide interprofessional education over afour-year period, and the graduate school master’s and doctoral courses require subjects
related to interprofessional education, including “IPW (Interprofessional Work) Theory.”
It is highly commendable that the University promotes integrated education.
There are several issues the University needs to address, however. In theundergraduate programs, the intended learning outcomes, including the knowledge,abilities, and mindsets to be acquired upon completion, are not explicitly stated in thedegree award policies of some department courses. In addition, some department courses
adopt evaluations using portfolios, but the benchmarks and methods for monitoring andevaluating the learning outcomes are not introduced throughout the university. Thisapproach has failed to make educational improvements. In the graduate school master’sand doctoral courses, the screening criteria for theses and dissertations are identical, andthe criteria are confused with the dissertation submission requirements in the doctoralcourse. Each screening criterion needs to be clearly defined. The University’s student
support is also ineffective in providing employment support due to the lack of

3accumulated professional knowledge and experience resulting from the absence ofadministrative staff members specializing in employment support.
To address these challenges from an institution-wide perspective, the University
needs to develop an effective internal quality assurance system to assure its educational
quality and enhance student learning outcomes, but some problems are found in thesystem. Despite positioning the Education and Research Council, Education
Development Center, and other groups as organizations promoting university-wide
internal quality assurance, the allocation of organizational roles is not clarified, and it isdifficult to describe the organic coordination with the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycles
in the faculty and graduate school as well-defined. Moreover, self-study is not clearly
positioned in the University’s internal quality assurance system to evaluate the operating
performance of the medium-term and annual plans. In fiscal 2019 and beyond, theUniversity plans to organize the Advanced Education Development Center (tentative) toserve as a new organization responsible for promoting internal quality assurance, but its
role and cooperation with the faculty and graduate school are also equally unclear. In lightof these issues, the University needs to comprehensively overhaul its internal quality
assurance policies and procedures, develop a more effective system connected with thePDCA cycles in the faculty and graduate school, and work toward improvements.
In the coming years, the University is expected to appropriately develop aneffective internal quality assurance system, formulate its university-wide basic policies todraw up the faculty and graduate school’s three policies (degree award, curriculum design
and implementation, and admission policies), and properly manage and support theprocesses of assessing and improving educational activities based on the three policies,
thereby advancing its educational and research activities.
Notable Strengths
Educational Program and Outcome Based on the University’s educational policy of “collaboration and integration,” thefaculty provides interprofessional education progressively for first- to fourth-year
students as “health and social services subjects” and introduces practical subjects,
including the “IPW Practicum,” to conduct training in interdepartmental teams at
hospitals, nursing facilities, and other institutions. The graduate school also conducts
educational programs integrated with the faculty and offers required subjects thatemphasize interprofessional education, for example, “IPW Theory,” aimed at learning

4

theories and practical methods through history related to interprofessional education,and “IPW System Development Theory,” designed to study systems and operational
methods to deliver interprofessional education. It is commendable that the University
produces graduates possessed with knowledge and abilities learned frominterprofessional education on healthcare and welfare in an effort to embody its
mission and purpose.
Suggestions for Improvement
Internal Quality Assurance The University has developed a university-wide internal quality assurance systembased on its internal educational quality assurance policies, but the system fails todefine the roles of the organizations responsible for promoting internal quality
assurance, including the Education and Research Council, the Education
Development Center, and the Graduate School Academic Affairs Committee, andcoordination with the PDCA cycles in the faculty and graduate school is not clarified.
Moreover, it is difficult to recognize self-study as clearly positioned in the internal
quality assurance system to evaluate the operating performance of the medium-termand annual plans. The University should to review its internal quality assurance
policies and procedures, define the roles of organizations in charge of promotinginternal quality assurance, and develop a more effective internal quality assurance
system organically coordinated with the faculty, graduate school, centers, and otherorganizations.
Educational Program and Outcome
 The Behavioral Sciences Division of the Department of Health Sciences, School of
Health and Social Services, does not state in its degree award policy the intended
learning outcomes appropriate to the degree, including the knowledge, skills, andabilities to be acquired upon completion. This issue should be improved.
 The Graduate Course of Health and Social Services employs the identical screening
criteria for theses and dissertations in its master’s and doctoral courses. This issue
should be improved.

5

 With the monitoring and measurement methods of the learning outcomes being
examined, it is difficult at this time to determine whether all departments, excluding
the Department of Nursing of the School of Health and Social Services, sufficiently
measure the learning outcomes stated in their diploma policies. The Graduate Courseof Health and Social Services conducts questionnaires, but it is difficult to describe
the questionnaire contents as effective in measuring the learning outcomes stated in
the diploma policy. This issue should be improved with student learning outcomes
effectively measured as stated in the diploma policy, and the results reflected in
improvements to educational content and methods.
Student Support
 The administrative office is not staffed by employees specializing in employment
support, resulting in the lack of accumulated professional knowledge and experiences
necessary to provide students with employment support, including gathering
information related to employment support, analyzing job opening trends, monitoring
student needs, and investigating and analyzing employment situations. The University
should improve this issue to establish a more effective and advanced employment
support system.