Abstract
Under the recent state of higher education, “Outcomes Assessment” has become a familiar term in Japan as in other nations all over the world. However, actual conditions of outcomes assessment and its contribution toward educational improvement are not always obvious. Thus, this article attempts to clarify: (1) Japanese higher education reforms since the 1990s focusing on assessment and evaluation; (2) the influence of reforms on outcomes assessment implemented by higher education institutions; (3) how much the results of outcomes assessment are used in self-reviews of undergraduate education; and (4) whether application of outcomes assessment contribute to educational improvement. The results of national survey conducted in Japan reveal that assessments are clearly being carried out, but may not have been supporting the improvement of education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In fact, about 80% students graduate university in 4 years—standard enrolment period of most majors other than ones related to medical activities.
Although NIAD changed its English name to NIAD-UE (University Evaluation), the abbreviation “NIAD” is used throughout this article. For more information about NIAD, see http://www.niad.ac.jp/index_e.html.
The definition of liberal education is controversial in Japan as is in other countries. In the context of this article, it is enough to be interpreted as education whose objectives are valid regardless of students’ major or subject of study.
From 2004, mandatory system of third-party evaluation (Ninsyo-Hyouka-Seido) has started in Japan. Under this new system, all HEIs have to receive an evaluation by a nationally certified organization once every 7 years. NIAD and other certified organizations set outcomes assessment as one of the evaluation standards.
References
Adam, S. (2008). Learning outcomes current development in Europe: Update on Issues and the applications of learning outcomes associated with the bologna process. Paper presented at Bologna Seminar at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland on 21–22 Feb 2008. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/BolognaSeminars/Edinburgh2008.htm (Accessed on 30 June 2009).
Amano, I., & Poole, G. S. (2005). The Japanese university in crisis. Higher Education, 50, 685–711.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, November/December, 13–25.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press.
Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing and assessing courses and curricula. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dill, D. D. (2000). Designing academic audit: Lessons learned in Europe and Asia. Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 187–207.
Ewell, P. E. (1997). Strengthening assessment for academic quality improvement. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & M. A. Lisa and associates, Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions (pp. 360–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kitamura, K. (1997). Policy issue in Japanese higher education. Higher Education, 34, 141–150.
Kushimoto, T. (2004). Outcome assessment of liberal education in Japan. Japanese Journal of Higher Education Research, 7, 137–155.
Kushimoto, T. (2006). The present state and challenges of program evaluation in university education: Toward the establishment of formative evaluation based on learning outcomes. Daigaku-Ronsyu (Research in Higher Education), 37, 265–276.
Lee, W. Y. (2003). Preface. In W. Y. Lee (Ed.), Assessment and program evaluation (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
López, C. L. (2004). A decade of assessing student learning: What we have learned and what is next. In P. Hernon & R. E. Dugan (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in higher education. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Lubinescu, E. S., et al. (2001). Two continuums collide: Accreditation and assessment. New Directions for Higher Education, 113(Spring), 5–17.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Daigaku ni okeru Kyouiku-Naiyou-tou no Kaikaku-Jyoukyou ni tuite (Progress of University Education Reform). http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/20/06/08061617.htm (Accessed on 3 September 2008).
Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986–1988. European Journal of Education, 23(Nos1/2), 7–23.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (Eds.). (2001). Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines. Sterling VA: Stylus.
Peterson, M., Einarson, M., Augustine, C., & Vaughan, D. (1999). Institutional support for student assessment: Methodology and results of a national survey. Stanford: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.
Research Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University. (1999). Higher education and market-oriented reform.
Rogers, P. J., et al. (Eds.). (2000). Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New directions for evaluation 87(fall). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
University Council (Daigaku-Shingikai). (1998). A vision for universities in the 21st century and reform measures.
Yonezawa, A. (2002). The new quality assurance system for Japanese education: Its social background, tasks and future. The Japanese Journal of University Evaluation of National Institution for Academic Degrees, 2, 21–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kushimoto, T. Outcomes assessment and its role in self-reviews of undergraduate education: in the context of Japanese higher education reforms since the 1990s. High Educ 59, 589–598 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9266-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9266-1