News: Announcement on the Results of Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Conducted on Universities in the 2016 Academic Year | 2017 | National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education

Index

Results of Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Conducted on Universities in the 2016 Academic Year

Results of Institutional Thematic Assessments Conducted on Universities in the 2016 Academic Year

Results of Institutional Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Conducted on Universities in the 2016 Academic Year

NIAD-QE, certified by the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, conducts Certified Evaluation and Accreditation (CEA) of universities, colleges of technology and graduate law schools.

NIAD-QE has compiled the results of institutional CEA conducted on universities in the 2016 academic year into an Evaluation and Accreditation Report, notified the applicable universities and their founders of the results, and reported the results to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

All the universities for which the CEA was conducted this time were found to be in conformity with the applicable laws and regulations, including the standards for the establishment of universities, and were deemed to have met the standards for university evaluation and accreditation established by NIAD-QE.

Evaluated Universities

National University
Saitama University	Ochanomizu University	Hiroshima University
Public Universities
Akita Prefectural University	Maebashi Institute of Technology	Tokyo Metropolitan University
Toyama Prefectural University	Ishikawa Prefectural University	Shizuoka University of Art and Culture
Kyoto Prefectural University	Osaka Prefecture University	University of Hyogo
Okayama Prefectural University	Fukuyama City University	Kyushu Dental University
FUKUOKA PREFECTURAL UNIVERSITY	Fukuoka Women’s University	Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences

You can check the results of institutional CEA conducted by certified evaluation and accreditation organizations, including NIAD-QE, on the website of the Japan Network of Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Agencies (JNCEAA).

Results of Institutional Thematic Assessments Conducted on Universities in the 2016 Academic Year

Focusing on distinctive features of institutions, NIAD-QE offers three thematic assessments on distinctive features of universities that have applied.

At the time of application, universities choose one or more themes that they wish to be evaluated on.

NIAD-QE has compiled the results of institutional thematic assessments conducted on universities in the 2016 academic year into an Assessment Report and notified the applicable universities and their founders of the results.

The results for the universities for which thematic assessments were conducted this time are given below.

Assessment Results

Institutional Thematic Assessment A: Research Activities (three universities)

Public Universities	Assessment Results
Osaka Prefecture University	Attainment of goals is excellent.
Fukuyama City University	Attainment of goals is satisfactory.
Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences	Attainment of goals is satisfactory.

Institutional Thematic Assessment B: Community Engagement (seven universities)

National University	Assessment Results
Saitama University	Attainment of goals is good.
Public Universities	Assessment Results
Osaka Prefecture University	Attainment of goals is excellent.
Maebashi Institute of Technology	Attainment of goals is good.
Kyoto Prefectural University	Attainment of goals is good.
Fukuyama City University	Attainment of goals is good.
Kyushu Dental University	Attainment of goals is excellent.
Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences	Attainment of goals is good.

Institutional Thematic Assessment C: Internationalization of Higher Education (one university)

Private University	Assessment Results
J. F. Oberlin University	Attainment of goals is excellent.

*Description of assessment results

Assessment Results	Criteria for Judgment
Attainment of goals is excellent.	Analyses of the respective perspectives revealed the initiatives and activities as being excellent, and the institutional goals have been highly attained.
Attainment of goals is good.	Analyses of the respective perspectives revealed the initiatives and activities as being good, and the institutional goals have been sufficiently attained.
Attainment of goals is satisfactory.	Although the analyses of the respective perspectives found some initiatives and activities to need improvement, the institutional goals have generally been attained.
Attainment of goals is unsatisfactory.	Analyses of the respective perspectives found the implementation of the initiatives and activities to be problematic, and the institutional goals not to have been attained.