The quality assurance agencies in Japan (NIAD-QE), China (HEEC), and Korea (KCUE), conducted monitoring, namely "Monitoring+ (plus)," on 'CAMPUS Asia' full-fledged programs (Mode 2) during 2018-2019. Monitoring+ was conducted in accordance with the Joint Guidelines for Monitoring International Cooperative Academic Programs in 'CAMPUS Asia' developed after the implementation of the second monitoring.

• Implementation Structure and Procedures
• Joint Monitoring Criteria
• Joint Monitoring Report
• Joint Guidelines (2nd Edition)
• Lessons on Double Degree Programs

* HEEC changed its name to "Education Quality Evaluation Agency" (EQEA) in 2022.

Implementation Structure and Procedures

For Monitoring+ activities, 'CAMPUS Asia' joint monitoring committee and joint monitoring panels were established, following the method of the second monitoring. These panels were comprised of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean academic experts with knowledge on the internationalization of higher education and international collaborative programs, as well as representatives from quality assurance agencies.

The panel assessed that the previous two monitoring initiatives were successful in developing a framework for quality assurance and deepened the mutual trust between the quality assurance agencies in Japan, China, and Korea. Consequently, as seen below, each of the three countries' quality assurance agencies was responsible for monitoring three of the nine programs.

• Japan - NIAD-QE：The University of Tokyo, Osaka University, Waseda University
• China - HEEC：Tokyo Gakugei University, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Nagasaki University
• Korea - KCUE：Chiba University, Tokyo University of the Arts, Kyushu University

※ The universities listed above are the Japanese institutions participating in the consortium monitored by each quality assurance agency.

The process for the Monitoring+ is shown in the figure below.

---

Joint Monitoring Criteria

The joint monitoring criteria for Monitoring+ were identical to those for the second monitoring, apart from Criterion 5, revised as "Continuous Quality Improvement," with no sub-criteria.

Criteria	Sub-criteria
1. Objectives and Implementation	1.1. Achievement of Objectives 1.2. Organization and Administration
2. Collaborative Development of Academic Program	2.1. Curriculum Integration 2.2. Academic Staff and Teaching
3. Student Support	3.1. Student Admission 3.2. Support for Learning and Living
4. Added-value of the Collaborative Program (Outcomes)	4.1. Student Satisfaction 4.2. Credit Transfer and Degree Awarding
5. Continuous Quality Improvement

Joint Monitoring Report

CAMPUS Asia Monitoring+ Joint Monitoring Report
('CAMPUS Asia' Joint Monitoring Committee, December 2019)

This is the final report of Monitoring+, which collected good practices of international collaborative programs and elaborated expectations for further efforts by universities in Japan, China, and Korea. The report centers on 104 examples of good practices in the 'CAMPUS Asia' programs identified through Monitoring+. It also describes other examples of good practices from the second monitoring in 2016. This report provides the outcome of monitoring activities to date comprehensively.

Joint Guidelines (2nd Edition)

Joint Guidelines for Monitoring International Cooperative Academic Programs in CAMPUS Asia (Second Edition)
(NIAD-QE, HEEC, KCUE, 2020)

This version of the guidelines is a revision of the first published edition of June 2017 and is based on the experiences from the last three monitoring rounds. It outlines the joint monitoring criteria and the methods for quality-assured international collaborative programs, with some details of the actual Monitoring+ activities. It also contains other useful information for those involved in international collaborative education programs, such as the differences in academic calendars between Japan, China, and Korea.

Lessons on Double Degree Programs

Lessons on Double Degree Programs from CAMPUS Asia Monitoring
(NIAD-QE, HEEC, KCUE, July 2021)

This publication focuses on double degree programs, which have become an important means of internationalization in East Asian universities, summarizing the knowledge on double degrees obtained from past monitoring activities. It also describes the outstanding efforts of universities reported in the "CAMPUS Asia Monitoring+ Joint Monitoring Report" published in December 2019. It explains the importance of double degree programs and provides tips on how to develop the programs by presenting the academic systems of Japan, China, and Korea.

---

JCK 2nd Monitoring

The second Monitoring of the pilot 'CAMPUS Asia' programs (ten programs) was implemented jointly from 2015‒2016 by NIAD-UE, HEEC, and KCUE. For the implementation of the second monitoring, the three agencies developed a common framework, after a comparative analysis of the criteria, methods, and results of the first monitoring in each of the countries, in 2013-2014.

• Implementation Structure and Procedure
• Joint Monitoring Criteria
• Joint Monitoring Report
• Joint Guidelines

Implementation Structure and Procedure

For the second monitoring, the 'CAMPUS Asia' Joint Monitoring Committee and Panel were established, consisting of academic experts with knowledge of the internationalization of higher education and international collaborative programs, as well as representatives of the quality assurance agencies from Japan, China, and Korea. The Joint Monitoring Committee made relevant decisions on agendas for monitoring and finalized reports. The Joint Monitoring Panel conducted document analysis of the self-assessment reports submitted by university consortiums and site visits, as well as produced monitoring reports.

The process for implementing joint monitoring in Japan, China, and Korea are shown in the chart given below.

First, the ten consortiums of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean universities were requested to produce self-assessment reports. With adequate coordination between the participating universities, they were required to submit one report per consortium, in English, by referring to the joint monitoring criteria. Members of the Joint Monitoring Panel conducted a document analysis based on the reports produced by each consortium.

Second, following the document analysis, members of the Joint Monitoring Panel jointly visited each country, to conduct physical interviews for the three selected consortiums. Each site visit was organized using opportunities in program events, and other occasions when the member universities of the consortiums gathered. For the other seven consortiums, panel members from each country visited or interviewed the universities in their respective countries. The results of these investigations were shared among panel members from the three countries.

Subsequently, the good practices and challenges identified in each consortium's program, during the monitoring, were collected and summarized in a report. Finally, a joint monitoring report that included the results of the first monitoring, conducted in each country in 2013, was drafted by the collaborative work of the three quality assurance agencies. The report was finalized, with the monitoring results from the Joint Monitoring Committee.

---

Joint Monitoring Criteria

After a comparative analysis of each country's criteria in the first monitoring, five joint monitoring criteria were established for the second one, each with two sub-criteria, and totaling ten sub-criteria. These joint criteria were constructed from those established in each country, during the first monitoring. These criteria focused more on cooperation between participating universities, and the added value obtained from international collaborative programs.

Criteria	Sub-criteria
1. Objectives and Implementation	1.1. Achievement of Objectives 1.2. Organization and Administration
2. Collaborative Development of Academic Program	2.1. Curriculum Integration 2.2. Academic Staff and Teaching
3. Student Support	3.1. Students Admission 3.2. Support for Learning and Living
4. Added-value of the Collaborative Program (Outcomes)	4.1. Student Satisfaction 4.2. Credit Transfer and Degree Awarding
5. Internal Quality Assurance	5.1. Self-assessment 5.2. Continuous Quality Improvement

Joint Monitoring Report

CAMPUS Asia Pilot Program Joint Monitoring Report
(CAMPUS Asia Joint Monitoring Committee, October 2016)

This report brought together good practices and challenges in international collaborative academic programs, identified during the monitoring of each consortium by Japanese, Chinese, and Korean panel members. Instances of good practices, under each criterion monitored, were described in detail, most notably quality assurance initiatives within 'CAMPUS Asia' programs.

Joint Guidelines

Joint Guidelines for Monitoring International Cooperative Academic Programs in CAMPUS Asia
(National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education, Higher Education Evaluation Center of the Ministry of Education, and Korean Council for University Education, June 2017)

These guidelines stipulated the quality assurance criteria and methods for international collaborative academic programs, based on experiences during the trilateral second monitoring. They were produced with the hope that they would serve as a helpful model, not only for the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean quality assurance agencies conducting this monitoring, but also for other quality assurance agencies when conducting monitoring or evaluation of international collaborative academic programs. This is especially predicted to be useful when working with partner agencies in other countries, and for higher education institutions, when conducting an internal quality assurance of international education.

---

The first monitoring was implemented individually by quality assurance agencies in Japan, China, and Korea, based on each nation's relevant domestic regulations, evaluation systems, and methods. Moreover, after the monitoring, the agencies shared their results for a comparative analysis, and discussed the possibility of conducting a second monitoring, in cooperation with all three countries.

The first monitoring in Japan was conducted by NIAD-UE from 2013‒2014, in cooperation with the Japanese universities running 'CAMPUS Asia' pilot programs. In line with the basic concept of the first monitoring outlined below, NIAD-UE summarized the details of the monitoring criteria and methods, in the Handbook for 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring - Criteria and Method of the 1st Monitoring in Japan.

• Based on the criteria determined by NIAD-UE, the universities that offer exchange programs first analyze the current state of their programs themselves (production of self-analysis reports). The monitoring committees identify the programs' good practices for quality assurance and effective measures to resolve the challenges of international exchange programs, through self-analysis reports.
• The self-analysis reports should include matters on which the program implementers wish to seek input from the monitoring committees. Thus, it is expected to improve quality, through exchanges of opinions and advice.

• Monitoring Procedure
• Monitoring Criteria
• Implementation Structure
• Monitoring Student Committee
• Monitoring Reports
• A Collection of Good Practices

Monitoring Procedure

The first monitoring in Japan was implemented as shown in the figure below.

For the first monitoring in Japan, a student monitoring committee was established, which was separate from the main monitoring committee and other subcommittees. It comprised students who had participated in 'CAMPUS Asia' programs. For details, please see Monitoring Student Committee.

---

Monitoring Criteria

The criteria for the first monitoring in Japan, as shown in the table below, were established by the monitoring committee, based on several discussions within the provisional monitoring committee, organized by NIAD-UE. These criteria also reflected the opinions exchanged with participating universities through liaison meetings and individual interviews. All the monitoring activities including self-analysis, document analysis, and site visits conducted, were based on these criteria.

Criteria
1 Goals of the Academic Program
2 Teaching and Learning 2-1 Organization and Staff 2-2 Contents of Academic Program 2-3 Support for Learning and Living 2-4 Credit Transfer and Grading System
3 Learning Outcomes
4 Internal Quality Assurance System

Each criterion provides "examples of good practices," allowing universities' self-analysis to include their own successful practices and effective measures for resolving problems in international exchange programs. In addition, a rubric for a self-analysis of the quality level is introduced for each criterion.

Implementation Structure

'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring Committee and Subcommittees

To implement the first monitoring, NIAD-UE organized a 'CAMPUS Asia' monitoring committee, and subcommittees comprising of academics and experts, with experience and knowledge of quality assurance in higher education/international collaborative programs.

The monitoring committee was comprised of eight members, and its main role was to decide on monitoring criteria and methods, as well as to finalize the monitoring results. Moreover, two representatives of the participating program were included in the committee. This approach allowed them to express their perspectives, through discussions on disseminating the monitoring outcomes.

The subcommittees performed document analysis, site visits, and drafting of monitoring reports, based on the self-analysis reports submitted by universities. The subcommittees were composed of university presidents, faculty, and experts from university-related organizations and industries.

Liaison Meetings for the 'CAMPUS Asia' Programs

One of the characteristics of the first monitoring in Japan, was the liaison meetings for universities offering 'CAMPUS Asia' programs which were organized during the preparatory stage. These liaison meetings consisted of university representatives, from the ten 'CAMPUS Asia' programs in Japan.

The meetings were established to exchange views and opinions between NIAD-UE and the universities (program implementers) to enhance the effectiveness of monitoring implementation. Through this exchange of opinions, the liaison meetings supported the development of a basic framework, for the monitoring and criteria of quality-assured international collaborative education. Moreover, from the viewpoint of enhancing the effectiveness of the 'CAMPUS Asia' project itself, the meetings also intended to provide opportunities for universities, to share operational challenges, resolutions, and information regarding their programs' progress.

Three liaison meetings were held in July and September 2012, and March 2013, prior to the start of the monitoring process. Furthermore, after finalization of the monitoring results, a fourth meeting was held in February 2014, at which those involved in participating programs shared the results of the first monitoring, and exchanged views on those results.

Monitoring Student Committee

Student Engagement in 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring

During the first monitoring in Japan, apart from the monitoring committee and subcommittees, a monitoring student committee was established, with students who had participated in different 'CAMPUS Asia' programs. The purpose of this student committee was to encourage students to freely exchange their opinions across university boundaries from the perspective of promoting student engagement in external quality assurance. The committee also aimed to collect students' opinions on how to further improve the 'CAMPUS Asia' project, and provide feedback to the monitoring committees.

The monitoring student committee held a workshop in December 2013, to create more attractive 'CAMPUS Asia' programs for all students. At the workshop, 19 students from Japan, China, and Korea engaged in group work and discussions, and compiled the 'CAMPUS Asia' proposal. This proposal outlined the strengths and areas for improvement, both in terms of learning and living, based on the students' experience of program participation, and provided suggestions from the student committee.

This proposal was presented to the monitoring committee in January 2014, by the student committee representatives. The monitoring committee utilized their opinions in the second monitoring of 'CAMPUS Asia.'

Monitoring Reports

A monitoring report was compiled by the monitoring committee for each program, comprising overall conclusion and results for each criterion. Within the results for each criterion, "initiative characteristics" and "good practices," identified from the viewpoint of the quality of education, were presented. In addition, to contribute to the future development of the programs, the reports included comments from the monitoring committee members, regarding future challenges listed by the universities.

The self-analysis by universities initially covered activities up until the end of the 2012 academic year. However, given that the pilot programs entered their third year in the 2013 academic year, and student exchange was becoming full-fledged, the subcommittees also conducted monitoring activities in the 2013 academic year, and included these results in the reports.

Comprehensive Report of the 1st 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring in Japan

'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring on Quality Assurance -Collaboration among Japan, China, and Korea- Overview of the First Monitoring in Japan
('CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring Committee of NIAD-UE, March 2014)

Alongside an outline of monitoring activities with criteria, it includes the monitoring reports for each of the 10 programs, the proposals submitted by the monitoring student committee, and summaries of the self-analysis reports.

A Collection of Good Practices

'CAMPUS Asia' Programs in Light of Quality Assurance : A Collection of Good Practices
('CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring Committee of NIAD-UE, November 2014)

One of the major goals of monitoring is the dissemination and adoption of good practices, identified from the perspective of the quality of education. This collection lists and describes good practices within the pilot programs, identified by the first monitoring program in Japan. In addition to the good practices listed in the monitoring reports, this includes various initiatives confirmed during the site visits.

---

To ensure the success of the 'CAMPUS Asia' initiative, which promotes quality-assured exchange between universities in Japan, China, and Korea, the Japan-China-Korea Committee for Promoting Exchange and Cooperation among Universities (organized in 2010) discussed quality assurance, for its collaborative educational programs. Concurrently, the agencies of the three countries confirmed quality assurance in exchange programs as a common challenge, and agreed to implement joint initiatives supporting 'CAMPUS Asia' from this perspective. The three agencies were Japan's National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)1, China's Higher Education Evaluation Center of the Ministry of Education (HEEC)2, and the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE).

Specifically, from 2011, the three agencies have jointly reviewed quality assurance processes, and agreed to carry out quality monitoring of the 'CAMPUS Asia' Mode 1 programs (pilot phase). For these programs, the monitoring was conducted twice: the first from 2013‒2014, and the second from 2015‒2016. During 2018-2019, the three agencies jointly conducted "Monitoring+" for 'CAMPUS Asia' Mode 2 programs (full-fledged).

These monitoring activities aim to contribute to the quality enhancement of academic programs involving international collaboration, such as double degree programs. They focus on identifying good practices in the programs implemented by university consortiums, from the perspective of the quality of education. The dissemination of good practices, both domestically and internationally, contributes to further improvement of the quality of such programs.

Please see the following website for programs of 'CAMPUS Asia' Mode 1 and Mode 2.
CAMPUS Asia Consortia Website (CAMPUS Asia Office at Tokyo Institute of Technology)

---

---

1 NIAD-UE changed its name to the "National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education (NIAD-QE)" on April 1, 2016.
2 HEEC changed its name to the "Education Quality Evaluation Agency of the Ministry of Education (EQEA)" in 2022.

---

The complete text of the Common Quality Assurance Standards is presented, along with explanatory notes for each standard.
Additionally, "Examples of Supporting Documents" are presented as reference materials for conducting program self‑assessment using these standards, illustrating the types of evidence or supplementary documents that can demonstrate that each standard is met.

Excerpted from the Explanatory Notes to the Common Quality Assurance Standards, published in March 2026.

Common Quality Assurance Standards
- Enhancing Quality Collaboration for Inter-University Exchanges in Asia -

A. Fundamental Principles

The inter-governmental scheme by China, Korea, and Japan has been successfully promoting inter-university exchanges with quality assurance since 2011. In expanding this scheme throughout Asia, the Higher Education Institution (hereafter HEI) endorses the following fundamental principles and undertakes to implement them accordingly:

• The HEI undertakes to further enhance the international competitiveness of Asian universities and promote educational and academic exchanges that will serve as the foundation for mutual understanding and long-term harmonious relations within the region. Additionally, in line with the scheme, which aims to create a higher education community based on an international network of universities in Asian countries aspiring toward the peaceful development of Asia, the HEI, together with partner institutions, contributes to the realization of these objectives as a member of this framework.
• The HEI guarantees to provide programs under the scheme to enhance quality higher education in Asia by responding flexibly to societal changes, while complying with the relevant laws and regulations of each higher education system, and establishing appropriate structures and various types of support to ensure the continuity of students' learning.
• The HEI offers essential information regarding the available programs for students, who are considered as primary stakeholders, to make informed choices. It provides education in accordance with the students' interests and concerns, following student-centered principles and ensuring academic rigor.
• The HEI respects in full the principles of equality, equity, inclusiveness, diversity, and openness to the society.

B. Standards

The HEI undertakes to ensure maintaining and continuing to implement these standards as a participating HEI in international collaborative academic programs in Asia.

• 1. Establishment and Sharing of Objectives
  1.1 The HEI, with partner institutions, clearly defines the objectives of the program, the personality to be cultivated, and the expected learning outcomes in terms of students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and shares them among stakeholders. The HEI also considers the expected social impact of its programs upon setting objectives.

Explanatory Notes
When a consortium develops and manages an inter-university exchange program, it is important that the participating institutions carefully define the program's objectives, the personality to be cultivated, and the expected learning outcomes, ensuring that these are shared among stakeholders. It is essential that expected learning outcomes be continuously recognized and prioritized within participating institutions throughout all stages of program implementation, including the review of assessment methods, sharing of results, curriculum design, student support, and internal quality assurance. The stakeholders referred to here primarily include students and faculty involved in the program, relevant institutional units, and partner institutions. They also encompass broader actors such as organizations and local communities related to the program. It is desirable that social impact of the program is also considered when setting objectives.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Agreements, memorandums of understanding (MOU), and other documents of agreement with overseas partner institutions Program website Symposium materials (including event invitations, program descriptions, etc., providing details on objectives and purposes)

• 2. Implementation Structure
  2.1 The HEI has made an agreement among partner institutions in which the basic policies of the program, such as the program management system, responsibilities toward students, and expense sharing, are documented.
  
  2.2 The HEI clearly states the operational structure of program implementation and relevant responsibilities as well as the support system provided by related organizations within the institution.
  
  2.3 The HEI has established an educational management system in which faculty and staff members involved collaborate and implement the program effectively and sustainably.
  
  2.4 The HEI appropriately establishes a program-coordinating function and maintains mechanisms for regular communication and coordination among partner institutions.

Explanatory Notes
To ensure effective program management, it is essential that all participating institutions be actively engaged and appropriately share values and responsibilities. In addition, a well-designed implementation structure must be established. The basic policies of the program should be thoroughly discussed among the participating institutions and formalized through written agreements. Each institution is expected to develop a comprehensive support system in collaboration with relevant internal departments, alongside a clear operation and accountability framework, and to establish an academic structure that enables involved members to work together effectively. Furthermore, mechanisms for regular communication and coordination among partner institutions should be in place to address day-to-day issues collaboratively. In addition, securing faculty members with international proficiencies and substantial expertise is essential. Support measures and mechanisms that encourage faculty members' active participation should be established to ensure sustainable management of the program.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Agreements, memorandums of understanding (MOU), and other documents of agreement with overseas partner institutions* Documents summarizing international strategies Program website* Documents on program implementation structures (including university-wide support systems) Documents on educational management systems of the program Documents on coordination functions of the program

• 3. Curriculum
  3.1 The HEI cooperates and collaborates with partner institutions to design a curriculum, including project advisory plans aligned with the program's objectives and expected learning outcomes.
  
  3.2 The HEI ensures to provide its curricula based on the cooperation among faculty members of partner institutions. The HEI is prepared to utilize various teaching methods effectively, encompassing online and hybrid, in addition to face-to-face education.
  
  3.3 The HEI provides detailed information on curricula and subjects such as course descriptions, language of instruction, lecture style, credits, student workload, expected learning outcomes, and grading methods. This information is included in the syllabus or other supplemental documents, while making the latest information available to students.

Explanatory Notes
It is essential that the curriculum be designed based on the program's objectives and expected learning outcomes defined in 1.1, and that it be reliably delivered through cooperation among the participating institutions. It is also important to establish a framework that enables the effective use of flexible and diverse teaching methods to ensure continuity in student learning. Furthermore, it is critical that detailed information on the curriculum and courses be clearly stated in appropriate documents and that the latest information be made available to students. When providing information, timeliness and accessibility are also important considerations.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Documents on the content of curricula (or research guidelines) and teaching methods Program overviews (brochures, newsletters, etc.) Syllabi, lists of courses Program application guidelines for students Documents on short-term exchange programs

• 4. Student Acceptance
  4.1 The HEIs jointly establish and implement policies for letting students join the program according to its objectives, with envisaged learning outcomes that students will obtain taken into consideration. The HEIs also endeavor to assure a balanced student mobility among partner institutions.
  
  4.2 The HEI has clearly set up a process to let students join the program (including eligibility for application and recognition of qualifications) while paying attention to equity and transparency with the provision of accurate information for students' decision-making.

Explanatory Notes
The participating institutions are required to jointly formulate and implement policies for student acceptance in accordance with the program's objectives and expected learning outcomes defined in 1.1. It is also expected to ensure balanced student mobility among the participating institutions. Furthermore, it is essential to establish clear processes for student acceptance while ensuring fairness and transparency, and to provide accurate and timely information that enables students to make informed decisions.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Agreements, memorandums of understanding (MOU), and other documents of agreement with overseas partner institutions* Records of the number of exchange students Program application guidelines for students* Learning agreements/research plan forms Program website*

• 5. Student Support for Learning and Living
  5.1 The HEI agrees among partner institutions on the necessary learning and living support for students, based on the objectives and characteristics of the program. In addition, the HEI disseminates details of each area of support in an explicit manner to both prospective and current students.
  
  5.2 The HEI adequately provides the agreed learning support to students. Examples of learning support include an academic advising system such as the placement of teaching assistants, course guidance, language learning support, and sufficient research and learning environments through libraries, information technology, and laboratory facilities.
  
  5.3 The HEI adequately provides the agreed living support for students. Examples of students' living support include financial support, accommodation support, medical support, orientations, counseling, interaction with local communities, and risk management.
  
  5.4 The HEI encourages interactions among students and alumni within and outside the program.

Explanatory Notes
Learning and living support for both incoming and outgoing students should be provided in various forms at each stage of an exchange program--before, during, and after participation. Therefore, it is essential that the participating institutions share and agree on what types of support are needed at each stage and ensure that they are appropriately implemented. For prospective and current participants, the details of each support measure should be presented in an explicit manner, with due consideration given to timeliness and accessibility. In addition, establishing ongoing student counseling services would also be beneficial.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Agreements, memorandums of understanding (MOU), and other documents of agreement with overseas partner institutions* Program application guidelines for students* Program overviews (brochures, newsletters, etc.)* Program website* Campus guide book for students Documents showing the status of student and alumni exchanges

• 6. Learning Outcomes
  6.1 The HEI has appropriately established methods for measuring the learning outcomes as defined in 1.1 and shared the results of the measurements in a timely manner among partner institutions.

Explanatory Notes
Participating institutions are required to establish appropriate methods for measuring students' learning outcomes (such as knowledge, skills, and attitudes) as defined in 1.1, and to share the measured outcome appropriately among participating institutions. It is desirable that learning outcomes be measured systematically in terms of both subject‑specific and generic competences. Establishing a consortium-level framework for measuring learning outcomes is highly desirable. Furthermore, accumulating and analyzing medium-to long-term data, such as monitoring the impact of learning outcomes on graduates' career paths and employability, is considered highly beneficial.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Documents on the evaluation methods of learning outcomes (syllabi, survey of learning outcomes, rubric, etc.) Samples of learning artifacts created by students (reports, collections of work, portfolios) Analysis of students' submissions to domestic and international academic journals Overviews of student questionnaires and documents confirming the results

• 7. Credit Transfer and Degree Awarding
  7.1 The HEI promotes mutual understanding of the credit system of each institution and has made agreements on credit transfer and recognition.
  
  7.2 The HEIs have a collective understanding of each grading method and standard.
  
  7.3 The HEI provides information, without any delay, to students and their home institutions on their academic records, such as credits and grades, in a transparent and explicit manner. The HEI properly manages the academic records of students based on mutual agreement among partner institutions.
  
  7.4 In the case of degree-seeking programs, the HEI has established an appropriate review system, processes, and standards according to the types of degrees awarded. Particularly for joint degree and double degree programs, the HEIs have jointly arranged and properly managed the standards and assessment system based on mutual agreement according to the objectives of the program.

Explanatory Notes
When developing a credit transfer framework, it is essential for participating institutions to understand credit systems, grading methods and standards of each institution, and formalize agreements on credit transfer and recognition among the participating institutions while paying attention to the content and level of education to be transferred. In order for students to fully benefit from the credit transfer system, it is important to clearly specify in advance the courses that are eligible for transfer. For example, creating and making available subject comparison tables for credit transfer would assist exchange students in selecting courses, enable faculty members to verify course equivalency during credit transfers, and enhance the overall transparency of the program. It is essential that students' academic records be provided to students and their home institutions in a transparent and explicit manner without any delay. In addition, participating institutions need to manage academic transcripts and related documents appropriately, based on mutual agreement. In the case of degree-seeking programs, it is necessary to establish degree conferral policies and review systems in accordance with the objectives of each program and ensure their proper implementation.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Agreements, memorandums of understanding (MOU), and other documents of agreement with overseas partner institutions* Regulations/guidelines for credit transfer and recognition Regulations/guidelines for grading methods/standards Program overviews (brochures, newsletters, etc.)* Degree-granting program implementation status Regulations for completion requirements Documents outlining structures, processes, and standards for the evaluation of the relevant degrees

• 8. Continuous Quality Improvement
  8.1 The HEI has developed an effective and continuous internal quality assurance system including the appointment of responsible bodies for implementation to promote the quality improvement of the program.
  
  8.2 The HEI has established a mechanism that contributes to the improvement of educational management based on the information on students' learning outcomes obtained by the method described in 6.1.
  
  8.3 The HEI has developed procedures for internal quality assurance to identify issues through regular meetings among partner institutions and feedback from students and other stakeholders, and consider measures for the improvement of program management.
  
  8.4 The internal quality assurance system and procedures for the program jointly developed by the HEIs are functioning effectively.
  
  8.5 The HEIs jointly plan to consider various measures, including financial schemes and the availability of adequate human resources, to ensure sustainable operation of the program.

Explanatory Notes
To ensure the continuous improvement of the program, participating institutions should establish and effectively implement an internal quality assurance system and procedures, based on thorough consultation among institutions. Using information on student learning outcomes identified through the method described in 6.1, institutions should analyze the achievement of expected learning outcomes and identify areas for improvement through stakeholder feedback, including students. These processes should lead to ongoing enhancement of the program. Furthermore, to ensure the program's sustainability, strategies for securing financial and human resources should be developed collaboratively, and a long-term operational foundation should be established.
Examples of Supporting Documents
Documents confirming the program's internal quality assurance regulations and implementation structures Overviews of student questionnaires and documents confirming the results* Reports on internal quality assurance activities Documents providing evidence that efforts for improvements have been made in regard to challenges discussed among participating universities

*＝Previously mentioned document

• [NOTE]
  These Standards will be reviewed and revised as necessary every three to five years in response to the changing environment of higher education and inter-university student exchange.

• Please click here for Explanatory Notes in PDF file

---