This document discusses the CAMPUS Asia monitoring project which aims to assure quality in educational programs across borders between Japan, China, and Korea. It provides background on internationalization trends in higher education in these countries. The monitoring project involves joint quality assurance of consortium programs between universities in the three countries. Challenges include differences in quality assurance systems and languages. The project seeks to identify best practices to disseminate. Future areas of focus may include joint degree programs and expanding beyond China, Japan, and Korea to include Southeast Asia.

1. Toward the quality assurance of
“collaborative” educational programs across
boarders: experiences from the ”CAMPUS
Asia” monitoring project and perspectives
beyond (a personal observation)
Syun Tutiya
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation
September 27, 2013
at FuJen
September 27, 2013 1/17

2. Plan
1. Backgrounds
Historical
Geographical
Policies
2. “CAMPUS Asia” and the “monitoring” thereof
What it is
How QA is involved
What’s being done
Some experiences
3. Beyond
3.1 “Joint” monitoring of CJK programs
3.2 Degree programs?
3.3 Beyond CJK, ie. ASEAN+CJK
September 27, 2013 2/17

3. Backgrounds, historically and geographically
Primarily domestic “industry” with respect to student
constituion, around 130,000 enrollment out of 3 million,
obviously below the OECD average Student Constituion
Primarily domestic “industry” again with respect to
faculty constituion, incredibly so given Japan’s role in
STM research worldwide Faculty Constitution
International students are between 4 and 5 % of the
total enrollment, with more than 90% from Asian
countries Incoming students
Few Japanese students don’t go out and don’t want to,
apparently Students abroad
September 27, 2013 3/17

4. (Create by MEXT from OECD “Education at a Glance
2010”)
BACK
September 27, 2013 4/17

5. (Create by MEXT from OECD “Education at a Glance
2010”)
BACK
September 27, 2013 5/17

6. (Create by MEXT from JASSO’s reports)
BACK
September 27, 2013 6/17

7. (Create by MEXT from OECD “Education at a Glance
2010” and other sources )
BACK
September 27, 2013 7/17

8. Policy changes observed
Formerly, funds for moving students inwards and
ourwards, which is still dominantly fiscally
Shift to or new direction in funding awarded to
universities to strengthen the infrastructure
Further move forward to internationally “collaborative”
projects
“International” in former times meant “Western” but
now it means “Asia”
Can’t deny the bureaucratic mindset, but money is real
And the perhaps innocent mention of “quality”
language, and here comes NIAD-UE
September 27, 2013 8/17

9. MEXT’s ways of “Internationalization”
1. Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource
Development
“to overcome the Japanese younger generation’s ’inward
tendency’ and to foster human resources who can
positively meet the challenges and succeed in the global
field, ...”
2. Global 30 Project: Establishing University Network for
Internationalization
“to promote internationalization of academic
environment of Japanese universities and acceptance of
excellent international students studying in Japan”
3. Re-inventing Japan
“to foster human resources capable of being globally
active, and to assure the quality of mechanisms for the
mutual recognition of credits and grade management
through an international framework, ...”
4. Support for two-way exchange programs, which is
relatively big secure portion for exchange students
September 27, 2013 9/17

10. CAMPUS Asia, CJK
Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama ’s proposal in
2009 to enhance university exchange with QA in East
Asia
Japan-China-Korea summit (October 2009 in Beijing)
ASEAN+3 and EAS summit (October 2009 in Cha-am
Hua Hin)
10 consortial, joint CJK programs currently, with the U
of Tokyo, TIT, Hitotsubashi, GRIPS, Nagoya U, Tohoku
U, Kobe U, Okayama U, Kyushu U and Ritsumeikan U,
starting in 2011
Now in their third year
September 27, 2013 10/17

11. CAMPUS Asia, currently
Under the “Re-inventing Japan” Project
Type I: “Formation of a consortium among universities
in Japan and ASEAN for implementing exchange
programs with the assurance of credit transfers and
grade management”
Type II: “SEND program: Student Exchange - Nippon
Discovery”
In the Type I category, nine programs were selected out
of 54 proposals for the year 2012, with Hokkaido U,
The U of Tokyo, Tokyo Medical and Dental U, Kyoto
U, Kobe, U & Osaka U, Ehime U, Kagawa U, Kochi U,
Kyushu U, Waseda U, Keio U and Meiji U
For the year 2013, selection is ongoing, with special
emphasis on AIMS-participating universities
September 27, 2013 11/17

12. Current approaches in the CJK context
As said, “quality assurance” is included in the whole
concept
We knew it is a challenge, a totally new thing
Launch of Japan-China-Korea Quality Assurance
Council, with
NIAD-UE(Japan): National Institution for Academic
Degrees and University Evaluation
HEEC(China): Higher Education Evaluation Center of
the Ministry of Education
KCUE(Korea): Korean Council for University Education
Three target activities
Mutual understanding of each county ’s QA system
Monitoring of‘ CAMPUS Asia ’pilot program for
elaborating a joint guideline for QA of transnational
programs
Staff/Experts Exchange
September 27, 2013 12/17

13. With reference to
ENQA(2005), TEEP II project
ECA(2008-10), TAEM II Project
ECA(2007), Principles for accreditation procedures
regarding joint programmes
Netherlands NVAO, Framework for the assessment of
internationalisation as a distinctive (quality) feature
European Commission: ERASMUS MUNDUS Quality
Assessment Project(2009), Quality Handbook
September 27, 2013 13/17

14. Challenges that led to the “monitoring” idea, an empiricist
approach
The three countries have been mainly concerned with
institutional as opposed to program QA, while all the
“collaborative” programs are program-based, viz.,
specific group of students
Participationg higher education institutions, and hence
perhaps constituting programs also, are already quality
assured in each country’s system, and actually are
“elite” institutions, what is the added(?) quality to be
assured?
There are language barriers, which is a challege not
only for the program design of each consortium, but for
quality assurance entities. Japanese, Chinese and
Korean are different languages and higher education in
each country have an established tradition of using
those languages. Using English is not a solution.
September 27, 2013 14/17

15. CAMPUS Asia Monitoring
The monitoring project will
identify good practices from the aspect of the quality of
education
disseminate them broadly to higher education
community by way of symposia, guidelines etc
Now we are doing the First Monitoring in each country
independently, with different sets of starndards and
criteria, though with mutual recognition of the
standards.
The second council meeting in August, 2013, which
confirmed its progress and set up concrete agenda for
the rest of the term
September 27, 2013 15/17

16. Some personal observations from someone not on the team
There are no “degree” level programs in the sense that
the participating institutions jointly award degrees,
hence “collaborative” at most, though should there be
such, what could it be?
Actively involved faculty and international education
specialists on the monitoring team might have different
views of the situation, eg. about credit transfer and
hours spent studying
“Supervision of research” in postgraduate programs,
which, though, are prevalent, is a grey area
Faculty-level communication and trust make difference
Troubles come from money, though money makes this
project possible: To move, you need money
September 27, 2013 16/17

17. What’s to come next?
“Joint” monitoring of CJK programs
Challeges will remain
Mutual observation has started
Degree programs?
Beyond CJK area-wise, ie. ASEAN+CJK, from Japan’s
point of view, as represented by the current call for
proposals
A “jamming” or “concentration” situation, with
different Japanese universities talking to a small set of
ASEAN universities
CJK were three countries, but ASEAN is already a
network
Most ASEAN countries have the idea of program-level
accreditaton while Japan does not
More communication and sharing is necessary
September 27, 2013 17/17