Demand for information on higher education …Demand for information on higher education qualifications in Japan: For future development of FCE and NIC （日本におけるFCEおよび

Demand for information on higher education qualifications in Japan:

For future development of FCE and NIC

（日本におけるFCEおよびNICの需要と展望）

Seminar and Workshop on International Comparison of Foreign Credential Evaluation (FCE) in Higher Education 「外国学歴・資格認証(FCE)にかかわるセミナー＆ワークショップ」

Toyo University January 25, 2017

MORI Rie （森利枝）

YOSHIKAWA Yumiko （吉川裕美子）

National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education: NIAD-QE

（大学改革支援・学位授与機構）

Agenda

• Background of surveys

• National survey to determine needs for Foreign Credential Evaluation

• International survey to determine needs of National Information Center

• Survey of mobile students’ needs

• Conclusion

2 January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE

Background of surveys


Trends in number of international students in Japanese higher education

January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE 4

94,347 93,751 95,841 102,513

111,762 110,993 111,002 108,906 107,761 110,801

117,927 118,498 123,829

132,720

141,774 138,075 137,747 135,519

139,185

152,062

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Int'l Students in Degree Programs Total Int'l Students

Reference: http://www.jasso.go.jp/about/statistics/intl_student/data2015.html (last retrieved Jan. 12, 2017) among others.

Regional Conventions on the Recognition of Studies initiated by UNESCO

Asia-Pacific

1983 Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific

2011 Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education ★

African States 1981 Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in the African States 2014 Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and Other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States

Europe region 1979 Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the States belonging to the Europe Region 1997 Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region

Arab States 1978 Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in the Arab States

Mediterranean Region 1976 Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in the Arab and European States Bordering on the Mediterranean

Latin America and the Caribbean

1974 Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean


Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education, 2011 • Article VIII.1

Each Party shall provide adequate information on any institution belonging to its higher education system, and on its quality assurance system, with a view to enabling the competent recognition authorities of the other Parties to ascertain whether the quality of the qualifications issued by these institutions justifies recognition in the Party in which recognition is sought. This includes: (a) a description of its higher education system; (b) an overview of the different types of higher education institutions belonging to its higher education system, and of the typical characteristics of each type of institution; (c) a list of recognised and/or accredited higher education institutions (public and private) belonging to its higher education system, indicating their powers to award different types of qualifications and the requirements for gaining access to each type of institution and programme; (d) an explanation of quality assurance mechanisms; and (e) a list of educational institutions located outside its territory which the Party considers as belonging to its education system. Article VIII.2 Each Party shall provide relevant, accurate and up-to-date information in order to facilitate the recognition of qualifications in higher education by: (a) facilitating access to authoritative and accurate information on its higher education system and qualifications; (b) facilitating access to information on the higher education systems and qualifications of the other Parties; and (c) giving advice or information on recognition matters and assessment of qualifications, in accordance with national laws and regulations.


Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education, 2011 • Article VIII.3

Each Party shall take adequate measures for the development and maintenance of a national information centre that will provide higher education information. The form of the national information centre could vary. Article VIII.4 The Parties shall promote, through their national information centres or otherwise, the use of the: (a) “UNESCO Diploma Supplement” or any other comparable qualification supplement; and (b) the UNESCO/OECD Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education and/or any comparable document produced by the Parties’ respective higher education institutions, subject to their respective national laws and regulations.

7

Source: UNESCO (2011) January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE

As January 2017, three states have ratified the convention.

[References] http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=48975&language=F&order=alpha (last retrieved Jan. 12, 2017) http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/our-role-in-international-education/general-recognition-agreements/ (last retrieved Jan. 12, 2017)

Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education, 2011

State Date of deposit of instrument

(=ratification)

Australia 17/07/2014

China 17/07/2014

New Zealand 12/02/2016


Project to assess needs for FCE and NIC

• A research project by NIAD-QE (nee, NIAD-UE) sponsored by MEXT • Research on Development of an Appropriate Information-Provision System for

Domestic and Foreign HEIs to Support Student Mobility, 2013～2015：「学生移動（モビリティ）に伴い国内外の高等教育機関に必要とされる情報提供事業の在り方に関する調査」（調査委託期間2013～2015年度）

• Components

① National survey to determine needs for Foreign Credential Evaluation (FCE)

② International survey to determine needs of National Information Center (NIC)

③ Assessment of needs for a unified institution with FCE and NIC functions

• Final report is available at http://www.niad.ac.jp/n_kokusai/publish/rsc


National survey to determine needs for FCE

for domestic 4-year institutions


Outline of the Survey

• Online survey implemented from February 26 through April 15, 2014

• Targeting academic and administrative staff in charge of international admission at all 4-year institutions: Undergraduate and graduate

Type of Survey by Scope n

ⅠＡ: Evaluation of foreign diplomas@undergrad 484

ⅠＢ: Evaluation of foreign diplomas@graduate 468

ⅡＡ: Recognition of foreign credits@undergrad 469

ⅡＢ: Recognition of foreign credits@graduate 425

Type of Respondents

ＩＡＩＢ

Admin. 403 (83%) 381 (81%)

Academic 81 (17%) 87 (19%)

Total 484 (100%) 468 (100%)

Type of Respondents

ＩＩＡＩＩＢ

Admin. 379 (81%) 347 (82%)

Academic 90 (19%) 78 (18%)

Total 469 (100%) 425 (100%) 11 January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE

Question: Have you ever suspected the authenticity of documents submitted by prospective international students?

9%

91%

ある(n=35) ない(n=376)

7%

93%

ある(n=30) ない(n=390)

undergraduate graduate


Yes (n=35)

Yes (n=30)

No (n=376)

No (n=390)

Question:

Is there a prescribed process in your office to determine the authenticity of submitted documents?

undergraduate graduate

23%

77%

ある(n=94) ない(n=317)

23%

77%

ある(n=97) ない(n=323)


Yes (n=94)

No (n=317)

Yes (n=97)

No (n=323)

Question:

How often do you check accreditation status of an applicant’s home institution without institutional credit-transfer contract?


35

40

41

41

24

19

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

undergraduate(n=190)

graduate (n=58)

always when suspected never

Question:

Which sources of information do you use to assess applicants’ qualifications? (multiple choice)


%

27

15

59

42

2

31

1

2

2

15

7

31

5

62

34

6

24

0

3

3

16

9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

conventional free websites/literature

database/manual prepared in the admissions office

academic staff colleague

personal knowledge and experience in the office

corresponding embassy/consulate in Japan

applicant's home institution

corresponding education association

foreign information services (e.g. WES)

domestic information services/alliance with other institutions

no such needs found

others

undergraduate (n=281) graduate (n=116)

Question:

How difficult do you find each activity of FCE? (undergraduate)


%

18.6

31.1

18.2

60.5

52.5

58.4

16.2

11.4

19.3

4.7

5.0

4.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

listing reliable information sources (n=360)

interpreting certifications (n=362)

collecting information on various education systems (n=361)

difficult relatively difficult relatively easy easy

Question:

How difficult do you find each activity of FCE? (graduate)


%

17.8

25.7

18.3

61.7

56.4

62.0

15.8

13.5

16.6

4.7

4.4

3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

listing reliable information sources (n=360)

interpreting certifications (n=362)

collecting information on various education systems (n=361)

difficult relatively difficult relatively easy easy

Needs for different types of information in assessing foreign credentials by method of selection for admission @ undergraduate


87.12%

36.95%

55.25% 58.64%

77.97%

45.42%

35.93%

59.66%

51.53%

58.31% 56.95%

40.68% 42.03%

61.02%

41.69%

0.68% 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Exam at Home(n=59) Exam in Japan (n=209) Selection based on Documents (n=27) Total (n=295)

Needs for different types of information in assessing foreign credentials by percentage of international students @ undergraduate


71.35%

30.21%

44.53% 45.57%

62.76%

36.20%

28.13%

48.96%

40.36% 44.01%

49.22%

30.21% 32.29%

48.96%

30.47%

0.52% 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

none(n=87) 1% or less (n=111) 2% or less (n=78) less than 10% (n=78) 10％ or more(n=30) Total(n=384)

Question:

Have you ever felt a need for FCE services in Japan?

20

59%

55%

41%

45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

学部レベル(n=469)

大学院レベル(n=425)

考えたことがある考えたことはない

January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE

Yes No

undergraduate

graduate

International survey to determine needs of NIC in Japan

for overseas NICs


Outline of the Survey

• Online survey implemented from October 24 through November 28, 2014

• Targeting 57 NICs in states that had ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention (ENIC/NARICs)

• 24 NICs responded from:

Armenia, Australia, Belgium(French community), Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Ukraine and one unnamed state

• Of these, 18 NICs have dealt with Japanese credentials


Question:

How often do you deal with Japanese credentials?

23

Annually States

100+ times UK, New Zealand

50-99 Germany

20-49 Australia

10-19 Norway, Denmark

1-9 Estonia, Finland, Greece, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Unnamed

0-1 Croatia, Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium(French community) January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE

Question:

Which information sources do you rely on in assessing Japanese credentials? Name all.


*AEI-NOOSR(Now CEP), UK-NARIC

(n=18, multiple choice)

11

10

17

17

15

16

13

7

2

9

7

3

4

0

9

8

9

12

10

13

9

5

1

7

4

1

3

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

database prepared in the office

database prepared by other NICs*

UNESCO

IAU(WHED)

ANABIN

MEXT

Study in Japan

JASSO

NIER

JUAA

NIAD-UE

JIHEE

JACA

others

have heard of it have used it

Question:

Which aspects do you find difficult in assessing Japanese credentials?

January 25, 2017 Mori & Yoshikawa, NIAD-QE 25 (n=18, multiple choice)

3

7

6

1

6

7

5

11

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

nothing

type of institutions

type of credentials

education system

existence of institutions

license/accreditation of institution

authenticity of diplomas

Japanese language

others

For overseas NIC:

Examples of aspects found to be difficult in assessing Japanese credentials; • The difference between current Tanki-Daigakushi(短期大学士) and

Associate (準学士), awarded through 2005, is not clear.

• Transcripts don’t specify whether courses are of “theory” or “practice.”

• Documents in Japanese and English do not always correspond.

• Admission criteria for different programs are not clear.


Survey of mobile students’ needs

(in a different project)


Student workshop on CAMPUS-Asia

• Hosted by NIAD-UE, December 11, 2013.

• 19 students who were in CAMPUS-Asia programs joined the program- monitoring process: • 13 students from Japanese institutions

• 2 students from Chinese institutions

• 4 students from Korean institutions


Examples of suggestions by students:

“There are instances in which there is no credit transfer system in place, and so I would like to see a mechanism for the smooth transfer of credits.”

“Semesters start at different times of the year.”

“There were times when no reply came even when I made personal inquiries in the research lab at the host university.”

“I would like a flexible system in which credits are transferrable for classes besides those that have been prepared for the program.”


Some findings of these surveys

• Standard process to assess the authenticity of foreign credentials has not been equally shared among Japanese higher education institutions.

• Variations in information among institutions have been caused by differing extents of institutional proficiency.

• Examinations can reinstate FCE functions at institutions.

• Examination of students for admission are possible partly because students are already in Japan studying in Japanese language schools.

• Japanese language is the greatest barrier for credential recognition overseas.


Conclusion (i)

• Importance of FCE has not been promoted enough among academic and administrative staff in Japanese higher education institutions.

• Approximately 55% of them find needs for FCE functions: This percentage will be higher if;

1) more institutions start to require a more detailed process in foreign-credential assessment as is relatively common outside Japan,

2) more institutions shift from exam-based admission to document-based admission as is relatively common outside Japan,

3) more international student come to study in Japan, which was projected by the government.


Conclusion (ii)

• It is quite probable that redundancy can be found with functions performed by international-admission offices in Japan.

• There had been rarely mentioned needs for Japanese NIC that were found through the survey, among international NICs.


Thank you very much for your attention.
