日本の大学評価システムの構造と機能

自己点検・評価が生み出したもの

抄録

　 Following the introduction of a new quality assurance system in Japan, this article reviews previous studies of quality assurance in Japanese higher education, as well as current quality assurance system trends within the United States, Europe, and East Asia. The authors argue for the importance of recognizing systemic quality assurance development techniques in the context of these geographical areas and their respective educational systems. Using a comparative sociological perspective they diagram three distinctive quality assurance systems : internally evaluated vs. externally assessed, centralised vs. decentralised, and integrated vs. fragmented. From this diagram, they argue that Japan can be said to have an internally evaluated, decentralised, and fragmented model of quality assessment.

　 A questionnaire was used to a survey the current quality assessment and evaluation initiatives being undertaken at Japanese universities. The data acquired from the questionnaires are presented and analysed, with results showing that various measures are being used in self-evaluation activities. These measures can be divided into six categories : student evaluation, organizational management, educational activities, research activities, input and output performances, and social services and public welfare. Further analyses show certain relationships between the activities and reforms of colleges and universities. Moreover, the analyses reveal that the evaluation system of Japanese higher education has a highly diversified and complex structure, reflecting the country’s hierarchical and compound higher education structure.

　 Current quality assessment systems － based on self-evaluation － are helpful in the modification of assessment schemes at the respective institutions studied. This is due to the fact that they take into account both the variety of individual needs of each of the institutions and their different characteristics. However, if a newly centralised quality assurance body is established, its goal should be the technical support of evaluation activities and the assurance of minimum standards of quality, rather than the supervision or meta-evaluation of self-evaluation activities by universities themselves.