Author: 大城明緒

Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.

“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 2 “Designing a 90-min Class”

Date/Time: Session 1: April 22nd (Sun), 2018, 09:00–16:00; Session 2: June 2nd (Sat), 2018, 14:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 20 people (Capacity: 20 people)
Fee: 10,000 JPY (Free of charge for graduate students and postdocs)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)

1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Designing a 90-min Class.” Based on the goal, “Be able to design a class that helps students deepen their learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:

① Be able to explain the significance of class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to improve a class by using a class design sheet (a format for class design introduced in “Interactive Teaching”). (Exercise in the morning of Session 1)
③ Be able to design one’s class by using a class design sheet. (Exercise in the afternoon of Session 1)
④ Use the class design sheet in one’s workplace and improve it for better use. (Session 2)

2. Summary
This program was structured as follows: 1) Participants learn together about “Designing a 90-min Class” in Session 1; 2) They respectively conduct the classes they designed at their schools/institutions; 3) They gather again a month later to report their practices and examine with other participants what they should do to improve the design. This design was intended to let the participants utilize what they learn in the program.
Also, this program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. During the session, they first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then worked on exercises of improving a sample class design sheet and creating their own class design sheets.

(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 4 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 4 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily created and submitted their class design sheets.

(2) Session 1 (April 22nd)
[1] Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.

[2] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (09:15–09:45)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of class design and points they should be careful of.

[3] Exercise of Improving a Class Design Sheet (09:45–11:45)
Participants examined a sample class design sheet and had a group discussion on what was good about it and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned in the preparation and during the reviewing session.

Participants learning from each other (Group presentation)

[4] Exercise of Creating a Class Design Sheet (13:00–15:30)
Participants created class design sheets to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the class design was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.


Participants exchanging their ideas in pairs

[5] Wrap-up (15:30–16:00)
Participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.

(3) Session 2 (June 2nd)
[1] Introduction (14:00–14:10)
Participants reviewed the goals and rules of the entire program once again, including the goals and structure of Session 2.

[2] Report of Participants’ Practices and Improvement of Class Design Sheets in Groups (14:10–16:30)
First of all, each participant reported what they could or could not practice over the last month, why they could not practice, and what problems they had. Then, they examined how to improve their class design sheets through group activities.


Group activity on improving their class design sheets

[3] Wrap-up (16:30–16:55)
Lastly, participants organized what they learned through the two sessions, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.

3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 20 participants was as follows: 10 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, four graduate students or postdocs, two teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, one teacher or staff member of elementary school, and three teachers or staff members of vocational school. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 57 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” and 43 percent were “very satisfied.”

Another five-point scale question asked whether it was effective to have an opportunity to design and practice class design, and report it to others during the program held in two days with a  month in between (Yes (very much); Yes; Unsure; No (not so much); No (not at all)). 64 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” and 36 percent answered “Yes.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the two-day workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 50 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much)” and 50 percent answered “Yes.”

We held a two-day event for the first time but are relieved to know that it was appreciated to a certain extent. We are eager to provide the participants with the opportunities to share their practices and improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the feedback.

4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a two-day workshop on evaluation (rubrics) on Sunday, June 3rd (as DAY 1) and Friday, August 3rd (as DAY 2). Also, we are planning to hold two one-day seminars: “Active Learning Strategies” on Saturday, August 4th, and “Microteaching” on Sunday, August 5th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.

References
Videos “Interactive Teaching” JREC-IN website UTokyo FD website
Book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017)
https://www.kawai-publishing.jp/book/?isbn=978-4-7772-1794-6 (Kawai Publishing website)

Nagafumi Nakamura (Project Researcher in charge of “Interactive Teaching” / Main Moderator of this event)

The event report and summary of “Interactive Teaching” Forum Part 1 “Revisiting How to Create a Syllabus” (March 4th) was published in “Kyōiku Gakujutsu Shimbun” No. 2725 (issued on April 25th, 2018). The editorial department kindly allowed us to share the post. Please check it out.

References

Videos “Interactive Teaching” JREC-IN website UTokyo FD website

Book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017) https://www.kawai-publishing.jp/book/?isbn=978-4-7772-1794-6 (Kawai Publishing website)

Videos of the event “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session: Part 2 “Becoming a Rubric Master” held on Sunday, August 20th, 2017 are now available online. You can watch the videos of each session on the following websites:
UTokyo TV website
UTokyo TV YouTube Channel

With the new semester coming, we hope these videos will become an opportunity for you to reexamine the “evaluation that promotes learning” including rubrics.
For those who joined the program on the day, please remember once again what you had in mind for your prospect after completing the half-year training program and renew your determination toward the next semester.
For those who are considering joining future events related to “Interactive Teaching,” we hope these videos will be helpful in grasping the atmosphere of the event.

Lastly, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the UTokyo TV staff for their continuous support from the shooting to the publication of the videos.

We held the event “Interactive Teaching” Forum: Part 1 “Revisiting How to Create a Syllabus” on Sunday, March 4th. Here is the report. For more details, please wait for another report to be published at a later date. Also, the videos of the event will be published on the UTokyo TV website.

Date/Time: March 4th (Sun), 2018, 10:00–18:00
Venue: Room 900, Komaba Campus, The University of Tokyo, and others.
Participants: 143 people
Fee: 3,000 JPY (Free of charge for graduate students and postdocs)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (The University of Tokyo), Hiroaki Sato (Osaka University), Lui Yoshida (The University of Tokyo), and Nagafumi Nakamura (The University of Tokyo *Main Moderator)
Instructors of breakout sessions: Masaru Sekido (National Institute of Technology, Sendai College), Satoshi Iimori (Hiroshima Johoku Junior & Senior High School), Kenji Ogura (Ishikawa Prefectural University), Takao Tomono (Keio University), Takeshi Kondo (Nagoya University), Saki Nakamoto (Osaka University), Yoshika Okawa (Kamiya Elementary School), and Chieko Kudo (Tokiwa High School)

1. Topic and Goal
The topic was “Syllabus.” The goal was, “Be able to create and use a syllabus that enhances student learning and works as a tool for course design for instructors.” We welcomed 140 participants in total.

2. Summary
The event was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. They first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then examined the significance of syllabuses and points they should be careful of and deepened their thoughts in their own contexts.

(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 5 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 5 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017).

(2) Session
[1] Introduction (10:00–10:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.

[2] Session 1: “Revisiting How to Create a Syllabus” (10:15–11:00)
The instructor and participants exchanged their ideas on the questions collected beforehand related to creating and using syllabuses. The discussion was held from various perspectives ranging from the creation/use of syllabuses to faculty development, based on questions such as 1) “Since it depends on the patient’s condition, it is difficult to write details in the syllabus beforehand for nursing practice,” 2) “What can we do to have the students get into a habit of reading the syllabus?” 3) “When we find a syllabus written by another instructor as not good, what should we start with to advise him/her?” 4) “How much can we apply syllabuses in higher education to elementary and secondary education?” and 5) “Where can we know about the trend of syllabuses in the United States and countries other than Japan?”

[3] Session 2: “Exercise of Improving a Text Syllabus” (11:00–12:00)
Participants brought their own text syllabuses and exchanged ideas in groups. They grasped the points in creating a syllabus that enhances student learning and works as a tool for course design for instructors.

[4] Session 3: “Exercise of Creating a Graphic Syllabus” (13:30–15:00)
Participants created graphic syllabuses for their own classes. A graphic syllabus is a visualized class structure by using flowcharts and others to show the relationship between each topic for 15 classes. This activity was intended to let the participants actively grasp the structure of knowledge that they want the students to learn in classes and structure classes that enable them to convey such knowledge to the students.

Participants exchanging their ideas

[5] Session 4: Breakout Sessions (15:20–16:50)
Breakout sessions consisted of Session A held by organizers and three Sessions (B–D) held by volunteers who joined the past events of “Interactive Teaching.”

① Session 4A “Let’s Realize Active Learning in a Lecture Hall”
The session intended to let the participants share practical methods such as points we should be careful in introducing an active learning style in a lecture hall.

② Session 4B “Let’s Create Intriguing Questions: The Jigsaw Method & Peer Instruction”
The session intended to let the participants learn how to create intriguing questions when conducting the Jigsaw Methods and Peer Instruction.

③ Session 4C “Let’s Increase Comrades / Let’s Involve the Workplace: How to Spread the Movement”
The session intended to let the participants learn how to involve the people in their workplace and others to practice what they learned in “Interactive Teaching” and spread “Interactive Teaching” to their colleagues and people around them.

④ Session 4D “Let’s Polish Classes with Microteaching: Taking ‘Active Appreciation of Tanka Poems’ as a Sample”
The session intended to let the participants grasp the points of introducing active learning into their classes by examining a microteaching session using active learning.

[5] Wrap-up (17:10–18:00) Participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.

Participants and an instructor exchanging their ideas

3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 143 participants ranged from universities to senior/junior high schools to elementary schools to corporations. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 37.7 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 54.7 percent were “very satisfied,” and 7.6 percent were “satisfied.” We set an entry fee for events with more than 100 participants starting with this event, but we are relieved to know that it was appreciated to a certain extent. We are eager to improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the feedback.

Nagafumi Nakamura (Project Researcher in charge of “Interactive Teaching” / Main Moderator of this event)