“Dive!”, a workshop project launched last academic year to support new faculty members, held a workshop entitled “I’ve Become a UTokyo Faculty Member! What Should I Do? Welcome Workshop for New Faculty Members” on Friday, February 16th, 2018.
The workshop was held in Fukutake Learning Studio, Fukutake Hall. Eighteen faculty members who were appointed within the last five years joined the event. They came from more than 10 departments consisting of both science and humanities.
The workshop started with greetings and an introduction by Associate Professor Jun Nakahara (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education). It was followed by an activity of sharing and organizing the troubles and concerns the participants encounter as a faculty and an activity to reflect on their successful experience and advantages using building blocks and set goals for the next academic year, which were facilitated by the staff of the Division for Learning Environment and Educational Technology of the Center. Also, we provided the participants with various resources that would be helpful to faculty members.
All participants answered “Extremely satisfied” or “Satisfied” with the workshop in the questionnaire. They also answered that the workshop would be either “Very helpful” or “Helpful” to them in working/living as a UTokyo faculty member. Regarding whether they would like to recommend the workshop to other new faculty members, they answered either “Yes (Very much)” or “Yes.” In addition, we received feedback as follows: “I got to know people from other departments and was able to share meaningful information with each other,” “The workshop broadened my horizons,” “I realized that everyone has the same concerns to some extent,” and “It was worthwhile taking time out of my busy schedule to join the workshop.”
As described above, it seems that the workshop was highly appreciated, but we will reflect on the event with all the members and plan and organize better events for the next academic year.
Dive! Project is eager to plan workshops to support new faculty members to become the leading researchers of the next generation and educators of the University of Tokyo.
The 10th Certificate Award Ceremony of “The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program (UTokyo FFP)” was held in Fukutake Learning Studio, Fukutake hall, on Tuesday, February 20th, 2018.
Forty-five participants completed the 10th program, each receiving a certificate. They had a congratulatory address from Prof. Osamu Sudo, Director of the Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo.
Alumni also appeared as guest speakers and explained their various activities after the program’s completion and alumni network.
UTokyo FFP has produced a total of 476 people who completed the program from every graduate school at The University of Tokyo, marking the 10th semester and fifth anniversary.
Our next program (the 11th UTokyo FFP) is scheduled to start in April 2018. The application form will be available on the following URL in early March.
The 4th Mini-lecture Program was held at Tokyo Kasei University on Friday, February 2nd, 2018, from 14:00–16:30.
This time, Shoma Mikawa, Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, who is expected complete the 10th UTokyo FFP, conducted a lecture on “Vaccination of Dogs.”
Preceding the mini-lecture, he refined the design and content of the lecture through two preparatory workshops.
Based on the final design, the lecture started with “Mechanism of Vaccines” and “Vaccination of Humans” as an introduction, followed by the main topic “Vaccination of Dogs.” The lecture material was carefully designed, and the content was neatly organized to help the audience easily understand the topic.
The program was structured as follows. The mini-lecture was followed by an explanation of its class design, including the introduction of active learning strategies, and a discussion on what was good about the mini-lecture and what points needed improvements.
Mini-lecture (45 min)
A brief examination of the class design by taking the mini-lecture as an example (20 min)
A discussion to examine the mini-lecture (40 min)
There were 19 participants consisting of students and faculty/staff members of Tokyo Kasei University.
Many of them responded “Extremely good” or “Good” to a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire. We also received the following feedback:
—
・It was nice to know the evaluation and discussion of the class content from the perspective of the instructors. (Student)
・The lecture on a medical topic was informative and gave me a lot of knowledge. (Student)
・It made me think of a class design objectively. (Faculty/staff member)
・I learned a lot such as how to prepare easy-to-understand materials and make presentations. (Faculty/staff member)
*The above feedback is a summary made by the UTokyo FFP staff.
—
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who joined our mini-lecture program and the faculty/staff members at Tokyo Kasei University who kindly let us hold the event.
The program started as a collaborative program between Tokyo Kasei University and The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program, and we are marking the 4th event. It is a precious opportunity for both of us; an opportunity to learn and to have a dialogue between students and instructors to think about “good classes” for Tokyo Kasei University, and an opportunity to practice lectures for the UTokyo FFP.
Learning Commons at Tokyo Kasei University Library was provided as a venue for the event through the courtesy of the faculty/staff of the Center for Research and Educational Development, Tokyo Kasei University. We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again to all the members.
The 4th Workshop on the Creation of a Teaching Portfolio Chart (TP Chart) is to be held on campus. For those who would like to reflect on your teaching activities with other participants, please join us. For the details of the TP Chart, please refer to the end of this post.
Date/Time: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018
13:00–15:30 1 Creation of a TP Chart
15:30–15:45 Break
15:45–16:45 2 Reexamination of the philosophy and methodology (Refine your TP Chart.)
16:45–17:00 3 How to hold a workshop on the creation of a TP Chart
17:00–18:00 4 Networking session (Interact with other participants freely.)
Venue: 92B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/campusmap/cam01_04_03_j.html
Target: Instructors (elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, or university)
Capacity: 60 people (accepted in the order of application)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education) and Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences) Fee: Free of charge
Application Deadline: March 1st, 11:59 PM (We may close the application before the deadline if the number of applicants reaches the quota.)
Goals: To reflect on teaching activities through the creation of a TP Chart. To examine the significance and potential of creating a TP chart through the creation.
Goals: To reflect on teaching activities through the creation of a TP Chart. To examine the significance and potential of creating a TP chart through the creation.
[Notes]
*We have already held training programs for creating a TP Chart in many parts of the country, but we are planning to assess the effects of the programs once again. For the participants, we would like to ask for their cooperation to respond to our questionnaires.
*Sixty people will be accepted in the order of application.
*”4 Networking session” is a free session. Please bring drinks and snacks on your own.
[For your information]
“Interactive Teaching” Forum: Part 1 “Revisiting How to Create a Syllabus” is to be held on the following day of the workshop. Creating a syllabus equals designing a course. Why not reconsider a syllabus as not just paperwork but a tool to realize better learning? Anyone can join the forum. We look forward to your application. For more details, please refer to the following website.
[Description of the workshop on the creation of a TP Chart]
A Teaching Portfolio refers to “A carefully selected reflective document about teaching supported by various evidence.”
Its basic structure is as follows:
-Teaching responsibility (What you are doing)
-Philosophy (Why you are doing)
-Methodology (How you are doing)
-Outcome (How it came out)
-Goals (What you will do next)
It is a process to specify the “core” of your teaching through “reflection” and “dialogue.”
A Teaching Portfolio is a document consisting of 8–10 pages of body and evidence that supports the body. It has become common to use it as material to evaluate the quality of teaching activities from multiple angles in European and American countries. Essentially, it takes about three days to create a Teaching Portfolio, but this time, participants will create a “Teaching Portfolio Chart (TP Chart),” a simple version of a TP. A TP Chart is a single worksheet, which enables you to reflect on your teaching activities step by step just like a Teaching Portfolio. There are various training programs for instructors these days, but what is becoming important is the “mindset” toward education, not “techniques.” A TP Chart can be a powerful tool for making such an approach. We would like more people to experience creating a TP Chart.
If you are interested in joining the workshop, please apply from here so that we can prepare the material for the event. We look forward to your application.
The new year has started, and DAY 8 of the 10th UTokyo FFP was held on January 5th and 11th.
Participants created their SAP Charts on DAY 8. A SAP Chart is for reflecting on past activities, examining the value and significance of teaching and research, and thinking about future prospects. We believe that it is meaningful for the participants to create a chart while they are graduate students. The following is the explanation of a SAP Chart (repost from the previous article):
SAP stands for “Structured Academic Portfolio” (Yoshida & Kurita, 2016a). Essentially, an academic portfolio is “a reflective, evidence-based collection of materials that documents teaching, research, and service performance” (Seldin & Miller, 2009). The feature of a SAP is that “the description is structured with specific steps and points.” A SAP Chart (Yoshida & Kurita, 2016b) is positioned as a preparatory assignment for creating a SAP, but since it enables the author to reflect on his/her entire activities in a short time (though roughly) and makes it easier to overview the description, it can also be used as a single item. It is a suitable tool for graduate students to envision their career paths and gives them an opportunity to connect what they learned in the UTokyo FFP and their own teaching philosophy. This is why the creation of a SAP Chart is incorporated into the materials in the final session of the program.
Participants were given three and a half hours to create their SAP Charts. They shared their works in pairs at any time and deepened their reflection by explaining their charts and answering questions cast by their partners. They first seemed to be “awkward” in explaining their teaching philosophy and research values to another person, but they gradually got used to it and had a lively discussion with their partners; they could not stop talking even when we announced the closing of the sharing session.
We are deeply relieved that the UTokyo FFP completed the entire classes, marking the 10th semester. Five years have passed since the launch of the UTokyo FFP, and its course materials have been highly developed compared to the initial year. Although we finally made it to run the program smoothly, we find points to be improved in every session. As an organizing staff member, I hope the program keeps developing.
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the participants of the 10th UTokyo FFP.
・Seldin, P., & Miller, J. E. (2009). The academic portfolio: a practical guide to documenting teaching, research, and service (Vol. 132). John Wiley & Sons.
・Yoshida, L., & Kurita, K. (2016a). Kōzōka academic portfolio sakusei no hyōka [Evaluation of the creation of a Structured Academic Portfolio]. The 22nd Kyoto University Conference on Higher Education, 238-239, 2016.3.17-18, Kyoto University
・Yoshida, L., & Kurita, K. (2016b). Evaluation of Structured Academic Portfolio Chart and Workshop for Reflection on Academic Work. Procedia Computer Science, 96, 1454-1462.
DAY 7 sessions were held on December 21st and 22nd.
Participants completed the following activities before the second round of the microteaching session held on DAY 7:
DAY5: Examination of two sample mini-lectures (Goals: To practice giving feedback to each other and to acquire a metacognitive perspective on good lectures)
DAY6: Improvement of mini-lectures in small groups of 4–6 (Goal: To improve mini-lectures through mutual feedback)
Participants were divided into four groups last time, but this time, two groups. The audience size varied by class, but individuals conducted a lecture to 10–13 people in a similar setting to regular classes using a projector or a large monitor.
The following shows the process of conducting a lecture. The audience is given only a short time to provide feedback to the lecturer within a limited amount of time, but it also means that the lectures can proceed smoothly.
Mini-lecture (6 min) > Feedback (The audience fills in the feedback sheet while the lecturer receives feedback directly from the instructor.) (3 min) > The audience comments on the lecture (3 min) > Buffer time to switch to the next lecturer (2 min)
The above process is repeated as many as the number of participants.
A 6-min lecture is far from a real 90-min class, and the lecturer cannot make up for his/her mistake within such a short time. It is also not likely that a person takes so much time to design a class of just six minutes. However, I believe the trial of removing unnecessary parts and incorporating essential parts you want the students to learn into the lecture so that they can achieve the goals can only be realized by designing a lecture with a length of six minutes.
(DAY 6: Participants working on the improvement of mini-lectures in small groups)
Here is a brief report of the following event and a preview of our next event. “Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 1 “Designing a 90-min Class”
Date/Time: December 9th (Sat), 2017, 10:00–18:00
Venue: 92B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 21 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)
③ Be able to design one’s class by using a class design sheet. (Exercise in the afternoon)
We had 21 participants in total, which exceeded the capacity.
2. Summary
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. We also provided the participants with the “Metacognitive Reflection” as an opportunity to reflect on the design of the event itself.
(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] 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] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (10:15–10:45)
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 (10:45–12:30)
Participants conducted a group activity (i.e., poster tour) to examine what was good about the sample class design sheet and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned during the preparation and the reviewing session. For details of the poster tour, Please refer to “4. Poster Tour,” the video of WEEK 2, and pp. 31–33 of the book “Interactive Teaching.”
Participants working on the improvement of a class design sheet
[4] Exercise of Creating a Class Design Sheet (14:00–16:00)
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 discussions in pairs.
Participants creating class design sheets
[5] Wrap-up (16:00–16:30)
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) Metacognitive Reflection (17:00–18:00)
Participants shared their thoughts on the design of preparation and the session, and the organizers revealed their intention of the design along the timeline. We together found out what points worked as planned, what points still needed improvement, and how they can be improved through this process.
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 21 participants was as follows: 11 faculty members, seven graduate students or postdocs, one senior high school teacher, and two company employees. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 48 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 48 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.” We introduced an entry fee system from 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 metacognitive reflection and feedback.
Participants learning from each other through a poster tour
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold an event every three months in AY2018 on the topics such as class design, syllabuses (course design), evaluation (rubric and others), and microteaching. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Division for Active Learning and Teaching, Komaba Organization for Educational Excellence will launch the following project.
It is led by Lui Yoshida, a Project Research Associate of the Division and one of the 1st UTokyo FFP alumni. The project looks for those who are eager to cooperate with the members to improve education.
An event of the project to decide on the development theme of the KALS Programmer is to be held tomorrow. We are sorry for the short notice, but for those who are interested, please feel free to join the event.
For more details, please refer to the following websites.
DAY 5 sessions were held on November 30th and December 1st. This time, the topics were “Exercise in Giving Feedback on Lectures” and “Summary.”
Exercise in Giving Feedback on Lectures
Every UTokyo FFP participant conducted a 6-min lecture for microteaching, which did not end with just one trial. They conducted lectures according to the following schedule:
Examination of a lecture for microteaching (to find the viewpoints for designing “a good lecture for microteaching” and to practice giving feedback) (DAY 5)
Conducting a lecture for microteaching (1st trial) in small groups of 5–6 & thorough peer-reviewing (DAY 6)
Conducting a lecture for microteaching (2nd trial) (in groups of 12–13) (DAY 7)
This time, we went through the first step of the above three. Two participants with different research fields voluntarily conducted or were appointed to conduct lectures for microteaching, and the whole participants examined those lectures. This activity was intended to help the participants enhance the quality of their lectures for microteaching by sharing feedback from multiple perspectives.
Prior to the examination of the lectures for microteaching, participants were informed about the value of conducting lectures for microteaching (i.e., it is a precious opportunity), ground rules (i.e., to keep in mind the 3Ks: “Be respectful (敬意 Keii) to others,” “Speak without reserve (忌憚なく Kitan naku),” and “Be constructive (建設的 Kensetsuteki).”), and that they should find the viewpoints for designing their own lectures through the activity.
・A lecture for microteaching (6 min)
・Participants fill in the feedback sheets while the lecturer receives feedback from the instructor. (3 min)
・Group discussions on what was good about the lecture and what points needed improvement (12 min)
・Sharing and discussing the ideas in the whole classroom (12 min) (It actually took more than 12 minutes.)
Following the two lectures for microteaching, participants discussed and shared how to generalize the points that were good or that needed improvement they had found in those lectures. The generalization process was intended to help the participants acquire viewpoints for designing their lectures for microteaching and their regular classes in the future.
Summary (using “Poster Tour”)
Participants reviewed what they had learned so far, using a strategy called “Poster Tour.” The goals of this activity were not just to review the materials but also to experience the “Poster Tour,” one of the active learning strategies.
The assignment for reflection included the examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the strategy compared with the “Gallery Walk,” which was conducted in the previous session.
Active learning strategies seem difficult to be applied to practices just from the knowledge acquired through lectures. Experiencing such strategies by themselves allow learners to realize their effects and limits. It does not necessarily assure that you will “be able to use the strategies,” but at least it helps you imagine how to use them based on your own experience.
