Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo invites applications for a Project Researcher on the administration of the UTokyo FFP’s online course “Interactive Teaching.” The new Project Researcher is scheduled to be appointed in August 2019. The application deadline is June 17th, 2019.
We look forward to the applications from those who are eager to plan/conduct the online course “Interactive Teaching,” blended workshops utilizing the course, and other learning programs. We also appreciate your cooperation to share this information with anyone who might be interested.
Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo, and the Japan Center for Educational Research and Innovation (JCERI) published the online course “Interactive Teaching” on Fisdom.
Fisdom, run by Fujitsu Limited, is a platform officially endorsed by JMOOC, where anyone can take lectures online via PCs and smartphones.
“Interactive Teaching” now joins the lectures on this platform.
Please check our video materials on Fisdom.
For more details, please click the following link: “Interactive Teaching” (Fisdom)
We hope the platform will enable more people to reach “Interactive Teaching.”
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 7 “Microteaching Clinic”
Date/Time: March 2nd (Sat), 2018, 13:00–18:00; March 3rd (Sun), 2018, 10:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, 92B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus
Participants: 32 people (Five of them conducted microteaching sessions.)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo)
Masaru Sekido (National Institute of Technology, Sendai College / 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 “Microteaching.” Based on the goal, “Be able to conduct classes that promote student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Understand and be able to utilize “Learning Sciences” (e.g., motivation) in class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when conducting classes through refining others’ microteaching sessions. (Sessions)
③ Be able to utilize the refinement of your microteaching session in your future practice. (Sessions) *③ was an objective for those who conducted microteaching sessions.
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. They conducted and examined microteaching sessions based on their preparation. (1) Preparation
All participants were asked to learn about “Learning Sciences” by watching the videos for WEEK 3 of “Interactive Teaching” and reading Chapter 3 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). This was because it is important to understand theories related to enhancing motivation when you conduct classes that promote learning. Also, those who were in charge of conducting microteaching sessions were asked to submit class design sheets and handouts beforehand.
(2) Sessions
<DAY 1>
[1] Introduction (13:00–13:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others. They consisted of five lecturers of microteaching sessions and 26 observers who took their lectures.
[2] Microteaching Session & Examination 1 (13:15–16:15)
Participants first reviewed the significance of conducting and examining microteaching sessions. Then the first lecturer gave a mini-lecture. Then, they were divided into two groups and moved to separate classrooms. The second lecturers conducted lectures in their respective rooms. Following their 10-minute lectures, the participants exchanged their ideas on what was good about the lectures, what points needed improvement, and how they could be improved in groups and the whole classroom in 40 minutes.
Microteaching sessions
[3] Refining Microteaching Sessions (Lecturers) / What You Can Learn from Microteaching Sessions (Observers) (16:35–17:45)
Participants worked on activities in two separate classrooms.
Those who conducted microteaching sessions worked on improving their lectures based on the feedback they had received from observers in the first trial.
Meanwhile, observers shared in groups what they had learned from the first trial of microteaching sessions from the following two perspectives: “design contents” and “delivery.” Then, they shared their ideas with the whole participants through a poster tour. This activity was to help them generalize what they had learned from the microteaching sessions so that they can utilize it to improve their own classes.
<DAY 2>
[4] Microteaching Session and Examination 2 (10:00–15:10)
All five lecturers conducted their second-time lectures, which were improved based on the feedback they had received on the first trial, in the same classroom this time. Each 10-min lecture was followed by a 20-min discussion, where they exchanged their ideas on what was excellent about the lecture, what points were improved, what points still needed improvement, and how they could be improved. The observers were able to examine the lecture from various perspectives since they consisted of both who took the lecture for the first time and the second time.
[5] Microteaching as a Faculty Development Program (15:10–16:20)
Participants examined in groups what organizers, lecturers of microteaching sessions, and observers should prepare themselves and try to do to make microteaching significant as an FD program. This activity helped them examine what they should be careful of when conducting microteaching in their own learning environment and propose what we should do to improve microteaching in this event.
[6] Wrap-up (16:30–17:00)
Lastly, 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 learning from each other ([5] Microteaching as an FD Program)
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 32 participants was as follows: 12 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, 12 graduate students or postdocs, four teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, one teacher or staff member of elementary school, two teachers or staff members of vocational school, and one company employee. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 44 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 52 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.”
According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the program would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 25 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 67 percent answered “Yes,” and 8 percent answered, “No (not so much).”
Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“I was able to deepen my understanding through the structure of the program that proceeded in the order of the first microteaching session, improvement of lectures, and the second microteaching session.” (Lecturer of the microteaching sessions)
“There was a lecturer who made a remarkable improvement in his/her lecture on the second day, which offered me a specific example of improving the class design.” (Observer of the microteaching sessions)
“The program gave me a lot of practical tips on how to improve my classes. I will revise my class design materials for the next academic year as soon as I get home today.” (Observer of the microteaching sessions)
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to organize a more systematic program for the next academic year. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 6 “Course Design (Syllabus)”
Date/Time: November 11th (Sun), 2018, 10:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus
Participants: 21 people
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, 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 “Course Design (Syllabus).” Based on the goal, “Reconsider the syllabus as a tool to enhance student learning and be able to create a syllabus,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of course design and a syllabus. (Preparation)
② Be able to create a graphic syllabus for your own class. (The exercise in the first half of the session)
③ Be able to improve the syllabus you have brought into one that enhances student learning (The exercise in the second half of the session)
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. During the session, they reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then worked on exercises of creating a graphic syllabus for their own classes and improving a text syllabus.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 5 of “Interactive Teaching,” read Chapter 5 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017), and submit a text syllabus for their own classes.
(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 (10:15–10:30)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They reexamined the roles of a syllabus.
[3] Exercise of Creating a Graphic Syllabus (10:30–12:30)
Participants worked on creating a graphic syllabus for their own classes. The activity was to let them visualize whether they were successful in designing a course that enhanced student learning or not and further improve the design.
Participants learning from each other
[4] Exercise of Improving a Text Syllabus (13:30–15:30)
Based on the points they had learned in the morning and the “Syllabus Rubric” (i.e., a tool developed at the University of Virginia to quantitatively/qualitatively assess whether a class design is centering around learning), participants worked on improving their text syllabuses. They thoroughly examined whether their syllabuses, from the whole picture of the course design to minute details, were appropriately designed to enhance student learning by going back and forth between individual work on improvement and group discussion.
[5] Improvement (15:45–16:00)
Participants immediately applied improvement points/plans they had realized during the morning/afternoon exercises to their syllabuses while they were still fresh in their memory.
[6] Wrap-up (16:00–16:30)
Lastly, 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. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 21 participants was as follows: 11 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), 55 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 40 percent were “very satisfied,” and 5 percent were “satisfied.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the program would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 39 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much)” and 61 percent answered “Yes.”
Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“I used to write syllabuses partly because it was compulsory to do so, but I realized that reviewing a syllabus leads to class reform.” (Faculty member)
“I had no one to ask for advice in my daily life, so I was grateful for the opportunity to receive comments through Q&A sessions with the instructor and group activities.” (Faculty member)
“I learned the points of creating a syllabus and realized that they are beneficial to both me and my students.” (Teacher of senior high school)
We are relieved that the program was appreciated to a certain extent like the past events. 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 seminar on microteaching on March 2nd (Sat) and 3rd (Sun). Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 5 “Microteaching Clinic”
Date/Time: August 5th (Sun), 2018, 09:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 26 people (Six of them conducted microteaching sessions.)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, 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 “Microteaching.” Based on the goal, “Be able to conduct classes that promote student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Understand and be able to utilize “Learning Sciences” (e.g., motivation) in class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when conducting classes through refining others’ microteaching sessions. (Session)
③ Be able to utilize the refinement of your microteaching session in your future practice. (Session) *③ was an objective for those who conducted microteaching sessions.
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. They conducted and examined microteaching sessions based on their preparation. (1) Preparation
All participants were asked to learn about “Learning Sciences” by watching the videos for WEEK 3 of “Interactive Teaching” and reading Chapter 3 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). This was because it is important to understand theories related to enhancing motivation when you conduct classes that promote learning. Also, those who were in charge of conducting microteaching sessions were asked to submit class design sheets and handouts beforehand.
(2) Session
[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. They consisted of six lecturers of microteaching sessions and 20 observers who took their lectures.
[2] Microteaching Session & Examination 1 (09:15–12:10)
Participants first reviewed the significance of conducting and examining microteaching sessions. Then, they were divided into two groups and moved to separate classrooms. Three lecturers conducted lectures per room. Following their 6-min lectures, the participants exchanged their ideas on what was good about the lectures, what points needed improvement, and how they could be improved in groups and the whole classroom in 40 minutes. Finally, the whole participants gathered and organized the points the lecturers/observers should be careful of when conducting/taking lectures for the second time in the afternoon.
Microteaching sessions
[3] Refining Microteaching Sessions (Lecturers) / What You Can Learn from Microteaching Sessions (Observers) (13:10–14:10)
Participants worked on activities in two separate classrooms.
Those who conducted microteaching sessions worked on improving their lectures based on the feedback they had received from observers in the first trial.
Meanwhile, observers first shared in groups what they had learned from the first trial of microteaching sessions and then examined and organized what kind of perspectives they should use in class observation so that they can give the lecturers effective feedback.
[4] Microteaching Session and Examination 2 (14:20–16:30)
All six lecturers conducted their second-time lectures, which were improved based on the feedback they had received on the first trial, in the same classroom this time. Each 6-min lecture was followed by a 10-min discussion, where they exchanged their ideas on what was excellent about the lecture, what points were improved, what points still needed improvement, and how they could be improved. The observers were able to examine the lecture from various perspectives since they consisted of both who took the lecture for the first time and the second time.
[5] Wrap-up (16:30–17:00)
Lastly, 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 learning from each other ([5] Wrap-up)3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 26 participants was as follows: 11 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, 6 graduate students or postdocs, three teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, two teachers or staff members of elementary school, two teachers or staff members of vocational school, 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), 56 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 40 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 35 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 61 percent answered “Yes,” and 4 percent answered, “No (not so much).”
Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“I was able to gain new perspectives through receiving feedback from people with various backgrounds.” (Lecturer of the microteaching sessions)
“It was great that we had a chance to actually refine our lectures for the second trial on the same day, not just examining the first ones.” (Lecturer of the microteaching sessions)
“The program became a good opportunity for me to organize the viewpoints to examine classes.” (Observer of the microteaching sessions)
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a one-day seminar on syllabuses on Sunday, November 11th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 4 “Active Learning Strategies”
Date/Time: August 4th (Sat), 2018, 09:00–16:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 43 people
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, 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 “Active Learning Strategies.” Based on the goal, “Be able to introduce active learning (AL) strategies into classes that promote student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of AL. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when designing AL by refining the activities in the classes designed by others. (Exercise in the morning)
③ Be able to design activities that promote student learning. (Exercise in the afternoon)
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. The session started with reviewing what they had learned at home, followed by the exercises of improving a sample AL design and designing activities for their own classes.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEKs 1–2 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapters 1–2 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily designed and submitted the activities to be used in their classes.
(2) Session
[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 (09:15–09:30)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of introducing AL and the points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving an Activity (09:30–12:00)
Participants examined a sample activity 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 (Improving a sample activity)
[4] Exercise of Designing an Activity (13:00–15:30)
Participants designed activities to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the designed activity was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.
Group discussion (Designing an activity)
[5] Wrap-up (15:30–16:00)
Lastly, 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. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 43 participants was as follows: 17 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, nine graduate students or postdocs, 10 teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, three teachers or staff members of elementary school, and four 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), 49 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 47 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 23 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 74 percent answered “Yes,” and 3 percent answered, “No (not so much).”
Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“I’ll be sure to practice the activity I designed in today’s training program and further improve it.” (Faculty member)
“I felt that the whole training itself was conducted in an AL style, so it was great to join the program.” (Faculty member)
“I learned that AL is not a goal but a means.” (Elementary school teacher)
We are relieved that the program was appreciated to a certain extent, but the satisfaction slightly decreased compared to the past three events, which we are taking seriously. 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 (e.g, to hold a two-day event on AL strategies; to let the participants examine more strategies).
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a one-day seminar on syllabuses on Sunday, November 11th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 3 “Evaluation That Promotes Learning (Rubrics)”
Date/Time: Session 1: June 3rd (Sun), 2018, 09:00–16:00; Session 2: August 3rd (Sat), 2018, 14:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 34 people (23 people for Session 2)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Lui Yoshida (College of Arts and Sciences, 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 “Evaluation That Promotes Learning.” Based on the goal, “Be able to conduct an evaluation that promotes student learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of evaluation. (Preparation)
② Be able to explain the perspectives that you should be careful of when conducting an evaluation through refining rubrics. (Exercise in the morning of Session 1)
③ Create a rubric that promotes student learning (Exercise in the afternoon of Session 1)
④ Use the rubric in one’s workplace and improve it for better use. (Session 2)
2. Summary
This program was structured as “1) Learning and creation; 2) Practice; and 3) Report of practice and improvement.” Participants learned about rubrics together and created and improved a rubric in Session 1, used the rubrics they created in their classes, and gathered again two months later to report their practices and examine what they should do to improve them in Session 2. 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 for improving sample rubrics and creating rubrics for their classes.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 6 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 6 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily designed and submitted their rubrics.
(2) Session 1 (June 3rd)
[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 (09:15–09:30)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of general evaluation and points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving a Rubric (09:30–11:45)
Participants examined a sample rubric 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 Rubric (13:00–15:30)
Participants designed rubrics to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the designed rubric was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.
Group discussion
[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 (August 3rd)
[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 Rubrics in Groups (14:10–16:40)
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 rubrics through group activities.
Group activity on improving their rubrics
[3] Wrap-up (16:40–17:00)
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 34 participants was as follows: 14 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, seven graduate students or postdocs, seven teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, one teacher or staff member of elementary school, three teachers or staff members of vocational school, and two company employees. Since Session 2 was held on a weekday, some people could not join the program because of their work, but even so, 23 people participated. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 70 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 26 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.”
Another five-point scale question asked whether it was effective to have an opportunity to design and practice evaluation, and report it to others during the program held in two days with two months in between (Yes (very much); Yes; Unsure; No (not so much); No (not at all)). 61 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” 35 percent answered “Yes,” and 4 percent who had no chance to practice answered, “Unsure.” 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), 52 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much)” and 48 percent answered “Yes.” Here are some of the feedback we received in the comment section:
“The opportunity for the practice helped me remember what I had learned and motivated me to proceed to the next step.” (Faculty member)
“I had to practice what I learned and report it in Session 2, so I managed to keep myself motivated even if I was busy.” (Senior high school teacher)
“I received comments from participants and instructors with various backgrounds, so I was able to take things objectively, which I had only viewed from my perspective.” (Faculty member)
Following the previous event, the program was held as a two-day event. We 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 (e.g., how long we should take between Sessions 1 and 2).
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a one-day seminar on syllabuses on Sunday, November 11th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
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.
