“The 11th Mini-lecture Program at the Library” took place on November 8th, 2018.
We held the event at the Library Plaza (General Library Annex) for the first time.
Following the same style as the previous event (the 10th Program), those who completed the 11th UTokyo FFP conducted mini-lectures they worked on in the microteaching sessions.
For more details on the microteaching and the previous event, please click here.
The audience was 17 people (including the speakers) consisting of graduate students and faculty/staff members at the University of Tokyo and other universities.
We received positive feedback from the participants. About 75 percent chose 4 or 5 when asked the following five-point scale question: “Did you get interested in the UTokyo FFP?” About 70 percent chose 9 or 10 when asked the ten-point scale question on the degree of satisfaction with the mini-lecture program.
We are planning to hold this “Mini-lecture Program at the Library” regularly. Please check the website for the announcement of the next event.
Lastly, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the University of Tokyo Library System staff members for their cooperation.
DAY 3 Syllabus: Syllabus Design and Course Design that Contribute to Learning ・Review of the Previous Session ・Goals and Objectives ・What Is a Syllabus? ・Exercise in Setting Goals and Objectives of a Syllabus ・Course Design (Exercise in Creating a Graphic Syllabus) ・Exercise in Improving a Syllabus into One that Enhances Learning ・Reflection
This time, the class was about syllabus design and course design that contribute to learning.
In the beginning, participants reviewed what they had learned in the previous class in pairs. They explained the seven keywords that had appeared in the previous class in a way that could be understood by novice learners (i.e., those who didn’t take this course) to their partners in turn. I found it effective both for warm-up exercises for the participants and in making them organize their knowledge, so I would like to adopt this activity in my own class next time.
Syllabuses are not only a means for students to choose which courses they would like to take but also something that could enhance their learning, and are an effective tool for the instructors to design their courses; in FFP, we call every session a “class,” and a series of classes a “course.”
Participants first set goals and objectives, then determined how to check whether the objectives are accomplished (i.e., the evaluation methods), and moved on to the content and strategies for the class. Many of the classes that do not contribute to learning seem to decide on the content and strategies before setting goals, objectives, and evaluation methods. In contrast, “Backward Design” refers to setting goals and objectives thoroughly first and then examining how and what students should learn to achieve them.
One of the participants who seemed to have fun in course design activities said, “So what you should do is to design a course that you wanted to take yourself in the past.” I think the words capture the heart of Backward Design.
The art of the course design is said to recognize the points (i.e. expert blind spot) where the instructors (or experts) are capable of doing something unconsciously and so they are likely to consider, “Why can’t students do this?”, to “scaffold” for the students so that they could learn easily, and to gradually remove the scaffolds during the course to let them become independent learners. It was impressive to know that the instructor did remove the scaffold for the participants and let them learn by themselves by allocating more than half of the class time for their activities in this third session of the program.
DAY 2 Class Design ・Goals and Objectives ・Motivation (Flipped Classroom) ・Class Design ・Active Learning ・Exercise in Class Design ・Reflection
This time, the class was about the relationship between goals/objectives and motivation and class design that deepens learning while maintaining motivation.
We received the following feedback on the previous session from one of the participants: “The goals and objectives were specific, which made me prepared for the program as a learner.” Indicating “Why do I have to learn this?” and “What will I be able to do?” inspires and maintains learners’ motivation. What is interesting about FFP is that you will be able to observe your own learning experiences from a meta-cognitive perspective by taking the course as if you are shown magic and explained the trick at the same time.
The session was conducted in a flipped-classroom style, where participants watched lecture videos on motivation (and related basic theories) as a pre-assignment and deepened their understanding of knowledge by using it in a group discussion on how to advise a professor who has problems with his/her classes. Also, in terms of active learning strategies, they learned the effects of peer instruction by actually experiencing it.
The active learning strategies that the participants experienced in this class were limited to flipped classroom and peer instruction, and the others were just explained in a lecture, but according to the instructor, the course is designed so that they can experience all the typical strategies at least once for each throughout the course.
Creating an Environment (Getting to Know Each Other & 1-min Research Presentation) / Present Situation of Higher Education
・Goals and Objectives
・Icebreaker (Introducing a Participant to Another)
・1-min Research Presentation (Group Activity and Exchanging Feedback)
・Present Situation of Higher Education
・Reflection
Participants were waiting for the first class to start, sitting without conversation in a somewhat tense atmosphere, perhaps because almost no one had friends in the classroom and they had been given a pre-assignment to prepare a 1-min presentation in front of the class.
I was worried if group activities would work in such a mood, but once they had an icebreaker 20 minutes after the class started, the atmosphere drastically changed into a relaxed one, and they engaged in the following 1-min research presentations, attentively listening to others and actively discussing and giving feedback in groups. They were completely getting along with each other by the end of the class.
I think participants came to be able to learn from each other as fellows by the instructor repeating the keyword “fellows” when explaining the goal of the class, “To set a clear goal of learning at UTokyo FFP by getting to know other fellows that you will be learning with,” and the objective, “To remember five or more names of your fellows,” in the beginning. The carefully designed class structure of gradually and smoothly developing simple activities into complicated ones was also effective; the class started by involving the participants with closed questions (i.e., questions with fixed answers like “Yes” or “No”), which are easy to answer, and gradually moved on to more complex activities such as an icebreaker (i.e, introducing another participant to someone else) and giving feedback in groups.
“1-min research presentation,” the main topic of the session, can be applied to real classes to “gain students’ trust by expressing the values and charms of the instructor’s research.” It became a precious opportunity for the participants to practice their presentation skills by receiving feedback on their presentations from the instructor and other participants, filming their presentations as an assignment, and reflecting on those videos by themselves. The instructor gave the following feedback to the whole class: “Even if you speak perfectly like an anchor, you cannot make the listeners understand the charms of your research.” It made me realize that, in classes, it is important for the instructors to create an environment where students can learn without feeling insecure by revealing themselves instead of trying to speak perfectly.
I am Sekido, a Project Researcher, coming from Sendai City to support “The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program” (UTokyo FFP). I joined UTokyo FFP to learn about and share with everyone “Classes that students enjoy and truly learn from.”
UTokyo FFP is a course conducted by the instructor, Dr. Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo) for graduate students, postdocs, and young faculty members at The University of Tokyo. The goal of the course is to help them become “excellent researchers” and “excellent educators” at the same time by acquiring “skills in designing and conducting classes that allow active learning” and “attitudes and mindsets for improvement and inquiry in their teaching.”
The course is held for two consecutive periods every other week in the spring and autumn semesters. Twenty-five participants per class are carefully selected and work together as classmates to pursue what education is across their affiliations (i.e., regardless of which school they belong to or whether they are students or faculties). It is a “course to learn ‘how to teach at university'” consisting of eight sessions, where the participants learn about topics such as class design, syllabus, evaluation, microteaching, and a career path as a faculty member, through group activities in a practical and active manner.
I would like to share with you the atmosphere of the learning occurring in the classroom and what I realized through the classes.
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.
For anyone (e.g., graduate students, postdocs, and faculty/staff members) who would like to enhance their teaching skills!
“The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program (UTokyo FFP): Teaching Development in Higher Education”
Application now open!
Faculty members are required to have skills not only in research but also in teaching.
UTokyo FFP will provide you with a practical learning environment to enhance your teaching skills.
★ You can systematically learn “how to teach”!
★ You can build a network across diverse fields!
★ On completion of the program, you receive an official certificate that you can attach to your resume!
★ Graduate students can also receive academic credits!
[Qualifications]
Graduate students, postdocs, and faculty/staff members at the University of Tokyo
[Time and Location]
A Semester <A1/A2 Term> AY2018
・Thursday class (capacity: 25 participants): Periods 3–4 Fukutake Learning Studio (Hongo Campus)
・Friday class (capacity: 25 participants): Periods 3–4 Fukutake Learning Studio (Hongo Campus)
The classes will be conducted live online.
Total: 8 days for each course
(Note that the classes are held every other week, in principle.)
[Details and How to Apply]
Please click the link below. https://dev2.utokyofd.com/en/ffp/about/
(If the number of applicants exceeds the prescribed limit, selection will be made based on the information in the application form.)
[Application Deadline]
Sunday, September 30th, 2018, at 11:59 PM
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
We look forward to your application!
Kayoko Kurita
Associate Professor
Center for Research and Development of Higher Education
utokyo_fd@he.u-tokyo.ac.jp
