} 大学院生 – Page 22 – UTokyo FD

対象: 大学院生

Categories
Information

[9th UTokyo FFP] DAY 6 Refining Lectures for the Microteaching Session

DAY 6, refining lectures for the microteaching session, was held on June 15th and 16th.

Participants thoroughly examined what was good and what points needed improvement for the two sample lectures based on the goals: to acquire the viewpoints of “good lectures” and to be able to give effective feedback to each other. This time, on DAY 6, they refined their respective 6-min lectures in groups of 5–6, sparing 25 minutes each.

The following was the procedure for one participant.

1. Mini-lecture (6 min)
・The lecturer-participant gave a mini-lecture.
2. Feedback (3 min)
・The lecturer-participant received direct feedback from the group manager (the instructor or an FFP alumnus/alumna).
・The student-participants filled out their feedback sheets.
3. Examination (14 min)
・Participants had a group discussion on what was good about the lecture and what points needed improvement. The clerk took the minutes.

4. The participant switched to the next one. (2 min)

We believe the following points are important to make the refinement process successful:
1) That the participant himself/herself realizes the value of conducting a lecture for the microteaching session enough.
2) That the atmosphere allows mutual feedback to be productive, not excessively praising or criticizing the lecturer-participant.
3) That the following task requires a refinement process.

The instructor and staff are working on the following to realize the above respective points:
1) Convey the value of conducting a lecture for the microteaching session (e.g., “The microteaching session is where you integrate and practice many of the things you have learned so far through the FFP,” and “There are few opportunities like this once you become an instructor.”).
2) Tell the participants that they can learn from mistakes and share with them the rules of 3Ks: be respectful (敬意 Keii) to others, speak without reserve (忌憚なく Kitan naku), and be constructive (建設的 Kensetsuteki). Explain what the feedback sheet is to the participants and how they should give feedback. Also, we assign those who have experience in giving lectures in the microteaching session or the instructor to each group to assure an environment where they can exchange good feedback.
3) Let the participants submit an assignment paper on self-evaluation, the reasons for that, how they are going to improve their classes specifically, and what they learned from others, based on the feedback and reflection. Also, design the next session into a microteaching session so that participants can conduct the refined lectures.

 

This session for refinement is conducted thanks to the cooperation of the UTokyo FFP alumni. I would like to express my gratitude to them. Observing various lectures with the responsibility to give the lecturers good feedback is another type of learning different from what you can learn from designing a lecture, so I would like more and more alumni to cooperate with us in the future.

 

I look forward to seeing how the lectures will be refined and conducted on DAY 7.

(Kurita)

Categories
Information

[Notification of the Application Results] “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session Part 2

As for the event, “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session: Part 2 “Becoming a Rubric Master” (August 20th, 2017), we made a selection by lottery since we received applications of more than double the capacity. Thank you for your application.

We notified the applicants of the results on June 7th via e-mail to the address filled in the application form, but in case you have not received the e-mail yet, please contact Nagafumi Nakamura from the following address: interactivet<at>tree.ep.u-tokyo.ac.jp. (Unfortunately, some e-mails bounced back.) Please replace <at> with ＠ and send us an e-mail with the title “IT20170820.”

Categories
Information

[Report] The 1st Friendship Luncheon

The Friendship Luncheon was held at the Faculty of Law & Letters Bldg. 2 on June 5th. We are sorry for the venue being slightly hard to find, but there were 14 participants in total, including those with and without registration.

We distributed the leaflet “The first step to enrich your campus life Q&A Vol.1.2” to the participants, and they discussed their concerns and others related to their life in Japan as students, as described in the leaflet, in groups of about four. Each group consisted of overseas students and Japanese, and they had a conversation in a friendly atmosphere.

We are planning to continue this event to provide a space where participants can exchange their ideas frankly.

The following is the summary of the next event (The 2nd Luncheon). We look forward to your participation.

＝＝
・Date/Time (The 2nd Luncheon): July 10th, 2017 12:10–13:00

・Venue: Rooms 2201 & 2202, Faculty of Law & Letters Bldg. 2

・Intended for: The event is limited to UTokyo members but is open to any affiliation (undergraduate student, graduate student, or faculty/staff member).

・Language: Japanese

・Please bring your lunch and drinks.

・Application Form: Here

Categories
Event Information

[Report] Workshops on the Application Documents for the JSPS Fellowships AY2017

Summary

We held workshops on the application documents for the JSPS fellowships on March 26th, April 16th, and 30th, 2017.
Here we call those who create application documents “mentees,” and those who support them “mentors.” There were 69 participants (i.e., 44 mentees and 25 mentors) throughout the three workshops.
Building on reflection on the workshop held in AY2016, we incorporated a review session into the workshop, where one of the mentees explained his/her application document and received comments from other participants to let everyone get on the same page on the points of creating the application documents.
The workshop proceeded in the following order: briefing, review, peer review, review of the application documents, mentoring, and reflection.

Participant Teams and Groups

We made teams consisting of one mentor and up to two mentees.
Also, we made groups of two teams.
As described later, peer review was conducted in groups while mentoring in teams.

Workshop Timeline

13:00–13:20 Briefing

We explained the summary and schedule of the workshop, followed by a self-introduction among the participants.

13:20–14:00 Review

Firstly, we asked one of the mentees to explain his/her document using a worksheet in front of everyone. (5 min)
Then, participants had a discussion on how to improve the application document in teams. (10 min)
What they discussed and specific tips on creating an application document were shared with everyone afterward.

14:00–15:00 Peer Review

Participants were divided into groups. Mentees explained their document using a worksheet in each group. (5 min)
They discussed how to improve the document. (9 min)
Each group consisted of four mentees and two mentors, so they repeated the above process four times.
They discussed centering on the structure and logic of the document by using worksheets.

15:00–15:30 Review of the Application Documents

Participants read the application documents before proceeding to the next “Mentoring” session.
Each group consisted of two mentees and one mentor, so the mentor read two application documents while the mentees read the other’s document and examined how to improve it.

15:30–17:45 Mentoring

The mentees had a one-hour one-on-one meeting (i.e., mentoring) with the mentors on how to improve their application documents.
Those who were finished with or waiting for the mentoring took notes on PCs on how other mentees had a meeting with the mentors and gave them feedback.

17:45–18:00 Reflection

Participants reflected on the workshop and shared their learning.

Reflection on the Workshop

Based on the reflection on the previous event, it was really good to let the whole participants have a discussion on the application document.
Participants were able to relate what they had discussed in the reviewing session to the following activities for reviewing worksheets and application documents. They seemed to reorganize what they had just discussed and acquire points to create application documents.
The quality of the workshop design has been enhanced through practice and improvement over the last three years, but there is still room for improvement in the pre-assignment.
We provide worksheets and check sheets for pre-assignment, but since there was no example, some people seemed to have difficulty filling out the sheets.
Therefore, we need to show examples of worksheets and check sheets.
Also, since the mentors did not assess the application documents, it is unclear how much the quality of the documents was enhanced through the workshop.
We provide check sheets for self-evaluation for now, but it becomes quite a burden for mentors to check the application documents using the sheets.
Therefore, it is crucial to visualize the quality of the application documents by using evaluation criteria that are actually used.

Afterword

There are still many points to improve, but most mentees seemed to be satisfied with the workshop.
Mentors, too, seemed to be pleased with the opportunities to share tips on creating application documents.
Therefore, we believe that the workshop was worth doing.
We are eager to improve our workshops to be held in the future based on the reflection on this event.

(Appendix) Background of the Workshop

It is not too much to say that the research fellowship awarded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) is an important title to obtain for becoming a researcher. In fact, 80.5% of those who became research fellows entered the “full-time researcher post” according to the survey on the people five years after they had been awarded the fellowship (JSPS 2015).
Those who have prepared an application document for the research fellowship even once must have experienced how their research theme and plan became sophisticated through the process.
In that sense, I believe that the process of creating the application document itself has value, apart from becoming a research fellow.

It may be important to create the document struggling alone, but I strongly believe that sharing the wisdom in creating the document helps everyone enhance not only the quality of the document but also the quality of the research, and that is why I planned and conducted this workshop.

[Reference]
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (2015) Tokubetsukenkyūin – DC no shūshokujōkyōchōsakekka ni tsuite [Survey result of employment opportunities for research fellows (DC)] Retrieved April 3, 2017, from https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-pd/data/pd_syusyoku/27_dcgaiyou.pdf

(Lui Yoshida,  Alumnus of the 1st UTokyo FFP)

Categories
Information

[Deadline Advanced!] “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session Part 2 (Aug 20)

We have received more applications than expected for “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session: Part 2 “Becoming a Rubric Master” to be held on August 20th, 2017. Thank you very much for your interest in our event.

Therefore, we would like to advance the application deadline (set initially on Thursday, June 15th) to 09:00 AM on Tuesday, June 6th.
For those who would like to join the event, please apply from the <Application Form>.
As stated earlier, we will select the participants by lottery in case the number of applicants surpasses the limit.
We will notify you of the result of the selection on Wednesday, June 7th at the e-mail address you entered on the application form.
We are sorry for those who applied for the event at an earlier date, but we sincerely appreciate your patience.
Categories
Information

[9th UTokyo FFP] DAY 5 Exercise in Giving Feedback on Lectures & Summary (Poster Tour)

DAY 5 for exercise in giving feedback on lectures and summary was held on May 24th and 25th.

Exercise in Giving Feedback on Lectures

In the UTokyo FFP, every participant conducts a 6-min lecture for microteaching sessions. They conduct the lectures not only once; they follow the schedule as shown below:

  1. 1. Exercise in giving feedback on the two sample mini-lectures (DAY 5)
  2. 2. Conducting the mini-lecture in small groups of 5–6 and exchanging feedback by taking plenty of time (DAY 6)
  3. 3. Conducting the mini-lecture once more in groups of 12–13 (DAY 7)

This time, the participants worked on 1. (exercise in giving feedback). This is because it is no use giving feedback without having the viewpoints necessary for feedback. It was also intended to enhance the quality of their mini-lectures. Two participants first conducted their mini-lectures in front of everyone, and the rest of the participants examined them thoroughly.

Preceding the examination of mini-lectures, we conveyed the value of conducting a lecture for the microteaching session (e.g., “There are few opportunities like this.”), the ground rules of 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 why they had to acquire viewpoints to design their mini-lectures.

  • ・The lecturer-participant gave a mini-lecture. (6 min)
  • ・The student-participants filled out their feedback sheets. The lecturer-participant received feedback from the instructor. (3 min)
  • ・Participants had a group discussion on what was good about the lecture and what points needed improvement. (12 min)
  • ・Participants shared their ideas and had a discussion with everyone. (12 min)

(Sharing ideas took more time than had been scheduled.)

Following the two mini-lectures, participants discussed how to redefine points that were good or needed improvement into metacognitive ones and shared their ideas. This process was intended for acquiring viewpoints on designing their mini-lectures and future classes.

 

Summary (using the Poster Tour method)

Participants reviewed what they had learned so far by using a method called “Poster Tour.” The objectives of the activity were to experience the “Poster Tour,” one of the active learning strategies, as well as review the whole learning materials.

Participants of both Thursday and Friday classes had already been prepared to work on an assignment together regardless of the combination of group members. Every group created a poster on a given topic in an efficient manner, and every member was able to explain the topic.

The assignment for reflection included examining the advantages and disadvantages of the method compared to the “Gallery Walk,” which they had experienced in the previous class.

The classes made me realize again that you can boost the learning effects of these active learning strategies by letting the learners experience them. It does not necessarily mean that they come to be able to use those strategies immediately, but at least it helps them get the feel of them and use their imagination.

(Kurita)

Categories
Information

“Interactive Teaching” Now Available at JREC-IN Portal

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 JREC-IN Portal.
JREC-IN Portal is “an informative portal site that supports the career development and skills building of researchers, research assistants, technicians and other research-related human resources” run by the Japan Science and Technology Agency.
“Interactive Teaching” has now become one of the courses of “E-learning for research-related human resources.”

You can download a notification of completion once you finish all the lessons.
Check out the video clips.
For more details, please visit “Interactive Teaching” JREC-IN Portal.

We hope that “Interactive Teaching” will reach more and more people.
Thank you.

─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘
For any inquiries, please contact Nagafumi Nakamura at the following address:
interactivet(at)tree.ep.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Please replace (at) with ＠ and send an e-mail with the title “IT_JREC-IN.”

─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘

Categories
Information

[Report] The 1st Faculty Luncheon

The 1st Faculty Luncheon was held today. Handouts are available at the bottom of this post.
Here is the summary and a preview of our next event.

There were nine participants from various schools and departments.

—

1) Today’s Topic
Today’s topic was “Motivation.”
We explained the research findings of learning from the perspectives of “expectancy,” “value,” and “environment” as an introduction to the discussion.

2) Sharing of Participants’ Concerns
Participants’ specific concerns related to students’ motivation came out as follows:
“Students don’t come to meetings for classes and laboratories.”
“Those students who found a job in the private sector seem less motivated in their research activities.”
“It is difficult to motivate students in classes that involve practical activities.”

3) Discussion among Participants
Participants discussed how to solve the above concerns by using mini-lectures, first in pairs, then with the whole members.
The following perspectives came out of the discussion:
“Raise the expectancy of success by providing small steps in the class to achieve the goal.”
“Clarify the value gained by publishing papers and engaging in research to the students.”

4) References
The following are the references for today’s topic:

・Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
The book gives a detailed explanation of motivation.

・Kurita, K., & Japan Center for Educational Research and Innovation (JCERI) (Eds.). (2017). Interactive teaching [Interactive teaching]. Kawai Publishing.
It is a book based on a MOOC course “Interactive Teaching.” The chapter “Learning Sciences” refers to motivation. Please also check the following video clip. (WEEK 3: Learning Sciences) https://dev2.utokyofd.com/mooc/contents
—

Since the event was highly appreciated, we are planning to hold the next faculty luncheon.
Details are to be announced, but the next luncheon is temporarily scheduled for Wednesday, June 21st, from 12:10–13:00.
The main topic will be, again, “motivation.” We would like to deepen the discussion by focusing on the points we could not discuss well enough in today’s luncheon.
We look forward to your participation.

 

Handouts

May 17 2017_The 1st Faculty Luncheon

Categories
Information

[9th UTokyo FFP] DAY 4 Evaluation

DAY 4 of the UTokyo FFP on evaluation was held on May 11th and 12th. The main topics were as follows:

  • ・Significance of evaluation
  • ・Methods and targets of evaluation
  • ・Formative evaluation and summative evaluation
  • ・Reliability, validity, and efficiency of evaluation
  • ・Measures to take after evaluation
  • ・Rubrics

In the UTokyo FFP, participants work on exercises in creating rubrics during the session on evaluation, every semester. “Knowing” rubrics and “Being able to create” rubrics are completely different. The exercises are intended to help participants consider the values and limits of rubrics in their own contexts by actually creating one.

 

It is very difficult to create a rubric from scratch. One of the effective ways to make it easier is to find a rubric with similar learning goals to yours and customize it. As for rubric samples, please refer to the following website:

AAC&U VALUE Rubric (English)
American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) offers what they call “VALUE rubrics.” They are templates of rubrics for various tasks, which you can use and customize. You have to go through the “shopping cart,” but they are available for free download.

 

Participants created rubrics in groups. And they shared their rubrics with a method called “Gallery Walk,” where they examined others’ rubrics freely. One of the group members remained to explain the rubric they made, and the rest looked around to see the other groups’ rubrics. Another sharing method called “Poster Tour” will be used in the next session, so we would like the participants to contrast it with “Gallery Walk.”

By the way, we are sparing more time for Q&A sessions than in previous semesters. And since participants reflect on what they learned after each session by filling in an online form, and we reply to their questions via documents, we are receiving more questions than before. I’m very happy to receive good questions one after another as the instructor of this course.

The class design is, therefore, modified every class in response to the above interaction, and so we sometimes have to shorten the time for sharing activities in groups by changing them into pair activities, but I believe it is important to keep the class design flexible.

(Kurita)