} 学外 – Page 16 – UTokyo FD

対象: 学外

Categories
Information

[Report] “Interactive Teaching” Small Real Session: Part 2 “Designing a 90-min Class”

Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Small Real Session: Part 2 “Designing a 90-min Class”

Date/Time: September 9th (Sat), 2017, 13:00–18:00
Venue: 92B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Intended for: Young faculty members and graduate students and postdocs who aim to become faculty (Capacity: 20 people)
Facilitator: Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Commentator: Kayoko Kurita (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 and tips 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”). (Session)
There were 20 participants in total, which reached capacity.

当日の個人ワークの様子

Individual work

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 for improving a sample class design sheet. 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 (13:00–13:15)
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 (13:15–13:45)
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 (13:45–15:30)
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.”

[4] 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) Metacognitive Reflection (16:30–18:00)
The organizers revealed their intention for the design of preparation and the session, and participants shared their thoughts on 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.

Poster Tour

3. Participants’ Reactions
Twenty participants consisted of young faculty members, postdocs, and graduate students from various universities. 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,” and 56 percent were “very satisfied.” On holding this event, we modified the questionnaire into a more strict one by adding “Extremely satisfied” to the scale, 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.

4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold another session on “Designing a 90-min Class” in December; the next event will be an expanded and prolonged version. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.

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

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

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

Categories
Information

[Report] “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session: Part 2 “Becoming a Rubric Master”

We held the event “Interactive Teaching” Big Real Session: Part 2 “Becoming a Rubric Master” on Sunday, August 20th. Here is a brief report and a preview of our next event. Same as last time, please wait for another report to be published at a later date for more details. Also, the videos of the event will be published on the UTokyo TV website.

1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Rubric,” one of the representative evaluation methods. The goal was to “Be able to create and utilize rubrics that deepen student learning.” There were 80 participants in total, which reached capacity.

2. Summary
The event was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. They first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then examined the general significance and tips (basics) of rubrics and deepened their thoughts in their own contexts.

(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).

(2) Sessions

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

[2] Session 1 “Review of the Preparation” (10:15–10:45)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities and got ready for Session 2 and onward. They examined the significance of evaluation and points they should be careful of.
[3] Session 2 “Exercise of Improving a Class Design Sheet” (10:45–12:00)
Participants examined general significance and tips for creating and utilizing rubrics by improving a sample rubric in groups.
[4] Session 3 “Exercise of Improving Individual Class Design Sheet” (13:30–15:40)
Based on the significance and tips found in Session 2, participants examined how to create and utilize rubrics in their own contexts. They chose one of the following three sessions based on their experience and attributes:
① Session 3-A
Those who have created and utilized rubrics before gathered in Session A. They first improved the rubrics they brought through a group discussion. Then, they shared their questions on creating/utilizing rubrics and organized Q&As on a poster.
② Session 3-B
Those who have created rubrics but never have utilized one before or those who have never created rubrics before gathered in Session B. They first created a rubric to evaluate presentations in groups and actually used it to evaluate a presentation (video). Then, they created rubrics for their own classes as much as possible and shared ideas in groups to improve them.
③ Session 3-C
Teachers of elementary school, junior high school, and senior high school gathered in Session C. They first checked the present state of the use of rubrics at senior high school and evaluated a presentation given by senior high school students (video) by using a sample rubric. Then, they improved or newly created their own rubrics and shared ideas in groups to improve them.
[5] Wrap-up (16:00–17:20)
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
Eighty participants came from various universities, senior/junior high schools, elementary schools, and companies. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (valid responses: 73), 67 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied” (the highest rating) and 32 percent were “very satisfied” (the second highest rating). We are relieved to know that the event was appreciated to a certain extent, continuously from Part 1 held in February 2017, and are eager to further 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 the next event in February 2018. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.

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

Categories
Information

[9th UTokyo FFP] Microteaching Session (The 2nd Trial)

DAY 7, the second trial of the microteaching session, was held on June 29th and 30th.

Participants refined their respective 6-min mini-lectures in groups of 5–6 in the previous session (DAY 6), sparing 25 minutes each. This time, they conducted the revised lectures.

We made four groups last time, but this time, two groups. The group size varied with class, but each participant conducted a lecture to an audience of 10–13 people, using a projector or a big-screen monitor, which was relatively similar to the style of regular classes.

The following was the procedure for one lecturer. They had to give/receive comments briefly within a limited amount of time, but for that reason, the session proceeded smoothly.

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. Comments (3 min)
・Those who were in the same group last time or those who took the mini-lecture for the first time gave their comments first, although they did not necessarily have to follow this priority rule.
4. The lecturer-participant switched to the next one. (2 min)

 

Participants had already finished the following tasks before the second trial of the microteaching session:

1-a) Examining two sample mini-lectures on DAY 5 (Goals: To practice giving feedback to each other and to acquire metacognitive viewpoints on  good lectures)
1-b) Writing a paper on the reflection on DAY 5 (Goal: To recognize the metacognitive viewpoints)
2-a) Refining min-lectures in groups of 4–6 (Goal: To refine mini-lectures through mutual feedback)
2-b) Writing a paper on how to refine the mini-lecture after checking the video and mutual feedback (Goals: To present the plan of how to improve your mini-lecture and to clarify what you learned from mini-lectures conducted by others)

As a result, many mini-lectures were revised into “Good” lectures. The microteaching session seemed like a “mini-university.”

And I am further looking forward to reading the papers they will write on what they reflected on and learned from the microteaching session.

(Kurita)

Categories
Information

[Report] “Interactive Teaching” Flipped Classroom Style Workshop Part 1 “Designing a 90-min Class”

“Interactive Teaching” Flipped Classroom Style Workshop Part 1 “Designing a 90-min Class” was held on Saturday, June 17th. Here is the summary and a preview of our next event.

1. Topic, Goal, and Objectives
The topic of the event 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 and tips 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”). (Workshop)

2. Summary of the Workshop
This workshop was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on assignments beforehand. We also provided them with the “Metacognitive Reflection” as an opportunity to reflect on the design of the workshop 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 (15:00–17:15)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation in pairs, followed by 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.

(3) Metacognitive Reflection (17:40–18:50)
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 workshop was mainly intended for young faculties, postdocs, and graduate students; there were 21 participants in total coming from various universities. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction, 71 percent of the respondents were “very satisfied” (the highest rating) and 29 percent were “satisfied” (the second highest rating). We are relieved that our new event 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.

4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold another event on “Designing a 90-min Class” in September. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.

Nagafumi Nakamura
(Project Researcher in charge of “Interactive Teaching” / Facilitator of this workshop)

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
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)