DAY 7 sessions were held on December 21st and 22nd.
Participants completed the following activities before the second round of the microteaching session held on DAY 7:
DAY5: Examination of two sample mini-lectures (Goals: To practice giving feedback to each other and to acquire a metacognitive perspective on good lectures)
DAY6: Improvement of mini-lectures in small groups of 4–6 (Goal: To improve mini-lectures through mutual feedback)
Participants were divided into four groups last time, but this time, two groups. The audience size varied by class, but individuals conducted a lecture to 10–13 people in a similar setting to regular classes using a projector or a large monitor.
The following shows the process of conducting a lecture. The audience is given only a short time to provide feedback to the lecturer within a limited amount of time, but it also means that the lectures can proceed smoothly.
Mini-lecture (6 min) > Feedback (The audience fills in the feedback sheet while the lecturer receives feedback directly from the instructor.) (3 min) > The audience comments on the lecture (3 min) > Buffer time to switch to the next lecturer (2 min)
The above process is repeated as many as the number of participants.
A 6-min lecture is far from a real 90-min class, and the lecturer cannot make up for his/her mistake within such a short time. It is also not likely that a person takes so much time to design a class of just six minutes. However, I believe the trial of removing unnecessary parts and incorporating essential parts you want the students to learn into the lecture so that they can achieve the goals can only be realized by designing a lecture with a length of six minutes.
(DAY 6: Participants working on the improvement of mini-lectures in small groups)
Here is a brief report of the following event and a preview of our next event. “Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 1 “Designing a 90-min Class”
Date/Time: December 9th (Sat), 2017, 10:00–18:00
Venue: 92B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 21 people (Capacity: 20 people)
Fee: 10,000 JPY (Free of charge for graduate students and postdocs)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Designing a 90-min Class.” Based on the goal, “Be able to design a class that helps students deepen their learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to improve a class by using a class design sheet (a format for class design introduced in “Interactive Teaching”). (Exercise in the morning)
③ Be able to design one’s class by using a class design sheet. (Exercise in the afternoon)
We had 21 participants in total, which exceeded the capacity.
2. Summary
This program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. During the session, they first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then worked on exercises of improving a sample class design sheet and creating their own class design sheets. We also provided the participants with the “Metacognitive Reflection” as an opportunity to reflect on the design of the event itself.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 4 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 4 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily created and submitted their class design sheets.
(2) Session
[1] Introduction (10:00–10:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.
[2] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (10:15–10:45)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of class design and points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving a Class Design Sheet (10:45–12:30)
Participants conducted a group activity (i.e., poster tour) to examine what was good about the sample class design sheet and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned during the preparation and the reviewing session. For details of the poster tour, Please refer to “4. Poster Tour,” the video of WEEK 2, and pp. 31–33 of the book “Interactive Teaching.”
Participants working on the improvement of a class design sheet
[4] Exercise of Creating a Class Design Sheet (14:00–16:00)
Participants created class design sheets to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the class design was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and discussions in pairs.
Participants creating class design sheets
[5] Wrap-up (16:00–16:30)
Participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
(3) Metacognitive Reflection (17:00–18:00)
Participants shared their thoughts on the design of preparation and the session, and the organizers revealed their intention of the design along the timeline. We together found out what points worked as planned, what points still needed improvement, and how they can be improved through this process.
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 21 participants was as follows: 11 faculty members, seven graduate students or postdocs, one senior high school teacher, and two company employees. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 48 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” 48 percent were “very satisfied,” and 4 percent were “satisfied.” We introduced an entry fee system from this event, but we are relieved to know that it was appreciated to a certain extent. We are eager to improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the metacognitive reflection and feedback.
Participants learning from each other through a poster tour
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold an event every three months in AY2018 on the topics such as class design, syllabuses (course design), evaluation (rubric and others), and microteaching. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
DAY 5 sessions were held on November 30th and December 1st. This time, the topics were “Exercise in Giving Feedback on Lectures” and “Summary.”
Exercise in Giving Feedback on Lectures
Every UTokyo FFP participant conducted a 6-min lecture for microteaching, which did not end with just one trial. They conducted lectures according to the following schedule:
Examination of a lecture for microteaching (to find the viewpoints for designing “a good lecture for microteaching” and to practice giving feedback) (DAY 5)
Conducting a lecture for microteaching (1st trial) in small groups of 5–6 & thorough peer-reviewing (DAY 6)
Conducting a lecture for microteaching (2nd trial) (in groups of 12–13) (DAY 7)
This time, we went through the first step of the above three. Two participants with different research fields voluntarily conducted or were appointed to conduct lectures for microteaching, and the whole participants examined those lectures. This activity was intended to help the participants enhance the quality of their lectures for microteaching by sharing feedback from multiple perspectives.
Prior to the examination of the lectures for microteaching, participants were informed about the value of conducting lectures for microteaching (i.e., it is a precious opportunity), ground rules (i.e., to keep in mind the 3Ks: “Be respectful (敬意 Keii) to others,” “Speak without reserve (忌憚なく Kitan naku),” and “Be constructive (建設的 Kensetsuteki).”), and that they should find the viewpoints for designing their own lectures through the activity.
・A lecture for microteaching (6 min)
・Participants fill in the feedback sheets while the lecturer receives feedback from the instructor. (3 min)
・Group discussions on what was good about the lecture and what points needed improvement (12 min)
・Sharing and discussing the ideas in the whole classroom (12 min) (It actually took more than 12 minutes.)
Following the two lectures for microteaching, participants discussed and shared how to generalize the points that were good or that needed improvement they had found in those lectures. The generalization process was intended to help the participants acquire viewpoints for designing their lectures for microteaching and their regular classes in the future.
Summary (using “Poster Tour”)
Participants reviewed what they had learned so far, using a strategy called “Poster Tour.” The goals of this activity were not just to review the materials but also to experience the “Poster Tour,” one of the active learning strategies.
The assignment for reflection included the examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the strategy compared with the “Gallery Walk,” which was conducted in the previous session.
Active learning strategies seem difficult to be applied to practices just from the knowledge acquired through lectures. Experiencing such strategies by themselves allow learners to realize their effects and limits. It does not necessarily assure that you will “be able to use the strategies,” but at least it helps you imagine how to use them based on your own experience.
Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo, and the Japan Center for Educational Research and Innovation will hold an event as follows. We are planning to open the application in late December or at a later date when the details of the program are fixed, but for those who are interested, please check the date.
It is a face-to-face forum conducted in a flipped classroom manner, using the videos of an online course “Interactive Teaching” and a book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). The forum is the successor to the “Big Real Session,” which was held twice in the past, and will be held as an expanded version.
Our first forum is entitled “Revisiting How to Create a Syllabus,” focusing on syllabuses. Syllabuses have almost completely permeated, but they are only material for choosing which course to take for students, and instructors, too, regard them as just a document to fill in the items without giving it much thought. However, careful description of a syllabus may enhance student learning and makes it a tool for course design for instructors. This forum helps you learn about such methods through group activities. We look forward to your participation.
(Details are as follows.)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
“Interactive Teaching” Forum
Part 1 “Revisiting How to Create a Syllabus”
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1. Date/Time
March 4th (Sun), 2018, 10:00–18:00
2. Venue
Lecture Theater & Bldg. 10, Komaba Campus, The University of Tokyo
Faculty/staff of the university, teachers/staff of senior/junior high school, and the general public [Capacity: 300 people (accepted in the order of application)]
4. Fee
3,000 JPY (Another 3,000 JPY for those who would like to attend the information exchange session)
5. Instructors
Kayoko Kurita (The University of Tokyo), Hiroaki Sato (Osaka University), Nagafumi Nakamura (The University of Tokyo), Lui Yoshida (The University of Tokyo), and others
Organizers:
Japan Center for Educational Research and Innovation
Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo
─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘─┘
Inquiry
Please contact us via the following address: interactivet<at>tree.ep.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Nagafumi Nakamura)
*Replace <at> with ＠ and send us an e-mail with the title “IT20180304.”
DAY 4 sessions for the 10th UTokyo FFP were held on November 9th and 10th. This time, the sessions featured “Evaluation.”
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
This time, we introduced activities and Q&A sessions where the participants comprehended the materials on “formative evaluation” and “summative evaluation” and explained the graphs shown on the materials to each other instead of the instructor giving a lecture about them. We assured the knowledge acquisition by having one of the participants explain the topics in the end, but “comprehending and explaining the topics by themselves” by handing the learners appropriate materials seemed to work better.
The UTokyo FFP participants work on exercises in creating rubrics during the session on evaluation every semester. “Knowing about rubrics” is completely different from “being able to create rubrics.” We emphasize the activity of creating rubrics that let participants consider the value and limits of rubrics in their own context.
It is challenging to create a rubric from scratch. Having another rubric with similar goals as an example and customizing it into your own rubric is one of the effective ways to ease the workload. Such examples are available on the following website:
AAC&U VALUE Rubrics (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.
This time, rubrics were created in groups. Participants 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.”
This was the last session for the “provision of knowledge.” From the next session onward, we will review what we have learned so far and move on to microteaching sessions. We are already halfway through the course.
DAY 3 sessions for the 10th UTokyo FFP were held on October 26th and 27th. The main topics were as follows:
・The roles of a syllabus
・Setting goals and objectives of a syllabus
・Course design (creating a graphic syllabus)
・Improving a syllabus into one that promotes learning
A syllabus is not just a tool for students to choose which course to take but is also something that promotes their learning and a tool for instructors to design the course, which can be used as evidence for their achievement in teaching. Participants first learned such significance. In DAY 3 sessions, each participant brings a syllabus made by themselves or an existing syllabus of a course that is similar to his/her own and learns about the topic by improving it.
Firstly, participants made sure what the goals and objectives were, modified their own syllabuses, and further improved them in pairs. Then, the instructor explained “Backward Design,” followed by the course design activity through the creation of a graphic syllabus.
A graphic syllabus is, as it were, a structuralization of what you teach. You can build a 15-class course without giving it much thought, but creating a graphic syllabus enables you to specify that tacit structure, which helps you arrange the topics in an order that makes it easy for students to learn, and explain that arrangement to the students.
The participants were provided with handouts of the UTokyo FFP syllabus with annotations on each item. They compared the handout with the syllabus they brought and found out the points that needed improvement themselves. Then, they shared the points in groups. This activity was intended to help the participants acquire more viewpoints and make use of them to improve their syllabuses.
Professional and Global Educators’ Community (PAGE) organized a workshop “Class Management: How to Solve Problems in Teaching.” In addition to research skills, faculty members are now required to have skills in education. Along with the increase of university enrollment rate and globalization, there is a growing demand for skills in delivering classes in English for students with various cultural backgrounds. In response to such demand, we invited Associate Professor Jan Sølberg from the University of Copenhagen, an expert in teacher development, as an instructor and organized a workshop to discuss how to manage classes in English based on the present situation of higher education in Europe.
It was held at the Ito International Research Center, Hongo Campus. A total of 26 participants consisted of graduate students, postdocs, and young researchers at the University of Tokyo. It was a three-hour-long workshop conducted in English, but we welcomed a lot of participants coming from diverse academic fields.
The instructor started the workshop by giving a lecture on the present situation regarding the globalization of higher education in Europe. A lot of participants seemed to be surprised at the fact that 35% of faculty members in science and 46% graduate students of master’s programs in science at the University of Copenhagen came from overseas. He then presented three cases that illustrated the problems faculty members were likely to encounter when teaching in English: how to conduct and evaluate examinations in English, how to organize group works in English, and how to deal with students’ needs who vary in cultural background and views in education. These are all serious issues that faculty members are required to solve. The participants listened attentively to the lecture.
Following the lecture was an activity with groups of four to five.
The participants engaged in a group work as shown below:
1. They listed up three important problems involved in EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction) and wrote them on large-sized Post-it Notes.
2. Each group’s Post-it Notes were handed on to the next one. The participants chose one of the three problems written on the Notes and discussed an effective solution to it in groups. They wrote the solution on a different Post-it Note and posted it on the wall together with the Note they chose.
3. The participants looked through the problems and solutions posted on the wall and exchanged ideas with other groups.
All the groups were actively engaged in the assignment and discussion.
Thanks to the diversity of their research fields, the participants seemed to be exchanging ideas from a wide variety of perspectives. Some of them actively moved around the venue to ask questions to other groups, and others discussed with the instructor.
The instructor gave a wrap-up lecture after the group work. He gave specific tips such as the points of preparing for classes conducted in English, how to communicate with lone-wolf students, and the points you should consider when presenting assignments to students.
The discussion never stopped throughout the three-hour-long workshop.
We received positive feedback from the participants as follows:
“It was a very fulfilling program, well-structured to enable active participation.”
“It was a good opportunity to discuss education with people from other fields.”
“It’s nice to have a lot of communication with people from different fields.”
PAGE will continue to hold workshops on the improvement of academic communication skills in English. We sincerely look forward to your participation.
Click here for a free online program provided by the PAGE project: English Academia.↓
https://utokyo-ea.com
＜About＞Saturday, September 30th & Sunday, October 1st, 2017
Professional and Global Educators’ Community (PAGE) organized a workshop “Improve your presentations in English! Remedies to your troubles.” We planned the event in response to the recent demand of outputting research in English along with the globalization of research environment. The purpose of the workshop was to let the participants improve their skills in making academic presentations in English.
It was held at the Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus. A total of 25 participants consisted of graduate students and postdocs at the University of Tokyo. They came from diverse academic fields such as the Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, the Graduate School of Economics, the School of Science, the Graduate School of Medicine, and the School of Engineering. In addition to those who spoke English as their first language, professional English interpreters and bilinguals with a long experience of studying overseas served as instructors. The workshop was conducted in small groups.
The participants were divided into groups of two to five, and each of them made a presentation on their research and received feedback from the instructor and the other participants. The presentations covered a wide variety of themes of science (such as “carbohydrate metabolism” and “olfactory map”) and humanities (such as “gender division” and “rural development”). All the presentations were filmed and recorded with iPads and IC recorders, and the data were provided to the presenters who needed them.
Subsequently, the English instructors made sample presentations. As they say, “Seeing is believing.” The participants seemed to have learned a lot from the instructors’ performance with visually organized slides, effective gestures that attracted the eyes of the audience, and logically structured content without unnecessary things.
The participants then individually worked on improving their presentation materials and methods. They were able to consult the instructors at any time and also had an active discussion with other participants.
Finally, they gave a second try on making presentations and received feedback in groups. Some participants used a projector and a massive screen as if they were making presentations at a real academic conference. Through a half-day exercise, all the groups were able to improve their presentations from the first ones. The instructors commented on the presentations, and all the participants shared the points they should further improve.
We received positive feedback from the participants after the workshop as follows:
“With an opportunity to make a presentation and receive thorough feedback in such a small group, I sincerely feel that I’ve made a progress in just a half day.”
“It was valuable to receive thorough feedback from the instructor. Thanks to it, I gained a little confidence. The workshop was a precious time for me.”
“By immersing myself in an environment where I had to make a presentation without any script, I came to realize surprisingly that I was able to make it. I gained self-confidence.”
PAGE will continue to hold workshops on the improvement of academic communication skills in English. We sincerely look forward to your participation.
Click here for a free online program provided by the PAGE project: English Academia.↓
https://utokyo-ea.com
“The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program (UTokyo FFP)” and “Interactive Teaching” were registered as projects of the UTokyo Future Society Initiative (UTokyo FSI).
The Future Society Initiative SDGs Project is a system to promote synergies between research activities and to create the social impact of value by visualizing and sharing various activities at the University of Tokyo that contribute to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by all the member states in 2015.
