The videos and materials (including the English version) of the “Basic Training for New UTokyo Employees” conducted in AY2018 are now available online.
The training includes lectures on teaching, which are closely connected to UTokyo FD programs.
It is also helpful to faculty/staff members who have already worked at UTokyo for a long time. Please check it out.
*Note that the following videos/materials are exclusive to UTokyo members.
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
A report of our book, “Hakase ni nattara dō ikiru? 78mei ga kataru career path [How do you live your life after receiving a PhD? Career paths described by 78 people],” written by mainly UTokyo FFP alumni is now available on the University of Tokyo website.
You can grasp the overview of the book in the article. Please refer to the following links.
The 11th Certificate Award Ceremony of “The University of Tokyo Future Faculty Program (UTokyo FFP)” was held at KALS on Monday, July 30th, 2018.
Forty-three participants completed the 11th program, each receiving a certificate. They had a congratulatory address from Prof. Osamu Sudo, Director of the Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo.
Alumni also appeared as guest speakers and explained their various activities after the program’s completion and alumni network.
UTokyo FFP has produced a total of 519 people who completed the program coming from every graduate school at The University of Tokyo.
The next program (the 12th UTokyo FFP) is scheduled to start in October 2018. The application form will be available on the following URL in mid-September.
【Event report】Teaching in English: Polishing Your Skills
＜About＞Monday, June 18th & Tuesday, June 19th, 2018
Professional and Global Educators’ Community (PAGE) organized a workshop “Teaching in English: Polishing Your Skills.”
In recent years, English medium instruction (EMI) has been increasing its significance with the globalization of higher education. In response to such demand, PAGE planned a workshop where the participants could learn useful English phrases and a teaching method for delivering classes in English.
The workshop was held at the Pharmaceutical Sciences Education and Research Building, Hongo Campus. A total of 11 participants consisted of
graduate students and young faculty members at the University of Tokyo. They came from diverse academic fields such as theGraduate School of Humanities and Sociology, the Graduate Schools for Law and Politics, the Graduate School of Education, the Graduate School of Medicine, the School of Engineering, and the School of Science.
Firstly, the participants were divided into groups of two or three. Each of them gave a five-minute mini-lecture in English and received feedback from
the instructor and other participants. The mini-lectures covered a wide variety of themes such as molecular biology, life science, education policy, and Jewish history.
In the next session, the participants listened to a lecture on a teaching method (instructionaldesign). It described the importance of designing classes effectively/efficiently to make them attractive in addition to the instructor’s own English language skills by stressing three points: clarifying
the learning objectives, structuring the class, and motivating the learners. The participants then learned useful English phrases and tips for teaching in English through an online learning course “English Academia” and handouts.
Finally, the participants individually worked on improving their presentation method, followed by their second try of giving mini-lectures. They all seemed to refine their mini-lectures by adopting the English phrases and the teaching method they had learned in the previous sessions.
Here are some of the feedback we received from the participants after the workshop:
“It was extremely helpful. I would like to apply what I learned here to the classes for A semester right away.”
“The whole workflow (the first try on giving a mini-lecture → evaluation →
a lecture on a teaching method → the second try on giving a mini-lecture) made it easier for me to recognize my own progress and how to improve my lecture specifically.”
“The staff members kindly gave me thorough comments and feedback, so I was able to learn a lot.”
PAGE will continue to hold workshops focusing 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
Here is a brief report of our latest event and a preview of our next event.
“Interactive Teaching” Academy: Part 2 “Designing a 90-min Class”
Date/Time: Session 1: April 22nd (Sun), 2018, 09:00–16:00; Session 2: June 2nd (Sat), 2018, 14:00–17:00
Venue: 93B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2, Hongo Campus, The University of Tokyo
Participants: 20 people (Capacity: 20 people)
Fee: 10,000 JPY (Free of charge for graduate students and postdocs)
Instructors: Kayoko Kurita (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, The University of Tokyo)
1. Topic and Goal
This time, the topic was “Designing a 90-min Class.” Based on the goal, “Be able to design a class that helps students deepen their learning,” we set specific learning objectives as follows:
① Be able to explain the significance of class design. (Preparation)
② Be able to improve a class by using a class design sheet (a format for class design introduced in “Interactive Teaching”). (Exercise in the morning of Session 1)
③ Be able to design one’s class by using a class design sheet. (Exercise in the afternoon of Session 1)
④ Use the class design sheet in one’s workplace and improve it for better use. (Session 2)
2. Summary
This program was structured as follows: 1) Participants learn together about “Designing a 90-min Class” in Session 1; 2) They respectively conduct the classes they designed at their schools/institutions; 3) They gather again a month later to report their practices and examine with other participants what they should do to improve the design. This design was intended to let the participants utilize what they learn in the program.
Also, this program was conducted in a flipped-classroom manner, and participants worked on pre-class assignments beforehand. During the session, they first reviewed what they had learned in the preparation and then worked on exercises of improving a sample class design sheet and creating their own class design sheets.
(1) Preparation
All participants were asked to watch the videos for WEEK 4 of “Interactive Teaching” and read Chapter 4 of the book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017). Also, some participants voluntarily created and submitted their class design sheets.
(2) Session 1 (April 22nd)
[1] Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.
[2] Review of What the Participants Learned in the Preparation (09:15–09:45)
Participants reviewed and organized what they had learned in the preparation through group activities. They examined the significance of class design and points they should be careful of.
[3] Exercise of Improving a Class Design Sheet (09:45–11:45)
Participants examined a sample class design sheet and had a group discussion on what was good about it and what points needed improvement. This exercise was intended to help the participants apply what they had learned in the preparation and during the reviewing session.
Participants learning from each other (Group presentation)
[4] Exercise of Creating a Class Design Sheet (13:00–15:30)
Participants created class design sheets to use in their own classes, based on what they had learned in the improvement exercise in the morning. They examined whether the class design was aligned with the goals and objectives of their classes through individual work and group discussions.
Participants exchanging their ideas in pairs
[5] Wrap-up (15:30–16:00)
Participants organized what they learned, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
(3) Session 2 (June 2nd)
[1] Introduction (14:00–14:10)
Participants reviewed the goals and rules of the entire program once again, including the goals and structure of Session 2.
[2] Report of Participants’ Practices and Improvement of Class Design Sheets in Groups (14:10–16:30)
First of all, each participant reported what they could or could not practice over the last month, why they could not practice, and what problems they had. Then, they examined how to improve their class design sheets through group activities.
Group activity on improving their class design sheets
[3] Wrap-up (16:30–16:55)
Lastly, participants organized what they learned through the two sessions, what kind of questions they had, and what they wanted to bring back to their own work through group activities and Q&A sessions.
3. Participants’ Reactions
The affiliation of 20 participants was as follows: 10 faculty or staff members of the university or technical college, four graduate students or postdocs, two teachers or staff members of junior/senior high school, one teacher or staff member of elementary school, and three teachers or staff members of vocational school. According to the five-point scale question asking the degree of satisfaction (Extremely satisfied; Very satisfied; Satisfied; Not so satisfied; Dissatisfied), 57 percent of the respondents were “extremely satisfied,” and 43 percent were “very satisfied.”
Another five-point scale question asked whether it was effective to have an opportunity to design and practice class design, and report it to others during the program held in two days with a month in between (Yes (very much); Yes; Unsure; No (not so much); No (not at all)). 64 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much),” and 36 percent answered “Yes.” According to another five-point scale question asking whether participation in the two-day workshop would affect your future practice (Yes (very much); Yes; No (not so much); No (not at all); Unsure), 50 percent of the respondents answered “Yes (very much)” and 50 percent answered “Yes.”
We held a two-day event for the first time but are relieved to know that it was appreciated to a certain extent. We are eager to provide the participants with the opportunities to share their practices and improve our events to satisfy future participants by examining the points we need to improve as indicated in the feedback.
4. Preview of the Next Program
We are planning to hold a two-day workshop on evaluation (rubrics) on Sunday, June 3rd (as DAY 1) and Friday, August 3rd (as DAY 2). Also, we are planning to hold two one-day seminars: “Active Learning Strategies” on Saturday, August 4th, and “Microteaching” on Sunday, August 5th. Details are to be announced. We look forward to your participation.
We held the “Pre-FFP” in 92B, Faculty of Engineering Building 2 on Monday, April 2.
Since we heard voices that said, “It is too big a challenge to join the UTokyo FFP throughout a semester without preparation,” we gave a brief explanation of the UTokyo FFP and enabled the participants to learn some of the material including active learning through experience in the two-hour event.
We welcomed about 20 participants including those without pre-registration. Looking at the breakdown, doctoral students (11) came first, followed by several master’s students, postdocs, and faculties.
As for the affiliation, five participants came from the School of Science, two from the School of Engineering, and the others from a wide variety of departments such as the Graduate School of Education, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, and Graduate School of Frontier Sciences.
We first gave a lecture on the changes in higher education and the social background of implementing active learning with the following goals: “To understand the significance and changes of education at university and think of them as your own matters.”
The lecture was followed by two trial sessions as shown below:
(1) Active Learning Strategies
Taking “Think Pair Share” as an example, the participants experienced the strategy and organized the points such as “Clarify the instructions,” and “Don’t let the means become an end.”
(2) Motivation
The instructor presented the model of motivation such as “expectancy” and “value” and let the participants think of a class design that motivates students through a discussion on “cases of failure in conducting classes.”
Here are some of the feedback we received from the participants.
—
“I realized the changes in education (i.e., the shift in the focus from what the instructor taught to what the students learned) and the significance of FFP as a means to adapt to such changes.” (Graduate student in the doctoral course, School of Science)
“It was such a meaningful experience just to have an opportunity to discuss with people and doctors coming from various academic fields.” (Graduate student in the master’s course, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
“Knowing that faculty staff, too, can join the program, I’m considering applying for the course. It was informative with highly practical material. I am currently working as a part-time lecturer at other universities, so I’d like to make use of what I learned today.” (Postdoc, Graduate School of Medicine)
—
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the participants who spared their precious time for joining our Pre-FFP.
Lastly, let us announce that the application for the UTokyo FFP (S Term) is now open. (Application Deadline: Sunday, April 8th. https://dev2.utokyofd.com/en/ffp/apply/ )
Regardless of your participation in the Pre-FFP, we look forward to your application!
