} 教員 – Page 21 – UTokyo FD

対象: 教員

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

[Report] The 3rd Faculty Luncheon

We held the 3rd Faculty Luncheon today.
Here is the summary and a preview of our next event.

—
1) Today’s Topic
Today’s topic was “How to Conduct Classes More Efficiently.”
In addition to the topic, participants had a discussion on a wide range of topics such as how to motivate students and points related to evaluation.

2) Sharing and discussing participants’ concerns
Participants shared and discussed the experiences and points of their classes based on the material that organized the past examples and points of class improvement.

The specific points of class improvement appeared as follows:
“Improve the quality of what you speak in a class and make it efficient in a flipped classroom manner.”
“Responding to the questions by email takes too much time. To avoid that, I give feedback orally or share the answer with the whole students.”
“Digitalize and save energy as possible by giving quizzes on the Google Form and such.”

—
We are planning to hold the next Faculty Luncheon in September.
The topic will be “The Roles of TAs.”
We look forward to your participation.

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
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.