Here is the 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)
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 of improving sample rubrics and creating rubrics for their classes.
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)
 Introduction (09:00–09:15)
Participants listened to the explanation of the goals, structure, and rules of the program before introducing themselves to others.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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)
 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.
 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.
 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.
Videos “Interactive Teaching” JREC-IN website UTokyo FD website
Book “Interactive Teaching” (Kawai Publishing, 2017)
http://www.kawai-publishing.jp/book/b-01/index.php?sesIsbn=978-4-7772-1794-6 (Kawai Publishing website)
Nagafumi Nakamura (Project Researcher in charge of “Interactive Teaching” / Main Moderator of this event)