[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)