(Nakahara)Hello, everyone. I’m Jun Nakahara from the University of Tokyo. Today, we would like to have a discussion with Dr. Yuki Honda from the Graduate School of Education. Thank you very much for joining us. (Honda)It is my pleasure. (Nakahara)OK, let’s get started right away. The arrangement of this interview began from the reputation among students taking your class that it is so exciting. You are teaching undergraduates through an introductory course on the sociology of education. Could you elaborate on that course, please? (Honda)Sure. “Introduction to the Sociology of Education” is a compulsory subject for undergraduates in their third year. At the same time, it is also a subject for a teacher-training course, so those who would like to get a teaching certificate, including science students, come to take this course from a wide variety of departments and graduate schools. The number of students taking this course is about 80. You must convey the essence of the sociology of education to so many diverse students. What I do in this course is to give students an assignment of reading two designated research papers every class by using an original worksheet called “Kōdokuhyō (i.e., reading worksheet).” (Nakahara)Kōdokuhyō? (Honda)Kōdokuhyō is a worksheet to fill in the keywords, the outline, positive opinions, and negative opinions. (Nakahara)There’s one Kōdokuhyō for each paper, and undergraduates fill in the worksheets prior to the class? (Honda)Yes. They fill in and bring the worksheets to the class. There is another space at the bottom for taking notes during a discussion. It is formatted in that way. Students complete the spaces of the worksheets except the one at the bottom beforehand and bring them to the class. (Nakahara)I see. (Honda)At the beginning of the class, I allot 15 minutes for sharing in groups what the students wrote in Kōdokuhyō. There are two papers required, so not all the students read both of them thoroughly. Perhaps, a student read one of them thoroughly, but not the other one. To enable all the students to share the information of both papers, I let the students work in groups and talk about what was written in the papers and what they thought about them. That’s the initial phase. (Nakahara)I see. That sounds like making the students all the same level by having them share the entire information. (Honda)Yes, it is. The important point is to share their opinions, especially negative ones. What were the points you had questions about? What were the points you thought you should be critical of? By sharing that kind of opinion, students can realize new ways of reading the paper. In that way, the critical views on papers become multi-layered and complicated. That’s why I devote time to a discussion in the first place. (Nakahara)So the first activity is done in groups. How many students are there for each group? (Honda)Four to five. (Nakahara)Four to five. Then, the groups must be made with people next to each other or something? (Honda)Yes. During the discussion, I walk around the classroom with two microphones, and I drop those microphones randomly on the groups. (Nakahara)You use wireless microphones. (Honda)Those two microphones play an important role for the rest of the proceedings of the class. After the discussion, I tell the students to explain what they wrote about the two papers by passing the microphones. I say “What did you write for ‘keywords’?” and share all the things they wrote with everyone. There is a teaching assistant for this course, and the assistant transcribes all the words that students express. They are displayed with a projector, so all the remarks remain optically on the screen instead of disappearing as a sound would. While looking at the screen, I say things like “OK, thank you for giving so many keywords. Let’s move onto the next person. Where’s the microphone? Now it’s your turn. Do you have anything to add for ‘keywords’? Tell us if any. If not, let’s move onto ‘outline.’” Then I would get into “outline,” and ask students in an orderly way so that we could share the main points of the papers. After that I would say, “No more to add for ‘outline’? Then let’s move onto ‘opinion’” and let them express their positive and negative opinions. (Nakahara)Are the research papers quite difficult? (Honda)There is a particular topic for each session. Each session is assigned a topic related to the sociology of education, such as an overview of the sociology of education, focusing on teachers and the relationship between students. Research papers are assigned along with each topic and I ask students to read them before the class. When I assign two papers, one can be the outline of the topic and the other one can be an empirical research focusing on a particular case, or both can be empirical research with one on a quantitative research while the other on a qualitative field work. I assign two papers at the same time so that students can experience the complexity of comparing the two papers on a particular topic. (Nakahara)Then, to be sure to read both papers must be the requirement for taking each class. (Honda)Well, I make it a rule to bring at least one Kōdokuhyō. It is ideal to bring two Kōdokuhyō, but the students might be busy, so even if they couldn’t fill in both, I tell them to bring one Kōdokuhyō to the class. At least one, so that they have something to say in the discussion. I don’t allow them to come to the class empty handed. (Nakahara)Nothing starts without Kōdokuhyō. I understand that they need to bring at least one. (Honda)Exactly. The reason why I do like this is to prevent group discussions from proceeding with casual ideas and becoming dominated by a talkative participant; I once heard that such things may happen. If they have things to say beforehand, they won’t let themselves cater to a particular person. If they thought over the reading by themselves prior to the class, they will be able to express their ideas to people with different ideas. I want the students to take part in discussions with their own ideas. (Nakahara)Then, “opinions” come after “outline.” (Honda)Yes. Regarding “opinions,” I always easily go over positive opinions. “This point was interesting.” “I see.” That’s it. It is negative opinions that are interesting. “This is the point I had questions about.” “I couldn’t understand this point.” After those remarks, I ask another student like this: “OK, so the person with the other microphone, pretend that you are the author of this paper and make an explanation or a reply to this critical remark.” (Nakahara)You ask students to pretend that they are the author. (Honda)Yes. I ask them to answer as if they are the author. If it seems difficult, then try to answer. Well, I know that this is an unreasonable demand. Students get quite nervous, because they don’t know what they should say until they receive a microphone. (Nakahara)The microphones are passed on to from person to person constantly? (Honda)Yes, they are. I ask the students to pass the microphone to another group randomly once the member of your group finished talking, so microphones are moving around the classroom all the time. (Nakahara)I bet the students would think like, “Oh, gosh! it’s my turn.” (Honda)Yes. I don’t always grasp the whole situation, so once a person finishes talking, I ask where the other microphone is. I ask the student to raise his/her hand. I expect the interaction among students to emerge by discussing negative opinions, but that’s not often the case. If the interaction comes to a deadlock, I sometimes give an explanation. But what I expect is to have student start and heat up the discussion by themselves. (Nakahara)How long have you been delivering a class like this? Since the beginning? (Honda)I started to work at the Faculty of Education in 2007, and I started to teach this course around 2008. The style of the class was mostly the same as today, but I have made improvements gradually. To be specific, I decided to devote the first 15 minutes to discussion from the second or third year I started the course. I realized that I should let the students share their information… (Nakahara)Do you mean that you realized it was impossible to get into the main topic right away? (Honda)Yes. I was first asking the students individually what they wrote for Kōdokuhyō. But I realized that since they all bring Kōdokuhyō, it would be better to let them share their information by themselves in groups. Another improvement I made recently was the space at the bottom of the sheet for taking notes of a discussion. Students are clever, so they know that Kōdokuhyō functions as a tool for checking their attendance. (Nakahara)I see. (Honda)I happened to find out that some students asked their friends to submit their Kōdokuhyō without attending the class. I certainly didn’t want to approve of their attendance, so I made it a rule to fill in the space for taking notes of a discussion. I needed to come up with a countermeasure… (Nakahara)You had to one up the students. (Honda)Yes. (Nakahara)I see. As for student discussion, as you mentioned earlier, I think it is difficult for them to have a smooth or heated discussion. How do you manage to encourage student discussion? (Honda)I prompt the student who received a microphone by saying “Can you answer the question? No? Then anybody who can answer? Raise your hand.” I try as much to have the students get involved by themselves, but that doesn’t always work, so in that case, instead of asking a particular student to answer or asking someone to raise his/her hand, I let all the students raise their hands by dividing the class into two opinions. Then I could say to a particular person, “You raised your hand to this idea, didn’t you? Then you must be able to say something about this.” I know that’s quite a nasty thing to do. (Nakahara)But I understand that’s necessary. (Honda)Students are individuals. I tell them, “You must think. You must be thinking something. Talk about that.” I try like this, but even so, the discussion may not heat up. In that case, I intervene and start explaining, saying “Actually, what he/she said is a good question.” (Nakahara)I see. What I think is the most anxious situation while teaching is when talking to a student saying nothing or never responding to us. (Honda)I agree. (Nakahara)I often try hard to come up with how to approach such students so that they can think. Well, I’m actually talking about someone I used to be when I was a student. (Honda)I was a worse student than you! Far from saying nothing, I even slept. I found the class uninteresting. (Nakahara) I have no right to say anything about you. (Honda)I really slept so many times when I was a student that I was determined not to have any of my students go to sleep when I became faculty. (Nakahara)That’s interesting! (Honda)So, I always keep students having a feeling of tension. They don’t know who’s going to receive the microphone next. They don’t know what will be asked next. They must stay awake, keep thinking, and catch up with what is going on, otherwise they cannot respond when they are asked something. In this way, I incite them to get involved. (Nakahara)It is interesting that contingency is designed in your class. Nobody knows who will be the next to answer, but they have to do so whenever it’s their turn. (Honda)Perhaps it looks like a game for the students. (Nakahara)How do the students respond? What do they think about your class? I think your class is very exciting. (Honda)I think those who find my class interesting are the ones who keep taking the class until the end. Students don’t often drop my class, but I always explain in the first session for orientation by saying, “ I don’t mind if you leave. It would be a waste of time for both of us.” Then some students leave the classroom. So, I think there are some students who think that my class is troublesome or irritating, and such students won’t take the class. I think those who agree with my style keep taking my class. (Nakahara)This is my personal opinion, but I think you should not be defeated by the students who think your class is troublesome or irritating. How should I say… I think that you don’t have to adapt to such students, but instead you can tell them much more to express their opinions actively. (Honda)The style of my class has not changed so much. It’s OK for the students to pass on a question. (Nakahara)Pass is OK? (Honda)It’s OK. I make it a rule that if a student cannot express his/her opinion and becomes at a loss for words, he/she can pass. I know that students will be disgusted with the class if they are strained all the time, so I make room for them to feel relaxed. (Nakahara)Thank you for talking about your class, and let us move onto the next topic. This video is intended for the graduate students who would like to become faculty members in the near future. As for faculty development (FD), I really appreciate your caring about us when we started pre-FD at UTokyo and thank you for joining our course delivered by Dr. Kurita. (Honda)It was my pleasure. (Nakahara)So, may I ask why you got interested in pre-FD? (Honda)I have long maintained in my research that education has vocational relevance. I have collected as much data to show that Japanese education lacks vocational relevance in every level, from primary, secondary, to higher education. I already had such issues in my mind, and so I found your effort to teach how to teach to graduate students who would like to become faculty members as education with rich vocational relevance. That’s why I got highly interested in your activity. (Nakahara)You are right. The knowledge about teaching might be only a part of the vocation of a faculty member, but we are trying to teach that knowledge through education. (Honda)As it has been pointed out for years, people who become faculty members in Japan are those who devote themselves entirely to research by carrying out experiments and writing papers to be recognized as researchers. Of course, research is one of the jobs of faculty members, but a large part of their job is education. People become faculty members almost without any preparation for engaging with education. I thought that was a serious problem. Your activity is really great in that sense. (Nakahara)I think it is very good to provide students with an opportunity to get prepared. You can truly learn what it is to teach, such as the difficulty of teaching and facilitation skills, only after getting involved in teaching as a faculty member, but I think it is tough to become an instructor without a weapon. (Honda)I think getting prepared is important in a sense beyond acquiring a weapon. It also has to do with understanding the difference between faculty members and students. When universities were so small, and there was not so much difference in attributes and ways of thinking between faculty members and students, faculty members weren’t troubled so much. Japanese universities have drastically become large-scale, But as everyone knows, especially since the 1990s, and so they are now diverse. It is not unusual now for a person who loves studying and researching to enter a fairly high-level university, advance to a graduate school, and become a faculty member at a university accepting many students who don’t like studying so much. There is a need to bridge the huge gap between faculty members and students in how they have lived, what they think, and how they feel. I think this is the responsibility that faculty members should take, not the students. And in order to fulfill this responsibility, instructors must be aware of the differences between students and themselves in the first place. I think many instructors are unaware of the differences and that is the problem. (Nakahara)I think there is a pitfall in the situation that graduate students communicate daily with researchers. So they misunderstand that teaching is something like making a presentation for a smart audience who can understand their technical terms. (Honda)Exactly. It becomes more like a presentation at an academic conference. (Nakahara)I think the differences are what you should recognize before becoming a faculty member. (Honda)Students cannot understand what you say unless you explain in the simplest words. And what I personally expect faculty members to do is to incite and move students instead of just conveying their knowledge and having them understand that. (Nakahara)I agree with your opinion. Lastly, could you give a message to young researchers and graduate students who will become faculty members in the near future? (Honda)Message…hmm, I don’t want to talk big, but I believe that university classes are something created based on the knowledge of a particular discipline and that it is important to imagine what kind of interaction such knowledge would make with things outside the class, in a huge society. I expect higher education to be something that can involve students in the fringes of core technical knowledge placed in various fields of a society. A university is often called an ivory tower with knowledge and research, but it should not be a place for only studying and researching but also for entering and leaving for getting out into the world. It should be considerate of what the core discipline means and relates to the students’ life. That is what is called vocational relevance. I think the range of its overlap with the society decides the quality of a class. So, I would like faculty members to make every effort to relate the contents to the society when teaching. (Nakahara)I see. It may be ridiculed as an ivory tower, but there is certainly a need to connect what they teach with the real world. (Honda)Yes. (Nakahara)In order to do that, instructors may need to actually show the students what it will be like to connect the discipline with the real world and ask them what they should do. Arousing such discussions sounds like a quite interesting task. OK, time flies. It is time to end the interview. Dr. Honda, thank you very much for joining us today. (Honda)Thank you. (Nakahara)That’s all for this session.
