Programme for the day and reflective reports - C-faculty

1
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
学部長印
報告日
法学部
氏
２０１５ 年 ７ 月 16 日
特色ある学部教育予算使用報告書
名
申請
企画
テーマ
印
2015 Chuo Law English Department Faculty Development
Workshop/Teachers’ Retreat
実施
日時
2015
年
6 月 ２1 日 （ 日 ）
＊企画内容に関係する講義等がある場合は、その講義名称と曜日時限
を上記日時の下にご記入ください。
実施
場所
駿河台記念館
活動
内容
（レ印）
□
□
レ
570 号室 ／580 号室
学部、学科、部会が主催または共催する学部教育活動
法学部生が主催または共催する諸活動
上記以外で特色ある学部教育としてふさわしい諸活動
実施報告（実施状況・成果等）
2015 年 6 月 21 日、現在までの教育活動やカリキュラムの研究、評価、総括と、さ
らなる教育効果向上のための議論を目的として、「ワークショップ／リトリート」
が開催されました。英語部会では 2002 年より毎年、FD 活動の重要な場として「ワ
ークショップ／リトリート」を開催してきました。本年度も、法学部の兼任・専任
の英語教員が集まり、英語カリキュラムの中の Listening & Speaking や Writing な
どの各コースの継続的な発展、法学部の英語カリキュラムの教育効果の向上にむけ
て、様々な意見が交わされました。
本年度は、法学部専任教員（6）名、兼任教員（13）名が参加し、参加教員による
プレゼンテーションとそれに基づくディスカッションによって様々なコースの教育
実践・教育手法そしてカリキュラム全体に関わる問題へのアプローチを参加者全員
が共有しました。また、今回の「ワークショップ／リトリート」は、専任教員が兼
任教員へ法学部の教育と英語プログラムに関する情報を伝える場ともなりました。
共通シラバスあるいは共通の教育手法・目標にそって展開される英語カリキュラム
による教育の維持発展のために大いに議論が重ねられました。「ワークショップ／
リトリート」はきわめて貴重な研修の場であり、より一層の充実のためのアイディ
アの宝庫となったとの声が、多くの参加教員から寄せられております。
2
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
昨年度の法学部の英語科目のカリキュラムは 2013 年度までの議論の積み重ねの結
果、重要な変更がなされています。特に、Listening & Speaking および Writing
のクラスにおいては、カリキュラム改革が実施されました。今回の「ワークショッ
プ／リトリート」では、この改革がそれぞれの教室でどのような形で実践されてい
るかについて兼任教員、専任教員が情報を共有し、活発に意見を交換することがで
きました。新カリキュラムの意図の実現を図りこの改革を学生にも教員にもおおい
に資するものとするために、「ワークショップ／リトリート」は重要な役割を果た
すことができたと思います。
場を和ませるために、まず普段会わない人と話すことから始めました。その後、異
なる科目で共通の問題意識についてブレインストーミングを行いました。以下がそ
れらです。
・ 生徒からの質問
・ 生徒の興味関心を引き出し、継続させること
・ 複数の見方から問題をとらえる方法
・ 情報源
・ ノートテイキング → リサーチ
→ 授業中
・ ピアレビュー
・ 自己評価
・ 浅いリサーチ → 深く意味のあるリサーチ
・ 教員の干渉：いつどのように生徒に情熱的に、効果的に関わるか
・ 授業中の日本語の使用
・ 語彙
初めのディスカッションでは１時間、少人数グループで一つの項目について共通の
問題意識を出し合いました。その後、午前中の残りの時間にグループを再編成し、
午後はペアでレビューを行った後さらにグループを再編成しました。最後に、全体
として共通してカリキュラム内で重要視している点と中央大学法学部での就業にお
ける懸念について、全グループでの最終討議をしました。
参加、及び会議後のリフレクション共有をしてくださった皆様に感謝申し上げま
す。リフレクションの内容は、下記の「参加者の感想」でアルファベット順に記載
しております。さらに続けて、全体として共通してカリキュラム内で重要視してい
る点（CAFs）を改善するアイディア、及び最終議論における会議体でのまとめも掲
載しました。
プレゼンテーションを行った参加教員による報告書は、このワークショップに出席
できなかった教員を含むすべての法学部英語教員のために英語カリキュラムのウェ
ブサイト http://c-faculty.chuo-u.ac.jp/~mikenix1/td/index.html）に掲載さ
れ、有効利用されています。
以上、全体として大変有意義な活動となったことを、ここにご報告いたします。
参加者
兼任教員(終日出席・レポート提出)
Elena Ando (安藤エレナ), Susan Binder (スーザン・バインダー), Christine
Horne (クリスティン・ホーン), Jean Pierre Chretien (ジャン・ピエール・クレ
ティエン), Kent Hill (ケント・ヒル), Andy Martin (アンディ・マーティン),
Rob Moreau (ロブ・モロー), Jenny Morgan (モーガン・ジェニファー), Ian Platt
3
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
(イアン・プラット), Ellen Scattergood (エレン・スキャタグッド), Hatsumi
Takemura (竹村初美), James Underwood (ジェームズ・アンダウッド)
兼任教員(午前中のみ出席)
Greg Lamb (グレゴリー・ラム)
専任教員
Masaaki Okamoto (岡本正明), Andy Barfield (アンディ・バーフィールド), Ryota
Nishi (西亮太), Mike Nix (マイク・ニックス), Peter Thornton (ピーター・ソー
ントン), Steve Hesse (スティーブ・ヘッセ)
09.45-10.15
開会式とグループ編成
共通の問題意識のブレインストーミング
10.15-11.15
ワークショップ セッション１
Asking questions: Elena Ando (安藤エレナ), Greg Lamb (グレゴリー・
ラム)、Andy Martin (アンディ・マーティン), Rob Moreau (ロブ・モロ
ー)、James Underwood (ジェームズ・アンダウッド)
Creating and sustaining interest: Jean Pierre Chretien (ジャン・ピ
エール・クレティエン)、Kent Hill (ケント・ヒル), Ellen Scattergood
(エレン・スキャタグッド), Ryota Nishi (西亮太), Peter Thornton (ピ
ーター・ソーントン), Steve Hesse (スティーブ・ヘッセ)
From surface to deep learning: Susan Binder (スーザン・バインダー),
Christine Horne (クリスティン・ホーン), Masaaki Okamoto (岡本正明),
Andy Barfield (アンディ・バーフィールド)
Note-taking: Jenny Morgan (モーガン・ジェニファー), Ian Platt (イア
ン・プラット), Hatsumi Takemura (竹村初美), Mike Nix (マイク・ニッ
クス)
11.15-11.30
休憩
11.30-12.30
ワークショップ セッション 2
Basic Research and Discussion コース: Susan Binder (スーザン・バイ
ンダー), Andy Martin (アンディ・マーティン),Jenny Morgan (モーガ
ン・ジェニファー), Ian Platt (イアン・プラット),Ryota Nishi (西亮
太)
Basic Research and Writing コース: Elena Ando (安藤エレナ), Greg
Lamb (グレゴリー・ラム)、Kent Hill (ケント・ヒル), Rob Moreau (ロ
ブ・モロー), Andy Barfield (アンディ・バーフィールド)
English for Business/TOEIC コース: Jean Pierre Chretien (ジャン・ピ
エール・クレティエン)、James Underwood (ジェームズ・アンダウッド)、
Masaaki Okamoto (岡本正明)
Improving Research and Writing コース：Christine Horne (クリスティ
ン・ホーン)、Ellen Scattergood (エレン・スキャタグッド)、Hatsumi
Takemura (竹村初美), Mike Nix (マイク・ニックス)
12.30-13.15
昼食
13.15-13.30
ワークショップ セッション 3 レビュー
Elena Ando (安藤エレナ), Susan Binder (スーザン・バインダー),
Christine Horne (クリスティン・ホーン), Jean Pierre Chretien (ジャ
ン・ピエール・クレティエン), Kent Hill (ケント・ヒル), Andy Martin
4
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
(アンディ・マーティン), Rob Moreau (ロブ・モロー), Jenny Morgan (モ
ーガン・ジェニファー), Ian Platt (イアン・プラット), Ellen
Scattergood (エレン・スキャタグッド), Hatsumi Takemura (竹村初美),
James Underwood (ジェームズ・アンダウッド)、Andy Barfield (アンデ
ィ・バーフィールド), Ryota Nishi (西亮太), Mike Nix (マイク・ニック
ス), Peter Thornton (ピーター・ソーントン), Steve Hesse (スティー
ブ・ヘッセ)
13.45-14.45
ワークショップ セッション 4
Advanced Listening and Speaking & Content-based Electives: Elena
Ando (安藤エレナ), Kent Hill (ケント・ヒル), Andy Martin (アンデ
ィ・マーティン), Jenny Morgan (モーガン・ジェニファー)
Basic Research and Discussion コース: Ellen Scattergood (エレン・ス
キャタグッド), James Underwood (ジェームズ・アンダウッド), Mike Nix
(マイク・ニックス)
Introduction to Communication and Research コース: Susan Binder (ス
ーザン・バインダー), Jean Pierre Chretien (ジャン・ピエール・クレテ
ィエン), Rob Moreau (ロブ・モロー),Ian Platt (イアン・プラッ
ト),Hatsumi Takemura (竹村初美), Andy Barfield (アンディ・バーフィ
ールド)
Sports Classes: Christine Horne (クリスティン・ホーン), Ryota Nishi
(西亮太), Peter Thornton (ピーター・ソーントン), Steve Hesse (ステ
ィーブ・ヘッセ)
14.45-15.00
休憩
15.00-16.00
全員参加のディスカッション・フィードバック
16.00-16.30
まとめ
Overview
To break the ice, we started off by talking with someone that we don’t usually see during the
week. We then brainstormed together issues of common concern across different courses.
These were:
• asking questions
• creating and sustain interest
• how students come to see issues in different ways
• information sources
• note-taking -> research
-> in class
• peer feedback
• self-assessment/evaluation
• superficial -> deep, meaningful research
• teacher intervention: when and how to interact with students affectively, effectively on
issues
• use of Japanese (in class)
• vocabulary.
5
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
In the first discussion session, lasting an hour, we formed small groups to explore an area of
common concern. Then, for the rest of the morning and the first part of the afternoon, we
made and re-made different groups around specific courses, apart from the review in pairs
at the start of the afternoon. The Retreat finished with a final whole-group discussion of the
Common Areas of Focus and matters of concern about working at Chuo Law.
We would like to express our deep appreciation to everyone for taking part and for sharing
their written reflections afterwards too. These are included below as 'Participant Reflections'
in A to Z order by first name. They are followed by a summary of ideas for developing the
Common Areas of Focus (CAFs), as well as a summary of the closing plenary discussion.
Participant Reflections
Andy Barfield (アンディ・バーフィールド)
It was a good change to make, brainstorming and focusing on areas of common concern at
the start and discussing specific courses later. Mike, Peter and I had talked before about
trying to change the flow in some way. We wanted to break out of a narrow focus at the
start. We also felt it would be good not to over-organise the running order, and instead try
to make the schedule together with participants on the day. What we had forgotten to talk
through, though, was how the three of us might do this together, so we started off pretty
much ‘in the moment’! Through the rest of the day we stuck with doing things a little more
off-the-cuff than in previous years. The day was highly enjoyable, with the change of tempo
leaving us free to take part in discussions more than at previous retreats. On a broader note,
brainstorming common concerns at the start seemed to let everybody take a higher-order
view of issues that fed back into and enriched the discussions around particular courses
later.
Students moving from superficial to deep research
In the first discussion I was with Okamoto-sensei, Christine and Susan. We focused on the
cross-curricular issue of ‘students moving from superficial to deep research’. In our
discussion we initially identified a number of ways in which students may stay at a
superficial level of doing research. These include tending to base their research on one
(major) information source or a very limited number of sources; keeping with ‘known
knowledge’ and staying with what is already familiar; copying information rather than
making notes; accepting as ‘true’ a particular source of information or view of the world
without questioning it; having a weak sense of engagement with the issue that a student has
chosen; and, spending limited time on preparation.
The practical frame emerging from our discussion focused on encouraging students to:
* take sufficient time for preparation
* develop a strong engagement with the issue
* use multiple sources of information
* move into discovering new information
* develop their own ways of making notes
* construct a new understanding of an issue
* question critically rather than accept unquestioningly this or that view of an issue.
6
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
These came up again in different discussions through the day, as well as in the afternoon
brainstorming of ideas about how to develop and update the Common Areas of Focus. As
we talked, it struck me that it matters not only how we frame a ‘problem’ or ‘puzzle’ that we
see with a class or individual students, but also how we imagine different ways to navigate
beyond a particular problem or puzzle.
Basic Research and Writing
In the second session of the morning I was in the Basic Research and Writing group with
Elena, Greg, Kent and Rob. We started from Elena’s question about whether we assign a set
number of pages or not when the students are reading the Global Issues readers. Most of us
do set the pages to be read, it seems. We next shared with each other some examples of
writing combining the use of images (Rob: ‘Visual Report’; myself: ‘Global Issues Question
Sheet’), as well as ways to scaffold feedback (Kent, Rob, myself) and different ways of notetaking (Elena, Greg). We also talked about using journaling as a foundation for students later
developing different ways of organizing text, and about encouraging students to go beyond
the Global Issues readers, where possible, and use the Global Issues website, too. Greg
mentioned that he has groups of students researching and writing about the same global
issue that they choose. Other teachers let students form random pairs each week and learn
about different global issues together. Helping students search for information and structure
the research process was our next area of focus, with Elena pointing us towards the Purdue
OWL website for ideas about categorizing different types of question into ‘Fact, Definition,
Quality and Policy’. Elena also explained some ways to help students structure their
argumentative writing with a ‘Persuasive Plan’. This connected with the possibility of using
‘Editorials’ and other genres of argumentative writing in the Autumn Semester with firstyear students. Towards the end of our discussion, our focus shifted once more, this time to
different ways of guiding students to report information from sources that they use, and
using translation effectively for summarizing and paraphrasing key points from Japanese
sources that they read. All in all, we enjoyed a free-flowing discussion, with many ideas and
questions shared. I came away from this session completely re-energized about the research
and writing courses.
Morning review and connections
In the pair discussions immediately after lunch, Jenny and I talked together about different
ideas and issues from the morning sessions. We highlighted the importance of scaffolding
and learner orientation about research, use of English, and the importance of out-of-class
preparation for in-class knowledge sharing and construction, and fluency development. We
also discussed briefly possible connections between creativity and criticality, and the
affective and imaginative dimension to content-based self- and pair-/small group- directed
research projects. One way of looking at creativity, I suggested, is to see it as a practice of recombining previous and new elements in a project cycle in some original way. For example,
re-working previous texts (such as journal entries), adding an introduction and conclusion,
and adding visual elements involves the development of a creative practice in producing a
report. The critical dimension, on the other hand, seems to involve questioning how images
and texts present particular views of the world and serve/naturalise particular interests, and
how they constrain the writer/reader’s understanding of the world, and their sense of what
is possible or not. The discussion with Jenny helped me appreciate how it would be
interesting to explore further the interface between creativity and criticality in relation to
student research and knowledge building.
Introduction to Communication and Research (ICR)
7
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
The final small-group discussion I took part in was with Hatsumi, Ian, Jean Pierre, Rob, and
Susan around the first-year pre-intermediate Introduction to Communication and Research.
I found it interesting how we are re-combining parts of the course in different ways. Some
start with an emphasis on the extensive reading, and then introduce the out-of-class
listening later in the semester; others start with the out-of-class listening and then move
into the extensive reading later. For some, the development of note taking is mainly focused
on the readers, while for others it now goes together more with the out-of-class listening
with news stories. We discussed different ways of asking students to make listening logs
(column style or free style, for example); we also varied to what extent we ask students to
do individual listenings or shared listenings with a listening partner, and, if we do, how often
we ask students to change listening partners—each week, every few weeks, or do the
listening partnerships remain fixed for several weeks? Another area of variation was
whether students are explicitly encouraged to use Japanese or not in class. Hatsumi, for
example, asks students to give a two-minute summary in Japanese of their out-of-class
listening and then to switch into English for the following 10 minutes (5 minutes each). One
important point we clarified together was that students are not expected to read extensively
in the second semester; rather, the aim is for them to read two or three global issues
readers at the most (and continue some out-of-class listening too), and to do a final research
project using the global issues website without first reading a global issues reader.
The ICR course is ‘busy’ in that it focuses on content-based learning through out-of-class
listening and out-of-class reading in the Spring semester; it also shifts from extensive reading
and listening in the Spring to researching and note-taking through reading and listening
about global issues in the Autumn. At the Retreat last year we talked about how the old
Introduction to Active Communication course emphasized reading and note-taking each
week on a graded reader as preparation outside of class, but with the new Introduction to
Communication and Research course it is not practical to expect students to do each week
out-of-class extensive reading, note-taking, as well as out-of-class listening and note-taking.
Last year we recognized that something needs to give if students are to have space for
developing their out-of-class listening in the new Introduction to Communication and
Research course.
From the discussions at this year’s Retreat, it became clear that several teachers had shifted
note taking on the graded readers into a 20-minute segment within the class each week, so
that students have space outside class for (a) reading a graded reader, and (b) doing several
out-of-class listenings. This is just one possible way to address the balance between the
different listening and reading requirements of the course. It’s not the only way. For me it is
really interesting that ICR teachers are exploring different possibilities to create space for
out–of-class listening through the year as the students move forward to completing a full
research project on a global issue by the end of the Autumn semester.
Thank you everyone for a memorable and really useful day of discussions.
Andy Martin (アンディ・マーティン)
Asking questions
In the first group discussion (with Rob, Greg, Elena, Jenny and myself) we focused on asking
questions, which led to a discussion on defining what kind of questions students might or
should be asking during various class activities, especially both during and after the
presentations. A point raised was that students might be uncomfortable with asking
8
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
questions during presentations. Questions asked (or what should be asked) could be for
clarification regarding some points of the presentation or as part of a discussion. Also, the
point was raised that during post-presentation discussions students, might not progress
beyond a simple response to the question what do you think about …?
All participants agreed that this can be a problem. Regarding listener understanding of the
topic (without which meaningful discussion cannot readily take place), the need for
instructors to constantly reinforce the importance of responsibility for both the presenter /
teacher to check listener comprehension and also, that the listener understands their
responsibility to understand the topic by asking clarification questions. Frameworks showing
model dialogs with comprehension checking/clarification strategies could help, but overall
the vital need of having the students ‘ask questions’ cannot be easily achieved. Nevertheless
the goal of real understanding of the topics presented by the listeners with meaningful
discussion leading to learning about the topics of peers is surely the main goal of the
research / presentation classes.
Continuing the theme of ‘student questions’ Elena mentioned how she has her students
formulate questions for surveys by, as a starting point, having students ask classmates to
think of questions or rather to tell them what questions that want answering on the topic
they have. In short; ‘what would you like to know about …?’ In this way they can gain
potentially useful feedback from peers and also perhaps verify that their main survey
question / topic is valid and of interest to others. Thank you Elena because you always have
materials that, along with your explanations, at least to me are of lasting value and give me
a feeling that my time spent at the retreat is time well spent.
Plenary discussion on ’asking questions’
The plenary discussion feedback on this topic included discussion of the importance of
developing fluency by having the students do ‘fluency-driven’ discussion activities as an
important ‘gear change / break from the usual cycle of research and presentation, as
mentioned by Rob Moreau. The outcome of extra discussion activities might hopefully be to
promote more meaningful discussion during and after presentations.
The connection with ‘developing fluency’ links to ‘asking questions.’ If during a presentation
when the presenters explain their topic though notes etc., there might be a tendency for
listeners to be too passive in just listening without any meaningful discussion of the topic
presented taking place. ‘Fluency driven discussion’ might improve critical thinking, question
making skills and all the strategies required to move beyond just presenting a topic (the
speech contest model requiring little more than passive listening). However, what is meant
by ‘fluency-driven discussion’ or perhaps a better term might be ‘active and meaningful
discussion arising from an understanding and a willingness to become involved in discussion
on topics presented’ (whew!) would require far more time than is available for a weekend
afternoon retreat. Moreover, discussing ways of achieving this, explaining and sharing
frameworks would require a week-long retreat.
I feel that while most of my students are quite good at researching, making and presenting
notes, they nevertheless need to extend the final discussion part of the research-present
(teach), possibly also test, then discuss. To achieve this, besides the research/presentation
cycles, I bring in discussion activities. This could be described as a ‘gear change,’ or could
also be described as a break from presenting notes and an opportunity for students to look
at topics that they might not be so aware of.
9
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
In short, if students only do back-to-back cycles of research and present (and I don’t see
much emphasis put on post-presentation discussion and how to achieve this as the final
goal), then over a 15-week term, they might lose focus.
Christine Horne (クリスティン・ホーン)
The mood in Room 570 at Chuo Surugadai Kinenkan was light and happy, when I arrived for
the annual retreat. There were about 20 people in the room when we sat down to chat with
teachers we hadn’t previously met. I spoke with James Underwood, a very nice young man
attending his first retreat.
Instead of the usual groups set by classes taught, themes of interest were introduced: Notetaking, moving from superficial fact finding to meaningful research, creating & sustaining
interest in the classroom, use of Japanese, vocabulary, asking questions, information sources
and more…
I really liked the idea of the new format, however, I would have liked to hear about several
of the themes, rather than just one. Perhaps a changeover plan every 15-20 minutes would
have made that possible? In my group, were Okamoto sensei, Andy, and Susan. Andy shared
some really interesting ways of having students look at different topic perspectives, by first
researching images, then using them for discussion and further research. I would like to
develop a similar method for use in my classes at a later date.
In the second session, I spent an interesting time with Mike, Ellen and Hatsumi. We
discussed the different ways we are trying to teach IRW classes. As it is my first year
teaching this class, I was very interested to know how other teachers approach their classes.
There are clearly large gaps in the skills of students in all our writing classes. Most are
proficient in some areas but lacking in others, but it seems that writing courses are not high
on the student priority list, which complicates matters even more. Mike offered a great way
to have students improve their weekly research by using individual websites. He is then able
to highlight areas that students need to improve/change etc—a fantastic idea. However,
Mike admitted keeping students updated on what they need to do was very time consuming
… and therefore, may prove to be impractical for most part-time teachers.
After our second session we all enjoyed chatting with teachers while eating our bento
lunches. I was fortunate to be with Andy and Elena. It was fascinating for me to hear about
the current state of Russia and its politics—would have loved to hear more … thank you
Elena.
The afternoon session for me, began with Peter, Ryota and Steve—as we all wanted to
discuss the challenges we face with the Sports Classes!! All of us would seriously like to see
our students grow, but the large numbers and irregular attendance can make it a losing
battle. It is such a shame that Chuo feels that education for the sports classes should be such
a low priority! I thought I was being burdened with my class of 35. However, hearing that
Ryota has 49 and Peter 60 in a class, I realised I should be contented. It irks all of us, that
there are quite a lot of sports students who are perfectly capable of taking regular classes,
but are being kept back often by the action (or inaction) of their team managers etc who
would prefer they take easy classes which don’t require serious study or homework. I find
that very sad, as most of the sports students will, in fact, have to find normal jobs once they
leave university. Few will be successful enough to become professional sports people.
10
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
Instead of the usual poster making, it was really great to have a final session talking about
our common areas of focus, and updates needed to the current curriculum development
plan. Mike suggested perhaps ‘Communities of Knowledge’ might be a way to narrow and
focus instead of the current “choice of topics” which can be very broad—great for students
to choose topics of interest, however, it would be useful if their topics overlapped in some
way, so they could learn from each other in class discussions. I really found this session
much more useful than poster making.
Finally we all came together and discussed a few topics common to all teachers. The laws
concerning part-time contracts, and a rumour about the possible increase in class times to
100 minutes. A frightening idea!! All in all, it was a very good day, not only informative and
helpful to all of us, but it was fun and stress free. Thank you everybody.
Elena Ando (安藤エレナ)
This year, I was mostly interested in getting some ideas about my Research & Writing class
that is based on Global Issues readers. This is the first year of teaching this course for me,
and I am still trying to work my way around those readers that students are required to work
with this semester. I did get most of my questions answered and I saw some interesting
examples of students’ work. My colleagues gave me some good ideas for my writing class, so
this year’s retreat was very fruitful.
I also liked the format of this year’s retreat: it was a bit more spontaneous than before, and
therefore allowed for more ‘serendipity’ moments. Posters were also abandoned in favour
of more discussions, which was, in my opinion, a more productive use of time.
1. ‘Asking Questions’ Group
First, I joined a group dedicated to ‘research questions’—both for writing or presentations.
The issues that surfaced were: a. How to help students to choose research topics, & whether
a teacher has any say in students’ choice of topics; b. How to help students look at problems
they are researching from different points of view.
I told my colleagues how I help my students choose topics by dedicating some time to
collaborative work: students get a long list of controversial statements (the more the better
—I try to give them at least 35), they think about these statements, agree/disagree with
them, choose one of them and write about it in more depth, supporting their opinion by
reasons and examples. They then pair up with their classmates, who chose different
statements, and discuss them. After that, they choose one more statement together, discuss
it, and write about it together. This can be extended (if time and format of the class permits)
by a pair discussing their choice with another pair. This activity provides students with
research ideas or, at least, some hints and pointers. I also told my group about my ‘Survey
Project’, and other different ways to incorporate small surveys into students’ projects.
The most valuable ideas that emerged from this group discussion were that ‘easy’ topics can
be actually hard, and that in a presentation class discussion time should be as long as the
presentation itself.
2. BRW group
11
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
After the coffee break I joined this group. We talked about journaling, summarising, and
organising research notes into coherent piece of work. Andy B. gave us some of his handouts
and told us about the ‘Questions-Answers’ type of research paper he uses in his class for one
of the research cycles. I am trying this idea out right now, and it is working even better than I
had hoped. This semester was the first for me (that is, work based on Global Issues readers),
and it was off to a bit of a slow start, but I have made many adjustments and am working
out how to do it more effectively next year.
3. Advanced Speaking & Listening and Content-based Electives group
After the lunch break I joined a small group that wanted to discuss elective content-based
classes. Like last year, I told my colleagues about the Gap Year Project I do with my students
in my ‘Youth Issues’ class, and showed them some examples of my students’ work. This
project provides a very good opportunity to research a variety of topics related to countries,
culture, global issues, and volunteering, and—what is most valuable—it is all based on real
volunteering opportunities that exist out there right now. This project lasts for at least 5
weeks (basically, one full research cycle or a bit more) and involves several stages of
research, discussions, and presentations.
One extremely interesting idea I heard during this group discussion was the ‘employability’
of students: one of my colleagues (unfortunately, I forgot to write down his name) tries to
make sure that this aspect is taken into consideration, and that students are encouraged to
engage with topics and exercise skills that can help them get employed.
4. ‘Common areas of focus’ discussion
At the end of the retreat, we all discussed common areas of focus, and possible
improvements that could be implemented there. The main questions—as far as I remember
—were the use of English and Japanese; re-defining what the end of the cycle should be;
and adding a purpose (“What are you learning?” instead of “What are you making notes
about?”).
Ellen Scattergood (エレン・スキャタグッド)
Key themes: Freedom and Flexibility/What—and why—are we learning?
Thanks to all who came and participated, and thanks to Andy and Mike for making this
year’s meeting a bit freer in format. It was a more relaxed atmosphere, conducive to good
discussions that were “allowed” to wander a bit more than in past years.
 First morning group: Creating & sustaining interest (Steve, Peter, Ryota, Kent, Ellen)
We talked a little about ideas for using photography to create interest. Peter is having his
students do field work on their topics—go out and document it in pictures. One example
topic was smoking. He helped the students move from just taking photos of ashtrays to
documenting a more philosophical research question: “Who owns the city?”
Why students choose classes (especially the Jokyu Eigo classes) remains a question. If
students are choosing their classes by time slot or perhaps by teacher, what happens when
¾ of your class isn’t interested in (or even aware of) the theme of the class? We came to the
conclusion that it’s probably okay to let the students “hijack” the theme of the class and
together to take it in a more relevant (to everyone) direction. One of our main roles is to
help students discuss their topics to find connections—to their lives, to each other, to other
12
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
courses—so that the topics are interesting and relevant to them but also able to be
researched and discussed in a more critical way.
 Second morning group: Improving Research & Writing (Mike, Christine, Hatsumi, Ellen)
Helping students become aware of audience (who they’re writing for and why they’re
writing) is something we talked a lot about, in the process of discussing what kind of
feedback we should be giving students on their written work. It seems clear that
conferencing with students individually or in pairs or small groups about their writing is
much more effective, instructive, and helpful than spending a lot of time on written
comments, which some students may not bother reading or may not understand anyway.
The question “What are you learning?” surfaced today many times. It’s the answer to the
“purpose” question: We’re researching and discussing/writing to learn about things and to
help our classmates learn and think about these things. Sounds simple, but we sometimes
get lost in the creation of assignments, templates, peer-feedback sheets, and whatnot, and
lose sight of this.
“It’s about engagement with knowledge.” (Mike)
 First afternoon group: Talking about what we talked about in the morning (Peter,
Ryota, Andy M., JP, Ellen)
Some activities and approaches mentioned:
• polling/surveying peers on what they know/what they want to know to help guide
research topics and make them relevant
• scaffolding with question-making: starting with lists of Who, What, Why, How type lists,
dividing Discussion Questions into three types (Knowledge, Experience, Opinion) and
other ways to help students become more fluent in asking questions
• “allowing” students to do more than just internet research—going out into the
community to find issues that are relevant
• spending the first “cycle” working on group dynamics, practicing necessary skills before
diving into research projects that may seem intimidating, especially maybe to first year
students with no experience in an English-only class
 Second afternoon group: Basic Research & Discussion (Mike, James, Ellen)
We talked about:
• how to use your notebooks/notes to help you talk—explaining what you learned—and
using discussion time to identify “issues”—what do you know, what do you want to know,
why/how did it happen / who are the “actors” who are already doing something about it
and what else can we do about it
• the difference between “issues” and “topics”—what are the really interesting questions
about “research areas” (rather than “issues” maybe) and why are we spending our time
finding out more about them? Thinking again about the larger question: What are we
learning? and Why are we learning it?
Before the final session, I talked with Susan about the Common Areas of Focus. We didn’t
get to the whole list, but one thing we did agree upon was that pair-work is not always the
best way to share notes or discuss. Threesomes (sorry) work much better sometimes, so I
don’t think we should think about it that way (“What’s the best number?”) but rather, on
the purpose—of developing fluency and confidence in talking about their research areas.
13
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
The whole-group discussion at the end about how we might change the Common Areas of
Focus list was also thought provoking. I do like the idea of adding “communities of
knowledge” in the “choice of topics” section. This would move the focus on a class full of
(possibly) unrelated research areas to a more cohesive whole, where the research areas are
more visibly and thoughtfully connected.
And I like the idea of reminding ourselves of the purpose of learning: What are we learning?
Why? So that it’s not just a list of assignments to be completed. Maybe this means
purposefully creating more opportunities to reflect and connect between cycles of research.
Maybe it means not being so precise about what a “research cycle” is.
There was a lot more, but this is the gist of some of the main themes of the discussions I
participated in. I suppose one of the over-arching themes I saw was that a bit more freedom
and flexibility is a good thing, for us and for the students. And if we dislike making posters as
much as is apparent, imagine how our students feel. Maybe we should stop making them do
it, too, and make it an option—one of many ways to summarize and present your ideas. The
same goes for restrictive note-taking or vocabulary-improvement techniques or things like
listening or reading logs. One way of doing it is not going to work for everyone. Options are
good. But scaffolding is necessary. The whole Goldilocks conundrum. This way is juuuuust
right … for me, but maybe not for you. Let’s help each other find what works for us.
I’d also like to remind myself regularly of this: if I’m not interested enough to actually do the
assignments I create for students, why should they be? I’m going to make it a goal to
continue to do the same things I’m asking my students to do—in both English and my
second language.
Thanks again to all.
Hatsumi Takemura (竹村初美)
It was the fourth time for me to attend the Teachers’ Retreat. I joined three discussion
groups, each of which was informative and inspiring. Even though I often felt overwhelmed
and lost the thread of discussions due to my limited proficiency in English, it was a rewarding
experience.
The first discussion group I sat in on was on note-taking skills. Mike talked about the new
approach he took for his writing class. Instead of writing a research paper, students keep a
research journal on a weekly basis. They write about what they learned on their research
topics, and then upload their weekly entries to their individual websites. A few weeks later,
they have about four entries on their web sites, which show the development of their
research in a chronological order. Mike told us, or so I understood, that one of the
advantages of this system is that it allows students to steadily accumulate their writing. I
found his explanation convincing. Writing a short entry every week is less daunting than
writing a single, long paper at the end of a research cycle. Besides, this system will cause a
change in terms of the subject of their writing. Students will not write about their research
topic per se, but about themselves, or their development as a researcher.
The next group I participated in was for teachers of the second-year Improving Research and
Writing (IRW) classes. The most intriguing topic discussed in this group was the one about
correcting students’ papers. Correcting papers can be a time-consuming work, and most
14
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
teachers are too busy to spend long hours on it. (I myself had had this problem until the end
of the last semester, when I had a consultation discussion with Andy B. He suggested that I
use correction symbols. Thanks to this simple and practical advice, my burden has been
greatly lightened.) Besides, correcting papers can be laborious but unrewarding work. One
of the participants said that many students give only a cursory glance at a corrected paper.
Ellen suggested a solution to this problem. Instead of writing many comments and
numerous corrections, she said, you should have a face-to-face consultation with students
for a short period of time. I found this solution feasible, for our IRW class is made up of only
about fifteen students.
The third group was for the Introduction to Communication and Research (ICR) teachers.
James Underwood generously shared later a wonderful worksheet he made for reading
activities. It consists of many sections, including those for the summary of the book, rating,
recommended audience and so on. I was particularly interested in the section in which
students compare the life of the main character and their own. Through this activity, I
thought, students can relate the character’s experience to their own. Then Andy B. showed
us some samples of “presentation booklets,” or visual booklets made of three to four sheets
of paper on a global issue that the students read about in the Autumn semester. The
booklets can be an alternative to presentation posters that we usually use in our class. They
will add variety to the class. Andy also talked about the Listening Diary, a listening practice
using online resources. He emphasized the importance of making students realize that they
don't need to understand 100% of what they listen to. Once they understand this they can
develop their listening abilities in different ways. If they don’t make this change, they will
probably feel a strong need to check every detail. Fortunately, our ICR classes have been
enjoying a pair work in which they talk on the news they listened to. However, a problem
remains to be solved. It seems that not a few students in our class skip listening practice.
They simply read transcripts that are available at the websites and copy them down. I talked
about this problem with my group members, but no one seemed to have good solutions. I
hope we can find some way to prevent students from doing this.
For me, attending this annual workshop is somewhat like going beneath the surface of
water. I often felt as if my oxygen tank on my back were becoming rapidly empty when I
found myself surrounded by a dozen of native speakers of English. To my relief, however, I
think I could manage to fish some pearls. I am grateful to the people who organized this
inspiring workshop and the participants who generously shared their clever ideas.
Ian Platt (イアン・プラット)
Another summer, another workshop—but as usual, good to see colleagues working on other
days and teaching other classes as well as those teaching the same classes as myself. I
attended the Introduction to Communication and Research, Basic Research and Discussion
sessions in the morning, and Asking Questions and Note Taking in the Common Areas of
Focus review in the afternoon.
It is always interesting to see how much variation we all put into our classes in order to pull
in the same direction and try to get students developing their skill sets. It is also fascinating
to see how we try to assess what students do 'well' and what they do not 'do well'. Perhaps
we make judgments about the group, but in fact we should be trying to assess individuals'
needs. As in other years, I see a range of strengths and weaknesses in students this year, but
unlike some other teachers, this group do not seem to be reluctant to talk about their
15
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
books—and they have read a lot! While other teachers have suggested initial higher level
note-taking, I am not so sure. Their notes have been mixed in 'finish' quality, but the notes a
student makes need only be understandable to that student, not necessarily to others. I
know the purpose of notebooks such as scientific lab notebooks, where a process must be
retraceable and repeatable for safety and procedural reasons, but we are really not in that
business. With these fictional stories, surely we should be encouraging students to read
(many do not have the habit), increase their reading speed, get the gist and main detail
points without stopping to use a dictionary every time they encounter an unknown word,
make some notes in English to help them retain the main ideas/characters/plot, form and be
able to express their views about the book to classmates in English, and reflect on the
comments of their peers (who may also have read the book) while expressing their views,
and enjoy the whole process. Generally I think my group have achieved this. Many of their
notes/mindmaps require considerable effort on my part to follow, but the whole thing is
new to them1. Others have produced quite polished summaries which are very visual to
achieve their aim. I shall check how much they can use/glean from their notes later. I shall
also ask them to produce notes for a wider audience next semester when we move to the
non-fiction texts. I expect they will find those easier in many ways.
The students have been listening to English Central video clips and I have also asked them to
check BBC, BBC World, NHK World News in English, or ABC News, even VOA(/CIA) stories for
listening. Some have done quite a lot, others not much. Time to remind them!
My higher level group is still having problems finding their research questions. Topics are not
a problem, but within those topics hmm, not so easy for them. We've been through the
process of just using question words, but it seems to overwhelm them. We're on Cycle
Three, but the questions and the research are still rather thin often. We've looked at the
Faculty site for examples etc., but it just seems to have been less smooth to get them into it
compared to last year. One of the comments made in the second group I joined was class
dynamics. This is a crucial element to the whole show: a few good 'uns with a bit of
character who don't just sit and not talk, and the whole group begin to fly. Without them …
The class is talking—and in English—but it feels as though there's still something missing. I
think I'm going to follow a suggestion from this group (Andy M.) and direct them to specific
companies to see if that helps them dig deeper. They are still 'collecting info rather than
researching' as someone described it. We need to breakthrough there. Amy T.'s idea about
locating sources on a spectrum from 'V. right to V. left' is a great idea and I've asked the
class to do that for each of their three sources to try to get them to find a balance. We'll be
talking about that this week and seeing how easy it was for them.
The afternoon I joined Elena in the Asking Questions group. It's clear that in the discussions,
the students are not asking enough/deep enough/challenging enough questions to their
partners. It may be that as the their partner's topic is new to them, they have previously
spent zero time thinking about it and all the info they've just heard is new and
overwhelming. There also seems, on the part of most students, to be a reticence to question
a presenter anyway. That person has become the de facto 'sensei' the 'one with the
knowledge', and the students have had little experience of questioning authority of any
1 I am always amazed how university students here, no matter what the class, topic or language, seem not to make notes of
any kind for themselves. Perhaps they rely on teachers handing out photocopies, or perhaps they read a textbook for
themselves (!?), but although they copy everything from a board, they rarely seem to make notes as they listen. Perhaps other
teachers in all other subjects are simply speaking the words on the board or in the book, I do not know, but how do students
recall what a teacher says when that teacher does not produce information in a written form? Do they all have poker players'
card reading memories? Why do I suspect this is not the case?
16
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
kind. It's a hard one to shift gear on, especially when one presenter (who shall remain
nameless) has so much unedited infoIwas overwhelmed listening to him!2 But I shall
continue to try to get them to ask pertinent questions. Elena's idea of surveys for lots of
things may be one (indirect) way in: it's not challenging, but it is asking questions and we
have to start somewhere. Of course, some students do ask, and I shall have to make sure to
mix them up into other groups to even them.
It was good not to make posters for a change. The day was useful, stimulating, allowing
opportunities for reflection and comparison, provided several avenues to explore with
classes, and—by no means least—enjoyable. It is extremely good to meet the larger group,
and some of the Japanese crew too. I can't help feeling it would be even better to hold the
day a little earlier in the semester, say after week six or seven, but I am sure there are good
reasons why we don't.
Many thanks to Andy B., Mike and Peter and anyone else (Steve?) involved in setting it all
up. Thank you too to the other attendees who provide insights, tips, experiences and some
good stories. Well done, and I'm looking forwards already to the next one. No, seriously!
James Underwood (ジェームズ・アンダウッド)
Overall I really enjoyed the retreat. It was good to meet the other teachers in the program,
who work on a different day to me, and share ideas. In fact, apart from going to an
occasional teachers meeting in Tokyo, every now and then, this was perhaps the first time in
a long while, I had an opportunity to meet other teachers from different backgrounds.
Nearly all the teachers I met had been working for at Chuo Law for quite a while and it was
good to hear from them. As I had just started in April, this year I was happy to listen and
share ideas where appropriate.
After we had gone through the initial stages of getting to know each other, we moved into
the first of our focus groups. In the first group, we looked at a common issue of concern
across the curriculum. I joined Elena, Rob, Greg, JP, and Andy M. to discuss how to develop
the students’ ability to ask researchable questions. Rob started off by introducing the
problem of getting the students to develop researchable questions and how he had had
some success introducing the students to the topic of developing their questions through a
YouTube video. Elena then reported on how she had succeeded in getting the students to
develop their questions by getting them to make surveys. In class they first piloted the
questions by interviewing their partner, and then refined the questions to make a survey
that they conducted for homework. This kind of “live research” seemed profitable and
motivating to the students and reminded Greg about how he had had some earlier success
with students conducting live research and how important it was to get the students to
realize what the audience is interested in finding out when they conduct their research.
Andy M. then added how it is also important that the students realize that they should not
be just presenting their ideas but actually teaching their audience something. He also
encourages the audience to be active listeners, who can stop the presenter at any time to
confirm their understanding, which of course leads into the discussion aspect of the course.
After this fruitful session, JP, Masa and I, formed a group to discuss English for
Business/TOEIC. After quick introductions, JP started off by introducing how he got the
2 Even when I asked him to edit down and further select from his source material for a second go, it was still too much. This is a
case of the opposite of shallow research, but the purpose (telling classmates about the topic) was lost in the quantity.
17
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
students to take control of their learning. From the start he emphasizes to the students that
it is important for them to develop all the skills and not just their test-taking ability. At the
start of term he advised the students to choose their textbooks carefully, and choose one
that was aligned the closest to their goals. As he did not assign a textbook, the students
were free to choose one that suited them the most. This also allowed him to deal with the
problem that a third of the class were not interested in TOEIC at all and were therefore not
motivated to buy such a textbook. Once the students had their textbook they were free to
start their independent study, which they did for homework and each week they would
report back to their study partner what they did and how it went. After this, Masa shared
how he teaches the importance of translation with an American Civil War book that he uses
to develop the students’ understanding of the period. I then shared how I had had some
success with developing a website and getting the students to research a business of their
choice in English using the company’s website. After building up their understanding of the
background to a company, the students then went on to research about the companies’
Corporate Social Responsibility program. Although this research cycle is currently in its early
stages, the students seemed to enjoy researching their favorite company, as gave a sense of
realism to the imagined business world of the TOEIC exam.
In the afternoon I decided to join Mike and Ellen to talk about BRD. It was interesting to see
that the issue of developing the student’s ability to make researchable questions again came
up. Mike stressed the need to frame the objective of the questions properly so that the
students are clear about the purpose of their research. He also commented on how it was
important that the connection between doing research project and developing their ability
was made clear to the students to give them the motivation to continue. Ellen explained
how important it is to get the students to assess the reliability of the Internet source, at an
early stage, so that they are more able to do independent research by themselves. I found
what Mike said interesting, as although I had had some success in getting the students to
make researchable questions, I was still under the impression that my students focused
much more on the short-term goal of completing their research project than the long term.
As I now see from talking to Mike that perhaps this was largely due to how I framed the
beginning of the course, it would be one of the things I will be developing next semester. In
addition I will be using the advice that Ellen gave to assist my students into doing more
independent research.
After this discussion there was just about enough time to discuss the Common Areas of
Focus as a whole group. And then it was time to pack up and leave. All in all the Retreat was
a rewarding experience. Thanks to Andy B., Mike, Peter, Ryota, and Steve for organizing the
Retreat. I’m definitely looking forward to the next one (which hopefully won’t be on Father’s
Day again!).
Jean-Pierre Chretien (ジャン・ピエール・クレティエン)
By way of introduction I appreciate the more relaxed format of the retreat this year. It was a
good idea to begin by brainstorming what is foremost on our minds, then group and regroup carrying these areas and issues of concerns gradually into focus as they impact on
specific courses.
My introductory talk was with Greg about an incident in a class in which there needed to be
specific intervention to deal with the negative behavior of a student which impacted the
class. More and more certain students are feeling empowered or less able to practice the
18
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
more restrained style of Japanese culture, so we may see more of this type of problem in the
future.
In the first group session, on the topic of question-making, I joined Rob, Elena, Greg and
Andy Martin. We explored several angles of making questions; in discussions, around
presentations and in conducting research. Elena and Andy showed how they use questioning
in research project development; the most effective tactic being front-loading question
making to serve as a guide in the research project and to alert both the researcher and the
readers of gaps in background information.
Front-loaded questioning includes the techniques of polling and interviewing people in the
planning stages. Asking questions before a presentation can also be an effective way to
prepare an audience for listening and note-taking. Rob offered several polling websites to
consider. Greg suggested it may be effective for students to use more “live” sources of
information along with internet or library based sources.
In presenting information to peers it was suggested that questioning can be embedded in
the presentation (quiz games for example) to check the comprehension of the audience as
well as to enliven the proceedings. Andy M. reminded us that “presentation” is “teaching”
and that students should be encouraged to understand that sharing with others about what
they have found in reading and research is the way to create a comfortable context for
natural question making. Research, reading and presenting are integrated activities which
can be combined and imbedded in the process of research and not isolated as individual
tasks, one saved as a supposed culmination of a project.
In the first afternoon session I met with James and Masa concerning the English for
Business/TOEIC course. I began teaching the class last year and James is new to the course
so we began by sharing what we did in our respective classes to respond to the different
interests of our students since not all are interested in studying TOEIC nor are some
interested in business topics. Our approaches proved to be complimentary and I have
already adopted some of the suggestions James made concerning the use of company sites
such as Toshiba and Panasonic, which have “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) sections
in their global websites. Masa, who teaches reading using translation, asked if we thought
students are ready to take TOEIC to which we both replied in the negative.
In the second afternoon session I met with Andy B., Rob, and a few others about the
Introduction to Communication and Research course. We discussed the goals of extensive
reading and listening in this class and about alternative ways to conduct the research project
coming in the second semester.
I joined Steve and Ryota in the final discussion reviewing the “Common areas of focus.” It
was suggested we reduce the number of areas by combining and refining the areas. For
example, number 1 and 8 both deal with topic choices, from beginning to end, so these can
be combined to reflect the integrated flow of topic development from purpose to sharing
and “self-recognition of accomplishment” (in the words of Steve) which might also
encompass the area of criticality.
Numbers 2 and 6 are concerned with the research process and combined with note-making
(instead of note-taking) can also show the flow of an integrated process.
19
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
Areas of procedure could include, group making, pair-work, rotation and mixing of pairs and
the ways language (including Japanese) can be used and developed. In the earlier discussion
on presenting information it was pointed out that students do not know well the vocabulary
of explaining things such as graphics and images, which is a tested skill in some forms of
TOEFL. The resulting list, then, would include main sections: Procedures, Topics, Research,
broken down into sub-sections that cover the goals of the curriculum.
The news from the labor front delivered by Peter is of course unsettling. It is hard enough to
work as an adjunct, juggling numerous classes, helping hundreds of students, dealing with
rising costs and frozen wages with little recognition about our work nor any support for
professional development. It is true that we have chosen this path so I appreciate the effort
made to give us a bit of a voice at the annual Chuo Law Faculty retreat workshops.
Jenny Morgan (ジェニー・モーガン)
This was my second retreat and another worthwhile Sunday spent sharing ideas and
approaches with experienced Chuo teachers. This year I have a very small group in my
Joukyuu Eigo course (NGOs and Social Change), only three students, so I was interested in
hearing ideas for varying and enlivening the peer-share discussion rounds, and also ways to
provide the students with diverse audiences for peer feedback.
First up, I talked with Ian, Mike and Hatsumi. I shared concerns about getting learners to
better refine their carefully copied/recorded notes from the Internet or other sources; I
hadn’t wanted to come down heavily on them for simply copying information for their first
peer-share. Ian suggested that we need to see it as inevitable/acceptable that in their first
homework stage students are quite likely to collect research information by simply copying
it; it is pretty demanding to expect learners to summarise and process L2 information into L2
paraphrased notes on the first meeting/reading of content. Ian and Mike suggested (as I had
concluded myself) that in the second stage of homework, we can more realistically expect
students to refine their notes, explaining to them that this means “turn the information into
your own words, paraphrase using your own English, and re-work the ideas to be able to
teach a partner who knows nothing about the topic, and make connections across the
issues.”
For the second round, I joined Basic Research and Discussion (BRD) course teachers—Andy
M., Peter, Steve, Susan, Ian and Ryota. I heard a number of useful ways to guide students to
find their own research topics and then to develop deeper, student-led discussions.
Common threads I heard were: students make surveys about issues (in-class, or wider using
LINE and Facebook). This develops question-making skills, and students find out other
viewpoints/stances on an issue. Susan mentioned getting students to imagine and research
how different people would look at an issue by first choosing a topic that affects everyone,
e.g. changing the voting age, then asking ‘how would a young person/an older person/a
woman/a man view the issue? Who benefits more or less from the change? Who loses out?’
I very much liked Andy M.’s process of ‘Teach-Test-Discuss’ followed by written reflections.
For homework students prepare arguments ‘for & against’ a theme each week, and cover 13 issues per class; do a search on ‘debate’ sites for topics. I like how Andy tells his students
that as presenters “you are teachers” and their goal is not just lecture-style presentations,
but their aim is to lead and stimulate a really active discussion. So, he has students prepare
20
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
discussion questions to pose after the ‘present-teach’ phase. This is a very practical tip I
have now introduced to my students for their Cycle 2 presentations-discussions.
In Round 3, with Rob Moreau, I joined Andy B., who shared how he sets up structures, and
scaffolds tasks for learners in his BRW classes. Andy is interested in how we teachers can
provide space for creativity which can foster deeper engagement with issues and content to
lead towards critical literacy. I’m still mulling over talk about ‘affective aspect, the need to
bring an emotional dimension to criticality, help students to get engaged with what they are
learning, include a fun element and creativity in content engagement’. Andy has the class do
in-class journaling (30 mins each week); Rob mentioned his class’s visual reports.
In the afternoon session, I talked with Andy M. and Elena about Advanced Electives and
Business Issues. Andy M. has his students do research on a specific campaign and the actors,
and students must report on at least two stances. Elena talked about using surveys to get
students to practise critical question-making about interesting topics. Survey tasks during
three weeks serve as icebreakers, and introduce skills of creating surveys, doing interviews,
analysing results, and creating posters to report the results in front of the class. Next,
students do a ‘gap year’ research project starting with ‘country’ research, then choosing a
volunteer project connected to that country and finishing with discussion about opinions
towards young people taking a gap year (the benefits, personal preferences and Japan’s
policies/attitudes to this practice). In the second semester, the class moves on to ‘youth
issues’ such as ‘hiki-komori’, loneliness, cyber-bullying, suicide. Elena suggested a useful
website of documentary films that are short clips and sub-titled: www.cultureunplugged
Something I take away from the retreat is to continue asking myself “What is my students’
purpose(s) for doing research?” For developing criticality, think of how to get students to
imagine different stances that different actors would take, to ask who benefits more or less.
Also, foster amongst the class, the view of students as ‘teachers’, as ‘discussion leaders’.
I appreciate this opportunity for teacher development provided by the Chuo Faculty of Law.
Thank you once again to the Chuo faculty retreat team—Andy, Mike, Miyuki, Peter, Ryota,
and Shiori—for organising another very positive and useful day.
Kent Hill (ケント・ヒル)
This year’s retreat consisted mainly of four sessions of which I participated in: Creating and
Sustaining Interest, BRW, Advanced Speaking and Listening and Common Areas of Focus.
1) Creating and Sustaining Interest (Ellen, Peter, Steve and Ryota)
We spoke mainly of the jokyu classes and maintaining interest and adapting writing or
presentation approaches to suit student interest, especially when choosing critical research
topics. The use of Manaba to create interest was also discussed.
2) BRW (Andy B., Rob, Elena and Greg)
The group discussed how they work with the global readers, how they conduct each cycle or
writing assignment and the difficulties involved with each. Andy B. introduced writing journals
and the main idea, supporting ideas and comment structure. Elena provided many useful
reference books or websites. She mentioned wanting to introduce argumentative writing with
her students and Rob pointed out that the global readers contain argumentative assignments.
I introduced my use of templates for the assignments on Manaba and my peer-editing
21
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
worksheet. Asking questions was also discussed.
3) Advanced Speaking & Listening (Elena, Andy M. and Jenny)
Elena provided many interesting examples of activities she’s doing in her class, including using
projects and doing outside research, e.g., youth issues for employability. Andy M. also
provided a variety of topics for students to choose from. I again suggested putting materials
on the Manaba website and that students seem to like having access to the materials and do
not mind printing out their own copy.
4) Common Areas of Focus (Peter and Ian)
We looked at ways to combine and redefine the common areas of focus. I also suggested
further integrating methodologies from content and language integrated learning and sociocultural theory, e.g., pairwork and the zone of proximal development. Additionally, students
often have difficulty with understanding what critical thinking is so it was suggested that
students not accept ideas as they are but to always question them.
As in previous years, the retreat was a constructive exchange of ideas, an opportunity to
share teaching approaches and experiences again with colleagues and a valuable workshop
for teacher, curriculum and student development.
Mike Nix (マイク・ニックス)
I really enjoyed the more spontaneous approach we took to the format of the Workshop/
Retreat this year, and it was interesting that this seemed to be reflected in the discussions
during the day too, in a more flexible approach to structuring of courses around research
cycles and an emphasis on creativity as well as criticality in students’ work. Staring with a
brainstorming of themes across the curriculum, and discussing those before getting into
course-specific groups, also worked really well, and is more appropriate, I think, for our
‘spiral’ approach to curriculum in which particular practices of research, discussion, writing,
criticality, etc, thread through the curriculum, and the various courses and levels are not
contained in separate boxes that should be different from each other.
Many of the themes we brainstormed together seemed to be connected with engagement
with content and the development of knowledge and understanding about issues, as well
with the relations and dynamics within classes and the building of communities of
knowledge construction, which signals a continued development in our collective
understanding of the taught-in-English program, I think. So it was great to decide to rethink
the Common Areas of Focus at the end of the day as a way to represent in that key
curriculum development document these recent developments in our thinking, and to do
that through a collective brainstorming.
I was in a group that discussed note-taking, which is a well-trodden area of the Common
Areas of Focus. But discussing that again bought home a few important issues around notetaking for me. One is that what we ask students to do in their note-taking for homework
each week is a very complex task, involving summarizing key information (usually from
several different sources), then re-organizing it in terms of their own understanding of the
issues (not just as a report of what their sources say about it) and then making it
comprehensible, interesting and discussable for other students. That’s three operations that
we ask students to do in one go so it’s not surprising it can take time to develop. And maybe
a staged approach to first taking and then organizing notes is useful, with time to re-make
22
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
notes in class sometimes. Another reminder was that visually attractive notes are not always
necessary for good research and critical engagement with a topic. Some students do really
thoughtful research with ragged note-taking and some very beautiful note-taking can be
organized a bit superficially without much critical engagement. In one class this year I have
been asking students to identify questions to explore for themselves about multi-modality
(ways of combining textual and visual modes of communication) in their work and some
have raised the question of why notes have to be visual or colourful? These are great
questions for avoiding formulaic approaches to note-taking, and orthodoxies, developing in
classes and for continuing to think about the purposes of note-taking.
I wasn’t in the group that focused on the theme of questioning but this came up in several
the discussions I was involved, and questioning seems important for note-taking, as well as
all other aspects of students’ work. We talked in the note-taking group about how using
research questions not just to direct research but also to organise the notes student make
can be one way of moving beyond superficial note-taking to a deeper, more critical and
analytical engagement with content (which was another of the themes we brainstormed at
the start). We talked about how students identifying research questions in journal or diary
writing at the end of a class, or after it, and then using those questions to frame their next
research notes, can strengthen connections and focus in their research. But we also
recognized the importance of students developing new questions during the research
process through their engagement with the sources (as well as through discussion with
other students) and this is related to another theme we brainstormed at the start: how
students can come to see issues from different perspectives in their research.
We also talked about the importance of students developing discussions questions about
their research to enable them to discuss it analytically with other students. This can be a
challenge for students, I think, and in trying to support them with this I have focused on
them having both specific and general questions for discussion and also making sure they
give other students information and different points of view on the discussion questions
they pose to enable an informed discussion from different perspectives. Ellen explained a
slightly different approach to discussion questions with three types of questions (if I have
remembered those correctly): comprehension questions (to check understanding of the
information), experiential questions (about what students already knew/thought/have done
around the issues) and opinion questions (what positions students have on the issues).
These seem useful for helping students connect from their own knowledge and experience
to more abstract, analytical discussion
In the group on Improving Research and Writing, we discussed how much this should be an
academic writing class and how other ‘non-academic’ genres can be good ways for students
to foreground their engagement with content, and learning in their writing. I felt further
exploration of different kinds of writing genres would be a good way to develop our
approaches to this courses. We also talked about the place of correction of writing errors by
the teacher and clarified that this may be useful in as far as it helps students communicate
more clearly their research to other students, but the primary focus should be on learning
about issues together through the (more or less accurate) use of English. Ellen talked about
an approach to students doing surveys in class, something I’d been skeptical about if it
meant students gathering other students’ opinions on issues rather than engaging with new
perspectives on the issues through different sources of information. Ellen uses surveys
differently though, as a way for them to find out at the start of a research cycle what other
students know, think and what to learn about the issue they are researching themselves,
23
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
which seems a very useful way to create a sense of other students as the audience for
research and writing within a community of knowledge production.
One of the other themes brainstormed at the start, the use of Japanese in the classroom,
also came up throughout discussions I was in. I was struck by how liberating and helpful
Hatsumi had found being able to use Japanese in her writing class was. I think we had never
intended to ‘ban’ Japanese in the past but, until we started explicitly asking teachers to
specific if they wanted to use English, Japanese or a mix in class, Hatsumi had felt she
shouldn’t use Japanese. Having Japanese as resource now meant she felt she could really
conference effectively with students about issues in their writing and really help them to
develop their work as a result. We also talked about Japanese as resource for students to
alongside English, in a positive and intentional, as well as careful, manner rather than as
something we permit students to ‘slip into’ in a negative way if they can’t communicate
what they want to in English. Having this dual focus on thinking about how to develop use of
English and when and how to use Japanese effectively seems to improve the quality and
quality of overall language use (as well as use of English) in the classroom, as well as the
‘flow’ of discussion and exchange between students and the depth of analysis and
engagement with issues. We talked about how students trying different ways of moving
between English and Japanese may be part of this more intentional use of both languages
and Ellen suggested one way of doing this that I hadn’t considered: students using Japanese
for a few minutes to summarize their research before explaining it in detail in English.
Overall, I felt the discussions through the day at this Retreat/Workshop really contributed to
a collective exploration of common issues we are all mulling over and a much clearer focus
on options and ideas for addressing those issues. So many thanks to everyone who
participated.
Peter Thornton (ピーター・ソーントン)
We started the day by raising ideas about what we would like to think about over the course
of the day, thinking in particular about broad issues relevant to several or all classes in the
curriculum. The aim was to keep these broad issues in mind through the day as a way to find
links between different classes, and thereby be able to think about the curriculum as a
whole as well as specific classes.
1st Session: Creating and Sustaining Interest
For the first session I was part of a group discussing how to create and sustain student
interest in classes. I was joined by Ellen, Kent, Ryota, and Steve.
Ellen started out by raising the example of a student who wanted to do research on
Disneyland and her favorite Disney characters. At first it was difficult to see how the
student’s topic could qualify for academic research, but Ellen decided to let the student go
with the topic because it was based on her interest. With a little guidance, the student
eventually found ways to think about Disney from a critical social perspective (which I think
Ellen delighted in—Mickey, Minnie, Johnny Depp in a pirate costume, etc. all seem to be
anathema to her). Ellen’s point was that it’s usually best to let students find topics of their
own interests, whatever that might be, and then help them find ways to approach those
topics with criticality.
24
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
Kent talked next about his Advanced Listening and Speaking class on Globalization, which is
a very popular course with students every year. Kent explained how he sets specific issues
for each research cycle, with clear goals and activities for the entire class each week. In this
respect, Kent’s approach seemed to differ from Ellen’s, with Kent taking a more active role
in guiding the direction of students’ research. Of course, Kent’s class is intended to be a
much more content-specific class than the type of classes Ellen was talking about. But the
difference in their styles was interesting.
We talked next about my Joukyuu Eigo class on photography. I explained the main reason I
came up with this theme. All Kokki students and many Law and Politics students take several
research-type classes in their first and second years, and so the general method of learning
(working in roughly 5 week cycles, gathering information primarily from the internet, taking
notes, developing an outline, and creating some type of final product) might feel a bit
repetitive by the third year. One way to change this routine, I think, is to introduce some
kind of fieldwork element at the third/fourth year level. In my JE class, students are
researching topics of their own interest using the internet (and if possible the library), but
then are required to go out and document how the issue appears in “everyday” life. This has
allowed students to link their academic knowledge on an issue to how that issue is relevant
in people’s lives. The gap between the “academic” and the “everyday” that the course is
premised on is admittedly artificial, but I’m hoping students will be able to bridge that gap
through their research.
We also talked about how some students seem to be illiterate about current affairs and
issues. Some students do not seem to read the news at all, neither in English nor Japanese.
All students have unlimited access to the Asahi newspaper digital edition through manaba,
so we may want to encourage students to make use of that service.
2nd Session: Basic Research and Discussion
For the second session we broke off into course-specific groups. I joined Andy M., Ian, Jenny,
Ryota, and Susan to discuss Basic Research and Discussion and other research-centered
courses.
We first exchanged ideas on what we do at the beginning of the year as students pick their
first research topics, and how to get students engaged in discussion. Regarding the course
website, we discussed whether students respond better when all of them are on the same
general area of research or whether they should be allowed to choose freely from all the
available areas. One of the benefits of keeping students on the same general topic is that it
becomes easier for students make connections between their own research and those of
others, thereby making it easier to develop discussion. Andy M. also explained that he has a
starter sheet with various topics which students use to practice discussing social issues for a
few weeks before getting into the course website. Ian meanwhile stressed the importance of
getting students to personalize their research, for example by letting them think about how
they could get involved with an issue through local NPOs and other organizations. Along
similar lines, Jenny discussed how she gets students to conduct interviews or join public
events, as well as look for local organizations involved with a social issue.
One of the concerns that came up was that some students confuse analyzing an issue and
moralizing about it. Often students seem to think that a project cannot be complete unless
they find a “solution” to the issue they are researching, and hence are tempted to moralize.
Having had the same problem in her class, Susan suggested that a good way to handle such
situations is to have students look for the main actors involved in an issue and explore how
25
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
these actors are tackling the issue. This can help students see that there usually is not a
single solution to a problem, and that there need to be diverse approaches towards most
issue.
We next talked about the issue of teacher intervention. We had all had the experience of
dealing with students with politically incorrect views or students who were somewhat overzealous about moralizing an issue. Steve mentioned that he often starts his classes with
students working on purely expository research, explicitly restricting any kind of personal
opinion. Later he has a cycle on advocacy, where students have to take a particular position
on an issue. He suggested that doing this at the beginning of the year lets students
understand that expressing personal opinions is actually not the end goal of research. In a
similar vein, Jenny tells her students to look for multiple points of view on any given issue,
thereby allowing them to see where the lines of contention have been drawn regarding that
issue, and that it is difficult to come to any single “solution.” Susan also stressed the
importance of multiple perspectives in research, and has her students imagine how different
groups of people (the elderly, the young, an ethnic minority, a particular religious group, the
blind or the deaf) might understand an issue.
Morning Review: Pair work
We were supposed to talk in pairs to think about what we want to focus on in the afternoon,
but somehow we ended up as a group of five, with Andy M., Ellen, JP, Ryota and myself. One
of the topics we were all interested in for the afternoon was that or asking questions: that is,
how to get students asking the right kinds of questions that will point their research in
interesting directions. We also discussed that it’s important to teach students how to frame
research questions effectively.
3rd Session’ Sports and ICR
This was an especially fun session in which Christine, Ryota, and I discussed what we are
each doing in our Sports Special English classes, while Steve joined us with helpful thoughts
and insights. Christine was appalled to hear that Ryota and I each have close to 60 students
in our Sports classes on the Reading side. Ryota and I both discussed how it can be a
challenge to keep many of the students on focus when there are so many in one class.
Christine explained that she has a hard enough time with her smaller class.
The main trouble I’ve been having in my class of 58 this year is that about a quarter of the
students are at a very decent level of English (these students would do just fine in
Intermediate level classes), while the rest tend to be highly unmotivated about English and
are sometimes unable even to write the alphabet. As a result, this year I’ve been running my
class like a Basic Research and Discussion class, where all the students conduct research
independently. Those that are able have the opportunity to challenge themselves and
pursue topics that are of interest to them; those that are less motivated can do the bare
minimum of gathering information in Japanese and taking some notes in English (often using
translation software). I’ve decided not to try to monitor the behavior and work of the least
motivated students this year, as it ends up being a waste of time for students who are
motivated. Most students have responded positively, and seem to be challenging
themselves with their research projects.
Regarding the less-than-ideal situation of the ski students who attend just 2 of the 15
sessions in the fall semester, Christine explained that she requires her students to send in
one page of English writing every week. I tried something similar last year, but with little
26
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
success. This year I will try setting up a blog for each ski student, and have them make
weekly blog postings in English.
Ryota’s class has focused on teaching students how to introduce themselves and their
sports. Students learn how to ask basic questions about each other, and how to talk about
their sport as well as about their backgrounds and their future aspirations.
These are not easy classes to teach!
Rob Moreau (ロブ・モロー)
There were many interesting discussion sessions at this year’s Chuo retreat. The flow of the
day seemed to work well, first talking about common themes that teachers wanted to
discuss, in the morning and then speaking about classroom-related issues afterward. One
thing that worked well for me regarding this approach was that it allowed us to speak to
people who teach different classes from ourselves, as well as discussing ideas that could be
applicable to more than one class.
To close the day we discussed the common themes page in the teachers’ handbook.
Regarding this final discussion, I felt that it was difficult to come up with ideas to contribute.
It seems like this particular discussion would have been easier if there were proposed
changes to discuss.
In the first morning sessions I sat in with the group (Andy M., Elena, Greg and myself) that
discussed ways of facilitating question asking in student discussions. One suggestion that
Andy M. made was to frame the focus of the activity that the students engage in as teaching
content to each other, not simply presenting it. This could help to encourage a two-way flow
of information and help to promote discussion as opposed to a one-way flow of information
from a presenter to a listener. Another useful suggestion was given by Elena, who described
an activity that she does where students gather questions in a class survey and then
incorporate these peer-generated questions into their research projects. One other useful
suggestion that we talked about in this group was setting time aside for discussion and
sharing of opinions aside from the research cycles by, for example, having students spend
some time discussion controversial statements, and then explaining the reasons behind their
opinions. This could be a way of maintaining interest in the class, reducing the homework
load and increasing fluency in English.
In the second morning session I joined the Basic Research and Writing session (Andy B.,
Elena, Greg, Kent and myself). I presented my some example work from second research
and writing cycle with my class, which focused on a Visual Report. In this report students use
both information from their Global Issues book and from Internet sources to put together a
brief 500-word report on their global issues topic. I found that this kind of writing was a
good way to introduce students to the task on researching online while still incorporating
information found in the readers used in class.
An idea I found particularly useful during this sharing session was Andy B.’s, taking studentgenerated questions as a starting point for developing over the cycle a Global Issues
Question Sheet. One thing that I felt was appealing about this approach is that it also used
the idea of students finding pictures to match their questions. This makes it a natural followup from the research cycle that I just completed. I am thus using this idea for the last
27
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
research cycle of this semester. While on the subject of visuals, Elena made the suggestion
of using the website Pinterest for finding examples of global issues graphics and posters, and
Andy mentioned having students search Images in Google with the key words of their global
issue + a data term, e.g., "water issues+infographic", "poverty+Japan+graph", "CO2emissions
+pie chart”, to find visuals that the students could then use for developing their knowledge
and writing about. Another really good idea that I would like to try in my class is the idea of
students taking some time to write about the discussions that they have in class in order to
explore their learning, reinforce the coherence of their ideas, and increase writing fluency.
After a few rounds of sharing information, students could write about their discussions and
keep a word count in this kind of journaling.
Another activity that I am eager to try out in class is a peer evaluation, introduced by Andy B.
that incorporates a personal reflection from the writer about their own work. In the past I
have only had the students write about other students’ work but it would be good to have
students write about their own. On the topic of peer evaluations, a good suggestion put
forward from Kent was to have the students reflect on how they could improve their own
writing based on what they have learned through the peer evaluation activity.
Finally, both Andy B. and Elena introduced some materials that could be used to help
students use organizing phrases in their writing and in discussions in the classroom. Andy
had prepared a handout that he shared with the group, and Elena suggested the
Manchester University Academic Phrasebook, although one caveat with this site is that it
may be too difficult for students and would need to be adapted by teachers for classroom
use. I have included a link to this website below: http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/
I’m looking forward to continuing to adapt and use what I learned at this retreat. Thank you
to everyone for all of the helpful information.
Susan Binder (スーザン・バインダー)
My discussions were with the BRD group, the ICR group, a group focusing on the topic of
asking questions, and a short discussion with Mike on IRD classes. The main discussions were
on helping students move from superficial to more meaningful research questions and
content in their work, and on making connections in their issue and themselves / other
students issues. Andy B. suggested one way to start a cycle is having students begin by
finding and bringing to class pictures on at least different issues that they are interested in.
Students explain each of the images and then choose the one that most interests them. He
also suggested spending some time discussing with students how to search for information
on the net—for example, using key word+keyword+keyword (for example, poverty+gender
+Japan), or using domain names such as .org to help students search for information from
non-profit organisations, schools and communities. For example, the search term
site: .org+poverty+Japan could help students to narrow down the search to exactly what the
student is looking for. The group also talked over having students start with a few key
questions, explain what they’ve found out, and then ask what new questions they have on
the issue. We also suggested asking students to consider how one week's research is
connected to the research of the previous week, how case studies can be useful as specific
examples supporting general points, and talked over doing an analytical report in one cycle
followed by a position paper/argument on the same issue in the second cycle, thinking that
this will give students an opportunity to delve deeper into an issue and develop an opinion
about it.
28
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
The idea of dividing a cycle into two parts—tackling the research as a distinct “unit”
involving asking questions, finding sources, and taking notes and then either writing a paper
or a making a presentation in the second “unit” (I don’t remember who introduced this)—
makes sense to me, and I think would help students see where they’re going and how to get
there, especially in 1st year classes. Some of the students in my 1st year see the classes as a
writing course but haven’t yet thought much about the research part of the process.
The retreat was a very good one this year, I thought, with some very useful discussions and
interesting ideas. I enjoyed it!
Discussion of the Common Areas of Focus (CAFs)
Peter: We concluded the day with a discussion on the Common Areas of Focus. Many new
ideas about the curriculum had been discussed over the course of the day, and we thought
about how these might fit into a new Common Areas of Focus. Some of the points that we
considered including were: (1) Use of language (for example, using Japanese); (2) New ideas
for the end of cycle focus (for example, encouraging students to be more creative,
developing multi-modal approaches, etc.); (3) Developing criticality as well as creativity and
affectivity; (4) Asking questions (helping students frame academic questions); (5) Introducing
topical issues to bring a change to the research-cycle routine; (6) Helping students develop a
sense of purpose as they engage with their research issues. The plan is to develop a
modified Common Areas of Focus before 2016.
Common Areas of Focus
central to the continuing development of the curriculum
1. Choice of topics*
 students choose issues and topics of interest to them
 students develop their knowledge of social, political, legal and global issues and make
connections with their major
2. Research and note-taking*
 throughout the course, students research issues and make notes on them outside of class
and use their notes in class to explain their ideas to other students
 throughout the course, students develop their research and note-taking
3. Use of English*
 students use English to learn about issues and topics and develop their English through
this process
4. Pairwork
 in each lesson students use English in pairs (nearly) all of the time, so that they can
continually develop their confidence and ability to construct understanding in English
5. Rotation
 in each lesson students change partners several times so that they have multiple
opportunities to recycle and develop their understanding of an issue with different
students
6. Cycles of research*
 throughout the course students complete cycles of research, with three or more weeks of
research, so that they can engage with, deepen and develop their knowledge of issues over
time
7. Criticality about learning processes and content knowledge
29
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
 throughout the course students develop their criticality about process and issues
o students reflect on and discuss the development of their use of English, so that they
can become more self-directed in what they do through English
o students reflect on and discuss the development of their content knowledge, so that
they develop greater critical awareness of how they (and others) understand and
interpret different issues
8. End-of-cycle focus*
 at the end of research cycles students give presentations (listening and speaking classes)
or write-up their research (writing classes) to help other students learn from and discuss
their research
o presentations might involve posters, flip-charts or Powerpoint slides, and should be
given to groups of three other students or less
o writing up research might involve reports, essays, overviews of issues, outlines or
research diaries combined into a research narrative, and should be shared with
other students
*Note: For the first semester of the Introduction to Communication and Research course, students choose news stories
to listen to and graded readers each week (rather than issues to research in cycles), and make notes and give
presentations on these at intervals. In the second semester, they continue to do out-of-class listening and choose global
issues readers and make notes, explain, discuss and present on global issues of their choice in 2 or 3 short research
projects.
Mike: Notes on changes to the CAFs suggested at the Retreat:
A. Christine/Mike: CAF 1. Choice of topics emphasizes students’ choice—extend this to
include common topics and sharing/collective building of knowledge in a cycle.
B. JP/Ryota/Steve: Combine CAF 2 Research and note taking and CAF 6. Cycles of research.
C. JP/Ryota/Steve: Extend CAF 3. Use of English to use of language
D. JP/Ryota/Steve: Combine CAFs 4. & 5, Pairs and Rotation
E. Steve: Add more explanation about end of cycles focus -> sharing, teaching others,
redefining the end of the cycles, help students get a sense of accomplishment, how ‘it’ (?)
resonates with students
F. Rob: Reflection on cycles could be a way to help students that get sense of
accomplishment and find out how ‘it’ resonates with them
G. Andy B: Bring in creativity and imagination to criticality
H. Elena/Jenny: Make the end of the cycle creative
I. Peter: getting students away from summarizing -> asking questions that they want
answers to
J. Rob: Research cycles get systematic, students follow patterns—good to develop fluency
in asking questions and sharing opinions about those, on the spot, on topics that don’t require
research—perform with the knowledge you already know
K. Steve: J. above refreshes the group
L. Ian: Bring something topical in
M. Andy M: Gives them a break between cycles
N. Mike: Beyond following interests, asking questions is about developing sense of purpose
for research and sharing that—help students develop that
O. Ellen: Purpose at end of cycle (or not the end of cycle but the end of the focus) is students
becoming experts through their note-taking
P. Steve: Some of the above may be difficult to comprehend for people coming into the
program new—so may need basic points and more complex ones
Q. Rob: Very useful to have an outline of a basic class for new teachers
Andy: It will be interesting to see how we decide to develop and extend the Common Areas
of Focus, while keeping them succinct. We plan to have a set of proposals for discussions
30
2015 Faculty Development Workshop / Teachers’ Retreat Report
next semester of how to develop the CAFs. We look forward to discussing these with
teachers in the autumn.
Plenary Discussion
1. Feedback on the taught-in English curriculum
As there is a lot of work being done on the taught-in-English curriculum, Ian asked about the
‘gakubu anketto’ and whether we get any overall feedback from the students about the taught
in English curriculum as a whole. Andy explained that full-time faculty members only see the
‘gakubu anketto’ results for their own courses, and nobody has access to the ‘gakubu anketto’
results for other teachers. In terms of a specific taught-in-English curriculum, the recent
curriculum reforms have made the situation structurally clearer, but, because of the different
combinations of classes that students take, it is not obvious that students will see that there
is a specific taught-in-English curriculum. Steve suggested that teachers themselves could ask
for feedback for 20 minutes or so from students in courses that they teach, and then share
this feedback at the Retreat next year.
2. Are class periods going to become 100 minutes long?
This is happening at other universities, but there is no plan to do this at Chuo.
3. Has the employment situation vis-à-vis part-time teachers been clarified at Chuo?
Peter explained that last year the Chuo ‘rijikai’/Board of Directors promised they would
interpret the new law as intended in order to provide greater job security. The law was
being interpreted to mean that if a university employed a part-time teacher for more than
five years, and the part-timer requested that his or her employment status be changed to
permanent, the university would have to comply and change the part-timer’s status to
permanent. Many universities found this to be unreasonable, and the law was amended to
10 years. At which point some universities said they would not renew part-time teachers’
annual contracts after nine years; rather, they would require them to take a break of one
semester or a year, so that they could reset their employment clock with a particular
university and start afresh.
This 9-year option was proposed as a new university-wide policy at Chuo, and all faculties
except the Faculty of Law accepted the re-set option. Labour law experts in the Faculty of
Law argued that the newly proposed policy contradicted the original intentions of the law,
and blocked it from passing. So, once the Faculty of Law rejected the re-set option, the
proposal was sent back to the Chuo ‘rijikai’/Board of Directors to be re-negotiated.
The general sense is that the other faculties can be persuaded to accept Chuo’s legal
obligation to provide permanent job security to part-time faculty and staff who will have
taught at Chuo for 10 years or more.
Closing
To wrap up, each of the full-time members of staff expressed their appreciation and thanks
to everybody for taking part and creating together such a rich and wide-ranging set of
discussions through the day. We then put the two rooms back in order and closed the 2015
English Department Faculty Workshop/Retreat.