Points to be noted when using this lecture material:
This lecture material includes images etc., used by the University ofTokyo with the permission from third parties, and images, etc.,
provided under respective licenses. Please follow the rules
determined by the respective rights-holders when using theindividual images.
Copyrighted works owned by the faculty members of the Universityof Tokyo may only be reused for non-profit or educational purposes.
Please credit the following when using this material:
UTokyo Online Education:
UTokyo Global FFDP 2022 Gabriel HervasVideo for DAY 2Methods, strategies,techniques, etc.
Dr. Gabriel Hervas
gabriel@he.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Center for Research and Development of Higher Education
The University of Tokyo

Some potential definitions• Teaching approach: thoughts about/philosophy/beliefs (e.g., learner-centered)• Teaching model: theoretical framework related to the approach (e.g., constructivist)• Teaching method: way to. Broader procedure to achieve a goal (e.g., direct instruction)• Teaching strategy: conscious organization of techniques and activities (e.g., PBL)
• Teaching technique: organized procedure of practical nature (e.g., gallery walk)• Teaching activity: specific action/task (e.g., test)

But you will find some of these terms defined (or implicitly understood) differently, mixed, referred as synonyms,,
combined with others, …

3

SOME STRATEGIES
4

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. In E.F. Redish &J.S. Rigden (Eds), The changing role of physics departments in modern universities:
Proceedings of the ICUPE (pp. 981-988). American Institute of Physics.

Peer Instruction (Mazur, 1997)

Cycle of -> brief lecture + test + discussion + feedback
Mini lecture(New topic)

Test

correct answers < 30%correct answers 30–70%

correct answers > 70%

revisit knowledge

peer-discussion

feedback

Based on:Lasry, N., Mazur, E. & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the twoyear college. American Association of Physics Teachers, 76(11).

5Peer Instruction•

Real-time responses and feedback (peers & teacher)•

Useful for:•large groups•

conceptual/factual/deliberative knowledge acquisition

Critical:••teachers’ knowledge mastery (readiness for immediate feedback)•design and quality of test/questions (DAY 3)

6

Just-in-time teaching (Novak et al., 1999)

Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W.
(1999). Just-in-time teaching. Prentice Hall.

Guided learning
Before class (asynchronous)

Formative assessment
Synchronous or asynchronous

Guided learning + formative
assessment (often a test)+
feedback-oriented class

Feedback-oriented class
Synchronous7

Just-in-time teaching• Class adjusted to students’ previous learning• Critical:• guiding & stimulating previous learning (study guide)• Gatheing information and offering feedback, rather than grading• accessibility (resources & technology)• time to prepare feedback-oriented class (close to students’ responses)• if diagnosing in class, knowledge mastery (readiness for immediate feedback)• allowing students do the talking, argue, offer feedback, etc.

• quality of feedback (DAY 3), aspects addressed, real examples• design and quality of test/questions (DAY 3)

8

T&L strategies…

Comments, ideas, & doubts so far…
Take note of them, stop the video when needed.

9Team-based learning(Michaelsen et al., 2002)

Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Ed.) (2002). Teambased learning: a transformative use of small groups. Praeger.

Guided learning
Before class (asynchronous)

Readiness assurance
Individual assessment oflearningGroup
discussion

Group assessment of learning

Feedback

Before or in class

Synchronous

Synchronous

Synchronous

Guided learning + readinessassurance + transfer ofknowledge to practiceTransfer of knowledge topractice in groups
Synchronous or asynchronous
10Team-based learning• Cooperative learning + practice (after acquiring some knowledge)• Critical (in addition to the points mentioned for JiTT):• Flexibility (synchronous or not)• Meaning of practice and connection with previous learning• Teams vs groups (stable groups)• All the ideas about groupwork.

11

Case-, Problem-, Project-, & Challenge-Based learning
Differences• Size & duration• Embedment in the course• Guidance and feedback• Solutions vs tangible outputs• External agents

Similarities:• Cooperative learning.
• Authentic.
• Inquiry-based• Open-ended. Co-creation, selection options (inclusiveness)
12Basic idea

Present it and theprocess

Groupwork

Sharing results

Significance
Steps
Intermediate tasks
Guidance
Rules
Election,,,,Group management
Inquiry
Intermediate tasks
External agents
Guidance and feedback…

Presenting
Discussing
Reflecting on the process…

13

Other strategies•

Simulation: Students actively face realistic professionalsituations immersed in realistic scenarios.

•Service-learning: Combination of learning in the course +community service to put knowledge into practice•Design thinking: Project solving strategy that involves
collaboration to empathize with future “users”, ideate, create
prototypes, test and offer a tangible output.

•Orbital studies: Independent inquiries orbiting around one
aspect of the syllabus.

…

14

References• Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. Baptista, G.,& Oliveira, T. (2019). Gamification and serious games: A literature meta-analysis and integrative model. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 306-315.
• Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education.
• Betti, A., Biderbost, P., & Domonte, A. G. (2022). Developing Students’“Soft Skills” through the Flipped Classroom: Evidence from an International Studies
Class. International Studies Perspectives, 23(1), 1-24.
• Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To Flip or Not to Flip? A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Flipped Learning in HigherEducation. Review of Educational Research, 91(6), 878-918.
• Center for Teaching and Learning. Queens University (2013). Focus on active learning. Active learning Strategies. Focus on Active Learning (queensu.ca)• Cilliers, L., & Pylman, J. (2020). South African students’ perceptions of the flipped classroom: A case study of higher education. Innovations in Educationand Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1853588• Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-análisis. Review ofEducational Research, 8(1), 19-122. .
• Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011, May). Gamification: Toward a definition. In CHI 2011 gamification workshop proceedings (Vol.
12, pp. 12-15). Vancouver BC, Canada.
• Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Sommer, M., Zhu, J., Stephen, A., Valle, N., Hampton, J., & Li, J. (2020). The impact of gamification in educational settings on
student learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1875–1901.
• Fatmi, M., Hartling, L., Hillier, T., Campbell, S., & Oswald, A. E. (2013). The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in healthprofessions education: BEME Guide No. 30. Medical Teacher, 35(12), 608–624.
• Gast, I., Schildkamp, K., & van der Veen, J. T. (2017). Team-Based Professional Development Interventions in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.
Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 736–767.
• Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist Gaming: Understanding the Benefits of Making Games for Learning, Educational Psychologist, 50(4),313-334.
• Kennedy, F. A., & Nilson, L. B. (n.a.). Successful strategies for teams. https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/TeamworkHandbookKennedyandNilson.pdf

15

References• Lasry, N., Mazur, E. & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Association of Physics

Teachers, 76(11).

• Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. In E.F. Redish & J.S. Rigden (Eds), The changing role of physics

departments in modern universities: Proceedings of the ICUPE (pp. 981-988). American Institute of Physics.
• Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Ed.) (2002). Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups. Praeger.
• Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team‐based learning. New directions for teaching and learning, 116, 7-27.
• Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2011). Team-based learning. New directions for teaching and learning, 128, 41-51.
• Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching. Prentice Hall.
• Novak, G. M. (2011). Just-in-time teaching. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 128, 63-73.
• Oakley, B., Rogowsky, B., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2021). Uncommon sense teaching. TarcherPerigee.
• O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 8595.
• Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L. K., Cook, S., y Hudes, P. D. (2012). Team-based learning: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 65. Medical Teacher,34(5), 275-287.
• Paschal, M. J., Pacho, T. O., & Adewoyin, O. (2022). Teaching methods applied in higher education during C0VID-19 pandemic inAfrica. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 9(1), 27-40.
• Prince, Michael (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
• Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgennant, I. (2020). A Systematic Review of Immersive Virtual Reality Applications for Higher
Education: Design Elements, Lessons Learned, and Research Agenda. Computers & Education, 147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778• Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020) The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112.
16

References• Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.
• Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK. Its genesis and exodus. In Berry A. et al. (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in Science Education(pp. 3-13). Routledge.
• Simkins, S. & Maier, M. H. (Ed.) (2010). Just-in-time teaching. Across the disciplines, across the academy. Stylus.
• Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines andeducation levels. Educational Research Review, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314• Sweet, M., y Michaelsen, L. K. (2012). Critical thinking and engagement. Creating cognitive apprenticeships with team-based learning. In M.
Sweet & L. K. Michaelsen (Eds.), Team-based learning in the Social Sciences and Humanities (pp. 5-32). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
• Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Lookingfor the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113–126.
• van Alten, D.C.D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of Flipping the Classroom on Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction: a MetaAnalysis. Educational Research Review, 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003• Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566, 378-382,• Yıldırım, I., & Şen, S. (2021) The effects of gamification on students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis study, Interactive Learning
Environments, 29(8), 1301-1318.

17

Thank youDr. Gabriel Hervas
gabriel@he.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Center for Research and Development of Higher Education
The University of Tokyo