2012年3月26日月曜日
TED Journal 1: "Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity"
I had seen this TED talk a few years ago, but watched it again this week in connection with a curriculum idea to use TED talks for extensive listening practice and a sort of "Listening Journal" in a course I am coordinating.
The idea will be to ask students to choose a TED talk, listen, take notes, summarize in 100 words or more, and react in 50 words or more, most likely on a weekly basis.
This blog post is part of "eating my own dog food" as software engineers at Microsoft? like to say. I'm doing a TED journal sample using the Ken Robinson talk above. So, here I go.
Process: I watched the talk and took one page of notes yesterday. As a native speaker and an education professional, I have no problem catching what he is trying to say after just one listening, but his accent and rate of speech may be hard to catch for some of our students--they may need to read the interactive transcript or refer to the subtitles, and that is fine if they need the scaffolding, as long as they also attempt to listen one or more without any assistance. His main points are not too complex, and mostly come at the end of the talk. For most of the time he is telling stories and jokes, some related to his points, and some not. I wonder how first year ICU students will react to this because humor can be frustrating when listening in another language.
Today, I am using my notes to summarize and react. Then, I think I might watch it again to see if I have really caught the main points.
_______________________________
Summary:
In his 2006 TED talk titled "Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity," British creativity expert Sir Robinson argues that education systems must re-think how human talent and potential is developed. He believes schools kill creativity by over-emphasizing literacy and academic subjects. He calls this a hierarchy of subjects. Schools fail to develop creativity, which should be just as important as literacy, and students interested in dance, art, or music are not encouraged because they can't get a job with those skills. The example of the successful Broadway choreographer who was considered as a child to be deficient because she couldn't sit still is very powerful. Robinson argues that the education system was created by university professors in their own image for largely "industrial" purposes, and the system tries to evaluate with a bias toward academic ability (to make everyone like a professor), leaving out development of creativity. Robinson argues that we must recognize that intelligence is diverse, and create a new human ecology for developing creative capacities.
Reaction:
My own experience matches what Robinson says to some extent, and I agree that the development of creativity (defined as the ability to create original ideas of value) can and should be emphasized more in education. In my case, I was strong on academic subjects such as literature and math, and felt successful and encouraged in my education system. However, I was not as good in creative subjects such as music and art, or creative writing projects where I could do whatever I wanted. Now I wish I had been pushed to be more successful in them--given more open, creative assignments, for example. In this talk, I think the most important point is that the education system, especially teachers, should not dismiss students just because they do not conform to the academic traditions that have been created by the industrial model. Teachers should try to help all types of students find and develop their talents. However, at the same time, I wonder how much Robinson accepts that basic literacy in reading/writing/math/science is actually more useful for most students to get a good job, and therefore it is natural for parents/teachers to emphasize those over art/dance/music. Clearly, some optimal balance has to be found.
Reflection:
In terms of listening and taking notes (20 min.), writing the summary (150 words in about 15 min?) and writing the reaction (150+ words in about 15 min.), this was roughly a one hour task for me. I enjoyed it, but I wonder how students will react. _______________________________ For some students, it may take longer, but I hope students can get used to doing a good TED journal to get exposed to some powerful ideas as well as practice their listening, note-taking, and skills for writing a summary and reaction. In the future, we could also add an oral summary and reaction (1~2 minutes or audio/video)...but that will require a bit of technical logistical preparation that may be beyond the scope of spring term. We will see how it goes!
2012年3月12日月曜日
INTED 2012 Conference, Valencia, March 4-7
INTED 2012, the international conference on technology, education, and development, March 4-7 was a very productive conference.
The oral presentation I made was about language learning anxiety (See details). This was with two other research partners, and we got some good reactions and questions from the audience that underscored our theory that language learning anxiety is a significant, wide-spread psychological phenomenon that instructors of EFL/ESL working with many different types of students from different cultural backgrounds are struggling to deal with. Several audience members commented how they agree with the importance of understanding factors of anxiety and solutions using qualitative interview-based methodology as we did. Another interesting discussion we had was regarding the balance between positive, encouraging feedback from the instructor to the student, or among peers, and ha certain degree of strictness, authoritarianism, and constructive criticism to challenge students.
We also made a poster presentation about Japanese students' academic performance in university in relation to that in the United States (See details) and how efforts to reform university education in each country (or the lack thereof) should take into consideration an international perspective of what is effective and what may be misguided. The points in the poster led to very active discussion with attendees from several countries about their own country's student performance and reform efforts in various levels of education. There was much interest in how Japanese industry developed successfully in the 20th century in spite of a very lenient university academic culture that does not demand much engagement in terms of attendance or coursework, and how that model may or may not need to change if Japan wishes to remain competitive in the future.
Both papers have been published in the proceedings and are available for those interested.
Attending oral and poster sessions at the conference was also beneficial. I focused my attention on university language instruction-related sessions, and got some useful insights on helping students deepen their ability to conduct research while avoiding plagiarism. The Center for Academic Integrity was cited by many professors from various countries as being a very helpful resource--which may be a good addition to what we share with students at ICU. I also attended sessions on blended learning with a few good tips for using Moodle and Blackboard more effectively for research paper instruction. Another emphasis of the conference was "m-learning" or e-learning using mobile devices such as iPhones and iPads, and it was interesting to see how many institutions are introducing m-learning tools for in-class and homework assignments.
Some other things I enjoyed were:
1) Seeing a very smoothly run international conference. As a member of JACET's convention steering committee, I have participated in conference administration for the past few years, and it was instructive to see how the IATED / INTED organization enhanced the conference experience with a) highly capable room staff--I wonder if they were free volunteers or paid staff--they were very much in charge and very helpful to the presenters and facilitators, and b) a comfortable schedule for mingling and getting to know people--coffee time twice a day and an attractive lunch where I met people from many countries and learned a lot about the issues various countries and institutions are facing--possibly even more than in the presentation sessions.
2) Listening to many different varieties of English interacting with each other. As a presenter, I was asked questions in many different accents, and as an audience member watched interactions between presenters and listeners of various cultures. Some speakers were intelligible and effective communicators, while others really struggled to get through. In all cases, it was interesting to watch the communication strategies that were used, including asking others in the room for help to interpret what somebody was trying to say, and asking for repetitions, rephrasing and even just bluntly "Your question is too complex. Please ask me an easier question."
3) Being in Valencia and trying to get around in a city that is not particularly English-visitor friendly. Knowing very little Spanish, it was interesting to have to navigate subways, buses, and street signs for getting from the airport to the conference and around the city to restaurants and order food etc. You notice a lot of things about where signs should be, how they should be consistent, when English should be added, and how a country that depends on tourism for a large part of its GDP should work a bit harder on making the city easier to navigate. These are good lessons for Tokyo and other cities in Japan as well.
Finally, a few amateur photos of Valencia from my camera.
The oral presentation I made was about language learning anxiety (See details). This was with two other research partners, and we got some good reactions and questions from the audience that underscored our theory that language learning anxiety is a significant, wide-spread psychological phenomenon that instructors of EFL/ESL working with many different types of students from different cultural backgrounds are struggling to deal with. Several audience members commented how they agree with the importance of understanding factors of anxiety and solutions using qualitative interview-based methodology as we did. Another interesting discussion we had was regarding the balance between positive, encouraging feedback from the instructor to the student, or among peers, and ha certain degree of strictness, authoritarianism, and constructive criticism to challenge students.
We also made a poster presentation about Japanese students' academic performance in university in relation to that in the United States (See details) and how efforts to reform university education in each country (or the lack thereof) should take into consideration an international perspective of what is effective and what may be misguided. The points in the poster led to very active discussion with attendees from several countries about their own country's student performance and reform efforts in various levels of education. There was much interest in how Japanese industry developed successfully in the 20th century in spite of a very lenient university academic culture that does not demand much engagement in terms of attendance or coursework, and how that model may or may not need to change if Japan wishes to remain competitive in the future.
Both papers have been published in the proceedings and are available for those interested.
Attending oral and poster sessions at the conference was also beneficial. I focused my attention on university language instruction-related sessions, and got some useful insights on helping students deepen their ability to conduct research while avoiding plagiarism. The Center for Academic Integrity was cited by many professors from various countries as being a very helpful resource--which may be a good addition to what we share with students at ICU. I also attended sessions on blended learning with a few good tips for using Moodle and Blackboard more effectively for research paper instruction. Another emphasis of the conference was "m-learning" or e-learning using mobile devices such as iPhones and iPads, and it was interesting to see how many institutions are introducing m-learning tools for in-class and homework assignments.
Some other things I enjoyed were:
1) Seeing a very smoothly run international conference. As a member of JACET's convention steering committee, I have participated in conference administration for the past few years, and it was instructive to see how the IATED / INTED organization enhanced the conference experience with a) highly capable room staff--I wonder if they were free volunteers or paid staff--they were very much in charge and very helpful to the presenters and facilitators, and b) a comfortable schedule for mingling and getting to know people--coffee time twice a day and an attractive lunch where I met people from many countries and learned a lot about the issues various countries and institutions are facing--possibly even more than in the presentation sessions.
2) Listening to many different varieties of English interacting with each other. As a presenter, I was asked questions in many different accents, and as an audience member watched interactions between presenters and listeners of various cultures. Some speakers were intelligible and effective communicators, while others really struggled to get through. In all cases, it was interesting to watch the communication strategies that were used, including asking others in the room for help to interpret what somebody was trying to say, and asking for repetitions, rephrasing and even just bluntly "Your question is too complex. Please ask me an easier question."
3) Being in Valencia and trying to get around in a city that is not particularly English-visitor friendly. Knowing very little Spanish, it was interesting to have to navigate subways, buses, and street signs for getting from the airport to the conference and around the city to restaurants and order food etc. You notice a lot of things about where signs should be, how they should be consistent, when English should be added, and how a country that depends on tourism for a large part of its GDP should work a bit harder on making the city easier to navigate. These are good lessons for Tokyo and other cities in Japan as well.
Finally, a few amateur photos of Valencia from my camera.
 |
| From the tower of the Cathedral overlooking the city center |
 |
| The cobble-stoned city center of Valencia |
 |
| A little paella and beer with my research partners to celebrate a job well done |
2012年2月27日月曜日
Reflection on Winter Term, 2012 - AE TOEFL
My main new challenge this term was teaching a TOEFL iBT preparation class.
I had taught TOEFL Prep for the paper-based TOEFL many years ago, but teaching the iBT involved becoming familiar with quite a different combination of tasks. In addition, the course titled 'Advanced English: TOEFL" had no method of screening what level of student could take the class and that led to having a mix of different types of students with different expectations among the 20 who enrolled. Most were first year students finished with Program C, which meant their TOEFL was already over 550, many close to 600, and good enough to study abroad almost anywhere with just a few things to polish up--mostly in terms of academic language, logic and vocabulary. Mixed in with them were some juniors and seniors who had lower proficiency and less confidence especially in their speaking and listening skills; and paradoxically, the lower level older students were more in need of TOEFL score improvement for going to graduate school while the first year students, who were at a higher level (many as returnees) had enrolled for...it seemed just a vague sense that they wanted to keep studying English. It was a strange situation made worse by the fact that it was a once-a-week, two-hour evening class and energy levels were notably low after attending classes all day, and it was difficult to communicate with each other because I chose to use a computer classroom to do iBT activities on the computer. And we only met once a week, often interrupted by holidays, and it was even hard to learn names. Weird situation.
As it turned out, it was one of the weirdest courses I ever taught, and one of the least satisfying. It is an interesting one to analyze in retrospect, with hopefully some lessons for avoiding similar difficulties in the future.
So...to cut to the chase, what made it strange and how can I change or avoid that in the future?
1) Filter out students who are too high or too low, or a least define what kind of test prep will be done in the course description in advance so that those students can avoid enrolling. This was my first year, so I had no way to control the content of course description given to students in advance of registration. But for future years, I think a new description is needed. With test prep, a class with mixed levels and varying need-profiles really does not work well. In the case of AE: TOEFL, my preference would be that the "returnee type" students be filtered out and moved to College Composition or Presentation Skills or some other content-based class somehow.
2) Set up a better cycle of weekly homework to identify weaknesses and needs, and then in class addressing those needs with explanations and strategies. Lacking experience with the iBT format and how students should do homework to practice the skills, I wasn't able to take control of the homework cycle and assign work that would lead to active discussion in the next class. This time, I used one week per skill -- Speaking, Writing, Listening, Reading, and then Speaking, Writing again -- because I wasn't sure what students would benefit from the most. Next time, it would be ideal to spend the first two weeks flushing out levels and needs in each area before setting up the schedule. I need a clear profile of the students' weaknesses and expectations and motivations before deciding how much time to spend on what. Also, the first two weeks should be used to get some kind of score indication for all students that can be used as a benchmark of improvement to compare with in the final weeks. Doing a full TOEFL iBT takes 4 hours, so that is not realistic, but in retrospect even doing a two hour "half test" in the first or second week would help me see where they are with taking the test under time pressure. For writing, a 30 minute typed timed writing, with submission by email would be good for starting off. For speaking, one or two 1 minute recordings to see whether they are. For listening and reading, 30 minutes each or so to see how well they can get through the questions and formats. Then, possibly require them to self-score by working through that question and model answers step by step.
3) Set up a running TED based journal as well. TED is ideal for all skills - listen / read transcript / pick up new vocab / write a summary and reaction / and finally record an audio summary reaction of 1 minute or so. This can be easily posted on Moodle as a record of week to week effort to improve English, and can be done on top of practicing the textbook exercises and preparing questions for class.
I had taught TOEFL Prep for the paper-based TOEFL many years ago, but teaching the iBT involved becoming familiar with quite a different combination of tasks. In addition, the course titled 'Advanced English: TOEFL" had no method of screening what level of student could take the class and that led to having a mix of different types of students with different expectations among the 20 who enrolled. Most were first year students finished with Program C, which meant their TOEFL was already over 550, many close to 600, and good enough to study abroad almost anywhere with just a few things to polish up--mostly in terms of academic language, logic and vocabulary. Mixed in with them were some juniors and seniors who had lower proficiency and less confidence especially in their speaking and listening skills; and paradoxically, the lower level older students were more in need of TOEFL score improvement for going to graduate school while the first year students, who were at a higher level (many as returnees) had enrolled for...it seemed just a vague sense that they wanted to keep studying English. It was a strange situation made worse by the fact that it was a once-a-week, two-hour evening class and energy levels were notably low after attending classes all day, and it was difficult to communicate with each other because I chose to use a computer classroom to do iBT activities on the computer. And we only met once a week, often interrupted by holidays, and it was even hard to learn names. Weird situation.
As it turned out, it was one of the weirdest courses I ever taught, and one of the least satisfying. It is an interesting one to analyze in retrospect, with hopefully some lessons for avoiding similar difficulties in the future.
So...to cut to the chase, what made it strange and how can I change or avoid that in the future?
1) Filter out students who are too high or too low, or a least define what kind of test prep will be done in the course description in advance so that those students can avoid enrolling. This was my first year, so I had no way to control the content of course description given to students in advance of registration. But for future years, I think a new description is needed. With test prep, a class with mixed levels and varying need-profiles really does not work well. In the case of AE: TOEFL, my preference would be that the "returnee type" students be filtered out and moved to College Composition or Presentation Skills or some other content-based class somehow.
2) Set up a better cycle of weekly homework to identify weaknesses and needs, and then in class addressing those needs with explanations and strategies. Lacking experience with the iBT format and how students should do homework to practice the skills, I wasn't able to take control of the homework cycle and assign work that would lead to active discussion in the next class. This time, I used one week per skill -- Speaking, Writing, Listening, Reading, and then Speaking, Writing again -- because I wasn't sure what students would benefit from the most. Next time, it would be ideal to spend the first two weeks flushing out levels and needs in each area before setting up the schedule. I need a clear profile of the students' weaknesses and expectations and motivations before deciding how much time to spend on what. Also, the first two weeks should be used to get some kind of score indication for all students that can be used as a benchmark of improvement to compare with in the final weeks. Doing a full TOEFL iBT takes 4 hours, so that is not realistic, but in retrospect even doing a two hour "half test" in the first or second week would help me see where they are with taking the test under time pressure. For writing, a 30 minute typed timed writing, with submission by email would be good for starting off. For speaking, one or two 1 minute recordings to see whether they are. For listening and reading, 30 minutes each or so to see how well they can get through the questions and formats. Then, possibly require them to self-score by working through that question and model answers step by step.
3) Set up a running TED based journal as well. TED is ideal for all skills - listen / read transcript / pick up new vocab / write a summary and reaction / and finally record an audio summary reaction of 1 minute or so. This can be easily posted on Moodle as a record of week to week effort to improve English, and can be done on top of practicing the textbook exercises and preparing questions for class.
2012年1月11日水曜日
U.S. no longer a land of opportunity | The Japan Times Online
U.S. no longer a land of opportunity | The Japan Times Online
As the US presidential election draws nearer, this issue of "fair opportunity" to be successful and have a decent quality of life is very important to me.
One related concept in economics seems to be intergenerational economic mobility: whether or not children of poor parents have a chance to be successful if they work hard. I am not an expert on international comparisons of mobility, so I'm not sure of how reasonable the article is, but the author of the article believes that mobility in the United States in more restricted than Europe. The rich stay rich, and the poor and middle class seem to have little upward mobility.
As an educator, my hope is that all students can have equal opportunity in quality of education regardless of parental income. I hope the next administration will not tell children of struggling families to just "fight in the free market" with no support, but will take resources from those (like Romney and his millionaire buddies) who have too much beyond what they need and allocate it to programs that make a difference in the lives of people who are at a relative disadvantage.
"Meritocracy" is basically a good concept. Those who work hard should be rewarded. Competition for rewards can stimulate creativity and productivity, and that leads to better quality of life for all. But from those who have much talent, must should be required. Those who have millions due to their investment ability or talent should be giving back to worthy causes almost everything except what they really need, whether it is through government programs or private donations.
Hopefully, the next president will not be fighting for the rich minority who finance the large part of political campaigns, but for the quality of life of all people in the nation.
As the US presidential election draws nearer, this issue of "fair opportunity" to be successful and have a decent quality of life is very important to me.
One related concept in economics seems to be intergenerational economic mobility: whether or not children of poor parents have a chance to be successful if they work hard. I am not an expert on international comparisons of mobility, so I'm not sure of how reasonable the article is, but the author of the article believes that mobility in the United States in more restricted than Europe. The rich stay rich, and the poor and middle class seem to have little upward mobility.
As an educator, my hope is that all students can have equal opportunity in quality of education regardless of parental income. I hope the next administration will not tell children of struggling families to just "fight in the free market" with no support, but will take resources from those (like Romney and his millionaire buddies) who have too much beyond what they need and allocate it to programs that make a difference in the lives of people who are at a relative disadvantage.
"Meritocracy" is basically a good concept. Those who work hard should be rewarded. Competition for rewards can stimulate creativity and productivity, and that leads to better quality of life for all. But from those who have much talent, must should be required. Those who have millions due to their investment ability or talent should be giving back to worthy causes almost everything except what they really need, whether it is through government programs or private donations.
Hopefully, the next president will not be fighting for the rich minority who finance the large part of political campaigns, but for the quality of life of all people in the nation.
Francis Fukuyama - Genetic Engineering (Chp. Our Posthuman Future)
Main Points:
In chapter 5 "Genetic Engineering" of his book Our Post Human Future: Consequences of The Biotechnology Revolution, political philosopher Francis Fukuyama attempts to predict whether genetic engineering (GE below) will ever be used for enhancing human traits. For a definition and explanation of the process of genetic engineering, click here.
Is GE of humans likely? For plants like Roundup Ready soybeans and animals like the cats above, the technology already exists and is in actual use to some extent. For humans, Fukuyama seems to believe that it can occur as soon as the main obstacles are overcome.
One main obstacle is the complexity of the relationship between DNA and human traits. Will we ever know which genes influence intelligence and master how to manipulate them? However, as computer technology and understanding of genetic increases, it may only be a matter of time before a number of human gene-trait relations are defined clearly.
Another obstacle is the ethics of human experimentation. Failures in human experiments should not be accepted, so confirmation of the technology will not occur until animal GE experiments are considered extremely reliable. Some governments may choose to never allow human GE because the first child will always be an experiment with potentially unknown consequences. After animal experiments are reliable, will we move to GE on humans?? Fukuyama predicts that experiments WILL occur, especially with somatic gene therapy (for adults by their choice) if the risks of the disease outweigh the risks of the gene therapy. But for embryos, GE experimentation is a completely different matter. (He avoids predicting or arguing anything about embryo experimentation in this chapter--I wonder why? Does he deal with it later?)
Finally, Fukuyama talks about the obstacle or risk that GE will lead to altering human nature on a large scale. In other words, a whole population of humans may develop engineered traits and that may have consequences for human society such as discrimination against those who have or don't have those traits. If GE is only available for rich persons, that would limit the effect on the whole population, but if it becomes inexpensive, human society may be affected.
Mostly importantly, assuming that the technology becomes available, what are the ethical problems or dangers of GE? Experimentation has already been mentioned. Another could be unintended consequences or side-effects. Also, there may be problems with inequality if only some people have access to genetic enhancement and it creates a gap or discrimination. Finally, the issue of eugenics must be considered. If we aim for perfection from genetics, how will we treat people who are born with imperfections?
Reactions?
In chapter 5 "Genetic Engineering" of his book Our Post Human Future: Consequences of The Biotechnology Revolution, political philosopher Francis Fukuyama attempts to predict whether genetic engineering (GE below) will ever be used for enhancing human traits. For a definition and explanation of the process of genetic engineering, click here.
 |
| Glow in the Dark Kittens - Genetically Engineered (Fox News Sept. 12, 2011) |
One main obstacle is the complexity of the relationship between DNA and human traits. Will we ever know which genes influence intelligence and master how to manipulate them? However, as computer technology and understanding of genetic increases, it may only be a matter of time before a number of human gene-trait relations are defined clearly.
Another obstacle is the ethics of human experimentation. Failures in human experiments should not be accepted, so confirmation of the technology will not occur until animal GE experiments are considered extremely reliable. Some governments may choose to never allow human GE because the first child will always be an experiment with potentially unknown consequences. After animal experiments are reliable, will we move to GE on humans?? Fukuyama predicts that experiments WILL occur, especially with somatic gene therapy (for adults by their choice) if the risks of the disease outweigh the risks of the gene therapy. But for embryos, GE experimentation is a completely different matter. (He avoids predicting or arguing anything about embryo experimentation in this chapter--I wonder why? Does he deal with it later?)
Finally, Fukuyama talks about the obstacle or risk that GE will lead to altering human nature on a large scale. In other words, a whole population of humans may develop engineered traits and that may have consequences for human society such as discrimination against those who have or don't have those traits. If GE is only available for rich persons, that would limit the effect on the whole population, but if it becomes inexpensive, human society may be affected.
Mostly importantly, assuming that the technology becomes available, what are the ethical problems or dangers of GE? Experimentation has already been mentioned. Another could be unintended consequences or side-effects. Also, there may be problems with inequality if only some people have access to genetic enhancement and it creates a gap or discrimination. Finally, the issue of eugenics must be considered. If we aim for perfection from genetics, how will we treat people who are born with imperfections?
Reactions?
- My overall reaction is that the issue of GE is critical and must be debated extensively by all countries before the technology becomes available for humans. It could have immense consequences.
- In that sense, Fukuyama's listing of the risks is valuable. Actually, he does not talk about the risks enough, in my mind. More discussion about the potential dangers is necessary so that they can be weighed against the benefits. Perhaps that comes in the next chapters?
- So...what would I do if I had an opportunity for genetic enhancement in the future? Honestly, I have to admit that I have many things I want to improve about myself. I would prefer to not get bald, to not gain weight even if I eat and drink as I like, and I want to avoid cancer and other diseases if possible. If a GE cure for something like that becomes available, I may consider it.
- How about selecting traits of children before birth?? My children are wonderful, but if I could have designed my children to be a little less noisy, or a little more mature from an earlier age, that would be tempting (though I love them both just as they are, of course.). Also, I am fortunate to have very healthy children, but parents who struggle with children who are born with diseases may be able to avoid such problems in the future by screening or engineering embryos. Should such trait selection be possible? That will be our debate on Friday.
2012年1月1日日曜日
Happy New Year 2012! Some '11 reflections and '12 resolutions
Happy New Year!
I hope your 2012, the year of the dragon, will be healthy, lively and full of passion.
My goals and resolutions for 2012 are basically the same as last year. I want to live the year like it will be my last, spending time with people I love, doing what I love, and doing what I can to be helpful to others.
Specifically...I want to have many dates with my wife Megumi, take my kids to places that will they will remember for the rest of their lives (still planning), read more with my kids, Skype with my family and friends more often, fearlessly keep trying new things in my teaching and blog about/publish research papers on them, travel to a country I've never been to (Spain is in the planning), run my 6th marathon (and enjoy it--need to lose a bit of weight to achieve the "enjoy" part), and find a new volunteer activity (still searching).
Looking back, 2011 was an unsettling year with the Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima reactor crisis, and I hope 2012 will be safer and more peaceful. Aside from that crisis, 2011 was a very good year and I have many "best of 2011" things to be thankful for. First and foremost, Megumi, Michael, Mei and I stayed healthy and without any major hospital emergencies. I was able to do my usual Tokyo Marathon (4th in a row, 5th one coming in 2012) and a half-marathon as well. We were also able to travel to Seattle in July to visit family and friends. Professionally, I was blessed with another year of stimulating teaching and learning at ICU and TAT with excellent students and colleagues. I was able to present research at the JACET conference in Fukuoka and JALT in Tokyo as well as publish a paper on using 20x20 for presentation training.
There were many other things I wanted to get done, or to do more, of course, but those will carry over into 2012.
I'm looking forward to communicating with all of you in 2012!
今年もよろしくお願いします。
Mark
I hope your 2012, the year of the dragon, will be healthy, lively and full of passion.
My goals and resolutions for 2012 are basically the same as last year. I want to live the year like it will be my last, spending time with people I love, doing what I love, and doing what I can to be helpful to others.
Specifically...I want to have many dates with my wife Megumi, take my kids to places that will they will remember for the rest of their lives (still planning), read more with my kids, Skype with my family and friends more often, fearlessly keep trying new things in my teaching and blog about/publish research papers on them, travel to a country I've never been to (Spain is in the planning), run my 6th marathon (and enjoy it--need to lose a bit of weight to achieve the "enjoy" part), and find a new volunteer activity (still searching).
Looking back, 2011 was an unsettling year with the Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima reactor crisis, and I hope 2012 will be safer and more peaceful. Aside from that crisis, 2011 was a very good year and I have many "best of 2011" things to be thankful for. First and foremost, Megumi, Michael, Mei and I stayed healthy and without any major hospital emergencies. I was able to do my usual Tokyo Marathon (4th in a row, 5th one coming in 2012) and a half-marathon as well. We were also able to travel to Seattle in July to visit family and friends. Professionally, I was blessed with another year of stimulating teaching and learning at ICU and TAT with excellent students and colleagues. I was able to present research at the JACET conference in Fukuoka and JALT in Tokyo as well as publish a paper on using 20x20 for presentation training.
There were many other things I wanted to get done, or to do more, of course, but those will carry over into 2012.
I'm looking forward to communicating with all of you in 2012!
今年もよろしくお願いします。
Mark
2011年12月4日日曜日
Gifts That Show You Care - Instead of a present, donate on someone's behalf!
This is a nice article Kristof of the New York Times.
I ask my relatives to donate to causes rather than buy me presents.
Really, I mean, almost all of us in the US and Japan have everything we need.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/kristof-gifts-that-say-you-care.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
登録:
投稿 (Atom)