**6.1. Relationship between Japanese higher education and passive as well as active learning**

In the previous section, we examined the concept of active learning and showed the data of introduction of active learning in Japanese higher education. In this section, the comparison of passive and active learning will be explored in order to develop the case study of active learning in Japanese graduate program.

Previous active learning studies indicated the challenge of introducing it was not only for the students, but also for the instructors. Michael argued that "faculty perceptions about possible pedagogical barriers to active learning are more the result of lack of experience with or knowledge of this approach than a reflection of the realities of the classroom" [21]. College instructors often are lacking formal training in pedagogy, rarely study teaching and learning methodologies, and are hesitant to diverge from the standardized lecture/test driven learning pattern. Additionally, certain fields of studies do not lend as well to discussion type formats. Lab work or extremely technical knowledge transmission found in the Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) fields can be problematic to introduce in an active learning style [18]. Thus, even in more liberal Western higher education, there is a divide between social sciences and STEM fields, where active learning is largely omitted from STEM field classrooms. However, Springer et al. showed that STEM students engaging in small-group of

The New Movement of Active Learning in Japanese Higher Education: The Analysis of Active…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80836

51

Despite the benefits associative with active learning classrooms, it is not widely used, especially in East Asian education. Traditionally, the Japanese higher education learning style has predominately focused on the passive learning style of knowledge memorization and recall, following what is known as the "Confucian model" [23]. Hawkins explains the defining characteristic of the Confucius model as, "traits of self-denial, frugality, fortitude, patience, self-discipline, rote learning, memorization and delayed gratification" [23]. As the world is becoming increasingly globalized and internationally interconnected and Japanese higher education seeks to compete in world rankings, its education style is gradually shifting from a Confucian model to the more Western Socratic model that favors group discussion and active learning classrooms. This change aligns with more modern higher education global academic trends that are beginning to focus on solving problems with diverse answers, finding new approaches and solutions, and incorporating multidisciplinary and practical collaboration. The introduction of active learning presents a pedagogical method, which satisfies these needs. In Japan, as aforementioned earlier, MEXT further sees the introduction of active learning as a way to strengthen the links between education and knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in real-world scenarios for the benefit of society. In this regard, MEXT states, "it is important to utilize such knowledge and skills in actual society and actual life while discovering issues for oneself, seek solutions to those issues independently and coop-

work demonstrated the significant higher levels of learning outcomes [22].

eratively, and to express and practically apply the fruits of learning" [24].

The purpose in this work is to provide a case study of one Science Technology Engineering Arts and Math (STEAM) graduate program in Japan and to explain how active learning is introduced in the curriculum and the learning outcomes. Examining the University of Tsukuba's Empowerment Informatics "Advanced Tutorial Studies: Debate Class," this chapter will explore how the active learning pedagogical style influenced learning outcomes. The addition of an active learning debate class in the curriculum lends itself two of the programs goals: (1) interdisciplinary ability—allowing students to examine problems from broader perspectives and to see the "big picture. (2) Frontline ability—giving students the skills they need as entrepreneurs and leaders, presenting their ideas logically and convincingly. Additionally,

**6.2. Learning in STEAM graduate program**

Looking at the typical methods of teaching and evaluation, it is common to see academic learning environments toward passive learning methods. For example, large lectures where instructors present and students take notes, followed by testing to determine how well students learned the material. These methods tend to focus on student evaluation using simplistic question and answers, which can be reduced simply as correct or incorrect. Dósa and Russ succinctly state, "Learning in higher education today is measured overwhelmingly on the basis of "correctness," that is, whether students sufficiently approached the preset "expert" answer to a test question" [17]. In this nonactive style of learning, outcomes end up being evaluated on the basis of true or false, or multiple-choice questions, where there is a single correct answer. Even in more complex passive learning, there may be open-ended evaluations, such as essays or hands-on projects, but correctness is still boils down to a measurement of how close a student demonstrates an expected answer, in other words, there may be a scale of correctness. One flaw in this approach is a lack of dimensionality required in real world problem solving. To take an example, in design, it would be naive to suggest that there is a single correct outcome. Instead, in real world projects, there are tradeoffs between form, scale, esthetics, utility, reliability and durability, cost effectiveness, and so on. Yet, how can teaching methods help account for these complexities?

In contrast to passive learning, active learning refers to methods where students play an active role in their learning process. Historically, active learning has found most traction in the social sciences, which focus on human subjects and qualitative experiences. These fields and the nature of their study lend themselves well to active learning in the form of small discussion groups, which allow for voicing and recognition of a variety of perspectives and opinions on subject matter [18]. For instance, in the Socratic style of learning, students exercise critical thinking in open ended discussions seeking the answer to a given question. As a discussion, it is understood that there is no one single correct answer. As students in the group discuss and logically share their thoughts, their peers simultaneously evaluate the persuasiveness and the speaker's approach in order to judge the value of their answer and provide critique. Salemi argues that one benefit of active learning is that it forces students to demonstrate competency with existing knowledge and demonstrates their ability to use those concepts in critical problem solving or analysis [19]. This process of analyzing issues and applying critical thinking of existing and new knowledge requires practice and is often missing from passive learning environments. Furthermore, because active learning demonstrates student thought process and reasoning on a frequent basis, instructors receive more in-depth and frequent points of data to evaluate both student learning and the effectiveness of their teaching. Research conducted by Becker has shown that students learn more comprehensively and are more committed to their studies when instructors use active learning in their teaching [20].

Previous active learning studies indicated the challenge of introducing it was not only for the students, but also for the instructors. Michael argued that "faculty perceptions about possible pedagogical barriers to active learning are more the result of lack of experience with or knowledge of this approach than a reflection of the realities of the classroom" [21]. College instructors often are lacking formal training in pedagogy, rarely study teaching and learning methodologies, and are hesitant to diverge from the standardized lecture/test driven learning pattern. Additionally, certain fields of studies do not lend as well to discussion type formats. Lab work or extremely technical knowledge transmission found in the Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) fields can be problematic to introduce in an active learning style [18]. Thus, even in more liberal Western higher education, there is a divide between social sciences and STEM fields, where active learning is largely omitted from STEM field classrooms. However, Springer et al. showed that STEM students engaging in small-group of work demonstrated the significant higher levels of learning outcomes [22].

Despite the benefits associative with active learning classrooms, it is not widely used, especially in East Asian education. Traditionally, the Japanese higher education learning style has predominately focused on the passive learning style of knowledge memorization and recall, following what is known as the "Confucian model" [23]. Hawkins explains the defining characteristic of the Confucius model as, "traits of self-denial, frugality, fortitude, patience, self-discipline, rote learning, memorization and delayed gratification" [23]. As the world is becoming increasingly globalized and internationally interconnected and Japanese higher education seeks to compete in world rankings, its education style is gradually shifting from a Confucian model to the more Western Socratic model that favors group discussion and active learning classrooms. This change aligns with more modern higher education global academic trends that are beginning to focus on solving problems with diverse answers, finding new approaches and solutions, and incorporating multidisciplinary and practical collaboration. The introduction of active learning presents a pedagogical method, which satisfies these needs. In Japan, as aforementioned earlier, MEXT further sees the introduction of active learning as a way to strengthen the links between education and knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in real-world scenarios for the benefit of society. In this regard, MEXT states, "it is important to utilize such knowledge and skills in actual society and actual life while discovering issues for oneself, seek solutions to those issues independently and cooperatively, and to express and practically apply the fruits of learning" [24].

#### **6.2. Learning in STEAM graduate program**

**6.1. Relationship between Japanese higher education and passive as well as active** 

In the previous section, we examined the concept of active learning and showed the data of introduction of active learning in Japanese higher education. In this section, the comparison of passive and active learning will be explored in order to develop the case study of active

Looking at the typical methods of teaching and evaluation, it is common to see academic learning environments toward passive learning methods. For example, large lectures where instructors present and students take notes, followed by testing to determine how well students learned the material. These methods tend to focus on student evaluation using simplistic question and answers, which can be reduced simply as correct or incorrect. Dósa and Russ succinctly state, "Learning in higher education today is measured overwhelmingly on the basis of "correctness," that is, whether students sufficiently approached the preset "expert" answer to a test question" [17]. In this nonactive style of learning, outcomes end up being evaluated on the basis of true or false, or multiple-choice questions, where there is a single correct answer. Even in more complex passive learning, there may be open-ended evaluations, such as essays or hands-on projects, but correctness is still boils down to a measurement of how close a student demonstrates an expected answer, in other words, there may be a scale of correctness. One flaw in this approach is a lack of dimensionality required in real world problem solving. To take an example, in design, it would be naive to suggest that there is a single correct outcome. Instead, in real world projects, there are tradeoffs between form, scale, esthetics, utility, reliability and durability, cost effectiveness, and so on. Yet, how can teaching

In contrast to passive learning, active learning refers to methods where students play an active role in their learning process. Historically, active learning has found most traction in the social sciences, which focus on human subjects and qualitative experiences. These fields and the nature of their study lend themselves well to active learning in the form of small discussion groups, which allow for voicing and recognition of a variety of perspectives and opinions on subject matter [18]. For instance, in the Socratic style of learning, students exercise critical thinking in open ended discussions seeking the answer to a given question. As a discussion, it is understood that there is no one single correct answer. As students in the group discuss and logically share their thoughts, their peers simultaneously evaluate the persuasiveness and the speaker's approach in order to judge the value of their answer and provide critique. Salemi argues that one benefit of active learning is that it forces students to demonstrate competency with existing knowledge and demonstrates their ability to use those concepts in critical problem solving or analysis [19]. This process of analyzing issues and applying critical thinking of existing and new knowledge requires practice and is often missing from passive learning environments. Furthermore, because active learning demonstrates student thought process and reasoning on a frequent basis, instructors receive more in-depth and frequent points of data to evaluate both student learning and the effectiveness of their teaching. Research conducted by Becker has shown that students learn more comprehensively and are more commit-

ted to their studies when instructors use active learning in their teaching [20].

**learning**

50 Active Learning - Beyond the Future

learning in Japanese graduate program.

methods help account for these complexities?

The purpose in this work is to provide a case study of one Science Technology Engineering Arts and Math (STEAM) graduate program in Japan and to explain how active learning is introduced in the curriculum and the learning outcomes. Examining the University of Tsukuba's Empowerment Informatics "Advanced Tutorial Studies: Debate Class," this chapter will explore how the active learning pedagogical style influenced learning outcomes. The addition of an active learning debate class in the curriculum lends itself two of the programs goals: (1) interdisciplinary ability—allowing students to examine problems from broader perspectives and to see the "big picture. (2) Frontline ability—giving students the skills they need as entrepreneurs and leaders, presenting their ideas logically and convincingly. Additionally, this course expands upon internationalization goals, by offering a setting where domestic and international students collaborate and communicate closely together to solve problems. In the Empowerment Informatics graduate program, this course belongs to is both highly international and multidisciplinary, as it focuses on the integration of technology and humanistic goals. Thus, the academic backgrounds of students in this course are comprised of a variety of the STEAM fields. In this regard, it is important to understand how this active learning style class functions amidst diversity of culture, language, and academic background, affecting the interactions between students, and how instructors position themselves. For instance, in the cohort this study looks at, enrolled students consisted of three international students, one from the United States, two from Europe, and six Japanese students. Two of the international students came from a Media and Art design background, and the other remaining students' academic backgrounds heavily focused on robotics, medical robotics, AI, and other STEM fields.

taking on roles as supporting and nonsupporting sides for the debate. The instructor and the student facilitator also helped to prepare students by researching and providing a narrative and introduction to the topic. For example, given the debate topic, "In our contemporary society, should universities focus more on STEM education," the following points were raised

The New Movement of Active Learning in Japanese Higher Education: The Analysis of Active…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80836

53

• Increasing research funding for disciplines like engineering and applied sciences at the

• Reducing the number of faculty in humanities (literature, history, and philosophy) and

• From an interview with Paola Antonelli (curator of the design section of MoMa, New York): *"I went to architecture school. And in Italy at that time, it was highly theoretical. When you emerged, you could become an architect, but not necessarily. You could become a graphic designer, or a furniture designer. Fashion designer Gianfranco Ferré was an architect. You could become a chef. When taught in this philosophical, abstract way, design is a universal donor to any field that is about making and* 

• An excerpt of "A Personal Chronology," from "The Language of New Media" by Lev

Through the nine debating classes, there were five points of focus: (1) how much each individual prepared for the debate, (2) how well they worked in a team with students of diverse cultural backgrounds and fields of study, (3) how well students communicated with each other in English, (4) through preparation and improvisation, how well did they argue their points during the debate, and (5) how each individual was actively involved. Clearly, the evaluation of students in this active learning environment extended well beyond the content of their participation, but also considered how they were able to apply their knowledge, work in diverse teams, and give consideration on real-world problems from multiple perspectives. To evidence how students were evaluated along these guidelines, we provide a sample

*… always contributed his knowledge enthusiastically in the debating class. Since he is from abroad, his cultural, historical, and educational background provided different points of view and perspectives from the other students, who were mostly Japanese. What made this debating class unique was that many of the debate topics came from strong historical, political or philosophical points of view that varied from country to country. Despite the fact that the students study in the EMP program while* 

by the facilitator: By focus we mean:

expenses of more theoretical faculties.

Suggested points and reading:

Manovich.

social sciences (anthropology and sociology).

• Providing more degrees related to engineering and science.

• Discourage students from undertaking a humanistic education.

*constructing, whether in the digital world or in the physical world."*

**6.4. How faculty as an instructor evaluated each nine individuals**

excerpt from instructor comments on an individual student in this course:

This course consists of nine debate sessions, each with different topics based on general educational knowledge and topics linking student's academic work to society. **Table 1** shows the high-level debate questions used in this session of the course.

#### **6.3. Preparation before the debate class**

For the purpose of this class, students had to prepare to argue their group's position, thinking critically, challenging, defending, and improvising to build unique and persuasive arguments. Importantly, this class developed team building and Japanese students were challenged to participate in these debates all in English. Before the actual debate class session, students had one week to prepare their arguments, whether in favor or against the proposed question. Students rotated per debate to take on the role of a facilitator. For a given week, the facilitator's job was to provide the debate topic and coordinate between the two groups


**Table 1.** Nine example session debate titles.

taking on roles as supporting and nonsupporting sides for the debate. The instructor and the student facilitator also helped to prepare students by researching and providing a narrative and introduction to the topic. For example, given the debate topic, "In our contemporary society, should universities focus more on STEM education," the following points were raised by the facilitator:

By focus we mean:

this course expands upon internationalization goals, by offering a setting where domestic and international students collaborate and communicate closely together to solve problems. In the Empowerment Informatics graduate program, this course belongs to is both highly international and multidisciplinary, as it focuses on the integration of technology and humanistic goals. Thus, the academic backgrounds of students in this course are comprised of a variety of the STEAM fields. In this regard, it is important to understand how this active learning style class functions amidst diversity of culture, language, and academic background, affecting the interactions between students, and how instructors position themselves. For instance, in the cohort this study looks at, enrolled students consisted of three international students, one from the United States, two from Europe, and six Japanese students. Two of the international students came from a Media and Art design background, and the other remaining students' academic backgrounds heavily focused on robotics, medical robotics, AI, and other STEM fields. This course consists of nine debate sessions, each with different topics based on general educational knowledge and topics linking student's academic work to society. **Table 1** shows the

For the purpose of this class, students had to prepare to argue their group's position, thinking critically, challenging, defending, and improvising to build unique and persuasive arguments. Importantly, this class developed team building and Japanese students were challenged to participate in these debates all in English. Before the actual debate class session, students had one week to prepare their arguments, whether in favor or against the proposed question. Students rotated per debate to take on the role of a facilitator. For a given week, the facilitator's job was to provide the debate topic and coordinate between the two groups

1 In contemporary education, has marketing become more important than research production in fostering international recognition? 2 Should workplaces encourage the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

4 Should we make a limitation around technologies that enhance body functions of

7 Is the research of military technologies necessary for technical development? 8 Should personal mobility devices (such as Segway, UNI-CUB, Hoverboard, etc.) be

9 In our contemporary society, should universities focus more on STEM education?

5 Higher education should be conducted in English or in each country's native languages? 6 Do companies and universities need special regulation or strategies to increase the

percentage of women in technical and high-level management positions?

high-level debate questions used in this session of the course.

**6.3. Preparation before the debate class**

52 Active Learning - Beyond the Future

**Class no Debate title topic**

**Table 1.** Nine example session debate titles.

3 Should the retirement age be increased?

healthy people?

regulated on public roads?


Suggested points and reading:

• From an interview with Paola Antonelli (curator of the design section of MoMa, New York):

*"I went to architecture school. And in Italy at that time, it was highly theoretical. When you emerged, you could become an architect, but not necessarily. You could become a graphic designer, or a furniture designer. Fashion designer Gianfranco Ferré was an architect. You could become a chef. When taught in this philosophical, abstract way, design is a universal donor to any field that is about making and constructing, whether in the digital world or in the physical world."*

• An excerpt of "A Personal Chronology," from "The Language of New Media" by Lev Manovich.

#### **6.4. How faculty as an instructor evaluated each nine individuals**

Through the nine debating classes, there were five points of focus: (1) how much each individual prepared for the debate, (2) how well they worked in a team with students of diverse cultural backgrounds and fields of study, (3) how well students communicated with each other in English, (4) through preparation and improvisation, how well did they argue their points during the debate, and (5) how each individual was actively involved. Clearly, the evaluation of students in this active learning environment extended well beyond the content of their participation, but also considered how they were able to apply their knowledge, work in diverse teams, and give consideration on real-world problems from multiple perspectives.

To evidence how students were evaluated along these guidelines, we provide a sample excerpt from instructor comments on an individual student in this course:

*… always contributed his knowledge enthusiastically in the debating class. Since he is from abroad, his cultural, historical, and educational background provided different points of view and perspectives from the other students, who were mostly Japanese. What made this debating class unique was that many of the debate topics came from strong historical, political or philosophical points of view that varied from country to country. Despite the fact that the students study in the EMP program while*  *specializing in different fields of social robotics, AI, and art, there was great chemistry and it stimulated Japanese students to think from a different point of view. … presented his arguments and opinions by providing his own cultural and historical experiences associated with his home country, which led Japanese students to reconsider from their own point of view. Sometimes the topic varied; however, it was clear that he and the other two international students tried to connect and find the similarities in the topic, when the debate was not going back and forth. Some Japanese students were not trained in a spontaneous discussion style classroom; however, the foreign students just like … were more active and provided many strong points, which led to a great discussion. I think at the same time, it was also a great opportunity for … who comes from abroad to learn and understand the unique perspectives that Japanese students provided from their own cultural, historical, and educational backgrounds. Overall, his class participation was perfect = A*

perspectives. They also gained more confidence and started to feel more open to frankly share their thoughts and opinions with their classmates, whether they were international or domestic Japanese students, the atmosphere of the class changed drastically compared to the first introductory class. This same pattern was found among other students being introduced to active learning discussions, Salemi found, "the more the students participate and get used to the class, students prepare better for active learning classes because they know that they will be asked to contribute, and students will like to talk about class material with their peers using familiar language" [19]. Likewise, in our class, the more the students participated in the class, they were speaking to their peers more in familiar language and sharing terminologies with each other. Discussion among a diverse group of peers revealed the differing approaches individuals take based on their own background and perspective and sharing these in discussion benefited the entire group. Additionally, students benefit from variety in the class atmosphere, learn through each other, and realize that they aid in teaching other students, becoming reflective learners. Students learn from their peers, and they try harder to make them understand more, think in-depth, and explain their arguments in a more logical and persuasive way. This class introduced a new engaging learning atmosphere compared to the typical passive learning style Japanese student experience. Students gain confidence, feel more comfortable in sharing their knowledge and opinions, gain satisfaction from hearing and being involved in the class with their peers, and share their opinions in a more real-world exercise. Students started to be more active in class participation, obtaining the sense of awareness that they played an important role in their

The New Movement of Active Learning in Japanese Higher Education: The Analysis of Active…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80836

55

In the environment where the MEXT has shifted the learning-centered policy in recent years, this chapter shows how active learning becomes the major concern for Japanese higher education institutions, and active learning methods have been encouraged to utilize in the undergraduate education in order to develop the proactive learning. Many previous studies have shown that the learning outcomes of students are strongly associated with the quality of pedagogy and student experience. Such pedagogy often includes active learning methods and it is often expected that active learning methods are strongly associated with proactive learning of students. In terms of graduate education, there are small number of studies spotlighted the active learning methods. However, in a knowledge-based society, more active learning and the Socratic model are important to be introduced in Japanese graduate programs in order for

In the case of debate class shown, using active learning to examine queries allowed us to view questions from a broader perspective and take into account multiple perspectives. Active learning discussions allow each participant to be introspective, share his or her knowledge, and then reconsider their points of view by hearing from others. One clear benefit is that the critical application and extension of knowledge happen naturally in the Socratic style of active learning. Most traditional Japanese style classes severely limit or disregard the value of active learning.

learning and had a responsibility for what they said and shared.

students to obtain more interdisciplinary and frontline learning skills.

**7. Conclusion**
