English Translation, Translated by Copilot
“The Difficulty of Evaluating Leadership Courses”
At Osaka University, our leadership courses do not rely on a single exam or report for grading. Instead, we use a multi‑dimensional evaluation system. This approach was established about ten years ago and has generally produced satisfying results. However, when explanations are insufficient, students can easily misunderstand the system. Because instructors often have only five minutes—at most forty minutes—of speaking time per class, we sometimes end up skipping explanations, which contributes to the confusion.
The most common misunderstanding arises in classes where students take on the role of facilitator. Since performance in these assigned roles accounts for 30% of the participation grade, students take it seriously. Occasionally, students with professional experience begin giving a “lecture” of their own. As instructors, we must intervene and say things like, “This is not the place for you to present your own opinions,” or “Your explanation is too long.” Yet other students may find the talk “interesting,” which leads to dissatisfaction.
Students rotate through various roles—facilitator, guest‑speaker introducer, microphone handler, minute‑taker, and so on—but evaluation is always based strictly on the specific role assigned. Therefore, if a facilitator fails to draw out others’ opinions and instead delivers a long monologue of their own, the instructor has no choice but to issue a red card. From the perspective of other students, this can feel puzzling: “The talk was creative and engaging—why is it being criticized?”
Instructors, too, struggle. If a student’s “speech” shows no sign of ending, we sometimes stop them more abruptly than we would like. We worry that the time for other students to speak, or for the class to engage in discussion, will be lost.
A masterful facilitator would probably say something like, “You seem very confident in your view—now let’s hear what others think,” gently guiding the conversation back on track. But things don’t always go that smoothly. It would be ideal if we could consistently offer advice that satisfies both the speaker and the rest of the class.
I have been teaching all my life, yet I feel that I manage to give a truly good explanation only about three times out of ten. Still, in baseball, a .300 hitter is considered excellent. Thinking of it that way, maybe I’m not doing so badly after all.
