The Experiences in the Class

The Microteaching Experience: Student Perspectives

 

What is microteaching?

Why wait for student evaluations to receive feedback on teaching practices? Microteaching provides an opportunity for faculty and teaching assistants to improve their teaching practices through a “teach, critique, re-teach” model. Microteaching is valuable for both new and experienced faculty to hone their teaching practices. It is often used in pre-service teacher training programs to provide additional experience before or during the clinical experiences.

Microteaching is a concentrated, focused form of peer feedback and discussion that can improve teaching strategies. It was developed in the early and mid 1960′s by Dwight Allen and his colleagues at the Stanford Teacher Education Program (Politzer, 1969).
The microteaching program was designed to prepare the students for their internships in the fall. In this early version of microteaching, pre-service teachers at Stanford taught part-time to a small group of pupils (usually 4 to 5). The pupils were high school students who were paid volunteers and represented a cross-section of the types of students the pre-service teachers would be faced with during their internships.
Why use microteaching?

Microteaching has several benefits. Because the lessons are so short (usually 5 to 10 minutes), they have to focus on specific strategies. This means that someone participating in a microteaching session can get feedback on specific techniques he or she is interested in exploring. In a pre-service or training situation, participants can practice a newly learned technique in isolation rather than working that technique into an entire lesson (Vare, 1993).

Microteaching is also an opportunity to experiment with new teaching techniques. Rather than trying something new with a real class, microteaching can be a laboratory to experiment and receive feedback, first (Kuhn, 1968).

How does micro-teaching work?

In the classic Stanford model, each participant teaches a short lesson, generally 5 to 10 minutes, to a small group. The “students” may be actual students like in the original Stanford program or they may be peers playing the role of students. In the case of pre-service teachers and teaching assistants, there generally is at least one “expert”, as well. If desired, the session can be videotaped for review at a later date (Vare, 1993).

The presentation is followed by a feedback session. In some cases, the feedback session can be followed by a re-teach, so that the faculty has an opportunity to practice the improvements suggested during feedback (Vare, 1993).

Giving Feedback

Receiving criticism is difficult for everyone. Setting a tone of respect and professionalism may help participants to be tactful and to keep feedback constructive. Here is an example of ground rules used by the CASTL program at California State University (http://fdc.fullerton.edu/learning/CASTL/carnegie_microteaching_materials.htm):

Ground Rules

1. Respect confidentiality concerning what we learn about each other.
2. Respect agreed-upon time limits.  This may be hard, but please understand that it is necessary.
3. Maintain collegiality.  We’re all in this together.
4. Stay psychologically and physically present and on task.
5. Respect others’ attempts to experiment and to take risks.
6. Listen and speak in turn, so everyone can hear all comments.
7. Enjoy and learn from the process!

Feedback should be constructive and based on observation, rather than judgments. A good example of feedback is “You fidget with your pen while talking, and that is distracting,” rather than “You seem nervous and unprepared.” The first comment is about observable behavior, while the second is a judgment about what that behavior means.

Commenting on observable behavior also leads to suggestions for improvement. Again, using our pen example, a better example of feedback would be “You fidget with your pen while talking. Perhaps it would be better to keep a hand in your pocket.”
In the Stanford model, feedback was given using a 2+2 system. Each participant started his/her feedback with two positive comments, followed by two suggestions for improvement. This gives the faculty a sense of his or her strengths as well as areas of improvement.

How can microteaching be used?
The most common application for microteaching is in pre-service teacher training, like the original Stanford model. However, that certainly isn’t the only application. Microteaching has also been used to train teaching assistants and new faculty on teaching methods. Even experienced faculty members can refine their teaching techniques using microteaching.
A similar technique, microrehearsal, has been used to train prospective music conductors (Kuhn, 1968). Like microteaching, the students conduct a 5 to 10 minute rehearsal with sample musicians. Following the rehearsal, the musicians provide feedback on the prospective conductor’s rehearsal technique.
Microteaching techniques can also be used in other fields. In business, microteaching can be used to focus on presentation skills, persuasion and negotiation techniques, and interviewing techniques. In counseling and social work, microteaching can be used to hone questioning skills as well as active listening skills. It also applies outside of the classroom. For example, departments like Career Service can use microteaching techniques to prepare students for job interviews.
Ultimately, microteaching is a useful technique for teaching soft skills, presentation skills, and interpersonal skills. This focused approach encourages growth through practice and critique. The “teach, critique, re-teach” model gives the faculty immediate feedback and increases retention by providing an opportunity for practice.

 

Over the past several decades, various activities and strategies have been implemented into Teacher Education methods courses in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the courses, as well as the education programs overall. While some may have come and gone, incorporating microteaching experiences into pre-service teacher education programs is still alive and strong in the 21st Century.
As Allen and Ryan (1969:1) stated, microteaching is "a training concept that can be applied at various pre-service and in-service stages in the professional development of teachers." It provides teachers with opportunities to practice in an instructional setting in which the normal complexities of the classroom are limited and in which they can receive feedback on their performances. As universities continued the implementation, a number of studies were conducted that provided evidence that microteaching is an effective means of improving pre-service teachers' teaching skills (Borg, Kallenbach, Morris, & Friebel, 1969: Davis & Smoot, 1970: McDonald & Allen, 1967; Morse & Davis, 1970; Yeany, 1978).
Today, the concept of microteaching appears to be alive and well. Various components to the experience have been altered or added, such as the videotaping of lessons and alternative forms of feedback for the "teacher", but the general philosophy still remains. A more modern definition can be taken from Cruickshank and Metcalf (1993:87), who stated that microteaching is a "scaled-down teaching encounter in which pre-service teachers demonstrate their ability to perform one of several desirable teacher abilities to a group of 3-5 peers during a short time period." An example might be for a student to prepare and teach a brief lesson to their peers in order to demonstrate the ability to present clear instruction. Once the lesson is completed, feedback is provided by way of a videotape analysis of the lesson or from peer/instructor comments, with evaluation focused on how well the student demonstrated the desired skill.
It is this model of microteaching, which includes the added components of videotaping and peer evaluation, that Millikin University recently selected to implement into several of its pre-service teacher education courses in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the teacher education program. One of these courses is General Secondary Methods, which is composed primarily of sophomore education students from many disciplines. The course's main objective is to provide students with the opportunity to explore the field of teaching and gain knowledge and skills that will increase their effectiveness as future educators. It was decided that incorporating a microteaching experience would be beneficial and would assist in meeting this goal.
The microteaching component of the General Secondary Methods course lasts a month. Once students have been introduced to effective teaching skills, the students are divided into small groups of 6-8 students and asked to prepare ten minute "lessons" that focus on three specific teaching skills: establishing set, presenting clear instruction, and using questions effectively. Each student utilizes his/her individual discipline knowledge to select topics, prepare lessons, and then "teach" the lessons to peers in a mock-teaching setting. Feedback is provided after each lesson through peer evaluations. In addition, the lessons are videotaped, and each student is expected to complete a self-evaluation after watching his/her taped lesson.
Three sections of General Secondary Methods students at Millikin University participated in this study. Fifty-three secondary education students, spanning the disciplines of English, Social Science, Science, Physical Education, Art, and Math, completed the microteaching component of the course, teaching a series of three ten-minute lessons. At the end of the microteaching component of the course, the students evaluated the experience. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. A microteaching survey was completed that asked students to rate (from 1 to 10) six statements (which are listed below) focusing upon various components of the experience. In addition, an analysis paper was assigned that allowed students to reflect on the experience and share their general perceptions regarding the microteaching labs. The following section shares the results of the data, providing the mean scores for each of the survey statements, as well as specific quotes taken from the analysis papers that correspond to each of the survey statements. Overall perceptions of the microteaching experience are also included.
Data Analysis
Each of the statements from the microteaching survey is listed below, along with the mean scores. In addition, selected statements from the students' analyses of the microteaching experience are included that correlate to each of the statements and are indicative of overall student perceptions regarding each component.