Microenseñanza para ayudar a los maestros-alumnos de Geografía en la facilitación centrada en el...

8/3/2019 Microenseñanza para ayudar a los maestros-alumnos de Geografía en la facilitación centrada en el aprendizaje de i…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/microensenanza-para-ayudar-a-los-maestros-alumnos-de-geografia-en-la-facilitacion 1/25

AUTHOR: Golightly, Aubrey

TITLE: Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees in

Facilitating Learner-Centered Instruction

SOURCE: Journal of Geography 109 no6 233-42 N/D 2010

COPYRIGHT: The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and

it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this

article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the

publisher: http://www.ncge.org/index.html

ABSTRACT

This article reports the findings of a case study where microteaching wasimplemented to assist geography teacher-trainees in the planning, design, and

implementation of learner-centered instruction in the classroom. The data were

collected via questionnaires completed by B.Ed. Geography teacher-trainees (n

= 24); structured interviews with some of the trainees (n = 8); and a comparison

of trainees' (n = 8) planned learning activities for practical teaching lessons

before and after microteaching. Results indicate that, after the microteaching

sessions, trainees were more inclined to plan, design, and implement learner-

centered instruction during geography learning experiences.

Key Words: microteaching, geography education, instruction, teacher training

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of outcomes-based education (OBE) in South African

schools during 1997 emphasized and supported the move from teacher-

centered to learner-centered instruction in the school classroom and at all

higher education institutions (South Africa Department of Education 2003).

Pertaining to education in general, Kain (2003) explains that the implementation

of learner-centered instructional approaches necessitates the sharing of

constructed knowledge while learning is achieved through learners' active

engagement in various activities. In this light and after twelve years of OBE in

South African classrooms, it is natural to assume that teachers are by now

proficient with the implementation of learner-centered instructional approaches

and teaching styles in their lesson planning. Research indicates the contrary.In the review of the literature it is evident that most teachers in South Africa



still use direct teacher-centered instruction in their classroom. Mphaphuli and

Luneta (1997) state that traditional geography instruction in South Africa has

been primarily theoretical, using methods based on memorization and repetition

of facts. In light of their findings they suggest that South African teachers need

compulsory exposure to the wider spectrum of learner-centered instructional

strategies. More recent research clearly indicates that in most South African

classes the teacher is still proclaimed as the authority in the classroom, the sole

provider of information, and also the person who is the summative assessor of

learners' work (Rambuda and Fraser 2004; Gr6sser and De Waal 2006; Beets

2007; De Waal and Gr6sser 2009). Consequently, the example set by mentors

for geography trainees during practical teaching at schools as well as the

comments made by mentors on trainees' lesson presentations, in most cases

do not support or encourage trainees to implement learner-centered instruction

in geography classrooms. The natural conclusion is that geography educators

at the tertiary level should use microteaching to help foster the implementation

of learner-centered instruction in geography classrooms. Cruickshank and

Metcalfe (1993,87) define microteaching as a "scaled down teaching encounter

in which preservice teachers demonstrate their ability to perform one of several

desirable teacher abilities to a group of three to five peers during a short period

of time."

The purpose of this article is to determine if the implementation of

microteaching in the training model of B.Ed. Geography teacher-trainees at the

North West University (Potchefstroom campus) can assist teacher-trainees with

the successful planning, implementation, and presentation of learner-centered

instruction in the geography classroom.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Outcomes-based education(FN1) in South Africa emphasizes learner-

centered education (South Africa Department of Education 1997) that,

according to Van Harmelen (1999) and Claassen (1998), was based on the

social constructivist approach to teaching and learning. The OBE curriculum, as

described in the publication from Lubisi et al. (1997), namely Understanding

Outcomes-based Education: Knowledge, Curriculum and Assessment, defines

a learner-centered instructional approach as the development of learning



programs and materials that favors the learners, recognizing and building on

their accumulated knowledge and experiences, and responding to their

individual and collective needs. A constructivist view of knowledge and learning

proposes that learners should be active independent thinkers and should

therefore critically examine the procedures of knowledge construction. Learner-

centered classroom practices engage students in activities that require

reasoning, discovering, problem-solving, data gathering, application, and

communication of ideas. However, as a point of emphasis it has to be stated

that the constructivist approach to teaching and learning does not deny the

importance of factual knowledge, but it does emphasize that the best way for

learners to attain and understand (and eventually apply) this knowledge is to

"put it into a larger, more lifelike context that stimulates learners to reflect,

organize, analyze and problem solve" (Borich and Tombari 1997, 180).

The effective implementation of learner-centered instructional approaches in

classrooms will ask teachers to change the teaching styles they implement in

the classroom (Visser, McChlery, and Vreken 2006). A teaching style refers to a

combination of teaching methods and techniques that a teacher prefers to

implement in the classroom. Furthermore, Grasha (1996, 1) states that in

relation to education, a teaching style may also be described as a pervasive

quality that plays an important role in several aspects of our teaching. This

implies that teaching style is not simply an accumulation of techniques or

interesting mannerisms, but is also inherent to the teacher's personality and

influences the choice of instructional approaches. In geography education

reference is made to the three general teaching and learning styles, namely

transmission-reception, behavior-shaping, and the interactionist models as

identified by Tolley and Reynolds (cited in Lambert and Balderstone 2003).

Roberts (in Balderstone 2002) also developed a model that gives an overview

of the broad styles of teaching and learning in geography education (Fig. 1). For

the purpose of this study the focus will be on the teaching models developed by

Tolley and Reynolds to emphasize practices such as active learning by and

collaboration among learners in geography education.

In the first model--the transmission-reception model--the learner is perceived

as an empty organism waiting to be "filled" with knowledge. The classroom isdesigned in a formal way to facilitate the transmission of information from the



teacher directly to the learners. Desks are arranged . neat rows, the teacher

occupies a dominant position at the ont of the class (Williams 1997). Information

is presented through different direct teaching strategies such as lecture

presentations, demonstrations, drill, practice, chalk-and-talk recitations with the

learners recording the information in a manner determined by the teacher.

The second model is the behavior-shaping model in which the teacher is

perceived as a provider of sequential, structured learning experiences( to

learners in a social group. In the geography classroom the emphasis is on

learners recognizing and applying geographical concepts (Lambert and

Balderstone 2003). When studying Figure 1 it is clear that communication

between the teacher and the learners especially is emphasized in this model.

Some of the teaching strategies often used in this model are the question-and-

answer method, discussions, assignments, oral presentations, and the

classroom feedback from the learners after the completion of certain

assignments.

Last is the interactionist model in which the emphasis is on individual learners

and the teacher engaging in inquiring and problem solving in a collaborative

manner. The learner is seen as a social organism and the classroom design

and the extended classroom takes this into account. Classroom furniture is

arranged to promote learner-learner and teacher-learner interaction. The

teaching style makes allowance for the teacher to be part of the learning

process and the typical responsibilities of the teacher are transferred to the

learners. Some of the typical teaching strategies and activities in this model

include cooperative learning, problem solving, inquiry learning, debates, case

studies, role play, and simulations.

From Figure 1 it is clear that Style A represents the traditional teacher-

centered approach while Styles B and C are more inclined towards learner-

centered instruction. Adaptability to all teaching and learning styles is an

important tool that prepares geography teachers for a variety of teaching

conditions where they can appeal to and enhance the learning of a greater

variety of learners. Therefore, Buch and Bartley (2002) state that geography

teachers need to adapt their teaching styles and instructional methods to

facilitate the learning process by offering a variety of learning opportunitiesappropriate to different learning styles and to different subject matter and



geography lesson outcomes. Dasari (2006) further states that the teaching

styles and strategies implemented by the geography teacher will have tobe

continuously revised in that the basic content may be the same but the learner

groupings will differ and delivery will have to cater to these differences.

Unfortunately, the theoretical knowledge that geography teacher-trainees in

South Africa gain regarding various teaching styles and learner-centered

instruction strategies and methods during their university training is seldom

promoted or supported by teachers or mentors who supervise the trainees

during practical teaching. To address this problem, microteaching is essential to

ensure that trainees learn how to implement learner-centered instruction in the

classroom.

The use of microteaching as part of teacher education is seen as an effective

way of assisting on-campus preservice teacher-trainees to learn about and

reflect upon effective teaching practice (I'Anson, Rodrigues, and Wilson 2003)

and as a bridge that connects theory to practice (Fernandez and Robinson

2006; Pringle, Dawson, and Adams 2003). As teacher-trainees in many training

programs complete their practical teaching with inadequate supervision and

little to' no student Ifeedback, the relative merits and economy of microteaching

become more and more apparent. Microteaching is a common practice in

teacher education that originated in the United States in the 1960s (Grossman

2005) and can provide geography teacher-trainees with hands-on learner-

centered teaching experiences.

Literature describes the use of microteaching as a beneficial and accepted

element of preservice teacher education. Microteaching experiences provide

preservice teachers with a number of benefits:

* gaining valuable experience with lesson planning (Bell 2007);

* providing an effective way of assisting preservice teachers to learn about

and reflect upon effective practice (I'Anson, Rodrigues, and Wilson 2003);

* introducing preservice teachers to their roles as teachers (Amobi 2005);

* helping them to see the importance of planning, decision making, and

implementation of instructional methods and strategies (Gess-Newsome and

Lederman 1990);

* enabling teachers to develop and improve teaching skills (communication,public presentation, etc.) (Benton-Kupper 2001); and



* building practical teaching confidence (Brent, Wheatley, and Thomson

1996).

Research on student perceptions regarding the value of microteaching

indicates that students themselves find it useful and enriching (Amobi 2005;

Benton-Kupper 2001). For lecturers of teacher-trainees, the implementation of

microteaching into the training syllabus enables both the preservice teachers

and the trainers to engage in dialogue and discussion centered on making

connections between theories of teaching and practical microteaching

experiences (Allen and Wang 2008; Pringle, Dawson, and Adams 2003).

Benton-Kupper (2001) emphasizes that feedback to students should be detailed

rather than general in nature. She describes detailed feedback as being

"supportive" and containing constructive feedback and suggestions that can be

used to improve preservice teachers' teaching methods. Darling-Hammond et

al. (2005, 412) recommend that "students develop an analytic framework to

assess the micro-teaching performances of their peers." The critical

examination or assessment of teacher-trainees' lesson presentations during

microteaching correspond with Lim and Chan's (2007,476) view that "to critically

examine or reflect on the strengths and limitations of each approach may

restructure trainees' existing beliefs and encourage them to adopt new

instructional practices that are consistent with their pedagogical beliefs."

The question remains whether microteaching in the training model of B.Ed. at

the North West University (Potchefstroom campus) can assist geography

teacher-trainees with the successful planning, implementation, and presentation

of learner-centered instruction in the geography classroom.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The purpose of this study was to determine:

* The perceptions and attitudes of geography teacher-trainees regarding the

implementation of microteaching in their training program

* The perceptions of geography teacher-trainees regarding the use of

microteaching to assist them in the implementation of learner-centered

instructional strategies and styles

* The aspects of microteaching that play an important role in assisting

trainees in the implementation of learner-centered instruction in their geography



classes

* The influence of microteaching sessions in assisting teacher-trainees in the

planning, designing, and facilitation of learner-centered instruction in geography

classrooms

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

The study was conducted in a teacher education program of a university in

the North West Province in South Africa, namely the North-West University. The

university offers a four-year B.Ed. degree that prepares candidates to teach in

one of the following educational phases: intermediate (grades 4-6), senior

(grades 7-9) and further education and training (FET) (grades 10-12). During

the first three years the geography teacher-trainees take academic modules

and in their fourth year two geography methodology modules. During the first

three years of training, the trainees perform six weeks of practical teaching at

schools and in the fourth academic year the practical teaching increases to

eight weeks. The microteaching sessions applicable to this study are

implemented in the fourth year of training: This article reports on work

conducted in 2008. Twenty-four fourth-year B.Ed. Geography teacher-trainees

took part in the study.

INSTRUCTIONAL PROCEDURES

In the geography methodology module for the fourth-year B.Ed. teacher-

trainees, there are three scheduled contact sessions per week. Two sessions

are used for theoretical studies and one contact session for microteaching. In

the theoretical studies the focus is on the different teaching and learning

theories, strategies, methods, and teaching aids, as well as assessment

strategies and methods in geography education. The trainees also have to plan

and design learner-centered instructional lessons, embedded in the

socioconstructivist approach (c.f. Jonassen 1999) as part of their training.

The purpose of the microteaching sessions is mainly to demonstrate an

ability to integrate content, methodology, and pedagogy as covered in the

National Curriculum Statements (NCS) for geography. The trainees have nine

contact sessions of fifty minutes each per semester. During the microteaching

period it is expected of the trainees to present at least one microlesson (ten to



twelve minutes) per semester. Two or three trainees each present a lesson per

session.

The lecture hall used for the presentation of the microteaching sessions is

designed and organized like a normal classroom, complete with a blackboard,

projector, and computer with access to PowerPoint and Internet. Teacher-

trainees are therefore expected to make use of teaching aids such as

PowerPoint presentations, transparencies, worksheets, posters, and models.

The teacher-trainees were divided into groups of four. They were instructed

to select themes for the microteaching sessions as prescribed in the NCS for

geography teaching according to the specific phase (intermediate, senior, or

FET) they were registered to teach. The trainee, with the assistance of the other

three group members, had to plan and design a learner-centered instructional

microlesson for a specific phase, which was then presented to the class during

the scheduled microlesson.

The group members acted as learners during the microlesson presentations.

The same assessment form used by lecturers to assess trainees' lesson

presentations during practical teaching was used to assess performance during

the microlessons. However, the main focus of the microlessons is to ensure the

implementation of learner-centered instructional strategies and activities that

actively involve the students in the learning process and promote

communication and collaboration among learners in the class. Directly after

each presentation, fellow trainees and the lecturer analyze the lesson, give

constructive commentary, and critique, as well as suggestions regarding how to

present a more learner-centered lesson. The presenter' of the lesson was

afforded the opportunity to defend his/her instructional approach, style, and

lesson activities as applied during the microlesson. The lecturer was mainly

responsible for the facilitation of the discussion among class members in the

analysis of the presentation. To ensure that all students were attentive and

participated in the discussion, the trainees had to submit a written reflective

report (c.f. Fernandez and Chokshi 2002) of each fellow trainee's microlesson

presentation with the emphasis on strengths and weaknesses in the

implementation of learner-centered instruction in that specific lesson.

After the lesson presentation every trainee was required to submit a copy ofhis/her microlesson planning and design, including the prescribed critical-,



learning-, and lesson-outcomes, as well as the learning activities and

assessment strategies and methods. These documents were analyzed by the

lecturer and constructive written feedback was prepared and provided to each

student. The lesson presentations and written lesson planning were used to

compile an assessment mark. Of the final participation mark for the semester,

the microlesson mark contributed 20 percent.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-method approach that involved collection and analysis of both

qualitative and quantitative data was used (Cresswell 2003). The researcher

employed the following qualitative and quantitative data collection methods:

* questionnaires completed by the geography teacher-trainees (n = 24) at the

end of the microteaching period;

* structured interviews with a number of teacher-trainees (n = 8);

* analysis and comparison of the teacher-trainees' (n = 8) written planning

and designed learning experiences (n = 8) before and after the microteaching

sessions. For this specific purpose the researcher analyzed the compiled

teaching portfolios of the participating trainees. He compared two geography

lesson plans submitted by each participating trainee during their practicalteaching weeks in 2007 (before the trainees' exposure to the microteaching

sessions) and two lesson plans each submitted by those same trainees during

practical teaching in 2008 (after exposure to and participating in the

microteaching sessions). In the analysis the researcher focused on the

difference in lesson presentations, if any, regarding learner-centered instruction

before and after exposure to microteaching as part of the teachers' training.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Perceptions and Attitudes of Geography Teacher Trainees Regarding

Microteaching

With the implementation of the microteaching sessions the researcher

requested that the geography teacher-trainees, as participants in the study,

complete a questionnaire in order to determine their perceptions and attitudes

regarding their impending microteaching participation. At the beginning of the

semester most of the participants (n = 13) were positive regarding the



microteaching while the others (n = 11) were moderately to very negative

regarding microteaching. The questionnaire and the interviews produced the

following as the main reasons for the initial negativity: the trainees were of the

opinion that they had had enough practical experience after three years of

practical teaching in schools; they were nervous regarding the unrealistic and

unfamiliar setting for the microlessons; they were nervous to present lessons in

front of fellow-students; and they indicated that the expected learner-centered

instructional approach was challenging regarding the new expectations from

lecturers with regard to planning and presentation of learning activities. During

the interview one of the respondents stated:

I was extremely negative regarding microteaching since I did not want to

expose myself to the criticisms of my fellow-students or my lecturer. We were

literally pulled from our comfort zone by the expectations posed by this new

teaching approach. New challenges were presented with the planning and

presentation of the micro-lessons that required of me to spend much more time

on my planning and design of lessons. (Respondent A)

The above-mentioned reasons for respondents' negativity compares

favorably with those presented by Bell (2007). Most of the respondents

emphasized the fact that a learner-centered instructional approach required

more from them than the traditional teacher-centered instructional approach.

This changing role of the teacher was initially perceived as negative--most of

them had a natural resistance to change. As correctly stated by Bolhuis and

Voeten (2004) the teachers' conceptions of learning deviated from the new

ideas of learning that underlie the innovation.

By the end of the first semester, nine weeks after first implementing

microteaching, most of the negative attitudes and perceptions of the trainees

evaporated. By this time twenty-one of the participants were positive to very

positive regarding the presentation of microlessons and only three still harbored

negative feelings. The main reasons for the respondents change-of-heart as

indicated in the questionnaires and the interviews were the following: the

perceived value of the microlessons with regard to the planning and design of

learner-centered instruction; trainees were more familiar with the presentation of



learner-centered microlessons; and the trainees realized that the feedback from

fellow-students and the lecturer was constructive in nature and that they were

learning from one another.

The following respondent summarized these findings during his interview:

Micro-lessons are a MUST! The microlessons provided me with more

experience in the implementation of learner-centered instruction than all my

practical teaching experience over the past 3 years. As a student you are

exposed to new ideas for your own lesson presentations by watching and

analysing your fellow-students' lessons. You also get the chance to apply your

theoretical knowledge in practice. I am now of the opinion that the presentation

of only one micro-lesson per semester is not enough. Micro-teaching should be

implemented from your first or second year of training. (Respondent C)

These positive perceptions from trainees regarding microteaching are

confirmed by the research of Amobi (2005) and Benton-Kupper (2001). After

being exposed to microteaching for only nine weeks, the trainees realized the

value therein themselves.

INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES

The questionnaire requested respondents to indicate whether they were of

the opinion that the planning and presentation of microlessons contributed

towards a greater emphasis on learner-centered instruction in their lesson

presentations. Most of the respondents (n = 23) agreed that the microlesson

presentations and assessment by fellow-students definitely contributed towards

the effective implementation of learner-centered instructional approaches in the

classroom.

The respondents then had to indicate to what extent microteaching

influenced the implementation of certain teaching approaches. Respondents

had to indicate how many times on average either a teacher-centered or a

learner-centered instructional approach was evident in their lesson

presentations before and after the completion of the microteaching sessions.

The average response percent of all the respondents is indicated in Table 1.

From Table 1 it is evident that respondents are of the opinion that they mainlyfocused on teacher-centered instruction in the classroom (66%) before they



were exposed to microteaching. The microlessons definitely contributed

towards a shift in emphasis towards more learner-centered instructional

approaches (70.8%) in their lesson presentations. The following remark by a

respondent supports these findings:

Most of the trainees used much less explanation and demonstration of learning

content to learners after they were exposed to micro-teaching. There are now

more opportunities for learners, individually or in groups, to explore learning

content themselves (Respondent E).

An interesting remark by one of the respondents is worth mentioning:

What I find note worthy is that the microlessons presented by students by the

end of the semester succeeded in effectively involving the learners in the

learning process, not as just an add-on to keep the lecturer and fellow-students

happy, but as a natural part of their lessonpresentation. It is as if the students

realised the importance of involving the learners in this learning process.

(Respondent G)

Thus it is evident that the respondents agreed that participation inmicroteaching contributed towards their implementation of learner-centered

instructional approaches in the classroom. These findings correlated with the

research findings of I'Anson, Rodrigues, and Wilson (2003) and Klinzing (2002)

which highlighted that microteaching was an effective way of helping pre-

service teachers learn about and reflect upon effective practice.

TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES

Respondents were requested to indicate to what extent microteaching

influenced the teaching styles they implemented in the geography classroom

during every microlesson. For this purpose the respondents were referred to the

three teaching and learning styles described by Tolley and Reynolds (quoted by

Lambert and Balderstone 2003). Respondents had to specifically indicate the

frequency of usage of each style during a lesson, first during the initial

microteaching sessions and then by the end of the semester after they had

become more familiar with microteaching.



Most of the respondents (n = 21) were of the opinion that they mostly

implemented the transmission reception model during the initial microlessons.

This is indicated in Table 2 with an initial average percentage of 59 percent in

favor of this teaching model, whereas only 13 percent was dedicated to the use

of the interactionist model. By the end of the semester most of the respondents

(n = 23) were implementing the interactionist teaching model (average of 53%).

Their lesson planning and presentation focused more on discussions among

learners and involvement in learning activities and content, on the creation of a

cooperative learning environment, and group work. Learners were actively

involved with their own education and participated in the assessment of learning

activities.

These findings were further confirmed during the interviews. The following

answer of one of the respondents serves as an example:

The micro-teaching sessions definitely influenced my choice of teaching

strategies and styles implemented during my lessons. The sessions made it

possible to actually apply theory in classroom practice. During planning and

presentation of the microlesson you are challenged to think out of the box and

to actively involve the learners in the learning process and to allow them tolearn from one another within their groups. When you observe and assess

fellow-students during their lesson presentations, you are exposed to new ideas

regarding teaching styles and strategies that you can later apply in your own

teaching. (Respondent B)

Another respondent said the following:

During some of the presentations I became angry at my fellow-students when

they still applied the traditional direct instructional approach--feeding the

learners the facts! In these instances I immediately began thinking of ways to do

the same in a totally different manner--actively involving the learners in the

teaching process. (Respondent E)

These commentaries indicate that the microlessons also developed the

trainees' ability to critically analyze one another's presentations. For students to

change their perceptions regarding the implementation of different teaching



styles in the classroom, it is of critical importance that they "develop an analytic

framework to assess their peers' microteaching performance" (Darling-

Hammond et al. 2005, 412).

ASPECTS OF MICROTEACHING THAT ASSISTED WITH THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF LEARNER-CENTERED INSTRUCTION

The questionnaire listed various aspects of microteaching (Table 3) and

respondents were requested to indicate the extent of the influence of every

aspect on their perceptions and beliefs regarding the implementation of learner-

centered instruction.

In Table 3 those aspects of microteaching with the highest influence on the

perceptions and beliefs of the respondents regarding the-implementation of

learner-centered instruction are indicated as follows: the lecturer's oral

commentary and constructive criticisms regarding lesson presentations (n = 15);

the presentation of microlessons to fellow-students (n - 13); the assessment of

the lesson presentations of fellow-students (n = 12); the written feedback from

the lecturer regarding lesson planning (n = 12); and the commentary and

constructive feedback from fellow-students regarding their lesson presentations

(n = 10). The last-mentioned aspect was specifically emphasized during theinterviews. The following are some of the responses from the interviews:

The assessment of and constructive feedback to fellow-students after their

lesson presentations were of great value to me. The use of different learner-

centered instructional strategies by fellow-students contributed to my own

creativity in my lesson planning. The feedback from fellowstudents and my

lecturer directly influenced the type of ideas I accumulated for my next lesson

presentation. (Respondent C)

In the micro-teaching sessions I was encouraged to rise to the challenge within

a safe learning environment wherein it was OK to make mistakes. We

discussed everything and argued on important matters. The contributions of my

fellow-students and lecturer, as well as my own reflections after my lesson

presentations, were where valuable ideas were exchanged. (Respondent F)

Feedback and constructive criticism from the lecturer and fellow-students aswell as fellow-students' assessment of the microlesson presentations were



highlighted as aspects that were mostly responsible for the trainees' changed

perceptions regarding the implementation of learner-centered instructional

approaches. In the literature review some of the studies also highlighted the

importance of reflection to help change perspectives of students. According to

Amobi (2005, 116) and Benton-Kupper (2001) feedback serves as the "content

for and quality of reflection." This enables preservice teachers to reflect on their

microteaching experiences leading to change in self-perceptions and

subsequent teaching behaviors.

TEACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES DURING PRACTICAL TEACHING

Although most of the teacher-trainees were of the opinion that the

microteaching sessions were a great incentive to assist them with the

implementation of learner-centered instruction in the classroom, the question

remains whether these students also applied this approach in practice. To

determine whether this was the case, the respondents (n = 8) with whom

interviews were conducted were requested to submit their practical teaching

journals. For the purpose of this section of the study, four geography lessons as

presented during practical teaching during 2007 and 2008 were analyzed--two

lessons presented before exposure to the microteaching sessions (2007) andtwo lesson presentations after the trainees participated in microteaching (2008).

The design and planning of the teaching-learning activities for the geography

lessons presented during 2007 and 2008 were compared to determine whether

the implementation of the microteaching sessions influenced the focus on

learner-centered activities (Table 4). In Table 4 the number of learner activities

as presented by the trainees during their practical teaching lessons during 2007

and 2008 are indicated.From Table 4 it is evident that the respondents placed greater emphasis on

learner-centered teaching-learning activities in their lesson planning after

participation in the microteaching sessions (2008). During practical teaching

before participation in the microteaching sessions (2007), the respondents

mainly focused on the explanation and demonstration of content (34.2%) as

well as questioning of learners (15.7%) during their lesson presentations. The

completion of worksheets (22.8%) was used to determine whether the learners

understood the learning content and assessments of teaching-learning activities



were mainly led by the teacher him/herself (87%). These activities support the

perception of the trainees regarding the use of teacher-centered instructional

strategies and styles before they learned how to implement learner-centered

instruction during the microteaching sessions. The types of teaching-learning

activities indicate that the trainees were mainly focused on the use of the

transmission-reception model and to a lesser extent the behavior-shaping

model regarding their teaching styles (also see Table 2).

The trainees' lesson planning after participation in microteaching in 2008

indicated clearly that they developed and implemented a greater variety of

individual and cooperative teaching-learning activities during practical teaching.

Although teacher-centered activities such as explanation and demonstration of

content (14.5%), questioning (8.4%), and completion of worksheets (18%) were

still implemented, the learner-centered activities such -as discussion of themes

in cooperative learning environments and groups (18%), feedback by learners

(4.8%), as well as individual teaching-learning activities such as the design of

posters, research projects, building of models, role play, etc. took precedence

over the first-mentioned activities (Table 4). Furthermore, the teacher-trainees

made use of different assessment agents to gauge learners' assignments and

activities. These results support the perceptions of respondents regarding the

shift in their focus from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction and

learner-styles after their participation in microteaching sessions.

CONCLUSION

The teacher-trainees perceived microteaching as a worthwhile and beneficial

learning experience. This study definitely indicates the great potential of

microteaching in assisting preservice geography teacher-trainees with theimplementation of learner-centered instruction in classrooms. Microteaching

also gives the trainees a platform where they can practice different instructional

strategies and skills, such as the implementation of learner-centered instruction,

in a controlled and safe learning environment. The focused feedback and

encouragement, combined with the examples set by fellow-students, helped to

change trainees' perceptions on the value of learner-centered instruction. It also

gave students the opportunity to make thoughtful judgments on their own and

fellow-students' lesson presentations and help them to develop their teaching



abilities. In addition the study also indicates that microteaching assists trainees

to bridge the important gap between theory and practice.

Although by the end of the semester most, if not all, of the trainees

implemented learner-centered instruction during their microlesson

presentations, they were not all equally competent. Many of the trainees still

need a lot of practice in learner-centered instruction. Most important is their

willingness to implement learner-centered instructional approaches in their

lesson presentations because of the changed perceptions regarding the value

thereof to the learners.

Finally, evidence from this research indicates that the microteaching process

in a South African context is effective in providing an alternative way of helping

trainees to develop learner-centered instructional strategies in classrooms.

ADDED MATERIAL

Dr. Aubrey Golightly is a lecturer in the faculty of education at the North-West

University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa.

Table 1. The influence of microteaching on respondents' perceptions

regarding the implementation of teacher- and learner-centered instructional

approaches.

Before Microteaching After Microteaching

Instructional Approach (Average % ) (Average % )

Teacher-centered 66.6% 29.2%

Learner-centered 33.4% 70.8%

Table 2. Respondents' perceptions regarding the implementation of teaching

and learning styles during microlessons.

By the End of the

Initial Microteaching Semester Microlessons

Teaching and Learning Styles Sessions (Average % ) (Average % ) During

Transmission reception model 59% 18%

Behavior-shaping model 28% 29%

Interactionist model 13% 53%



Table 3. Aspects of microteaching that contributed towards the

implementation of learner-centered instruction by the respondents (n = 24).

Aspects of Microteaching No Influence Little Influence

Some Influence Great Influence

The prescribed learning content in the Education modules 0 5

16 3

regarding learner-centered instructional approaches.

The written planning and design of learner-centered instruction 1 8

6 9

during microlessons.

The presentation of learner-centered microlessons by my 0 3

8 13

fellow-students.

Assistance, support, and advice from group members regarding 4

9 6 5

the planning of my microlesson.

The oral commentary and constructive feedback from my 0 0

9 15Geography lecturer after my lesson presentations.

The commentary and constructive feedback from my 1 1

12 10

fellow-students after my lesson presentations.

The assessment of the microlesson presentations of my 0 2

10 12

fellow-students on the prescribed assessment forms.The written commentary from my lecturer regarding my written 0 2

10 12

lesson planning and design.

The prescribed learning material in Geography subject didactics 0 6

14 4

that I studied before all my lesson presentations.

The written reflective report from every student regarding the 1 5

12 6



microlessons of the other students.

Table 4. Teaching-learning activities for geography lessons during practical

teaching.

Number of Teaching-Learning Number

of Teaching-Learning

Types of Teaching-Learning Activities Activities (2007)

Activities (2008)

Explanation and demonstration of content by teacher 24 (34.2% )

12 (14.5% )

Questioning by teacher 11 (15.7% )7 (8.4% )

Learners participate in class discussions 8 (11.4% )

8 (9.6% )

Teacher reads from the textbook 5 (7.4% )

-

Discussion of themes in a cooperative learning environment and 2 (2.8%

) 15 (18% )

group discussions

Reports and feedback from learners during the lesson 4 (4.8% )

Individual learning activities for the learners:

completion of worksheets and/or questions in textbook 16 (22.8% )

15 (18.0% )

fieldwork outside the classroom - 2

(2.4% )

completion of word puzzles - 2

(2.4% )

mind maps - 4 (4.8%

)

building of models 2 (2.8% ) 3

(3.6% )

design posters - 4 (4.8%

)



classroom debates - 1

(1.2% )

educational games - 2

(2.4% )

role play - 3 (3.6% )

research projects 1 (1.4% ) 2

(2.4% )

Total 70 (100% ) 83

(100% )

The assessment agent of the teaching-learning activities:

teacher (facilitator) assessment 27 (87.0% )

18 (45% )

self-assessment 2 (6.5% ) 6

(15% )

pair-assessment - 2 (5%

)

group-assessment 2 (6.5% ) 11

(27.5% )

assessment by peers - 3

(7.5% )

Total 31 (100% ) 40

(100% )

Figure 1. Teaching styles of geography teacher-trainees and Tolley and

Reynolds, cited in Lambert and Balderstone 2003).

[Graph or Chart Omitted]

NOTE

1. As experienced during the implementation of OBE in South African schools, it

is necessary to point out that OBE was also implemented with mixed success in

countries like the United States, Australia, England, and New Zealand, where it

was reviewed or replaced. In the United States, for example, OBE was replaced

with standard based learning after only a few years because of various



problems and shortcomings experienced by educators (Zlatos 1994; Watt

2005).

REFERENCES

1. Allen, D. W., and W. Wang. 2008. Microteaching.

http://www.answer.com/topic/mircoteaching (accessed November 26, 2008).

2. Amobi, F. A. 2005. Preservice teachers' reflectivity on the sequence and

consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher

Education Quarterly 32 (1): 115-130.

3. Balderstone, D. 2002. Teaching styles and strategies. In Teaching

Geography in Secondary Schools, ed. M. Smith, pp. 93-112. London:

Routledge/Falmer.

4. Beets, P. A. D. 2007. Assessering vir leer in Geografie-klasse in die VOO-

baan [Assessment of learning in geography classes in the FET band]. Ph.D.

proefskrif., Universiteit van Stellenbosch.

5. Bell, N. 2007. Microteaching: What is it that's going on here? Linguistics and

Education 18 (1): 24-40.

6. Benton-Kupper, J. 2001. The microteaching experience: Student perspective.

Education 121 (4): 830-835.

7. Bolhuis, S., and M. J. M. Voeten. 2004. Teachers' conceptions of student

learning and own learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 10 (1):

77-98.

8. Borich, G. D., and M. L. Tombari. 1997. Educational Psychology: A

Contemporary Approach. New York: Longman.

9. Brent, R., E. A. Wheatley, and W. S. Thomson. 1996. Video-taped

microteaching: Bridging the gap from the university to the classroom. The

Teacher Educator 31 (3): 238-247.



10. Buch, K., and S. Bartley. 2002. Learning styles and training delivery mode

reference. Journal of Workplace Learning 14 (10): 5-10.

11. Claassen, C. 1998. Outcomes-based education: Some insights from

complexity theory. South African Journal of Higher Education 12 (2): 34-40.

12. Cresswell, J. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

13. Cruickshank, D., and K. Metcalfe. 1993. Improving preservice teacher

assessment through on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory and Practice

32 (2): 86-92.

14. Darling-Hammond, L., K. Hammerness, P. Grossman, F. Rust, and L.

Shulman. 2005. The design of teacher education programs. In Preparing

Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to

Do, eds. L. Darling-Hammond and J. Branscomb, pp. 390-441. San Francisco,

California: John Wiley & Sons.

15. Dasari, P. 2006. The influence of matching teaching and learning styles on

the achievement in science of grade six learners. M. Ed., UNISA.

16. De Waal, E., and M. M. Grösser. 2009. Safety and security at school: A

pedagogical perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (5): 697-706.

17. Fernandez, C., and S. Chokshi. 2002. A practical guide to translatinglesson study for a U.S. setting. Phi Delta Kappan 84 (2): 128-135.

18. Fernandez, M., and M. Robinson. 2006. Prospective teachers' perspectives

on microteaching lesson study. Education 127 (2): 203-215.

19. Gess-Newsome, J., and N. G. Lederman. 1990. The preservice

microteaching course and science teachers' instructional decisions: A

qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27 (8): 717-726.



20. Grasha, A. F. 1996. Teaching with Style. A Practical Guide to Enhancing

Learning by Understanding Teaching and Learning Styles. San Bernardino,

California: Alliance Publishers.

21. Grosser, M., and E. De Waal. 2006. Enhancing pedagogical needs and

fundamental rights at schools by accommodating diverse learning styles.

Education as Change 10 (2): 17-32.

22. Grossman, P. 2005. Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher

education. In Studying Teacher Education, ed. M. Cochran-Smith and K. M.

23. Zeichner, pp. 425-476. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research

Association.

24. I'Anson, J., S. Rodrigues, and G. Wilson. 2003. Mirrors, reflections and

refractions: The contribution of microteaching to reflective practice. European

Journal of Teacher Education 26 (2): 189-199.

25. Jonassen, D. 1999. Designing constructivist learning environments. In

Instructional Theories and Models, vol. 2, ed. C. M. Reigeluth, pp. 215-239.

26. ahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kain, D. J. 2003. Teacher-centered versus student-centered: Balancing

constraint and theory in the composition classroom. Pedagogy 3 (1): 104-108.

27. Klinzing, H. G. 2002. Wie effektiv ist microteaching? Ein uberlik uber

funfundreifsig jahre forschung (How effective is micro-teaching? A survey of

fifty-three years of research). Zeitschrtftfitr Padagogik 48 (2): 194-214.

28. Lambert, D., and D. Balderstone. 2003. Learning to Teach Geography in

the Secondary Schools. London: Routledge-Falmer.

29. Lim, C. P., and B. C. Chan. 2007. microLESSONS in teacher education:

Examining pre-service teachers' pedagogical beliefs. Computers & Education

48 (3): 474-494.



30. Lubisi, C., V. Wedekind, B. Parker, and J. Gultig. 1997. Understanding

Outcomes-Based Education: Knowledge, Curriculum and Assessment in South

Africa. Johannesburg: South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE).

31. Mphaphuli, S., and K. Luneta. 1997. Geography and mathematics: Issues

in Southern Africa. Social Education 61 (7): 406-410.

32. Pringle, R. M., K. Dawson, and T. Adams. 2003. Technology, science and

pre-service teachers: Creating a culture of technology-savvy elementary

teachers. Action in Teacher Education 24 (4): 46-52.

33. Rambuda, A. M., and W. J. Fraser. 2004. Perceptions of teachers of the

application of science process skills in the teaching of geography in secondary

schools in the Free State Province. South African Journal of Education 24 (1):

10-17.

34. South Africa Department of Education. 2003. National Curriculum

Statement Grades 10-12. Pretoria: Department of Education.

---. 1997. Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learning for the Twenty-First Century: A

User's Guide. Pretoria: Department of Education.

35. Van Harmelen, U. 1999. Where has all the geography gone? A social

constructivist perspective of curriculum 2005. South African Geographical

Journal 81 (2): 80-85.

36. Visser, S., S. McChlery, and N. Vreken. 2006. Teaching styles versus

learning styles in accounting sciences in the United Kingdom and South Africa:

A comparison analysis. Meditari Accountancy 2 (14): 97-112.

37. Watt, M. G. 2005. Standards-based reforms in the United States of America:

An overview, 1-44. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content

storage ol/O000000b/80/31/b9/e3.pdf (accessed May 15, 2008).

38. Williams, M. 1997. Instructional design. In Teaching and Learning

Geography, eds. D. Tilbury and M. Williams, pp. 133-142. London: Routledge.



39. Zlatos, B. 1994. Outcomes-based outrage runs both ways. Education Digest

59 (5): 26. http://web.ebscohost.com.nwulib.nwu.ac.za / ehost / detail?vid= 11

&hid= 105 & sid = 5351a449 - d9d9 - 40a3 - 9a29 -'e38a63a316d2 % 40

sessionmgrllO&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZQ

%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9312297555 (accessed May 18, 2007).

Microenseñanza para ayudar a los maestros-alumnos de Geografía en la facilitación centrada en el...

Documents

Transcript of Microenseñanza para ayudar a los maestros-alumnos de Geografía en la facilitación centrada en el...