Microteaching Labs

Microteaching Labs are specialized environments designed to enhance the teaching skills of prospective teachers, often during their pre-service training. Developed in the 1950s and 1960s, these labs provide a unique opportunity for trainees to practice teaching through short, focused lessons called mini-lessons, typically lasting around 10 minutes. In a typical session, participants engage in structured activities that include pre-observation conferences with instructors, the delivery of a mini-lesson, and post-observation feedback sessions. These labs emphasize the integration of theoretical knowledge with practical teaching experience, allowing prospective teachers to refine their skills through feedback from instructors and peers.

The process involves recording the lessons, which facilitates critical self-evaluation and reflection, important for professional development. Microteaching is seen as a micro-apprenticeship, where the environment is designed to support learning through trial and error, with instructors acting as mentors who provide guidance and insights based on their own experiences. As technology has advanced, online platforms have further expanded the reach and possibilities of microteaching, making it a valuable tool in modern teacher education. Overall, microteaching labs aim to instill confidence and competence in future educators, preparing them for the complexities of classroom teaching.

Published in: 2021

By: Painter, Rebekah

Subject Terms

Microteaching Labs

Abstract

This article presents an overview of microteaching laboratories (labs), a tool of pre-service and occasionally in-service teacher education that developed during the 1950s and 1960s in the United States. Microteaching labs resulted from the desire to integrate theory with practice before prospective teachers began student teaching. In microteaching labs, prospective teachers effectively practice for real-world teaching. To do this, they engage in pre-observation conferences with the instructor to determine the lesson's direction before developing and teaching a mini-lesson. Following the lesson, the prospective teacher engages in a post-observation conference, sometimes both with instructor and peers, before conducting self-evaluation and reflection on the experience.

Overview

Both Allen and Ryan (1969) and Cruickshank and Metcalf (1993) have similar definitions of microteaching as a practical means of training prospective teachers. However, the definition has evolved from a simplistic definition purporting microteaching to be the idea of training current and prospective teachers, to focusing on the specifics of what that training involves. The explanation of modern microteaching consists of several basic facets: the teacher teaches a mini-lesson while being filmed, and then feedback from a supervisor or instructor is given, followed by self-reflection and self-evaluation. In teacher education, the teacher is a prospective teacher and fellow students as well as the instructor often give feedback. However, microteaching is also occasionally utilized as a professional development tool for in-service teachers, those who are already part of the teaching profession. This is different from macroteaching, which involves teaching an entire class period.

The use of microteaching as an educational tool has existed since the mid-twentieth century. It was designed in the 1950s by the Stanford Group (Akalin, 2005) before its initial use at Stanford University in the 1960s (Duncan & Biddle, 1974). It started as a response to the perceived inadequacy of teacher education programs at that time, which usually taught teacher candidates about educational theory. This tool was established in order to facilitate the transition from theory to practice. It was created in the hope of simplifying the complexity of teaching into manageable parts, in order that prospective teachers might practice specific teaching skills. Duncan & Biddle (1974) state that microteaching was originally a combination of theory review, instructor modeling of a skill, practice of that skill, and feedback on how well the skill was performed, followed by more practice of that same skill before moving on to repeat the process with other topics. Francis (1997) is among those who critique this earlier practice as inadequate due to the lack of interaction with teaching models or critical theory. This criticism has been part of the push behind a number of changes in microteaching that have occurred.

Throughout the years, microteaching itself has become more progressive and its practice has evolved to include more specific aspects of practical teaching methods. Self-evaluation and reflection have become key elements of microteaching labs for teacher candidates. Microteaching also provides the chance to combine theoretical knowledge from coursework with real-life practice in teaching lessons and the opportunity to receive feedback from instructors and peers. In addition, microteaching has become an excellent way for prospective teachers to gather new lesson ideas and techniques from others. Instead of focusing solely on the acquisition of a skill, microteaching frequently consists of an interactive mentorship with a veteran teacher combined with critical self-reflection. Some instructors, such as Francis (1997), have reported on attempts to further reform microteaching into a system of analyzing the way that the interpersonal actions and personal beliefs of prospective teachers affect their teaching styles and methods. Although microteaching labs are used with prospective teachers from a variety of subject areas (math, history, science, etc.) and grade levels (elementary, middle, high school), the process of the labs follow the same structure even as the practiced skills vary.

Applications

In many professions, such as the medical field, extensive opportunities for internships and "rotations," under the watchful guidance of an experienced practitioner allow chances to perform the actual duties that they hope to one day carry out. Teacher education does this through the use of student teaching, when a prospective teacher takes over several classes from a veteran teacher and is guided and mentored through a semester of teaching duties. Microteaching is in many ways a micro-apprenticeship; it is the opportunity to teach a mini-lesson in front of the instructor and peer "students." Extensive feedback, occurring during pre- and post-conferences, gives the instructor the chance to guide the prospective teacher, present insights from personal experience, and encourage self-reflection. This often results in an increased degree of self-confidence and self-awareness in the prospective teacher (Benton-Kupper, 2001) when making the transition to student teaching and then to a full-time teaching position.

Typical Microteaching Settings. The audience during a microteaching lesson consists of classroom peers in a typical classroom setting, with access to chalkboard/whiteboard, overhead projectors, and other typical classroom tools. Cruickshank and Metcalf (1993) consider microteaching to most often take place in front of a small group, usually consisting of between three to five other teacher candidates. Occasionally, prospective teachers enter actual schools (elementary, middle, or high school) and teach mini-lessons there as part of the microteaching lab (Hinckley, 1972; Akalin, 2005). In other instances the session is held in a specialized space that simulates a classroom while integrating cameras and other recording equipment in an unobtrusive manner so as not to distract from the realistic atmosphere. Regardless of the setting, the instructor and fellow prospective teachers are part of the audience. Depending on the teaching philosophy of the instructor, the peers may also be involved in post-lesson evaluations of the teacher's performance. If this is the case, they evaluate the prospective teacher's lesson using the same rubric as the professor and a group discussion about the lesson is held.

Pre-Observation Conference. Before the lesson, a pre-observation conference is held between the prospective teacher and the class instructor. During this conference, logistics are settled, such as a determination of when the prospective teacher will be expected to teach the lesson. It is also a place where the prospective teacher can voice concerns about the mini-lesson and the instructor can make the objectives and expectations of the lesson clear. Usually, instructors have a rubric that will be used when evaluating the students. This is often a mixed methods tool consisting of a numerical scale and a section for narrative, personalized comments. This rubric will be part of the pre-conference discussion, and then it will be readdressed during the post-observation conference.

Farris (1991), an education instructor at the University of Nevada, used the following rubric, as shown in Figure 1, to evaluate her students' microteaching lessons.

This rubric is one example showing the expectation that teacher candidates integrate public speaking skills with the ability to present information skillfully and use questioning appropriately. Most students, when standing in front of a group and speaking, have done so in a public speaking arena for the purpose of a speech or presentation. One aspect of the pre-observation conference may be a discussion on the differences between public speaking and teaching a lesson.

Teaching the Mini-Lesson. Although the mini-lesson is short in length (most average around 10 minutes) it is enough time to practice turning theories and lesson ideas into practice. In most cases, the prospective teacher is teaching to a small group of peers, between three and seven people. In some cases, the instructor is not present for the mini-lesson (Farris, 1991). During the lesson, the prospective teacher is commonly filmed, and audio recordings and other documentation may be made as well. Though the use of videotaping equipment during the microteaching lesson was not available when microteaching was first introduced, it quickly became an invaluable tool as technology improved (Benton-Kupper, 2001; Kpanja, 2001). The rise of low-cost digital technology further encouraged recording of microteaching sessions. In the days of analog filming students were encouraged to bring their own videotape so that they could keep the lesson and review it as part of their continuing self-analysis and reflective process; digital cameras and especially the internet and social media made it much easier for students, instructors, and anyone else to access recordings.

Post-Observation Conference. Following the lesson, instructor feedback is given. In some instances, the feedback is private and given solely by the instructor. Other times, the feedback is public, given by both instructor and peers following the lesson. As shown by Vare's (1994) example, one method of instruction to peers on how to give appropriate feedback consists of first sharing positive feedback before moving on to give suggestions for improvement. Peer feedback can be a powerful tool when instruction is given on how to evaluate in this setting. It also can lead to more depth in self-evaluations, as it gives the prospective teachers ideas to consider.

Sometimes the taped lesson is replayed as part of the post-observation critique. Whether the conference is given in the class setting or in private, specifics from the video are then easily referenced.

Self-Evaluation / Reflection. Self-evaluation in a microteaching lab occurs when the teacher candidate reviews the videotape of the lesson taught and analyzes it for strengths and weaknesses. Expounding upon those strengths and weaknesses, including why they occurred and what might be done differently the next time, is part of self-reflection. These two aspects of a microteaching lab are important skills to develop, especially in light of the pressures put upon teachers to conform to high standards and to prepare students for high stakes standardized testing. When the skill of self-reflection has not been a systematic part of the teacher education process, it can be a challenging skill to learn and a low priority to complete when there are so many daily tasks demanding attention. Therefore, self-evaluation and self-reflection as part of pre-service teacher training is beneficial because it naturally becomes a part of the teaching process from the start.

Many teacher education programs expect a short paper to be written by the prospective teacher, analyzing and evaluating the lesson and feedback. Other programs require continuous journal entries throughout the microteaching process; or both detailed analytic papers and journals. Whatever the specific requirements, prospective teachers use their own interpretations of the experience, combined with a viewing of their videotaped lesson and knowledge of others' perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses, to identify what went well and what needed improvement. Francis (1997) also encouraged her students to focus on why they performed different actions. Were the students simply patterning themselves after what they saw other teachers do? Were they trying to conform to guidelines of "best practices" in teaching without any critical reflection on the process? Francis (1997) encouraged her students to include answers to personal questions in their self-reflection. Specific questions are designed as part of the reflective process so that students can look deeper into the reasons why they taught their mini-lesson in a certain way, responded to the "students" as they did, and what personal bias they brought into the teaching experience so that any prejudices could be addressed in the reflection.

Student Perceptions. Student perceptions of the microteaching lab experience are shown in the literature to be overwhelmingly positive. Specifically, Benton-Kupper's 2001 study addressed student experiences with microteaching from both a quantitative and a qualitative standpoint. Six parts of the microteaching experience were considered from the student responses in the surveys and analysis papers as paraphrased below:

Prospective teachers' ability to observe their strengths and weaknesses through microteaching and evaluation.
Prospective teachers' ability to develop public speaking skills.
Prospective teachers' ability to gain insight from their videotaped lessons.
Prospective teachers' ability to benefit from peer responses to their lessons.
Prospective teachers' ability to better understand the process of planning and teaching a lesson.
Prospective teachers' increased knowledge of instructional content, skills, and strategies from the lessons taught and observed (Benton-Kupper, 2001, p. 831–833).

All six of these areas received high marks, both on the survey and in the narrative analysis. The highest scores from the survey were given to #1, 5, and 6, while the lowest score was given to #4. This statistical data was supported by the narrative. The general criticism of #4 (peer response) was that peers were not specific enough in their feedback. Certainly, further instruction in how to respond to and evaluate lessons given by peers would enable this area to improve. Overall, all these six areas received high marks (7-9 points out of a 10 point scale). This particular study is representative of the general consensus among researchers and academic journals that microteaching is an effective tool in teacher education and that students value this experience.

Using Microteaching Labs vs. Traditional Teaching. Traditional teaching involves the direct instruction of theory, without hands on practice before the student teaching experience. Throughout many academic studies, including Akalin (2005), Farris (2001), Benton-Kupper (2001), Francis (1997), and Vare (1994), the use of microteaching labs prior to macroteaching experiences (such as student teaching) resulted in a greatly increased sense of self-confidence in prospective teachers, along with an enhanced ability to identify personal strengths and weaknesses in teaching methods and planning. It also resulted in the prospective teacher gaining new lesson ideas and teaching approaches from observing peers. In studies done by Akalin (2005), Farris (2001), Benton-Kupper (2001), Francis (1997), and Vare (1994), prospective teachers who went through a program that used microteaching labs reported that they considered microteaching labs to be a valuable tool; some even considered it to be the single most helpful tool gained throughout all their education classes, and that it should always be part of teacher education curriculum.

Viewpoints

Microteaching labs are usually taught from one of two approach philosophies, applied science or reflective practice, though occasionally both these methods occur simultaneously within a course, as shown in the case study by Vare (1994). The applied science approach is a commonly used method at the undergraduate level because it emphasizes that prospective teachers are performing the microteaching activity within the confines of formal education; therefore, there is no pressure to do it right the first time. In short, this viewpoint makes the microteaching lab a trial-and-error experience through a hands-off approach. Though pre- and post-conferences are scrupulously followed, during the observation of the microteaching lesson no cues or prompts are given by the instructor to the prospective teacher. The post-conference is conducted privately between the instructor and the prospective teacher, without public discussion or peer feedback. In addition, all critique by the instructor closely follows a predetermined skills list to standardize the skills set as much as possible. With this method, mistakes are expected, considered to be part of the learning experience, and regarded as a learning opportunity.

Labs using the reflective practice approach function like an apprenticeship. In this environment, learning how to teach is a collaborative, rather than an individual, process. Instructors are mentors, instead of distant authority figures, sharing their knowledge in a quest to train the next generation. Since these mentors are experienced teachers themselves, instruction is laced with examples from their own experiences, creating a more personal atmosphere in the classroom and during conferences (Vare, 1994).

Prospective teachers are part of a collaborative process with their instructor before and during the lesson. In direct contrast to the applied science approach, the instructor may give encouragement or cues during the lesson. Pre- and post-conferences are not necessarily private; public feedback is a part of the reflective practice, so peers have the opportunity to give oral and written critiques of the lesson. During conferences, feedback from the instructor is individually tailored to the prospective teacher, rather than solely staying with the standardized checklist used by the applied science style of instruction. Although the reflective practice instructor may have a specific observation form, the feedback is not limited to that one form. Further narratives are likely to be included as well.

These two teaching philosophies show differences between the teaching-learning relationship (Vare, 1994). Both effectively allow the teacher candidate to engage in actual teaching experiences before becoming a student teacher. Each has similar steps of pre- and post-conferences, as well as observation of a recorded lesson. However, the particular philosophy that guides the way in which the skills are taught, the help given along the way, and the nature of the feedback and conferences is likely to be more appealing to some more than others. An understanding of the difference in approaches, and the ability to make a choice between these two kinds of microteaching laboratory experiences, will affect how positive and effective the experience is for the prospective teacher. Regardless of which method is used, the prospective teacher will still achieve the results of practice before the student teaching experience, the chance to marry theory with practice, and an opportunity for self-evaluation and reflection.

The internet age opened up a variety of new opportunities for microteaching. While improved technology allowed for refinements and updates to the established methodologies, more substantially new and different aspects of microteaching were also made possible. Arguably most important was the facilitation of microteaching through online platforms. For example, Kusmawan (2017) found that teachers had positive views of wholly online microteaching programs, which included classic elements such as recorded sessions and instructor feedback as well as additional features such as ongoing discussion forums.

Terms & Concepts

Applied Science Approach: This approach considers microteaching to be part of formal education; it takes a quantitative (scientific) approach to the interactions with prospective students and the reasons why those interactions take place. The relationship between instructor and student is formal and standardized.

Macroteaching: Macroteaching involves teaching a lesson for an entire class period, rather than only part of the period.

Mentor: A mentor is a more experienced person who guides a less experienced person.

Microteaching: Microteaching involves teaching a lesson for part of a class period, rather than the entire class period. The term in this article refers also to the microteaching lab, which involves a pre-conference, observation, post-conference, and self-evaluation of a microteaching lesson.

Prospective Teacher: A prospective teacher is also known as a pre-service teacher or teacher candidate, one who is still in training and who has not yet had a formal teaching job.

Reflective Practice: Reflective practice involves a personal, mentoring relationship between instructor and prospective teacher. This approach relates the instructor-student relationship to a form of apprenticeship.

Rubric: A rubric is an assessment tool used for subjective assignments.

Theoretical Knowledge: Theoretical knowledge is an understanding of concepts and practices in isolation. In the context of teacher education, it is book knowledge as opposed to knowledge from real world experience and practice.

Bibliography

Akalin, S. (2005). Comparison between traditional teaching and microteaching during school experience of student-teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20, 1–13. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18834960&site=ehost-live

Allen, D. & Ryan, K. (1969). Microteaching. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Amobi, F. (2005). Preservice teachers' reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32 (1), 115–130. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16240279&site=ehost-live

Bahçivan, E. (2017). Implementing microteaching lesson study with a group of preservice science teachers: An encouraging attempt of action research. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(3), 591–602. Retrieved October 24, 2018 form EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124997742&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Benton-Kupper, J. (2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education, 121 (4), 830. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5016918&site=ehost-live

Bidyuk, N. (2017). Forming communicative competence of future TESOL teachers by microteaching (based on British experience). Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 7(4), 7–15. Retrieved October 24, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=128525063&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Butler, A. (2001). Preservice music teachers' conceptions of teaching effectiveness, microteaching experiences, and teaching performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49 (3), 258. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5438148&site=ehost-live

Cruickshank, D., & Metcalf, K. (1993). Improving preservice teacher assessment through on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory into Practice, 32 (2), 86–92.

Donnelly, R., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2011). Towards productive reflective practice in microteaching. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48 (3), 335–346. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=63968156&site=ehost-live

Duncan, M.J. & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.

Farris, R. (1991). Micro-peer teaching: Organization and benefits. Education, 111 (4), 559–562. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9110142256&site=ehost-live

Fernández, M., & Robinson, M. (2006). Prospective teachers' perspectives microteaching lesson study. Education, 127 (2), 203–215. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23761138&site=ehost-live

Francis, D. (1997). Reconceptualising microteaching as critical inquiry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25 (3), 207. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=644580&site=ehost-live

Gower, R., Philips D. & Walters, S. (1995). Teaching practice handbook. Heinemann.

Hinckley, W. L. (1972). Effects of two styles of microteaching on student teaching performance. Final Report. Stanford Teacher Competence Appraisal Guide.

I'anson, J., Rodrigues, S., & Wilson, G. (2003). Mirrors, reflections and refractions: The contribution of microteaching to reflective practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26 (2), 189.

Ismail, S. (2011). Student teachers' microteaching experiences in a preservice English teacher education program. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2 (5), 1043–1051. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67633413&site=ehost-live

Kpanja, E. (2001). A study of the effects of video tape recording in microteaching training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 483–486.

Pauline, R. F. (1993). Microteaching: An integral part of a science methods class. Paper presented at the International Convention of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (Charleston, SC, January 28-31, 1993).

Sarigoz, i. (2013). Adjusting language level in teacher-talk in ELT microteachings with specific reference to distance education teacher. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 14 (2), 165–184. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89236847&site=ehost-live

Seidel, T. (2006). The role of student characteristics in studying micro teaching-learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 9 (3), 253–271.

Subramaniam, K. (2006). Creating a microteaching evaluation form: The needed evaluation criteria. Education, 126 (4), 666–677. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21701250&site=ehost-live

Vare, J. W. (1994). Partnership contrasts: Microteaching activity as two apprenticeships in thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 45 (3), 209–217.

Winitzky, N., & Arends, R. (1991). Translating research into practice: The effects of various forms of training and clinical experience on preservice students' knowledge, skill, and reflectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (1), 52–65.

Microteaching Labs

On this Page

Subject Terms

Microteaching Labs

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading