This article was downloaded by: [Georgian Court University]On: 05 December 2014, At: 12:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees inFacilitating Learner-Centered InstructionAubrey Golightly aa North-West University , Potchefstroom Campus, South AfricaPublished online: 25 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Aubrey Golightly (2010) Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees in Facilitating Learner-Centered Instruction, Journal of Geography, 109:6, 233-242, DOI: 10.1080/00221341.2010.509512

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2010.509512

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees in FacilitatingLearner-Centered Instruction

Aubrey Golightly

ABSTRACTThis article reports the findings of acase study where microteaching wasimplemented to assist geography teacher-trainees in the planning, design, andimplementation of learner-centeredinstruction in the classroom. The data werecollected via questionnaires completedby B.Ed. Geography teacher-trainees (n =24); structured interviews with some ofthe trainees (n = 8); and a comparison oftrainees’ (n = 8) planned learning activitiesfor practical teaching lessons before andafter microteaching. Results indicate that,after the microteaching sessions, traineeswere more inclined to plan, design, andimplement learner-centered instructionduring geography learning experiences.

Key Words: microteaching, geographyeducation, instruction, teacher training

Dr. Aubrey Golightly is a lecturer in the facultyof education at the North-West University,Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa.

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

schools during 1997 emphasized and supported the move from teacher-centeredto learner-centered instruction in the school classroom and at all higher educationinstitutions (South Africa Department of Education 2003). Pertaining to educationin general, Kain (2003) explains that the implementation of learner-centeredinstructional approaches necessitates the sharing of constructed knowledge whilelearning is achieved through learners’ active engagement in various activities. Inthis light and after twelve years of OBE in South African classrooms, it is naturalto 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 Africastill use direct teacher-centered instruction in their classroom. Mphaphuli andLuneta (1997) state that traditional geography instruction in South Africa hasbeen primarily theoretical, using methods based on memorization and repetitionof facts. In light of their findings they suggest that South African teachers needcompulsory exposure to the wider spectrum of learner-centered instructionalstrategies. More recent research clearly indicates that in most South African classesthe teacher is still proclaimed as the authority in the classroom, the sole provider ofinformation, and also the person who is the summative assessor of learners’ work(Rambuda and Fraser 2004; Grosser and De Waal 2006; Beets 2007; De Waal andGrosser 2009). Consequently, the example set by mentors for geography traineesduring practical teaching at schools as well as the comments made by mentorson trainees’ lesson presentations, in most cases do not support or encouragetrainees to implement learner-centered instruction in geography classrooms. Thenatural conclusion is that geography educators at the tertiary level should usemicroteaching to help foster the implementation of learner-centered instruction ingeography classrooms. Cruickshank and Metcalfe (1993, 87) define microteachingas a “scaled down teaching encounter in which preservice teachers demonstratetheir ability to perform one of several desirable teacher abilities to a group of threeto five peers during a short period of time.”

The purpose of this article is to determine if the implementation of microteach-ing in the training model of B.Ed. Geography teacher-trainees at the North WestUniversity (Potchefstroom campus) can assist teacher-trainees with the successfulplanning, implementation, and presentation of learner-centered instruction in thegeography classroom.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKOutcomes-based education1 in South Africa emphasizes learner-centered edu-

cation (South Africa Department of Education 1997) that, according to Van Harme-len (1999) and Claassen (1998), was based on the social constructivist approach toteaching and learning. The OBE curriculum, as described in the publication fromLubisi et al. (1997), namely Understanding Outcomes-based Education: Knowledge,Curriculum and Assessment, defines a learner-centered instructional approach asthe development of learning programs and materials that favors the learners,recognizing and building on their accumulated knowledge and experiences, andresponding to their individual and collective needs. A constructivist view ofknowledge and learning proposes that learners should be active independent

Journal of Geography 109: 233–242C©2010 National Council for Geographic Education 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Aubrey Golightly

Figure 1. Teaching styles of geography teacher-trainees and teachers. (Source:Tolley and Reynolds, cited in Lambert and Balderstone 2003).

thinkers and should therefore critically examine the proce-dures of knowledge construction. Learner-centered class-room practices engage students in activities that requirereasoning, discovering, problem-solving, data gathering,application, and communication of ideas. However, as apoint of emphasis it has to be stated that the constructivistapproach to teaching and learning does not deny theimportance of factual knowledge, but it does emphasizethat the best way for learners to attain and understand(and eventually apply) this knowledge is to “put it intoa larger, more lifelike context that stimulates learners toreflect, organize, analyze and problem solve” (Borich andTombari 1997, 180).

The effective implementation of learner-centered instruc-tional approaches in classrooms will ask teachers to changethe teaching styles they implement in the classroom (Visser,McChlery, and Vreken 2006). A teaching style refers to acombination of teaching methods and techniques that ateacher prefers to implement in the classroom. Furthermore,Grasha (1996, 1) states that in relation to education, ateaching style may also be described as a pervasive qualitythat plays an important role in several aspects of ourteaching. This implies that teaching style is not simply an ac-cumulation of techniques or interesting mannerisms, but isalso inherent to the teacher’s personality and influences thechoice of instructional approaches. In geography educationreference is made to the three general teaching and learningstyles, namely transmission-reception, behavior-shaping,and the interactionist models as identified by Tolley andReynolds (cited in Lambert and Balderstone 2003). Roberts(in Balderstone 2002) also developed a model that givesan overview of the broad styles of teaching and learningin geography education (Fig. 1). For the purpose of thisstudy the focus will be on the teaching models developed byTolley and Reynolds to emphasize practices such as activelearning by and collaboration among learners in geographyeducation.

In the first model—the transmission-reception model—the learner is perceived as an empty organism waiting tobe “filled” with knowledge. The classroom is designed ina formal way to facilitate the transmission of informationfrom the teacher directly to the learners. Desks are arrangedin neat rows, the teacher occupies a dominant position at thefront of the class (Williams 1997). Information is presented

through different direct teachingstrategies such as lecture presen-tations, demonstrations, drill, prac-tice, chalk-and-talk recitations withthe learners recording the informa-tion in a manner determined by theteacher.

The second model is thebehavior-shaping model in whichthe teacher is perceived as aprovider of sequential, structuredlearning experiences to learners ina social group. In the geography

classroom the emphasis is on learners recognizing andapplying geographical concepts (Lambert and Balderstone2003). When studying Figure 1 it is clear that communi-cation between the teacher and the learners especially isemphasized in this model. Some of the teaching strategiesoften used in this model are the question-and-answermethod, discussions, assignments, oral presentations, andthe classroom feedback from the learners after the comple-tion of certain assignments.

Last is the interactionist model in which the emphasisis on individual learners and the teacher engaging ininquiring and problem solving in a collaborative manner.The learner is seen as a social organism and the classroomdesign and the extended classroom takes this into account.Classroom furniture is arranged to promote learner-learnerand teacher-learner interaction. The teaching style makesallowance for the teacher to be part of the learning processand the typical responsibilities of the teacher are transferredto the learners. Some of the typical teaching strategiesand 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 thetraditional teacher-centered approach while Styles B andC are more inclined towards learner-centered instruction.Adaptability to all teaching and learning styles is an impor-tant tool that prepares geography teachers for a variety ofteaching conditions where they can appeal to and enhancethe learning of a greater variety of learners. Therefore,Buch and Bartley (2002) state that geography teachers needto adapt their teaching styles and instructional methodsto facilitate the learning process by offering a variety oflearning opportunities appropriate to different learningstyles and to different subject matter and geography lessonoutcomes. Dasari (2006) further states that the teachingstyles and strategies implemented by the geography teacherwill have to be continuously revised in that the basic contentmay be the same but the learner groupings will differ anddelivery will have to cater to these differences.

Unfortunately, the theoretical knowledge that geographyteacher-trainees in South Africa gain regarding variousteaching styles and learner-centered instruction strategiesand methods during their university training is seldompromoted or supported by teachers or mentors who

234

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees

supervise the trainees during practical teaching. Toaddress this problem, microteaching is essential to ensurethat trainees learn how to implement learner-centeredinstruction in the classroom.

The use of microteaching as part of teacher education isseen as an effective way of assisting on-campus preserviceteacher-trainees to learn about and reflect upon effectiveteaching practice (I’Anson, Rodrigues, and Wilson 2003)and as a bridge that connects theory to practice (Fernandezand Robinson 2006; Pringle, Dawson, and Adams 2003). Asteacher-trainees in many training programs complete theirpractical teaching with inadequate supervision and littleto no student feedback, the relative merits and economyof microteaching become more and more apparent. Mi-croteaching is a common practice in teacher education thatoriginated in the United States in the 1960s (Grossman 2005)and can provide geography teacher-trainees with hands-onlearner-centered teaching experiences.

Literature describes the use of microteaching as a benefi-cial and accepted element of preservice teacher education.Microteaching experiences provide preservice teacherswith 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 effectivepractice (I’Anson, Rodrigues, and Wilson 2003);

� introducing preservice teachers to their roles as teach-ers (Amobi 2005);

� helping them to see the importance of planning,decision making, and implementation of instructionalmethods and strategies (Gess-Newsome and Leder-man 1990);

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

� building practical teaching confidence (Brent, Wheat-ley, and Thomson 1996).

Research on student perceptions regarding the value ofmicroteaching indicates that students themselves find ituseful and enriching (Amobi 2005; Benton-Kupper 2001).For lecturers of teacher-trainees, the implementation ofmicroteaching into the training syllabus enables both thepreservice teachers and the trainers to engage in dialogueand discussion centered on making connections betweentheories of teaching and practical microteaching experi-ences (Allen and Wang 2008; Pringle, Dawson, and Adams2003). Benton-Kupper (2001) emphasizes that feedback tostudents should be detailed rather than general in nature.She describes detailed feedback as being “supportive”and containing constructive feedback and suggestions thatcan be used to improve preservice teachers’ teachingmethods. Darling-Hammond et al. (2005, 412) recommendthat “students develop an analytic framework to assess themicro-teaching performances of their peers.” The criticalexamination or assessment of teacher-trainees’ lesson pre-

sentations during microteaching correspond with Lim andChan’s (2007, 476) view that “to critically examine or reflecton the strengths and limitations of each approach mayrestructure trainees’ existing beliefs and encourage them toadopt new instructional practices that are consistent withtheir pedagogical beliefs.”

The question remains whether microteaching in thetraining 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 thegeography classroom.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODSThe purpose of this study was to determine:

� The perceptions and attitudes of geography teacher-trainees regarding the implementation of microteach-ing in their training program

� The perceptions of geography teacher-trainees re-garding the use of microteaching to assist them inthe implementation of learner-centered instructionalstrategies and styles

� The aspects of microteaching that play an impor-tant role in assisting trainees in the implementationof learner-centered instruction in their geographyclasses

� The influence of microteaching sessions in assistingteacher-trainees in the planning, designing, and facil-itation of learner-centered instruction in geographyclassrooms

Context of the StudyThe 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 afour-year B.Ed. degree that prepares candidates to teachin one of the following educational phases: intermediate(grades 4–6), senior (grades 7–9) and further education andtraining (FET) (grades 10–12). During the first three yearsthe geography teacher-trainees take academic modules andin their fourth year two geography methodology modules.During the first three years of training, the trainees performsix weeks of practical teaching at schools and in the fourthacademic year the practical teaching increases to eightweeks. The microteaching sessions applicable to this studyare implemented in the fourth year of training. This articlereports on work conducted in 2008. Twenty-four fourth-year B.Ed. Geography teacher-trainees took part in thestudy.

Instructional ProceduresIn the geography methodology module for the fourth-

year B.Ed. teacher-trainees, there are three scheduled con-tact sessions per week. Two sessions are used for theoreticalstudies and one contact session for microteaching. In thetheoretical studies the focus is on the different teaching

235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Aubrey Golightly

and learning theories, strategies, methods, and teachingaids, as well as assessment strategies and methods ingeography education. The trainees also have to plan anddesign learner-centered instructional lessons, embedded inthe socioconstructivist approach (c.f. Jonassen 1999) as partof their training.

The purpose of the microteaching sessions is mainly todemonstrate an ability to integrate content, methodology,and pedagogy as covered in the National CurriculumStatements (NCS) for geography. The trainees have ninecontact sessions of fifty minutes each per semester. Duringthe microteaching period it is expected of the trainees topresent at least one microlesson (ten to twelve minutes) persemester. Two or three trainees each present a lesson persession.

The lecture hall used for the presentation of the mi-croteaching sessions is designed and organized like a nor-mal classroom, complete with a blackboard, projector, andcomputer with access to PowerPoint and Internet. Teacher-trainees are therefore expected to make use of teachingaids 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 microteachingsessions as prescribed in the NCS for geography teachingaccording to the specific phase (intermediate, senior, orFET) they were registered to teach. The trainee, with theassistance of the other three group members, had to planand design a learner-centered instructional microlesson fora specific phase, which was then presented to the classduring the scheduled microlesson.

The group members acted as learners during the mi-crolesson presentations. The same assessment form usedby lecturers to assess trainees’ lesson presentations dur-ing practical teaching was used to assess performanceduring the microlessons. However, the main focus of themicrolessons is to ensure the implementation of learner-centered instructional strategies and activities that activelyinvolve the students in the learning process and promotecommunication and collaboration among learners in theclass. Directly after each presentation, fellow trainees andthe lecturer analyze the lesson, give constructive commen-tary, and critique, as well as suggestions regarding howto present a more learner-centered lesson. The presenterof the lesson was afforded the opportunity to defendhis/her instructional approach, style, and lesson activitiesas applied during the microlesson. The lecturer was mainlyresponsible for the facilitation of the discussion among classmembers in the analysis of the presentation. To ensurethat all students were attentive and participated in thediscussion, the trainees had to submit a written reflectivereport (c.f. Fernandez and Chokshi 2002) of each fellowtrainee’s microlesson presentation with the emphasis onstrengths and weaknesses in the implementation of learner-centered instruction in that specific lesson.

After the lesson presentation every trainee was requiredto submit a copy of his/her microlesson planning and

design, including the prescribed critical-, learning-, andlesson-outcomes, as well as the learning activities andassessment strategies and methods. These documents wereanalyzed by the lecturer and constructive written feedbackwas prepared and provided to each student. The lesson pre-sentations and written lesson planning were used to com-pile an assessment mark. Of the final participation mark forthe semester, the microlesson mark contributed 20 percent.

Data Collection Methods and AnalysisA mixed-method approach that involved collection and

analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data was used(Cresswell 2003). The researcher employed the followingqualitative and quantitative data collection methods:

� questionnaires completed by the geography teacher-trainees (n = 24) at the end of the microteachingperiod;

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

� analysis and comparison of the teacher-trainees’(n = 8) written planning and designed learningexperiences (n = 8) before and after the microteachingsessions. For this specific purpose the researcheranalyzed the compiled teaching portfolios of theparticipating trainees. He compared two geographylesson plans submitted by each participating traineeduring their practical teaching weeks in 2007 (beforethe trainees’ exposure to the microteaching sessions)and two lesson plans each submitted by those sametrainees during practical teaching in 2008 (afterexposure to and participating in the microteachingsessions). In the analysis the researcher focused onthe difference in lesson presentations, if any, regardinglearner-centered instruction before and after exposureto microteaching as part of the teachers’ training.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Perceptions and Attitudes of Geography Teacher TraineesRegarding Microteaching

With the implementation of the microteaching sessionsthe researcher requested that the geography teacher-trainees, as participants in the study, complete a question-naire in order to determine their perceptions and attitudesregarding their impending microteaching participation.At the beginning of the semester most of the participants(n = 13) were positive regarding the microteaching whilethe others (n = 11) were moderately to very negativeregarding microteaching. The questionnaire and theinterviews produced the following as the main reasonsfor the initial negativity: the trainees were of the opinionthat they had had enough practical experience after threeyears of practical teaching in schools; they were nervousregarding the unrealistic and unfamiliar setting for themicrolessons; they were nervous to present lessons in frontof fellow-students; and they indicated that the expected

236

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees

learner-centered instructional approach was challengingregarding the new expectations from lecturers with regardto planning and presentation of learning activities. Duringthe interview one of the respondents stated:

I was extremely negative regarding micro-teaching since I did not want to expose my-self to the criticisms of my fellow-studentsor my lecturer. We were literally pulledfrom our comfort zone by the expectationsposed by this new teaching approach. Newchallenges were presented with the plan-ning and presentation of the micro-lessonsthat required of me to spend much moretime on my planning and design of lessons.(Respondent A)

The above-mentioned reasons for respondents’ negativ-ity compares favorably with those presented by Bell(2007). Most of the respondents emphasized the fact thata learner-centered instructional approach required morefrom them than the traditional teacher-centered instruc-tional approach. This changing role of the teacher wasinitially perceived as negative—most of them had a naturalresistance to change. As correctly stated by Bolhuis andVoeten (2004) the teachers’ conceptions of learning deviatedfrom the new ideas of learning that underlie the innovation.

By the end of the first semester, nine weeks after firstimplementing microteaching, most of the negative attitudesand perceptions of the trainees evaporated. By this timetwenty-one of the participants were positive to very pos-itive regarding the presentation of microlessons and onlythree still harbored negative feelings. The main reasons forthe respondents change-of-heart as indicated in the ques-tionnaires and the interviews were the following: the per-ceived value of the microlessons with regard to the planningand design of learner-centered instruction; trainees weremore familiar with the presentation of learner-centeredmicrolessons; and the trainees realized that the feedbackfrom fellow-students and the lecturer was constructive innature and that they were learning from one another.

The following respondent summarized these findingsduring his interview:

Micro-lessons are a MUST! The micro-lessons provided me with more experiencein the implementation of learner-centeredinstruction than all my practical teaching

Table 1. The influence of microteaching on respondents’ perceptions regarding theimplementation of teacher- and learner-centered instructional approaches.

Before Microteaching After MicroteachingInstructional Approach (Average %) (Average %)Teacher-centered 66.6% 29.2%Learner-centered 33.4% 70.8%

experience over the past 3 years. As astudent you are exposed to new ideas foryour own lesson presentations by watch-ing and analysing your fellow-students’lessons. You also get the chance to applyyour theoretical knowledge in practice. I amnow of the opinion that the presentation ofonly one micro-lesson per semester is notenough. Micro-teaching should be imple-mented from your first or second year oftraining. (Respondent C)

These positive perceptions from trainees regarding mi-croteaching are confirmed by the research of Amobi(2005) and Benton-Kupper (2001). After being exposed tomicroteaching for only nine weeks, the trainees realized thevalue therein themselves.

Instructional ApproachesThe questionnaire requested respondents to indicate

whether they were of the opinion that the planning andpresentation of microlessons contributed towards a greateremphasis on learner-centered instruction in their lessonpresentations. Most of the respondents (n = 23) agreed thatthe microlesson presentations and assessment by fellow-students definitely contributed towards the effective im-plementation of learner-centered instructional approachesin the classroom.

The respondents then had to indicate to what extentmicroteaching influenced the implementation of certainteaching approaches. Respondents had to indicate howmany times on average either a teacher-centered or alearner-centered instructional approach was evident intheir lesson presentations before and after the completion ofthe microteaching sessions. The average response percentof all the respondents is indicated in Table 1.

From Table 1 it is evident that respondents are ofthe opinion that they mainly focused on teacher-centeredinstruction in the classroom (66%) before they were exposedto microteaching. The microlessons definitely contributedtowards a shift in emphasis towards more learner-centeredinstructional approaches (70.8%) in their lesson presenta-tions. The following remark by a respondent supports thesefindings:

Most of the trainees usedmuch less explanation anddemonstration of learningcontent to learners afterthey were exposed tomicro-teaching. There arenow more opportunitiesfor learners, individuallyor in groups, to explorelearning content them-selves (Respondent E).

237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Aubrey Golightly

An interesting remark by one of the respondents is worthmentioning:

What I find note worthy is that the micro-lessons presented by students by the endof the semester succeeded in effectivelyinvolving the learners in the learning pro-cess, not as just an add-on to keep thelecturer and fellow-students happy, but asa natural part of their lesson presentation. Itis as if the students realised the importanceof involving the learners in this learningprocess. (Respondent G)

Thus it is evident that the respondents agreed that partic-ipation in microteaching contributed towards their imple-mentation of learner-centered instructional approaches inthe classroom. These findings correlated with the researchfindings of I’Anson, Rodrigues, and Wilson (2003) andKlinzing (2002) which highlighted that microteaching wasan effective way of helping pre-service teachers learn aboutand reflect upon effective practice.

Teaching and Learning StylesRespondents were requested to indicate to what ex-

tent microteaching influenced the teaching styles theyimplemented in the geography classroom during everymicrolesson. For this purpose the respondents were referredto the three teaching and learning styles described by Tolleyand Reynolds (quoted by Lambert and Balderstone 2003).Respondents had to specifically indicate the frequencyof usage of each style during a lesson, first during theinitial microteaching sessions and then by the end ofthe semester after they had become more familiar withmicroteaching.

Most of the respondents (n = 21) were of the opinionthat they mostly implemented the transmission receptionmodel during the initial microlessons. This is indicated inTable 2 with an initial average percentage of 59 percentin favor of this teaching model, whereas only 13 percentwas dedicated to the use of the interactionist model. By theend of the semester most of the respondents (n = 23) wereimplementing the interactionist teaching model (average of53%). Their lesson planning and presentation focused moreon discussions among learners and involvement in learningactivities and content, on the creation of a cooperative learn-

Table 2. Respondents’ perceptions regarding the implementation of teaching and learningstyles during microlessons.

By the End of theInitial Microteaching Semester Microlessons

Teaching and Learning Styles Sessions (Average %) (Average %) DuringTransmission reception model 59% 18%Behavior-shaping model 28% 29%Interactionist model 13% 53%

ing environment, and group work. Learners were activelyinvolved with their own education and participated in theassessment of learning activities.

These findings were further confirmed during the in-terviews. The following answer of one of the respondentsserves as an example:

The micro-teaching sessions definitely in-fluenced my choice of teaching strategiesand styles implemented during my lessons.The sessions made it possible to actuallyapply theory in classroom practice. Duringplanning and presentation of the micro-lesson you are challenged to think outof the box and to actively involve thelearners in the learning process and toallow them to learn from one anotherwithin their groups. When you observe andassess fellow-students during their lessonpresentations, you are exposed to new ideasregarding teaching styles and strategies thatyou can later apply in your own teaching.(Respondent B)

Another respondent said the following:

During some of the presentations I becameangry at my fellow-students when they stillapplied the traditional direct instructionalapproach—feeding the learners the facts!In these instances I immediately beganthinking of ways to do the same in a totallydifferent manner—actively involving thelearners in the teaching process. (Respon-dent E)

These commentaries indicate that the microlessons alsodeveloped the trainees’ ability to critically analyze oneanother’s presentations. For students to change their per-ceptions regarding the implementation of different teachingstyles in the classroom, it is of critical importance that they“develop an analytic framework to assess their peers’ mi-croteaching performance” (Darling-Hammond et al. 2005,412).

Aspects of Microteaching thatAssisted with the Implementationof Learner-Centered Instruction

The questionnaire listed variousaspects of microteaching (Table 3)and respondents were requested toindicate the extent of the influenceof every aspect on their perceptionsand beliefs regarding the imple-mentation of learner-centered in-struction.

In Table 3 those aspects of mi-croteaching with the highest influ-ence on the perceptions and beliefs

238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees

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 InfluenceThe prescribed learning content in the Education modules

regarding learner-centered instructional approaches.0 5 16 3

The written planning and design of learner-centered instructionduring microlessons.

1 8 6 9

The presentation of learner-centered microlessons by myfellow-students.

0 3 8 13

Assistance, support, and advice from group members regardingthe planning of my microlesson.

4 9 6 5

The oral commentary and constructive feedback from myGeography lecturer after my lesson presentations.

0 0 9 15

The commentary and constructive feedback from myfellow-students after my lesson presentations.

1 1 12 10

The assessment of the microlesson presentations of myfellow-students on the prescribed assessment forms.

0 2 10 12

The written commentary from my lecturer regarding my writtenlesson planning and design.

0 2 10 12

The prescribed learning material in Geography subject didacticsthat I studied before all my lesson presentations.

0 6 14 4

The written reflective report from every student regarding themicrolessons of the other students.

1 5 12 6

of the respondents regarding the implementation of learner-centered instruction are indicated as follows: the lecturer’soral commentary and constructive criticisms regardinglesson presentations (n = 15); the presentation of micro-lessons to fellow-students (n = 13); the assessment of thelesson presentations of fellow-students (n = 12); the writtenfeedback from the lecturer regarding lesson planning (n =12); and the commentary and constructive feedback fromfellow-students regarding their lesson presentations (n =10). The last-mentioned aspect was specifically emphasizedduring the interviews. The following are some of theresponses from the interviews:

The assessment of and constructive feed-back to fellow-students after their lessonpresentations were of great value to me.The use of different learner-centered in-structional strategies by fellow-studentscontributed to my own creativity in mylesson planning. The feedback from fellow-students and my lecturer directly in-fluenced the type of ideas I accumu-lated for my next lesson presentation.(Respondent C)

In the micro-teaching sessions I was en-couraged to rise to the challenge within asafe learning environment wherein it wasOK to make mistakes. We discussed ev-erything and argued on important matters.The contributions of my fellow-students

and lecturer, as well as my own reflec-tions after my lesson presentations, werewhere valuable ideas were exchanged.(Respondent F)

Feedback and constructive criticism from the lecturer andfellow-students as well as fellow-students’ assessment ofthe microlesson presentations were highlighted as aspectsthat were mostly responsible for the trainees’ changed per-ceptions regarding the implementation of learner-centeredinstructional approaches. In the literature review some ofthe studies also highlighted the importance of reflectionto help change perspectives of students. According toAmobi (2005, 116) and Benton-Kupper (2001) feedbackserves as the “content for and quality of reflection.” Thisenables preservice teachers to reflect on their microteachingexperiences leading to change in self-perceptions andsubsequent teaching behaviors.

Teaching and Learning Activities During PracticalTeaching

Although most of the teacher-trainees were of the opinionthat the microteaching sessions were a great incentive toassist them with the implementation of learner-centeredinstruction in the classroom, the question remains whetherthese students also applied this approach in practice. Todetermine whether this was the case, the respondents (n =8) with whom interviews were conducted were requestedto submit their practical teaching journals. For the purposeof this section of the study, four geography lessons as

239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Aubrey Golightly

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

Number of Teaching-Learning Number of Teaching-LearningTypes 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

group discussions2 (2.8%) 15 (18%)

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%)

presented during practical teaching during 2007 and 2008were analyzed—two lessons presented before exposure tothe microteaching sessions (2007) and two lesson presenta-tions after the trainees participated in microteaching (2008).The design and planning of the teaching-learning activitiesfor the geography lessons presented during 2007 and 2008were compared to determine whether the implementationof the microteaching sessions influenced the focus onlearner-centered activities (Table 4). In Table 4 the numberof learner activities as presented by the trainees duringtheir practical teaching lessons during 2007 and 2008 areindicated.

From Table 4 it is evident that the respondents placedgreater emphasis on learner-centered teaching-learningactivities in their lesson planning after participation in themicroteaching sessions (2008). During practical teachingbefore participation in the microteaching sessions (2007),the respondents mainly focused on the explanation anddemonstration of content (34.2%) as well as questioningof learners (15.7%) during their lesson presentations. Thecompletion of worksheets (22.8%) was used to determinewhether the learners understood the learning content andassessments of teaching-learning activities were mainlyled by the teacher him/herself (87%). These activitiessupport the perception of the trainees regarding the

use of teacher-centered instructional strategies and stylesbefore they learned how to implement learner-centeredinstruction during the microteaching sessions. The typesof teaching-learning activities indicate that the traineeswere mainly focused on the use of the transmission-reception model and to a lesser extent the behavior-shaping model regarding their teaching styles (also seeTable 2).

The trainees’ lesson planning after participation inmicroteaching in 2008 indicated clearly that they devel-oped and implemented a greater variety of individualand cooperative teaching-learning activities during prac-tical teaching. Although teacher-centered activities suchas explanation and demonstration of content (14.5%),questioning (8.4%), and completion of worksheets (18%)were still implemented, the learner-centered activitiessuch as discussion of themes in cooperative learningenvironments and groups (18%), feedback by learners(4.8%), as well as individual teaching-learning activitiessuch as the design of posters, research projects, buildingof models, role play, etc. took precedence over the first-mentioned activities (Table 4). Furthermore, the teacher-trainees made use of different assessment agents to gaugelearners’ assignments and activities. These results supportthe perceptions of respondents regarding the shift in their

240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Microteaching to Assist Geography Teacher-Trainees

focus from teacher-centered to learner-centered instructionand learner-styles after their participation in microteachingsessions.

CONCLUSIONThe teacher-trainees perceived microteaching as a worth-

while and beneficial learning experience. This study def-initely indicates the great potential of microteaching inassisting preservice geography teacher-trainees with theimplementation of learner-centered instruction in class-rooms. Microteaching also gives the trainees a platformwhere they can practice different instructional strategiesand skills, such as the implementation of learner-centeredinstruction, in a controlled and safe learning environment.The focused feedback and encouragement, combined withthe examples set by fellow-students, helped to changetrainees’ perceptions on the value of learner-centeredinstruction. It also gave students the opportunity to makethoughtful judgments on their own and fellow-students’lesson presentations and help them to develop theirteaching abilities. In addition the study also indicates thatmicroteaching assists trainees to bridge the important gapbetween theory and practice.

Although by the end of the semester most, if not all, of thetrainees implemented learner-centered instruction duringtheir microlesson presentations, they were not all equallycompetent. Many of the trainees still need a lot of practicein learner-centered instruction. Most important is theirwillingness to implement learner-centered instructionalapproaches in their lesson presentations because of thechanged perceptions regarding the value thereof to thelearners.

Finally, evidence from this research indicates that the mi-croteaching process in a South African context is effective inproviding an alternative way of helping trainees to developlearner-centered instructional strategies in classrooms.

NOTE1. As experienced during the implementation of OBE

in South African schools, it is necessary to pointout that OBE was also implemented with mixedsuccess in countries like the United States, Australia,England, and New Zealand, where it was reviewedor replaced. In the United States, for example, OBEwas replaced with standard based learning afteronly a few years because of various problems andshortcomings experienced by educators (Zlatos 1994;Watt 2005).

REFERENCESAllen, D. W., and W. Wang. 2008. Microteaching.

http://www.answer.com/topic/mircoteaching (acces-sed November 26, 2008).

Amobi, F. A. 2005. Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on thesequence and consequences of teaching actions in amicroteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly32 (1): 115–130.

Balderstone, D. 2002. Teaching styles and strategies. InTeaching Geography in Secondary Schools, ed. M. Smith,pp. 93–112. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Beets, P. A. D. 2007. Assessering vir leer in Geografie-klassein die VOO-baan [Assessment of learning in geographyclasses in the FET band]. Ph.D. proefskrif., Universiteitvan Stellenbosch.

Bell, N. 2007. Microteaching: What is it that’s going on here?Linguistics and Education 18 (1): 24–40.

Benton-Kupper, J. 2001. The microteaching experience:Student perspective. Education 121 (4): 830–835.

Bolhuis, S., and M. J. M. Voeten. 2004. Teachers’ conceptionsof student learning and own learning. Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice 10 (1): 77–98.

Borich, G. D., and M. L. Tombari. 1997. Educational Psychol-ogy: A Contemporary Approach. New York: Longman.

Brent, R., E. A. Wheatley, and W. S. Thomson. 1996.Video-taped microteaching: Bridging the gap from theuniversity to the classroom. The Teacher Educator 31 (3):238–247.

Buch, K., and S. Bartley. 2002. Learning styles and trainingdelivery mode preference. Journal of Workplace Learning14 (10): 5–10.

Claassen, C. 1998. Outcomes-based education: Some in-sights from complexity theory. South African Journal ofHigher Education 12 (2): 34–40.

Cresswell, J. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,California: SAGE Publications.

Cruickshank, D., and K. Metcalfe. 1993. Improving preser-vice teacher assessment through on-campus laboratoryexperiences. Theory and Practice 32 (2): 86–92.

Darling-Hammond, L., K. Hammerness, P. Grossman, F.Rust, and L. Shulman. 2005. The design of teachereducation programs. In Preparing Teachers for a Chang-ing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Ableto Do, eds. L. Darling-Hammond and J. Branscomb,pp. 390–441. San Francisco, California: John Wiley &Sons.

Dasari, P. 2006. The influence of matching teaching andlearning styles on the achievement in science of gradesix learners. M. Ed., UNISA.

De Waal, E., and M. M. Grosser. 2009. Safety and security atschool: A pedagogical perspective. Teaching and TeacherEducation 25 (5): 697–706.

241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Aubrey Golightly

Fernandez, C., and S. Chokshi. 2002. A practical guide totranslating lesson study for a U.S. setting. Phi DeltaKappan 84 (2): 128–135.

Fernandez, M., and M. Robinson. 2006. Prospective teach-ers’ perspectives on microteaching lesson study. Educa-tion 127 (2): 203–215.

Gess-Newsome, J., and N. G. Lederman. 1990. The pre-service microteaching course and science teachers’instructional decisions: A qualitative analysis. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 27 (8): 717–726.

Grasha, A. F. 1996. Teaching with Style. A Practical Guideto Enhancing Learning by Understanding Teaching andLearning Styles. San Bernardino, California: AlliancePublishers.

Grosser, M., and E. De Waal. 2006. Enhancing pedagogicalneeds and fundamental rights at schools by accommo-dating diverse learning styles. Education as Change 10(2): 17–32.

Grossman, P. 2005. Research on pedagogical approachesin teacher education. In Studying Teacher Education,ed. M. Cochran-Smith and K. M. Zeichner, pp. 425–476. Washington, D.C.: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

I’Anson, J., S. Rodrigues, and G. Wilson. 2003. Mirrors,reflections and refractions: The contribution of mi-croteaching to reflective practice. European Journal ofTeacher Education 26 (2): 189–199.

Jonassen, D. 1999. Designing constructivist learning envi-ronments. In Instructional Theories and Models, vol. 2,ed. C. M. Reigeluth, pp. 215–239. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kain, D. J. 2003. Teacher-centered versus student-centered:Balancing constraint and theory in the compositionclassroom. Pedagogy 3 (1): 104–108.

Klinzing, H. G. 2002. Wie effektiv ist microteaching? Einuberlik uber funfundreifsig jahre forschung (Howeffective is micro-teaching? A survey of fifty-three yearsof research). Zeitschrift fur Padagogik 48 (2): 194–214.

Lambert, D., and D. Balderstone. 2003. Learning to TeachGeography in the Secondary Schools. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Lim, C. P., and B. C. Chan. 2007. microLESSONS in teachereducation: Examining pre-service teachers’ pedagogi-cal beliefs. Computers & Education 48 (3): 474–494.

Lubisi, C., V. Wedekind, B. Parker, and J. Gultig. 1997. Under-standing Outcomes-Based Education: Knowledge, Curricu-lum and Assessment in South Africa. Johannesburg: SouthAfrican Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE).

Mphaphuli, S., and K. Luneta. 1997. Geography andmathematics: Issues in Southern Africa. Social Education61 (7): 406–410.

Pringle, R. M., K. Dawson, and T. Adams. 2003. Technology,science and pre-service teachers: Creating a culture oftechnology-savvy elementary teachers. Action in TeacherEducation 24 (4): 46–52.

Rambuda, A. M., and W. J. Fraser. 2004. Perceptions ofteachers of the application of science process skills inthe teaching of geography in secondary schools in theFree State Province. South African Journal of Education 24(1): 10–17.

South Africa Department of Education. 2003. National Cur-riculum Statement Grades 10–12. Pretoria: Department ofEducation.

———. 1997. Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learning for theTwenty-First Century: A User’s Guide. Pretoria: Depart-ment of Education.

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.

Visser, S., S. McChlery, and N. Vreken. 2006. Teachingstyles versus learning styles in accounting sciencesin the United Kingdom and South Africa: A com-parison analysis. Meditari Accountancy 2 (14): 97–112.

Watt, M. G. 2005. Standards-based reforms in the UnitedStates of America: An overview, 1–44. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content stor-age o1/0000000b/80/31/b9/e3.pdf (accessed May 15,2008).

Williams, M. 1997. Instructional design. In Teaching andLearning Geography, eds. D. Tilbury and M. Williams,pp. 133–142. London: Routledge.

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 % 40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9312297555 (accessed May 18,2007).

242

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rgia

n C

ourt

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:31

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14