Eğitim ve Bilim
2012, Cilt 37, Sayı 164
Education and Science
2012, Vol. 37, No 164
Implementing an Observation and Feedback Form for More
Effective Feedback in Microteaching
Mikroöğretimde Daha Etkili Bir Geribildirim İçin Gözlem ve Dönüt
Formunun Uygulanması
Gonca EKŞİ**
Gazi University
Öz
Bu eylem araştırması, öğretmen adaylarının mikroöğretim sunumlarında, bazı duygusal
ve kültürel kısıtlamalar yüzünden, gözlem ve geribildirim sürecine etkili katılamadıklarının
fark edilmesi üzerine yapılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının hem kendi performanslarından hem
de başkalarınınkinden öğrenmelerini sağlayan geribildirim, mikroöğretimin vazgeçilmez
bir bileşenidir; bu nedenle, bu çalışma mikroöğretim uygulamalarında daha yansıtmacı
ve yapılandırmacı bir yaklaşım geliştirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Katılımcılar büyük bir devlet
üniversitesi, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Bölümü›ndeki 24 öğretmen adayıdır. Çalışmanın süresi 7
haftadır. Çalışmada veriler, iki tutum anketi ve yarı-resmi görüşmeler yoluyla edinilmiştir.
Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının teori ile uygulamayı bağdaştırdığı için mikroöğretim tekniğini
profesyonel gelişim konusunda yararlı bulduklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, daha etkili bir
geribildirim sürecinin yararlarını kabul etmişlerdir. Ancak, başkalarının duygularını incitme
konusunda derin endişeleri olmuştur. Öğretmen adaylarının çoğu, muhtemelen eleştirinin
rahatsız edici yönü ve bazı kültürel kısıtlamalar nedeniyle, sözlü geribildirim verme konusunda
isteksiz olmuşlardır. Ancak, yazılı bir geribildirim formu ile çok daha rahat hissetmişlerdir. Ayrıca
yapılandırılmış bir geribildirim formu ile daha etkili dönüt verebildiklerini ve başkalarının
performanslarından da daha iyi öğrenebildiklerini belirtmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada ayrıca mikro
sunumlar için bir yazılı gözlem ve geribildirim formu geliştirmiştir.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Mikroöğretim, öğretmen adayları, yapılandırmacı yaklaşım, geribildirim,
gözlem, hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitimi.
Abstract
This action research is conducted upon noticing that the teacher trainees in this study do
not get involved in the process of observation and feedback in microteaching sessions due to
certain emotional and cultural constraints. Feedback, which allows teacher trainees to learn
from their own performance as well as others’, is an indispensable component of microteaching.
Hence, this study aims to develop a more reflective and constructivist approach in microteaching
sessions. The participants were 24 teacher trainees in an English Language Teaching Department
at a large state university. The duration of the study was 7 weeks. The data were collected
through two attitudinal questionnaires and semi-formal interviews. Findings from the analysis
of data reveal that teacher trainees regard microteaching as useful for professional development
as it connects theory to practice. They also acknowledge the benefits of giving and receiving
feedback and of reflection. However, they express deep concern for others’ feelings. The teacher
trainees are often reluctant to provide overt oral feedback, probably due to the face-threatening
nature of the event and some cultural constraints. However, they feel more at ease with a written
feedback form. The trainees also report that they reflect more effectively and learn from one
another’s performance better through a structured feedback form. The study has also developed
a post observation feedback form for microteaching presentations.
Keywords: Microteaching, teacher trainee, constructivism, feedback, observation, preservice teacher education
*
Assist. Prof. Dr. Gonca EKŞİ, Gazi University, Department of English Language Teaching, goncayangin@gmail.com
268
GONCA EKŞİ
Introduction
Teacher education programs provide theoretical knowledge, yet, they require more fieldbased experience for teacher trainees because mere knowledge of a teaching skill does not
automatically guarantee its mastery (Lewin, Heublein, Ostertag & Sommer, 1998; Seferoğlu,
2006). The ideal way to really master a skill is to execute it in practice. However, before more
school-based experiences, pre-service teacher education should offer learning based teaching
simulations in which the trainee is both the performer and the observer, namely microteaching. It
is an effective and learner-centered technique to integrate theory with practice in teacher education
and it contributes to the success of teacher trainees (Aksan & Çakır, 1992; Bayraktar, 1982; BentonKupper, 2001; Blankenburg & Thompson, 1971; Fernandez & Robinson; 2006; Higgins & Nicholl,
2003; Kazu, 1996, Nortman, 1989). In this popular form of instructional training, groups of fellow
trainees observe each other teaching, provide feedback and engage in discussions with the aim of
improving one another’s instructional abilities. It also helps build self-confidence.
Microteaching is invaluable in pre-service teacher education in that it is a systematic trialand-error technique providing classrooms with relatively more control and low-risk where
teacher trainees participate either in the role of teachers or pupils and observers. Through a
mutual exchange of observations and experience, they have the chance of practicing and learning
teaching skills effectively. It was first designed and implemented in Stanford University, the USA
in the 1960s by Dwight Allen and his colleagues as an attempt to increase the quality of teacher
education. Teacher trainees teach a short lesson to a small number of students, usually fellow
trainees. There is generally an “expert”. If desired, the session can be videotaped for review at
a later date. The presentation is followed by a feedback session. In some cases, the feedback
session can be followed by a re-teach in line with the improvements suggested during feedback
(Vare, 1993). The aim is not to teach the subject but to practice different teaching techniques.
Today, in many modified forms, it is still a widely used technique in teacher education programs
worldwide including foreign languages (Amobi, 2005; Benton-Kupper, 2001; DeLorenzo, 1975).
Over the years, microteaching has taken many forms. The original cycle of teach, review, reflect
and re-teach in microteaching can be adapted to fit the needs and requirements and limitations
of educational institutions.
It may be argued that microteaching is hardly a substitute for real teaching in that it is
inherently unrealistic and involves artificial interaction. Yet, given the circumstances, peer
trainees are readily available. In fact, acting as pupils provides trainees with invaluable insight
into the teaching practice both when observing and being observed. Feedback by peers might
be more specific and more useful because they are all involved with the same kind of problems.
It can be a low-threat situation since no real pupils are involved (Clifford et. al., 1977: 229-230).
Microteaching offers a lot of valuable experience, such as a realistic practical teaching experience
in a controlled environment and opportunity for self-evaluation in the light of supervision,
feedback and discussion.
Review of the related literature reveals numerous studies, both nationwide and in the world.
Microteaching is an effective technique that embelishes teacher trainees with desired teaching
skills (I’Anson, Rodrigues & Wilson, 2003; Kpanja, 2001; Benton-Kupper, 2001; Fernandez and
Robinson, 2006; Higgins & Nicholl, 2003). Microteaching has been reported to develop positive
attitudes in teacher trainees, enhance their self-confidence and improve their instructional skills
(Ceyhun & Karagölge , 2002; Çakır, 2000; Çakır & Aksan 1992; Görgen, 2003; Gürses et. al., 2005;
Kazu, 1996; Külahçı, 1994, Peker, 2009; Şen, 2009). Research on teacher trainee perspectives show
that trainees themselves find microteaching experience useful (Amobi, 2005; Benton-Kupper,
2001). Microteaching experience helps teacher trainees overcome problems in preparing lessons
and it also improves classroom management skills (Aksan & Çakır, 1992; Bayraktar, 1982, Külahçı,
1994). In his study, Şen (2009) points out that microteaching helps teacher trainees reduce firsttime teaching anxiety.
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
269
As to the effectiveness of feedback in microteaching, studies reveal that informal discussions
with peers and the supervisor are effective in determining the degree of success of the training
(Brandl, 2000; Jerich, 1989). The outcomes of feedback sessions are assumed to lead to improvements
in the trainees’ teaching practice (Arikan, 2004). In order for the feedback to be effective, Brinko
(1993) suggests guidelines in the practice of giving feedback to improve teaching.
From a cognitive perspective, knowledge construction is assumed to be dynamic and
active. Learners construct knowledge while attempting to make sense of their experience. The
construction of knowledge includes the interaction of past knowledge with the experience of
the moment (Resnick, 1987). Microteaching is learner-centered, collaborative and constructivist
in nature; in that, it provides interaction of theory with the experience of teaching practice.
Knowledge is build upon through cycles of planning, implementing, and reflecting as a group
and individually. Moreover, feedback and constructive criticism by the peers also makes it
possible to learn from others and construct knowledge socially.
The importance of feedback sessions lies in construction of knowledge through discussion
and feedback from multiple sources; namely, the trainer, peers and the trainee himself/herself.
Yet, there are very few studies as to what exactly happens during feedback sessions or whether
feedback sessions are effectively conducted or not. In microteaching, the major aim is to embellish
teacher trainees with desired instructional abilities. This can be done by increasing the quality of
observation and feedback. To achieve a more learner-centered, collaborative and constructivist
practice of teaching, it is necessary that the observation be more systematic and feedback be
more specific, descriptive and detailed. However, while simultaneously acting as pupils in the
classroom, the trainees may fail to observe the microteaching presentation adequately. They may
have further problems in sharing their observation due to not knowing how to provide to-thepoint feedback without hurting the other’s feelings. Furthermore, Fernandez (2005) reported on
accounts of trainees who were “overtly concerned with others’ feelings” when discussing the
lessons taught even if they state that the feedback they received from their peers and their own
experience of teaching were the most beneficial in the microteaching experience. Edge (1984)
also mentioned the difficulties experienced in feedback stage because of teacher sensitivity and
reluctance to comment in a study in in-service training in Turkey. It appears that concerns for
others’ feelings are a common obstacle that hinders teacher trainees or practicing teachers from
providing genuine feedback. The author of this article was not content with the way feedback
sessions were conducted. As a methodology instructor, she was quite upset that the teacher
trainees were not participating in the discussions and she was the only one providing feedback.
There was very little participation by the teacher trainees in feedback and discussion sessions. The
need to discover the factors that prevented the trainees from giving feedback and helping them to
participate more in discussions guided this action research. Based on the two studies mentioned
above by Edge and Fernandez, the author thought that a well-structured feedback form might
provide more active participation by the trainees without fear of offending their peers.
Research Questions:
Several studies focused on microteaching as an effective teacher training tool and feedback
as its indispensable component as mentioned above. However, the factors that hinder peer
trainees from giving feedback and how to help trainees hold a more reflective approach towards
microteaching sessions have rarely been considered in previous research. This study attempted
to answer the following research questions:
1.
What are the factors that hinder teacher trainees from giving effective feedback on
microteaching sessions?
2.
What are the perceptions of teacher trainees regarding feedback stage of microteaching
sessions before using the Peer Observation and Feedback Form?
3.
How can teacher trainees get involved much more in the feedback stage of microteaching
sessions?
270
GONCA EKŞİ
4.
What are the perceptions of teacher trainees regarding the effectiveness of using the
Peer Observation and Feedback Form at the feedback stage of microteaching sessions?
Method
Participants
The participants were 24 teacher trainees who were studying in English Language Teaching
Department at a large state university. There were 22 female and 2 male participants. The ages
of the participants ranged from 20 to 22. The number of participants was relatively fewer, but in
return, the duration of the study was longer and it allowed the researcher to observe the process
and development adequately. A class of about 25 to 30 teacher trainees is a common feature
of language teaching departments. A teacher trainer usually starts methodology courses with
one group and studies with them throughout three years, which allows them to get to know
one another, built rapport and improve teaching skills. The trainees in this study were taking a
methodology course, Teaching Language Skills, with the trainer. This was their third year and they
had taken only one methodology course before, which involved microteaching.
Problem
As mentioned before, the trainer was familiar with the trainers and had observed their
reluctance to give feedback or to participate in discussions. Feedback allows the trainees to reflect
on the microteaching performance of themselves or of their peers. Deeper reflection is crucial for
microteaching sessions to run effectively. In the study, the participants performed microteaching
presentations for 3 weeks and the rest were asked to act pupils while observing the presentations
with the aim of sharing opinions and participating in follow-up discussions. However, it soon
turned out that the trainees did not actively participate in the feedback stage. They also seemed
to be discontent with the feedback they received. It was almost always the same few students who
made comments; which was occasional. The rest seemed uninvolved or reserved. In general, the
trainer appeared to be the only feedback provider. It was clear that the reflection and feedback stage,
which was supposed to provide trainees with deeper insights, did not work properly. Hence, the
researcher wanted to determine the reasons why the trainees did not effectively share observations
and join discussions. She also aimed to engage the trainees more effectively into the process.
Assumptions and Limitations
As stated earlier, 22 female and 2 male participants were involved in the study. This male/
female ratio is common in departments of foreign language teaching. It is assumed that the
findings are similar in other foreign language teaching departments. However, this might be
a limitation of the study. In a different or reverse ratio, the factors that hinder trainees from
providing overt feedback might be different.
Data Collection
Data were obtained from two different attitudinal questionnaires developed by the researcher
and a whole-class interview conducted in the form of a discussion. The first questionnaire was
implemented to diagnose the reasons why the trainees refrain from giving feedback. To further
analyze their responses, the trainees and the methodology trainer held a whole-class discussion
and the themes emerged were noted down. The second questionnaire was administered to
discover the perceived usefulness of the feedback and observation form. The questionnaires
included Likert-type questions and open ended questions. Answers to open-ended questions
and those received in the interview were analyzed through content analysis and the responses
were coded and classified. Answers to Likert-type questions were processed by transferring
frequencies into percentages.
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
271
Procedure
This action research followed the stages below:
In order to identify the problem of concern, the situation was carefully examined by the
methodology instructor. She was frustrated that the trainees did not actively participate in the
feedback stage. To obtain the necessary information to discover what prevented teacher trainees
from actively getting involved in the feedback stage, the first questionnaire was implemented
(see Appendix 1). There were six open ended questions to get a more detailed description of
how the trainees perceived the feedback stage. The trainees, then, were engaged in a whole-class
discussion to further analyze their responses. The responses were processed through content
analysis and were coded.
Following this, a plan of action was developed. Based on the findings, it was agreed upon
that an observation and feedback form would be of more benefit for the trainees so that they
would know what to observe and would feel more at ease when giving feedback in the written
form. The trainees expressed concerns as to how to give constructive criticism. One class hour
was devoted on code of conduct during feedback sessions. The teacher trainer and the trainees
agreed on ground rules for giving and receiving feedback. The trainees also displayed difficulty
in accepting criticism. To overcome this problem, they were advised to be open to suggestions
and comments and to use them to their advantage. Although no one wants their deficiencies or
imperfections to be shown, the trainees need to realize that identifying them is a must for further
professional development. Encouraging feedback and sharing personal beliefs and opinions
about the sessions is supported by the social constructivist theory which upholds the view that
learning occurs when individuals engage socially in talk and activity about shared problems or
tasks (Donaghue, 2003:344)
Then, the cycle was repeated to examine the results of implementing the observation
and feedback form. The second questionnaire was administered to gather data about the
perceived usefulness of the form (see Appendix 2). The questionnaire involved three questions
with Likert-type rating and five open ended questions. After implementing the form for three
weeks in microteaching sessions, each trainee had received feedback forms regarding their
own performance from their fellow trainees and had filled out the form for every other trainee
in the class. The instructor/trainer also filled out the form for each of the trainees. After each
microteaching presentation, the forms were written and handed in to the trainee. The whole
class, along with the trainer, engaged in discussions and shared the observations as well. With
suggestions from the trainees, the observation and feedback form was further improved. At the
end of the three weeks, the form was finalized in its improved version (see Appendix 3).
Finally, the findings were interpreted and suggestions and conclusions are drawn for teacher
education.
Results and Discussion
The data obtained are discussed with reference to the research questions as follows:
Research Question 1. What are the factors that hinder teacher trainees from giving effective feedback on
microteaching sessions?
The responses of the trainees for the questionnaire for defining the problem are below. The
numbers of students for each statement are indicated. For more insight, some student responses
are also added:
272
GONCA EKŞİ
Table 1.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 1, question 1
1. How often do you give feedback to your Never
fellow trainees and participate in discussions Rarely
after microteaching sessions?
Often
Always
N
%
7
29.16
11
45.83
4
16.66
2
8.33
The numbers of trainees who mark the responses “never” and “rarely” (a total of 18,
which accounts for 74.99% of the class) clearly indicate that the feedback and discussion stage
did not work properly. The three-fourths of the trainees were unwilling and reluctant to share
their observations and suggestions. They were not engaged in the process and that was a major
problem for the effectiveness of the microteaching technique. It was a constant problem that
the author/trainer complained about- being the only feedback provider in the discussion stage.
Acknowledging the importance of constructing knowledge socially, the trainer was insisting that
the trainees take part in discussions.
Table 2.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 1, question 2
N
2. (If seldom) Why do I don’t observe the lesson. I’m not interested.
you refrain from giving I have no idea/ nothing to say.
feedback?
I do not know what to look for during observation.
(Tick any appropriate and I’m afraid that my friend will lose face in front of
the instructor.
add more if any)
I’m afraid that my friend will be offended.
Other (please specify):
Somebody else has already said it, no need to say that
again.
My friends react negatively to people who give feedback.
They think I always find something negative in
presentations.
I feel too shy to express what I feel and think
To give feedback, first I should feel perfect. If I do have
mistakes, it won’t make any sense.
I sometimes can’t give constructive feedback.
%
3
12.5
4
16.66
6
25
8
33.33
4
16.66
4
16.66
1
1
4.16
4.16
1
4.16
When the trainees were asked the reasons why they refrain from giving feedback, three
of the most frequently cited reasons were: avoiding offending peers (33.3%), avoiding causing
peers to lose face (25%) and not knowing where to look (16.6%). The trainees expressed their
concerns for the feelings of others. They were particularly anxious about hurting their friends’
feelings or receiving negative reactions from them. This finding is compatible with Fernandez’s
(2005) and Edge’s (1984) study. They also did not want to point to the gaps or imperfections
in friends’ presentations for fear that the instructor would have a lower opinion of them. It is
understandable when the evaluation of the teacher trainer/instructor would result in a score.
Some of the trainers pointed that they do not know how to observe the presentations effectively.
Moreover, some trainees complained about intolerance to criticism by peers (16.6%). That is why,
a session on giving constructive and supportive criticism was conducted. It is important that the
trainees acknowledge the benefit of learning from performances through discussion.
273
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
Research Question 2. What are the perceptions of teacher trainees regarding feedback stage of
microteaching sessions before using the Peer Observation and Feedback Form?
Table 3.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 1, question 3
3. How do you feel when you Positive remarks
receive feedback?
Negative remarks
Both positive and
negative remarks
N
%
11
45.83
2
8.33
10
41.66
It appears that the trainees have both positive and negative feelings towards the feedback
and discussion stage. Although those who feel totally frustrated by the feedback stage were
not too many (only 2 trainees), the negative remarks should not be ignored for the effective
implementation of the step. Below are some extracts (both positive and negative) from trainees:
“Actually, I like receiving feedback. It helps me, I improve my work.”
“I feel good because I have got prepared and it is appreciated.”
“I feel the feedback sessions will contribute to my teaching skills. The ideas will help me in my future
presentations.”
“If it is constructive I feel no stress or embarrassment.”
“If the way I receive feedback is harsh, it disturbs me.”
“Sometimes I find my friends’ ideas nonsense. I get disappointed because I have worked on it so
much.”
“Some of my friends give feedback just to criticize.”
“I am afraid of having low marks.”
Table 4.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 1, question 4
4. Have you ever felt being unfairly evaluated? Yes
If yes, by whom (the trainer or your friends) and
No
why?
N
%
8
33.33
16
66.66
Two-thirds of the trainees think that the feedback they receive was fair. “Even though
sometimes they are fussy on small details, I generally agree with them”. However, there was a tendency
to regard feedback as negative criticism. “When giving feedback, they sometimes ignore our efforts.
My motivation decreases”. As mentioned before, feedback and discussion stages require active
participation of every trainee in the class so that they can learn from each and every microteaching
performance, not just from their own. However, the tendency to regard comments as highlighting
imperfections and thus causing to lose face impedes the process. Therefore, the trainees were
assured that this was necessary for their professional development and the session on giving
nonjudgmental comments along with suggestions was conducted.
274
GONCA EKŞİ
Table 5.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 1, question 5
5. Do you think the instructor/trainer should be the Yes
only person to provide feedback?
No
N
%
-
-
24
100
All trainees think that not only the trainer but also the trainees themselves should also be actively
involved in the feedback stage. This was not compatible with the responses to the first question.
Although most of them (18 trainees) did not actively participate in the process of feedback and
discussion, they do think it was something they should have done. It appears that, even if they are
reluctant to provide feedback, they believe that their opinions matter and they should contribute
with different points of views.
“We are all studying to be teachers and I am glad to have a chance to express my ideas”.
“We should also actively listen and observe the presentations- this is also gaining experience”.
“I’d like to hear more about my performance from my peers; otherwise, one person’s view cannot be
fair”.
“Peers can feel empathy with us so their feedback is important”.
This was promising because the trainees did not refrain from giving feedback thinking it
was useless. They were aware of the potential benefits of the feedback stage and that they had a
lot to contribute to the process.
Table 6.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 1, question 6
N
%
6. What do you think of her (the It should be stricter.
instructor’s / traineer’s) feedback? The time and energy we spent should be
appreciated.
2
8.33
1
4.16
It is constructive, not disturbing and
nonjudgmental. It is fair and inoffensive. It points
to positive aspects as well. It is useful because it
suggests more activities and improvements.
21
87.5
The majority of the trainees were content with the trainer’s feedback. They pointed out that
they were not stressed and they benefited from her feedback. However, two trainees expressed
that they would like it to have been “stricter”. They wanted their mistakes to be clearly stated.
It is probably due to the personality of the trainees. Some people do get motivated when their
mistakes are highlighted, so that they would precisely know what to work on. But the rest of the
trainees want their effort to be appreciated.
Research Question 3. How can teacher trainees get involved much more in the feedback stage of
microteaching sessions?
The trainees’ responses to the questionnaire were evaluated through content analysis
and classified. Then a whole-class interview was conducted. The themes emerged during the
discussion were in line with the responses to the questionnaires. The trainees expressed their
discomfort about providing overt criticism and also stated that they would appreciate some
guidance while observing. In response to this, the trainer suggested that an observation and
feedback checklist might be useful and the idea was accepted by the whole class. Eventually, the
trainer developed the “Peer Observation and Feedback Form”. Providing feedback through the form
would ensure confidentiality because the trainees expressed clearly that they would feel at more
275
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
ease when giving feedback in the written form, in that, it was between the trainee who performed
and those who observed. What’s more, a well-structured form would help them focus on the
process better and give more effective feedback.
The form was developed by the teacher trainer and was improved with the suggestions of
the trainees. For the rest of the term in microteaching presentations, the form was used.
Research Question 4. What are the perceptions of teacher trainees regarding the effectiveness of using
the Peer Observation and Feedback Form at the feedback stage of microteaching sessions?
The responses of the trainees to the second questionnaire showed the perceived effectiveness of
the “peer observation and feedback form.” The trainees were asked to provide a rating (strongly agree,
agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) and an explanation for their rating if they wish for each of
the following statements.
Table 7.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 2, questions 1, 2, 3
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
10
8
2
2
1
12
7
1
4
-
Feedback from group members was
helpful and enlightening.
12
6
3
2
1
1.
Analyzing other’s lessons helped
me think more deeply about mine
2.
The checklist was helpful in
observing lessons. It helped me
learn to observe and give feedback
on lessons.
3.
As predicted, a well-structured form helped the trainees to observe the sessions better.
They also benefited from feedback from their peers. The feedback stage worked more efficiently
and helped them gain better insight into the process. Answers to the questions above indicate
positive attitudes towards microteaching procedure in general; which is compatible with
numerous researches done previously (Aksan & Çakır, 1992; Bayraktar, 1982; Benton-Kupper,
2001; Fernandez & Robinson, 2006; Higgins & Nicholl, 2003; Şen, 2009). The trainees, in general,
perceive microteaching as a useful procedure for their professional development.
Table 8.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 2, question 4
N
%
4. How did you find the process I liked it. It was beneficial and well-constructed.
of giving written feedback on There was much more contribution.
your friends’ microteaching It was better than just oral discussion.
performances?
It was better because we can keep them and look
at them later when we need.
22
91.66
10
41.66
9
37.5
There were some inconsistencies. Some like it,
some don’t. I can’t see why.
1
4.16
I took into consideration the feedback of those
who attentively listened to me during my
presentation and ignored others’.
1
4.16
Nearly all trainees (22 trainees) expressed positive attitudes towards using the “Peer
Observation and Feedback Form.” It helped them participate much more in the process. They felt
276
GONCA EKŞİ
much more at ease when giving written feedback. The form was confidential between the trainee
and peers who observed her/him. The form also served as a guide and helped trainees what to
monitor during observation.
Table 9.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 2, question 5
N
%
6
25
9
37.5
Often
6
25
Always
4
16.66
5. How often did you participate in oral Never
discussion after handing in the form?
Rarely
It appears that the trainees participated more in the oral discussion after using the Peer
Observation and Feedback Form. Yet, the increase is relatively lower. Those who never or rarely
take part in discussion were still 15, which accounted for 62,5% of the whole group. The ones
who participated increased by 16,6 %. Given the highly positive attitude towards reflection
and feedback stage by the trainees, the increase seems to be relatively disappointing. It appears
that the reluctance to provide overt criticism persists. Edge’s (1984) study also pointed out a
similar finding with Turkish teachers during in-service training. We can conclude that regarding
feedback as criticism might be cultural and probably it takes much longer than a session to break
the reluctance. Instead, the trainees were content with the confidentiality of the written feedback
form. As some trainees point out, they thought the form was sufficient enough and there was
no need to join discussions: “I have already written a detailed feedback form so I did not want to repeat
them”.
Table 10.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 2, question 6
6. Were the instructor’s and your classmates’ Often
comments in the feedback forms compatible?
Sometimes
Rarely
N
%
10
41.66
6
25
8
33.33
The analysis of the responses of the trainees to question 6 revealed that there were times
when the feedback from the trainer/instructor and some of the trainees did not match. Although
some trainees find this confusing, they were assured that that was quite normal. The trainer was
not the almighty authority in the class. One person’s view might have missing parts. It also shows
how different learners can react in a real class. What might not work with one learner might well
work with another. Taking more points of view into consideration broadens our understanding.
They were also happy that their views were valued as much as that of the trainer.
277
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
Table 11.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 2, question 7
7. What aspects of using
the “peer observation and
feedback form” did you like
most?
N
%
It was easier and well constructed, so we can
provide more detailed feedback.
8
33.33
Written feedback is better. It was more
confidential, and thus less offensive.
5
20.83
Everybody contributed.
4
16.66
I especially liked overall comments and the smiley
faces.
6
25
I looked forward to reading what was written. It
was the moment I liked most. I’ll keep them.
5
20.83
Improving the form was fun. I liked the final
version.
2
8.33
Answers to question 7 indicate that the form provided a structured approach to observation
and feedback. It was user-friendly. The trainees liked and benefited from the guidance provided
by the form. Furthermore, the trainees felt much less intimidated by the process of overt feedback.
They tended to see sharing observations and suggestions in the written form more relaxing and
less obtrusive. The confidentiality of the form allowed them to express their ideas more easily.
The trainees were also glad that there was more participation. The form seems to be favoured by
the trainees. They were eager to read the comments and were happy that they could keep them for
later reference. They also liked being actively involved in creating the form. They were engaged
in the activity and felt a sense of accomplishment about the final product. As their suggestions
helped further develop the form, they made it their own and thus were more dedicated to use it.
Table 11.
Trainee responses for Questionnaire 2, question 8
11. What aspects of the feedback
procedure need improvement?
Please list any suggestions for
improvement.
N
%
I wish we had more time. I think the one
who did the presentation should have time
to justify why she/he did that.
3
12.5
I was disappointed by a few feedbacks from
some of my friends who just put ticks. I
would appreciate more detailed comments.
2
8.33
Time limitations appear to be a common complaint. With a class of 24 trainees, the form
provided easier and concentrated feedback. However, it was also stated that it would be better if
the presenters had some more time to defend or explain the motives for their acts. Some trainees
expressed disappointment on superficial comments and pointed that they would like more
detailed ones.
Because of the aforementioned reasons, reflection should not be superficial and observation
and feedback in microteaching sessions should allow for cultivation of exchange of ideas for
the successful execution of teaching practice. Based on the findings above, concern for other’s
feelings and failure to take criticism to one’s advantage and to make a structured observation
were revealed to be major reasons that hindered teacher trainees from effectively participating
in follow-up discussions. This was in line with studies by Fernandez (2005) and Edge (1984).
With mutual consent of the trainer and the trainees, the written observation and feedback form
278
GONCA EKŞİ
provided the sought-after confidentiality; and this, in return, allowed the trainees to express their
ideas and suggestions with more ease. They also accepted criticism in an unobtrusive way and
used the initiative to take advantage of it. The form helped them with systematic observation and
feedback. The trainees also participated in oral follow-up discussions relatively more.
Conclusion
Microteaching is an indispensable component of teacher education because it provides
teacher trainees with the opportunity of integrating theory with practice. The effectiveness of
microteaching heavily depends on the quality, that is, the depth and breath, of feedback and
evaluation. However, studies related to what actually happens during the feedback stage and
how feedback and discussions sessions can be held in a more effective way are few. This action
research attempted to integrate more reflection in microteaching sessions.
All in all, the action research appears to find answers to all research questions. Firstly, the
study aimed to identify the reasons why the trainees refrained from getting actively involved in
feedback and discussions. The analysis of trainee responses to the first questionnaire revealed the
three main reasons that prevented effective feedback. The trainees stated that that they found the
discussion stage intimidating, or at least, uncomfortable. They were highly concerned with the
feelings of their peers. They did not want to cause their peers to lose face at the presence of the
trainer. As this problem is common with another study conducted with Turkish practicing teachers
in in-service training by Edge (1984), we might conclude that cultural norms might restrain the
trainees from expressing criticism overtly. Although the trainees acknowledged the benefits of
the discussions, they still refrained from giving overt feedback. After the implementation of the
feedback form, there was an increase of 16.6% in participation in the discussions. Yet, the ones
who never or rarely expressed their ideas in discussions still accounted for 62.5% of the trainees.
It is probable that the trainees were contented with giving and receiving feedback in privacy.
This finding might also be attributed to the female-male ratio of the group. Empathy with the
trainee who performed might be due to the fact that nearly all students were female students.
There were only two male trainees, which was so small a number to make any inferences. As
mentioned earlier as a limitation of the study, although this ratio is common in language teaching
departments in universities, the finding might be different in a different department or with a male
dominant group. Therefore, further studies can be conducted regarding the underlying reasons
for reluctance to give overt feedback. This reluctance might highly be related to the perception
of feedback. The trainees tended to see it as criticism or an act of highlighting faults and took a
defensive stand. Despite acknowledging its usefulness, they tended to abstain from the reflection
and feedback stage. Moreover, 25% of the trainees cited I’m afraid that my friend will lose face in
front of the instructor as a reason for their reluctance. It appears that they tended to regard this as
a kind of betrayal to fellow trainers. It is too difficult to break behaviour that has roots in culture.
The next step of this action research was to involve the trainees more actively in the feedback
and discussion sessions. Given their resistance to give overt feedback, a “peer observation and
feedback form” was developed in collaboration with the teacher trainees as an alternative. The
trainees felt much more comfortable providing feedback confidentially in the written form. The
form also served as a guide during observations, and thus the trainees complaining about not
knowing what to observe effectively were satisfied. They regarded the form as more convenient
as it was more structured. The teacher trainees had favourable perceptions and attitudes towards
microteaching presentations with the form. They thought it helped them improve their teaching
skills. The use of the form increased participation dramatically. The trainees were content to
receive detailed feedback from their peers and stated that the feedback was helpful. In fact, the
trainees noted that they looked forward to reading the comments made about their performance.
The forms could be kept for later reference, which was an additional benefit. Therefore, in this
study it is suggested that the Peer Observation and Feedback Form be used in pre-service teacher
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
279
training programs to engage the trainees more deeply into reflection during microteaching
sessions. It is also suggested that the form be used by different teacher trainers so that we can
obtain more information about the perceived effectiveness of the form in the feedback stage of
microteaching sessions. The form might also be further developed with suggestions from other
trainers or trainees.
References
Amobi, F. A. (2005). Perspective teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and the consequences of
teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115-130.
Arikan, A. (2004). Questions to ask in post-observation conferences for a reflective practice.
Proceedings of the Third International ELT Conference, Theory and Practice of TESOL: European
Language Portfolio: English as an International Language, Edirne, Turkey.
Benton-Kupper, J. B. (2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education,
121(4), 830-835.
Brandl, K. K. (2000). Foreign language TAs’perceptions of training components: Do we know how
they like to be trained? The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 355-371.
Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback. What is effective? The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(5), 574-593.
Ceyhun, İ. & Karagölge, Z. (2002) “Kimya Eğitiminde Tezsiz Yüksek Lisans Öğrencileri ile Mikroöğretim” V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 16-18 Eylül 2002, ODTÜ,
Ankara
Clifford, R. T. , Jorstad, H. L. & Lange, D. L. (1977). Student evaluation of peer-group microteaching
as preparation for student teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 61(5/6), 229-236.
Çakır, Ö. S. (2000). Öğretmen Yetiştirmede Teoriyi Pratiğe Bağlayan Mikro-öğretimin Türkiye’deki
Üç Üniversitede Durumu. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 62-68.
Çakır, Ö. & Aksan, Y. (1992). Yabancı Dil Öğretmeni Yetiştirmede Mikroöğretimin Rolü: Bir
Model. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 313-320.
DeLorenzo, W. E. (1975). Microteaching as a transitional technique to student teaching. Foreign
Language Annals, 8, 239-245.
Donaghue, H. (2003). An instrument to elicit teachers’ beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal, 57(4),
344-351.
Edge, J. (1984). Feedback with face. ELT Journal. 38, 204-206.
Fernandez, M. L. (2005). Learning through microteaching lesson study in teacher preparation.
Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 37-47.
Fernández, M.L. & Robinson, M. (2006). Prospective teachersʹ perspectives on microteaching
lesson study. Education, 127(2), 203-215.
Görgen, İ. (2003). Mikroöğretim Uygulamasının Öğretmen Adaylarının Sınıfta Ders Anlatımına
İlişkin Görüşleri Üzerine Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 56-63.
Gürses, A., Bayrak, R., Yalçın, M., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç. (2005). Öğretmenlik Uygulamalarında
Mikroöğretim Yönteminin Etkililiğinin İncelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 13(1), 1-10.
Higgins, A. & Nicholl, H. (2003). The experiences of lecturers and students in the use of
microteaching as a teaching strategy. Nurse Education in Practice, 3, 220–227.
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), 189-199.
Jerich, K. (19891) Using a clinical supervision model for micro-teaching experiences. Action in
280
GONCA EKŞİ
Teacher Education, 11(3), 24-31.
Kazu, H. (1996). Öğretmen Yetiştirmede Mikroöğretim Yönetiminin Etkililiği (F.Ü. Teknik Eğitim
Fakültesi Örneği). Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
Kpanja, E. (2001). A study of the effects of video tape recording in microteaching training. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 483-486.
Külahçı, S. G. (1994). Mikroöğretimde Fırat Üniversitesi Teknik Eğitim Fakültesi Deneyimi II
Değerlendirme. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 18(92), 36-44.
Lewin, K., Heublein, U., Ostertag, M. & Sommer, D. (1998). HIS Ergebnisspiegel 1997. Hannover:
HISHochschul-Informations-System GmbH.
Nortman, M. L. (1989) The effects of the student teaching experience on educational attitudes.
Dissertation Abstract International. 50(5), November, 119-A.
Seferoğlu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-service English
teacher education programme in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 369–378.
Şen, A. İ. (2009) A research on the effect of peer microteaching on teacher training programs.
Education and Science, 34(151), 165-174.
Peker, M. (2009) Genişletilmiş Mikroöğretim Yaşantıları Hakkında Matematik Öğretmeni
Adaylarının Görüşleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 7(2), 353-376.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Vare, J. W. (1993). Co-Constructing the Zone: A Neo-Vygotskian View of Microteaching. [Online]
Retrieved on 24-January-2009 at URL: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
contentdelivery/ servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED360285.
281
IMPLEMENTING AN OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING
Appendix 1
Dear participants,
This is to understand how you feel about giving and receiving feedback in your microteaching sessions.
The aim is to make the best out of feedback sessions. Your answers will be viewed by your trainer only.
Please give your sincere answers to questions.
Thank you
1. How often do you give feedback to your fellow trainees and participate in discussions
after microteaching sessions?
___ never
___ rarely
___ often
___ always
2. (if seldom) Why do you refrain from giving feedback? (Tick any appropriate and add
more if any)
___ I don’t observe the lesson. I’m not interested.
___ I have no idea / nothing to say.
___ I do not know what to look for during observation.
___ I’m afraid that my friend will lose face in front of the instructor.
___ I’m afraid that my friend will be offended.
___ Other (please specify):………………
3. How do you feel when you receive feedback?
4. Have you ever felt being unfairly evaluated? If yes, by whom (the trainer or your
friends) and why?
5. Do you think the instructor should be the only person to provide feedback?
6. What do you think of her feedback?
Appendix 2
Dear participants,
Please write your comments about using Peer Observation and Feedback Form in microteaching sessions.
Thanks for your sincerity.
The ratings are:
(1) strongly agree,
(2) agree,
(3) neutral,
(4) disagree,
(5) strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Analysing other’s lessons helped me think more deeply
about mine.
2.
The checklist was helpful in observing lessons. It helped
me learn to observe and give feedback on lessons.
3.
Feedback from my peers was helpful and enlightening.
4.
How did you find the process of giving written feedback on your friends’ microteaching
performances?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.
How
often
did
you
participate in oral discussion never
after handing in the form?
6.
rarely
Were the instructor’s and your classmates’
comments in the feedback forms compatible? yes
often
no
always
to some extent
282
GONCA EKŞİ
What aspects of using the “Peer Observation and Feedback Form” did you like most?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………..
8. What aspects of the feedback procedure need improvement? Please list any suggestions
for improvement .
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Appendix 3
MICROTEACHING PRESENTATION
PEER OBSERVATION AND FEEDBACK FORM
Name of the Student Teacher: ______________________
Title/topic of the Lesson: __________________________
Date: ____________________
Feedback provider:___________
Check all that apply and comment as relevant.
Lecturing Strategies:
Additional comments:
__ linking to prior knowledge
…………………….
__ explaining/ demonstrating concepts
…………………….
__ relating stories, anecdotes
…………………….
__ making jokes/ using fun
…………………….
__ inviting student examples/ experiences
…………………….
__ pausing to give students time to think
…………………….
__ emphasizing important points
…………………….
__ using clear instructions
…………………….
__ correcting mistakes
…………………….
__ using instructional technology ( projector, video,etc)
…………………….
__ other:
…………………….
Classroom Management:
Additional Comments:
__ encouraging participation
…………………….
__ conducting effective pair and group work activities
…………………….
__ monitoring students while they are working
…………………….
__ effective use of time
…………………….
__ effective eye contact and use of voice
…………………….
__ effective body language
…………………….
__ Other:
…………………….
Comment on the following procedures on the presentation. Fill in smiley faces to show your
overall rating for each step.
(1 smiley = needs significant improvement, 5 smileys = excellent )
7.
Warm-up / Lead-in:
JJJJJ
Additional comments:
Body
JJJJJ
Additional comments:
Conclusion and
Wrap-up
JJJJJ
Additional comments:
How would you rate the overall effectiveness of this session (with ‘5 smileys’ representing ‘most
highly effective’) and why?
JJJJJ
·
·
What worked particularly well in this session?
What suggestions for improvement do you have for the trainee?