Peer and Real Student Microteaching: The EFL Student

Teachers’ Perception

Rismiyanto

and Fitri Budi Suryani

Universitas Muria Kudus

Keywords: Microteaching, Peer, Real Student, EFL Student Teachers.

Abstract: Microteaching is characterized by student teachers practicing teaching in front of small group of their peers

in a shortened length of time. The appearance of peers to act as students might play two contradictory roles.

The peers can support microteaching for they play a role as students who respond to the student teachers’

teaching practice and thus provide the student teachers with classroom situation. However, the kind of

respond that is often unnatural might disadvantage student teachers since they do not get the real classroom

situation. This study aims to explore the perception of the EFL student teachers on peer and real-student

microteaching. Real students refer to the students of high school who are willing to participate in

microteaching as students. The instrument used was closed-ended questionnaire administered to twenty-five

EFL student teachers at the English Education Department of Muria Kudus University. The result reveals

that the EFL student teachers perceive real student microteaching more naturally challenging teaching

experience than peer microteaching as real-student microteaching enabled the EFL student teachers to make

their maximum effort in practicing teaching.

1 INTRODUCTION

Microteaching is a kind of teaching practicum for

student teachers. It is characterized by student

teachers practicing teaching in front of the small

group of their peers in a shortened length of time.

The number of peers usually ranges from ten to

fifteen, while the length of time is around twenty to

thirty minutes.

In microteaching, one student teacher will practice

teaching and their peers will act as the students. The

appearance of the peers to act as students might play

two contradictory roles. The peers can support

microteaching for they play a role as students who

respond to the student teachers’ teaching practice and

thus provide the student teachers with classroom-like

situation. However, the kind of respond that is often

unnatural might disadvantage student teachers since

they do not get the real classroom situation. Their peers

who pretend to be students might sometimes end up

with joking or teasing their peer practising teaching.

Therefore, microteaching sometimes involves

real students of secondary school to participate as

students of the student teacher in the course. Real

students of secondary school can act naturally as

students during teaching practice in student teachers’

classroom. Unlike the student teachers’ peers, real

students do not need to pretend as students since

they are the real students. Hence, it is expected that

they are able to provide the real classroom situation

to be dealt with by student teachers in their teaching

practice. It is thus expected that student teachers can

benefit their teaching practice.

The participation of real students as students for

EFL student teachers in microteaching course has

been conducted for years at the English Education

Department of Muria Kudus University. The EFL

student teachers enrolling in microteaching course

are required to have teaching practice three times

during the course, in which they teach in front of

their peers twice and in front of real students once.

This study aims to explore the perception of the EFL

student teachers on peer and real-student

microteaching. It seeks to know how EFL student

teachers perceive the participation of their peers and

real students as students during their teaching

practice in microteaching course.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Brown (1984) asserts that teaching practicum is a

434

Rismiyanto, . and Suryani, F.

Peer and Real Student Microteaching: The EFL Student Teachers’ Perception.

DOI: 10.5220/0008219600002284

In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 434-438

ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9

very complex activity as the student teacher has a

twofold intention, i.e., that her/his students learn

while she/he learns to teach. Teaching practicum can

be differentiated based on the number of students

taught involved and the place of the teaching

(Brown, 1984). The first type of teaching practicum

is what the so-called microteaching that is teaching

the small group of the student teacher’s peers or K-

12 students in the student teacher’s classroom.

Meanwhile, the second type is known as school

experience or internship program in which the

student teacher teaches real students (K-12 students)

in their schools.

Microteaching is firstly developed at Stanford

University as a teacher training technique. The basic

principle of microteaching is reducing the length of

lesson and the number of students. In microteaching,

the lesson is reduced shorter than the average time of

a lesson. If the average length of a lesson is 100

minutes, microteaching takes only around 30

minutes. In term of the number of students, a

common lesson usually has around 30-40 students,

but microteaching has only 10-15 students. That’s

why Seidman (1968) sees microteaching as a scaled-

down version of real world. This is in line with Love

in Rokhayani (2017) who notes that in

microteaching, student teachers take on a role in a

school setting. It is also viewed as simulated

encounter designed and teaching laboratory

(Ghafoor et al., 2012). Meanwhile, Ghanaguru

(2017) claim microteaching as “a pre-induction,

booster or reinforcement involving hands-on and

minds-on experiences”.

Mergler and Tangen (2010) assert that

microteaching is an activity where preservice

teachers can engange in vicarious and mastery

learning experiences since it comprises of planning a

lesson and delivering it to their peers in class. Thus,

microteaching, according to Saban and Coklar

(2013), “can provide the possibility of forming a

trial situation for teaching activities” and improve

preservice teachers’ view on teaching.

3 METHODS

Based on the aim of the research, this study is a

descriptive one. The participants were the sixth

semester EFL student teachers at English Education

Department of Muria Kudus University who

enrolled in microteaching course. The number of the

participants was twenty-five student teachers. They

were required to have teaching practices in

microteaching course three times, in which they had

to teach in front of their peers twice and in front of

real students once.

The instrument used to collect the data was

closed-ended questionnaire adapted from Ogeyik

(2009). The number of questions in the

questionnaire is twenty eight. There are five criteria

of the questionnaires, namely planning and

preparation, lesson presentation, assessing pupil’s

progress, classroom management, and microteaching

in general. To answer the questions, the EFL student

teachers must choose from the five options presented

following the Likert scale. The options range from

(5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3) neutral, to (2)

disagree, and (1) strongly disagree. The

questionnaire was administered to the EFL student

teachers at the end of microteaching course.

Table 1: The Result of the Closed-Ended Questionnaires.

Item

Mean of

Peer MT

SD of Peer

Mean of Real

Stdnt MT

SD of Real

Stdnt MT

1 3.76 .88 4.44 .65

2 3.96 .79 4.36 .64

3 3.92 .76 4.16 .69

4 3.72 .84 4.08 .81

5 4.16 .55 4.44 .58

6 4.36 .64 4.60 .58

7 4.60 .50 5.88 5.67

8 3.36 .95 4.20 .87

9 3.56 .92 4.12 .88

10 3.52 .92 3.76 .93

11 2.76 .88 4.04 3.11

12 3.00 .96 3.68 .98

13 3.56 .87 3.56 .87

14 3.36 1.08 3.96 .93

15 3.80 .82 4.04 .98

16 3.84 .55 3.92 .70

17 3.76 .59 3.92 .81

18 4.08 .49 4.04 .68

19 3.88 .60 4.12 .60

20 3.88 .44 4.04 .61

21 3.64 .81 3.60 .76

22 3.60 .76 3.40 .76

23 3.80 .41 3.72 .54

24 3.64 .76 3.68 .56

25 3.88 .67 3.84 .62

26 3.68 .56 3.68 .56

27 4.08 .70 4.12 .60

28 4.08 .57 4.04

.61

The data from the closed-ended questionnaires

were analyzed quantitatively by calculating the

mean and standard deviation of every item in the

questionnaire. The result was then interpreted

qualitatively to capture the perceptions of the EFL

student teachers toward the peer and real students’

microteaching.

Peer and Real Student Microteaching: The EFL Student Teachers’ Perception

435

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the study summarized from the

questionnaires given to the EFL student teachers are

presented in the table 1.

Based on the table 1, the EFL student teachers

perceive that real students microteaching prepare

them for real teaching better than peer microteaching.

It can be seen from the mean of the questionnaire item

number 1 in which the real student microteaching

resulted in 4.44, whereas peer microteaching 3.76.

This shows that the EFL student teachers view

teaching real students and teaching their peers

differently that made them prepare more for teaching

real students. Questionnaire items number 4 and 5

indicate that the EFL student teachers prepare their

lesson plan as well as teaching material for real

students better than for peer students. It can be

because they feel more challenged and enthusiastic

with real students as shown in questionnaire items

number 8 and 9. The means of real student

microteaching is higher than those of peer

microteaching.

Dealing with lesson presentation, the EFL student

teachers claim that they can do microteaching more

naturally with real students. This can be seen from the

mean of real students microteaching in questionnaire

item number 10 which is bigger than the mean of peer

microteaching. In addition, the EFL student teachers

think that they can comprehend teaching methods in a

better way when they taught real students as the

questionnaire item number 3 shows the mean of real

student microteaching is higher than that of peer

student. However, in terms of doing apperception and

mastering teaching skills and material, the EFL

student teachers do not find them quite different when

they taught their peers or real students. This

phenomenon is also found out when the EFL student

teachers performed classroom language. They see it

quite similar either in peer microteaching or real

students microteaching as shown in questionnaire

item number 25. It is when they need to relate the

material with relevant knowledge and reality as well

as when they deliver the material indicated in

questionnaire items number 19 and 20, they perceive

that real students microteaching enabled them to do it

better than peer microteaching.

The EFL student teachers seem to have difficulty

in encouraging real students to ask or give comments.

They can do better with peer students as questionnaire

item number 23 shows that the mean of peer

microteaching is higher than that of real student

microteaching. Nevertheless, the EFL student

teachers responded the question and comments of real

students better than peer students indicated in the

result of the means of questionnaire item number 24.

They also state that they can reinforce real students

better than their peers. Regarding setting interesting

teaching circumstances, the EFL student teachers find

it the same for both their peers and real students. This

can be seen from the same mean of questionnaire item

number 26, that is 3.68.

In managing the classroom, the EFL student

teachers perceive that they can manage the class with

peer’s students better than with real students.

Furthermore, they can allocate time with peer students

better as well. The questionnaire items number 22 and

23 display that the means of peer microteaching are

bigger than those of real student microteaching. The

same phenomenon is found in concluding and

reflecting the material with students. The EFL student

teachers note that they can do it better with their peers

than with real students.

In general, the EFL student teachers perceive that

real student microteaching is more difficult and

causes more anxiety compared with peer

microteaching as shown in the mean results of

questionnaire items number 11 and 12. Besides, real

student microteaching is more money consuming and

time limited than peer microteaching. However, in

term of causing criticism from their peers, the EFL

student teachers do not find difference between peer

microteaching and real student microteaching.

Despite the difficulty the EFL student teachers

face with real students, they admit that teaching real

students is more interesting and knowledgeable than

teaching their peers indicated in questionnaire item

number 2. They also acknowledge that real student

microteaching gives them more benefits compared to

peer microteaching. One of the benefits is that they

can learn from observing their friend’s teaching

practice as shown in questionnaire item number 7, in

which the mean of real student microteaching is 5.88,

while peer microteaching is 4.60.

The results of the study reveal that the EFL

student teachers work better with peer and real

students in different areas. In planning and

preparation, they view real students enable them to

prepare the lesson plan and material better than their

peers. This might be caused by their anxiety when

teaching real students that they are not familiar with

before. When teaching their peers, the EFL student

teachers are familiar enough and so, it did not cause

much anxiety for them. Besides, dealing with real

students for the first time made the EFL student

teachers feel challenged and enthusiastic which

resulted in their preparing the lesson more seriously.

In conducting the lesson, the EFL student teachers

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

436

find out that they can conduct the teaching practice

more naturally with real students than with their

peers. This must be obvious since real students

provide them with classroom-like situation where the

students act naturally as students. Therefore, the EFL

student teachers think that they can comprehend the

teaching methods and deliver the material better when

having teaching practice with real students.

Nonetheless, in perceiving doing apperception,

mastering teaching skills and performing classroom

language, the EFL student teachers have similar

perception for both peers and real students.

The EFL student teachers encountered difficulty

when they had to encourage real students to ask and

give comment. It is easier to do it with their peers than

with real students as they use the same level of

language when communicating with their peers. With

real students, they must delve into the real students’

world that not all EFL student teachers are capable of

doing so. As a result, they found it more difficult in

making real students to ask and give comment during

the teaching practice. This phenomenon is quite

different from responding questions and comments as

well as in reinforcing. The EFL student teachers can

perform better in those areas with real students

compared with their peers. However, in setting

interesting teaching circumstances, the EFL student

teachers seem to make the same efforts when teaching

both their peers and real students.

Regarding classroom management, the finding

shows that the EFL student teachers can work better

with their peers than with real students. They were

able to manage the time better when having teaching

practice with their peers. One of the reasons might be

due to the nature of their peers that already know the

material well so that as students, they can come up

with better time management. Real students might

face difficulty with the teaching material and that

might take more time for them which finally result in

worse time management from student teachers’ point

of view. In concluding and reflecting material, the

EFL student teachers also acknowledge that they can

do better with their peers. The distinct level of

education might be the cause of it in which the peers

will be able to make conclusion and reflection better

and faster than real students.

The data also indicates that the EFL student

teachers perceive real student microteaching is more

money consuming. This is due to that they had to

spend some more money given for real students as the

transport fee. Actually, there is no such rule to give

real students the transport fee, but the EFL student

teachers were willing to do it by themselves. In

addition, they see real student microteaching is more

limited in time. It is understandable and parallel with

the finding of time management in which the EFL

student teachers had more difficulty with real students

in managing the time. The natural acts of real students

cause the EFL student teachers unable to predict what

response those real students give. Meanwhile, the acts

of the peers can be easily predicted as they just

pretend to be students. However, in general the EFL

student teachers agree that working with real students

is more interesting for them compared to working

with their peers. They get more benefits from the

natural acts of real students when they taught them

during the teaching practice.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that the EFL student teachers

perceive real student microteaching more naturally

challenging teaching experience than peer

microteaching. However, in some other areas like

classroom management and presenting the lesson,

the EFL student teachers perform better when they

practice teaching with their peers.

Based on the conclusion, some recommendations

are given to microteaching instructor. It is suggested

that microteaching course invite real students to be

the students of the EFL student teachers for teaching

practice. It will be better if the EFL student teachers

can teach real students more often than their peers

due to the more benefits the EFL student teachers

perceive toward real student microteaching.

REFERENCES

Brown, G., 1984. Micro-teaching: a programme of

teaching skills. Methuen, London.

Ghafoor, A., Kiani, A., Kayani, Sumaira, Kayani, Saima,

2012. 'An exploratory study of microteaching as an

effective technology'. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 3.

Ghanaguru, S., Nair, P., Yong, C 2017. 'Teacher trainer's

belief in micro teaching and lesson planningin a

teacher training institution'. Engl. Teach. 13.

Mergler, A. G., Tangen, D 2010. Using microteaching to

enhance teacher efficacy in pre-service teachers.

Teach. Educ. 21, 199–210.

Ogeyik, M. C 2009. Attitudes of the student teachers in

English language teaching programs towards

microteaching technique. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2, 205.

Rokhayani, A., Nurcahyo, A. D., Rukmini, D., Sofwan, A

2017. 'Peer teaching as a simulation for

communicative classroom English rehearsal'. Celt J.

Cult. Engl. Lang. Teach. Lit. 17, 103–116.

Peer and Real Student Microteaching: The EFL Student Teachers’ Perception

437

Saban, A., Çoklar, A. N., 2013. 'Pre-service teachers’

opinions about the micro-teaching method in teaching

practise classes'. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.-

TOJET 12, 234–240.

Seidman, E 1968. 'Micro-teaching in English Education:

some basic questions'. Presented at the Selected

Addresses Delivered at the Conference on English

Education, JSTOR, pp. 47–53.

APPENDIX

Table 2: The Questionnaire of Student Teachers’

Perception on Peer and Real Student Microteaching.

Points of Perception

1. I can use… microteaching to mentally prepare myself for

real teaching

2. I think… microteaching class is interesting and

knowledgeable

3. I can comprehend the teaching methods in a better way

with … microteaching activities

4. I think … microteaching is efficient in producing teaching

material

5. I think … microteaching activities make me learn how to

prepare lesson plans

6. I think … microteaching activities are beneficial for

evaluating my teaching performance

7. I can learn from observing my friends’ practice in the …

microteaching

8. I think I am challenged to do … microteaching

9. I think I am enthusiastic to do … microteaching

10. I can do … microteaching naturally

11. I think … microteaching is a discouraging and difficult

situation

12. … microteaching can create anxiety

13. … microteaching can cause criticism by peers

14. … microteaching is money consuming process

15. I think … microteaching is time limited, so I cannot teach

freely as a teacher

16. I can master over the teaching skills in …microteaching

well

17. I can do apperception toward … students well

18. I can master the material of teaching in … microteaching

well

19. I can relate material with relevant knowledge and reality

in … microteaching well

20. I can deliver the material of teaching in … microteaching

well

21. I can manage … microteaching class well

22. I can allocate time in … microteaching well

23. I can give … students to ask or give comment well

24. I can respond … students’ questions and comments well

25. I can perform classroom language well in …

microteaching

26. I can set the interesting teaching circumstance in …

microteaching

27. I can reinforce the … students well

28. I can conclude and reflect the material of teaching

together with the … students well

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

438