
































Microsoft Word - Emrah Özcan & H. Gülru Yüksel (1).docx


English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168  

       https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v5i3.7379          http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index          eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on 
collaborative in-situ microteaching 
Emrah Özcan a,1,*, H. Gülru Yüksel b,2 
a, b Yildiz Technical University, Davutpasa Campus, Faculty of Education, Istanbul 34220, Türkiye 
1 eozcan@yildiz.edu.tr*; 2 hayuksel@yildiz.edu.tr  
* corresponding author 

 

ARTI CLE  I NFO 
 

ABSTRACT   
 

 
Article history 
Received 20 September 2022 
Revised 25 October 2022 
Accepted 25 November 2022 

 Micro-teaching has been criticized for its artificial nature, limited practice 
period, and inadequate feedback. Giving preservice teachers in-situ 
opportunities that they can collaborate on lesson planning, teach, and 
receive peer feedback can assist in addressing these drawbacks. To that 
end, an intervention study was devised to provide in-situ microteaching 
for preservice English teachers (PT). Following the intervention, we 
solicited PTs' feedback on the impact of the collaborative in-situ 
microteaching experience on their pedagogical knowledge development. 
A total of 41 PTs participated in the 14-week intervention program 
offered as part of the Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL) 
course. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected during this 
intervention study. A survey created by the researchers was used to gather 
quantitative data, and the reflection papers submitted by the participating 
PTs served as a source of qualitative data. The results revealed that 
participants rated the experience as having a moderate overall 
contribution to their pedagogical knowledge development. Collaborative 
in-situ microteaching (CiM) had a slightly higher influence on student 
teachers’ lesson delivery skills than on their lesson planning skills. As per 
the qualitative data, the most frequently mentioned benefits were 
acquiring expertise in classroom management, material development and 
lesson planning, and getting to know young learners. 
 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 
Collaboration 
In-situ microteaching 
Preservice teacher education 
Teaching English to young learners 
 

 

 

How to Cite: Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (2022). Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on 
collaborative in-situ microteaching. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 5 (3), 157-168. 

1. Introduction 
Microteaching is a technique that aims to provide opportunities for preservice teachers to link 

theory and practice (Allen & Eve, 1968). The original microteaching model, developed by Allen and 
Ryan (1969), consisted of six stages: planning, teaching, observing, re-planning, re-teaching, and re-
observing (Arsal, 2014). The technique has undergone a number of modifications over time, such as 
video recording the teaching phase (Ramos et al., 2022), microteaching with lesson studies (e.g., 
Fernández, 2010), or practicum-based microteaching (Zhang & Cheng, 2011). 

While micro-teaching is regarded as an effective teaching technique that gives future teachers a 
chance to understand the complexities of the profession (Koross, 2016), recently it has been criticized 
for its artificial nature, limited practice period, and inadequate feedback (Amobi, 2005; He & Yan, 
2011; Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021; Ralph, 2014; Stanley, 1998; Yan & He, 2017). It is still unclear 
how the microteaching experience can be developed to overcome its limitations. Farrell (2018) 
recently proposed re-conceptualizing micro-teaching through a socio-constructivist and reflective 



158 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
 Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

methodology. Given the emphasis on the need to bridge the gap between theory and practice, we 
extended microteaching by allowing preservice teachers to collaborate and microteach in a real 
classroom setting. The current study aims to investigate preservice teachers' opinions on collaborative 
microteaching in a real classroom environment. 

1.1. Microteaching in Teacher Education 
The best way to provide aspiring teachers with the necessary knowledge, abilities, and 

competencies is still being debated on a global scale (Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2013) 
since teacher education programs are widely regarded as "disconnected from teachers' work in the 
classroom" (Kotelawala, 2012: 67). Many teacher education programs have long sought ways to 
bridge the divide between university-led courses and actual classroom practices (Borg, 2013; Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Korthagen, 2007; Hennissen et.al., 2017). One of these ways is the use of 
microteaching, a technique developed to help preservice teachers improve their teaching skills 
(Karlström & Hamza, 2019; Onwuagboke, Osuala, & Nzeako, 2017). This technique not only enables 
student teachers to build a repertoire of teaching strategies but also assists them in understanding how 
theory can be put into practice under controlled conditions (Pringle, Dawson, & Adams, 2003). It has 
traditionally been characterized by simplified teaching tasks, small class sizes, and short lesson lengths 
(Otsupius, 2014). 

Microteaching has been shown to have several positive effects on preservice teachers, including 
improving sense of self-efficacy in the classroom (Arsal, 2014), boosting self-confidence (Akkuzu, 
2014), raising awareness of teaching competencies and successful instructional strategies (Ismail, 
2011), and developing teaching abilities in lesson planning, selecting teaching goals, evaluating 
students' attention, and utilizing suitable assessment procedures (Cebeci, 2016; Fernández, 2010; 
Saban & Çoklar, 2013). Despite these advantages, the technique also has a number of reported 
limitations. The main drawbacks found in the literature are the inability to replicate the actual 
classroom environment, limited time allotted for teaching, and negative peer feedback (Erdemir & 
Yeşilçınar, 2021; He & Yan, 2011; Stanley, 1998). For example, in a study on the perspectives of 
prospective Chinese teachers about microteaching, He and Yan (2011) reported the artificiality of the 
experience, insufficiency of instructor feedback, and limited practice time as the three key limitations. 
In another study evaluating Canadian preservice teachers’ opinions on the effectiveness of 
microteaching, Ralph (2014) noted that while the participants highly appreciated it as a pedagogical 
tool, they unanimously agreed that microteaching sessions were not authentic teaching experiences. 
Yan and He (2017) found similar limitations in their study on the influence of pair microteaching on 
the professional learning of 30 preservice teachers of English. They found that even though the student 
teachers were satisfied with the experience, artificiality and limited practice time were cited as the two 
drawbacks. Regarding peer feedback, a study by Amobi (2005) revealed that most student teachers 
displayed passive and defensive reflection tendencies in response to peer criticism in the follow-up 
feedback sessions. 

Banerjee et al. (2015) conducted a study to explore to understand the opinions of student teachers 
towards microteaching. They collected data from 130 teachers using a questionnaire. Although t-test 
results indicated no significant difference among genders, the mean score of the female student 
teachers were higher than that of male students. 

The limitations mentioned above suggest that the microteaching practices incorporated in 
university-led courses do not entirely replicate authentic learning experiences. Unlike university-led 
courses which provide theoretical knowledge devoid of context, authentic learning experiences situate 
learning tasks in the context of future use (Herrington et al., 2014). That is, authentic learning 
experiences are directly pertinent to the learner and situated in a context (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007). 
As Johnson (2013) claims, the absence of social, cultural, and institutional components in simulations 
prevents them from accurately simulating authentic environments. Therefore, allowing pre-service 
instructors to collaborate for micro-teaching in actual classes prior to practicum will help to address 
the social, cultural, and institutional shortcomings that occur in simulated settings. 

1.2. Collaborative Microteaching 
Collaborative learning, based on the Piagetian and Vygotskian theories of learning, involves 

students working in groups to develop and deepen their subject knowledge (Järvenoja & Järvelä, 
2009). Research on collaborative learning has shown that it enhances academic performance 
(Bartimote-Aufflick et al., 2016), facilitates knowledge construction (Husman & Hilpert, 2007), 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 159 
Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

promotes active learning (Northey et al., 2018), and increases learner satisfaction (van Leeuwen et al., 
2023). According to Atasoy and Çakıroğlu (2019), fostering collaboration among preservice teachers 
will enable them to have common objectives and enhance their attitudes toward group work. 
Collaboration during microteaching may not only provide a forum for group members to review and 
reflect on their lesson plan, but it may also allow groups to support and monitor each other's work. 
With this reasoning in mind, we modified the microteaching technique in the present study by: 

● Adding collaboration among preservice teachers during planning and teaching, 
● Prolonging the duration of lessons to regular class time, 
● Extending the scope of the lesson, 
● Providing in-situ teaching practice, 
● Providing feedback at multiple stages. 
This modified version is referred to as "Collaborative in-situ Microteaching" (CiM). This paper 

examines the perceptions of pre-service teachers regarding the CiM experience. The following 
research questions guided the study: 

1. How does CiM experience contribute to prospective teachers' (PTs) pedagogical knowledge?  
2. How do PTs' perceptions about the CiM differ according to independent variables (gender 

and prior experience)? 

2. Method 
This study is exploratory in nature and employs a post-test-only quasi-experimental research 

design. 

2.1. Context and Participants 
Teacher education in Turkey is overseen by faculties of education. In four-year teacher education 

programs, a competency-based paradigm has been adopted. PTs receive school-based field practice 
in actual classrooms only through two consecutive practicum courses (School Practicum I & II) 
offered in the fourth year of the program. These courses are coordinated in collaboration with the 
university and the Ministry of National Education. As a result, school-based field practice is postponed 
until the final year and aside from these two courses, PTs do not have the chance to acquire experience 
in an actual classroom. Hence, instructors generally employ microteaching techniques in university-
led courses to help student teachers improve their instructional skills. In the present study, however, 
we modified the technique to provide extended authentic practice opportunities to our students. The 
modifications are described in section 2.3. Data Collection Procedure. 

The study group consisted of 41 third-year students studying in the English Language Teaching 
program at a state university. Of these 41 participants, 27 were female, 14 were male, aged between 
21 and 23. All the participants were enrolled in the Teaching English to Young Learners course, which 
is a four-credit course with two hours of theory and two hours of practice. The course aims to develop 
preservice teachers’ knowledge about and experience in teaching English to children. Thirty PTs 
claimed to have had teaching experience, while eleven of them had none. The PTs in groups of four 
were assigned to micro-teach a class of kindergarten pupils. The names of the participants were 
omitted from the quotations to maintain their anonymity. 

2.2. Data Collection Instrument 
 Quantitative data was collected using a survey devised by the researchers based on the general 
pedagogical knowledge categorisation of Voss, Kunter and Baumert (2011). The survey had two 
sections. The first section aimed to collect demographic information (gender, age, the educational 
level they intend to teach, and prior tutoring experience). The second section of the survey included 
sixteen Likert-type statements in which participants were asked to rate the contribution of the 
microteaching experience to their general pedagogical knowledge: knowledge of lesson planning (9 
items) and knowledge of classroom management (7 items). PTs responded to each item on a 5-point 
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). 



160 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
 Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

In order to triangulate the quantitative data and better understand the impact of the CiM experience 
on student teachers’ educational growth, the reflection papers submitted in the final phase were used 
as a data source. 

2.3. Data Collection Procedure 
For this research ethical approval was obtained from the researchers’ research ethics committee 

(Approval number: 2018/11). Researchers approached the kindergarten administration to inform them 
about the study and obtain permission. We held a parental conference after reaching an agreement 
with the administration to inform parents of the study objectives, the curriculum to be followed, and 
the materials that would be used. Parental consent forms were distributed at the end of the conference. 
The study included only the minors whose parents gave written consent. Following the model 
developed by Allen and Ryan (1969), the study went through six different phases (see Figure 1):  

1) Introduction: PTs were informed of the study's objectives during the first-class period, and 
microteaching groups were formed. The following topics were covered during the theory 
session (2h/4w): characteristics of young language learners; L1-L2 acquisition in children; 
design of language learning activities and materials; lesson planning; and classroom 
management strategies. PTs visited the kindergarten during the practice session (2h/4w) to 
observe the children and their interactions with their peers and teachers.  

2) Planning: In line with the kindergarten curriculum, each group was assigned a unit and given 
a week to develop a lesson plan. After the completion of lesson plans, the groups were 
matched to provide feedback on each other's lesson plans. In addition to peer feedback, the 
instructor provided written feedback on the lesson plans. The groups revised their lesson plans 
based on the feedback they received. 

3) Micro-teaching: PTs implemented their lesson plan in groups. The instructor and the other 
PTs from the matched group observed the lesson and took observation notes to be shared 
during the reflection session. 

4) Feedback: Shortly after the microteaching, the instructor convened a reflection meeting with 
the group. First, the microteaching group reflected on their teaching experience, then the 
observing group provided their reflections. Lastly, the instructor shared his/her observation 
notes with the PTs on their performances.  

5) Re-teach: At this stage, in accordance with the instructor’s feedback, the PTs repeated the 
activities in Phase 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4 respectively. 

6) Reflection: Each PT wrote a reflection paper about the CiM experience and the personal 
strengths and weaknesses they noticed in their teaching skills. 

 
Fig. 1. Phases of the CiM experiment 

 

 

 

 

PHASE 3
Microteaching 

(3 weeks)

PHASE 4
Feedback 
(1 week)

PHASE 5
Re-teaching 

(3 week)

PHASE 2
Planning 
(1 week)PH

AS
E 1

 

In
tr

od
uc

tio
n 

(4
 w

ee
ks

) 

PH
AS

E 6
 

Re
fle

ct
io

n 
(1

 w
ee

k)
 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 161 
Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

2.4. Data Analysis 
The following procedures were used in the data analysis. The reliability of the survey was 

measured using Cronbach’s alpha test. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85 for the whole survey. The 
coefficient α values measured were 0.81 and 0.74 for the first and second domain respectively. 
Normality was checked through visual inspection of histograms and skewness and kurtosis values. 
The skewness and kurtosis values were within ± 1 range. The homogeneity of variance as assessed by 
Shapiro-Wilk test (p = 0.105) indicated normal distribution. Demographic information gathered 
through the Likert-type survey was analysed descriptively. The independent samples t-test was used 
to analyse differences between independent variables. The qualitative data was analysed using 
thematic analysis (Nowell et al., 2017). The data was coded after a thorough reading of the reflection 
papers. The codes were assigned to four main categories: knowledge of lesson planning, knowledge 
of classroom management, knowledge of individual student characteristics and feedback. The 
researchers cross-checked the codes and categories to ensure reliability. Following the reading and 
coding of the data, the set of codes was improved in light of the new information. Consensus was 
reached following discussions about the disagreements. This cross-checking procedure improved the 
accuracy of the data analysis (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). Frequencies and percentages were 
computed after this coding stage. 

3. Findings 
3.1. Quantitative Findings 

The first research question aimed to examine the perceptions of the PTs toward collaborative in-
situ microteaching. The descriptive statistics of the Likert-type items indicated that PTs perceived the 
experience as having a moderate level of overall contribution to their pedagogical knowledge, with a 
mean score of 3.79 (SD=0.77). The CiM had a slightly higher impact on PTs’ knowledge of classroom 
management than it did on their knowledge of lesson planning (M=3.90, SD=0.81, and M=3.72, 
SD=0.92, respectively). 

Table 1.  Knowledge of lesson planning: items, means and standard deviations  

Item Mean SD 
... designing engaging lessons. 3.97 0.85 
... choosing engaging activities from supplementary materials. 4.02 0.75 
... aligning instructional materials with learning outcomes. 3.95 0.63 
... integrating arts or technology into lessons to foster engagement. 3.85 0.98 
... aligning objectives to students' level of learning. 3.80 0.74 
... incorporating students' interests into lesson plans. 3.63 0.94 
... writing lesson plan objectives that reflect different levels of learning. 3.53 1.22 
... incorporating individual differences into lesson plans. 3.39 1.13 
... catering to individual differences while planning.  3.34 0.96 

 
The computed mean scores for each item in the knowledge of lesson planning domain revealed 

that the CiM experience had a high to moderate positive influence on PTs’ lesson-planning skills 
(Table 1). While the CiM experience was perceived to have the highest contribution to choosing 
engaging activities from supplementary materials (M=4.02), designing engaging lessons (M=3.97), 
aligning instructional materials with learning outcomes (M=3.95) and integrating arts and technology 
into lessons to foster engagement (M=3.85). The item with the lowest mean value was taking 
individual differences into account while planning (M=3.34). Catering to individual differences 
seemed to challenge our PTs during lesson design. 

The means of the items in the knowledge of classroom management domain were comparatively 
higher than the means of the items in the knowledge of lesson planning domain (Table 2). This finding 
suggested that collaborative in-situ microteaching had a greater impact on the PTs' certain sub-skills 
of teaching. Particularly, the highest mean was calculated for the ability to adjust the instructional 
language to pupils’ age and proficiency level (M=4.24). Other items, from the highest to the lowest, 



162 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
 Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

were: giving clear and understandable instructions (M=4.17), monitoring student engagement and 
understanding (M=3.88), managing the classroom (M=4.09), changing the pace of the instruction 
(M=3.85), managing the classroom (M=3.78), effective use of class time (M=3.75). In this subdomain 
the item with the lowest mean score was avoiding undesirable behaviours from emerging (M=3.34). 

Table 2.  Knowledge of classroom management: items, means and standard deviations 

Item Mean SD 
... adjusting my language to pupils’ age and proficiency level.  4.24 0.83 
... giving clear and understandable instructions and explanations.  4.17 0.80 
... monitoring student engagement and understanding.  4.09 0.73 
… managing the classroom. 3.78 0.79 
... changing the pace of the lesson to give pupils time to complete the task.  3.85 0.79 
... making effective use of class time.  3.75 0.88 
... managing my classroom to avoid undesirable behaviours from emerging.  3.34 0.82 

 
The overall perceived contribution of the CiM experience was compared between genders using 

an independent-samples t-test. There was no significant difference in the scores of males (M=3.62, 
SD=0.44) and females (M=3.88, SD=0.50); t(39)=1.595, p = 0.119. As for the knowledge of lesson 
planning and knowledge of classroom management, there was no significant difference between males 
and females as well (p > 0.05).   

An independent-samples t-test conducted to compare overall perceived contributions for prior 
experience and no prior experience conditions yielded no statistically significant difference, 
t(39)=0.499, p = 0.809. There was no significant effect for prior experience on the knowledge of lesson 
planning, t(39)=0.698, p = 0.490, despite PTs with prior experience (M = 3.76, SD = 0.59) attaining 
higher scores than PTs with no prior experience (M = 3.61, SD = 0.59). In the same vein, in the 
knowledge of classroom management domain, no statistically significant difference was found 
between PTs with prior experience (M = 3.91, SD = 0.47) and PTs with no prior experience (M = 
3.88, SD = 0.65), t(39)=0.166, p = 0.176. 

3.2. Qualitative Findings 
As displayed in Table 3, the analysis of the reflection papers showed that the most frequently 

mentioned benefits of the CiM experience were related to classroom management skills, lesson 
planning, and individual student characteristics. The percentages displayed in Table 3 clearly indicated 
that the most significant contribution of collaborative in-situ microteaching was on the PTs’ classroom 
management skills. One male PT mentioned this benefit by saying, “This experience provided me 
opportunities to observe and practice different classroom management strategies.” This quote 
indicated that observing group members while instructing had positive impact on their teaching. 
Another PT, describing the CiM experience as a “unique opportunity to practice teaching with real 
pupils”, mentioned that she feels more confident in managing young learners thanks to the CiM 
experience. 

Table 3.  Contributions of the CiM experience 

Categories Themes F % 

Organizational skills 

Lesson planning 15 13.04 
Material development 16 13.91 
Technology integration 6 5.22 

Management skills 

Classroom management 33 28.7 
Instructional time management 16 13.91 
Instructional language use 5 4.35 

Student characteristics Getting to know young learners 21 18.26 

Feedback Peer/instructor feedback 3 2.61 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 163 
Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

The PTs frequently referred to lesson planning and materials development as advantageous to their 
professional growth. One of the PTs expressed the benefits of collaborative in-situ microteaching as 
an “...improvement in [my] time management skills, designing sufficient materials that are compatible 
with the objective of a lesson plan, providing a richer variety of activities based on the proficiency 
level and needs of young learners.” Another PT also stated that “I was able to hone my lesson planning 
and material development skills through this group project. I learned a lot from my team members.” 
A few of the PTs also mentioned that their knowledge of how to incorporate technology into their 
teaching methods had improved. The following quote is an example of how PTs integrated 
technological tools in their lessons; “While preparing lesson plans, we had the chance to exchange 
ideas about how to integrate technology, and we got first-hand experience about which 
tech[nological] tools could work better in a class full of young learners.” 

Other themes that emerged in the reflection papers were focusing on classroom management skills. 
Especially the use of class time efficiently and getting to know young learners in a real teaching 
environment were the most recurring themes. PTs claimed that after the CiM experience, they realized 
their full potential. These advantages were stated succinctly by one of the PTs, who said, "It was a 
wonderful chance to see real pupils in a real class... [this experience] provided me [with] a chance 
to experience teaching before stepping into a real classroom as a teacher. Unlike the previous 
microteaching to our peers, this experience was real, and the learners were real pupils.” This teaching 
experience enabled the PTs to further improve their instructional skills and strategies as well. One of 
the PTs explicitly pointed out this benefit: “Thanks to microteaching, I learned how to use teaching 
methods in the classroom. I became more experienced in aligning my language according to the 
proficiency level of my pupils.” Other benefits identified by PTs were the recognition of areas that 
they needed to improve. One of the PTs stated that “I realized that classroom management in young 
learner classes is an issue. Managing young learners was really difficult for me. I feel that I need to 
develop further management strategies.” Another PT also commented on the same theme by saying, 
“Classroom management was the toughest challenge for me. I struggled during the second 
microteaching. Neither me nor my team members knew how to calm down the two kids who started to 
cry for the crayons during a drawing activity.” Another PT expressed concern about his inability to 
effectively use instructional time by saying, "I realized that time management is a serious issue that I 
need to work on. 

The PTs had a rare opportunity to observe young learners and their behaviours in an authentic 
learning environment. This enabled them to get to know pupils. One of the PTs stated, “I realized that 
I do not have the patience to work with young learners as they are not my best suit.”  

One of the professional advantages of collaborative microteaching was the feedback they received 
from both their peers and the instructor; “Working as a group while designing lesson plans and 
activities, the feedback we received played a great role in improving our lesson design skills.” Peer 
feedback was complementary and aided in the improvement of the instructing abilities of PTs. A few 
of the reflection papers pointed out challenges such as catering to individual differences while 
planning, developing supplementary materials and adjusting instructional language according to the 
learners’ levels. These difficulties were reported to be resolved through peer support because the PTs 
worked together throughout the entire experience. One of the PTs reminisced on how she “was able 
to provide additional activities for the early finishers with the support of my group members”. Another 
PT also remarked, “Lessons did not always go as we planned, but we as a team learnt a lot about how 
to put our lesson plan into action through this [experience].” In-situ teaching raised their awareness 
of the significance of the teacher's instructional language use in student learning. One of the PTs 
expressed his recognition by saying: “While teaching and observing other groups, I noticed how 
important instructional language is. During the first teaching, I had difficulties in giving instructions 
to the kids. When our group was rehearsing for the second teaching, my team gave ideas on how to 
modify my instructional language”. 

4. Discussion 
Overall, our findings suggested that collaborative in-situ microteaching was a worthwhile and 

valuable learning experience for the development of PTs’ instructional skills. According to the survey 
results, PTs found the experience to be beneficial to their lesson organization, planning and classroom 
management skills. This finding is consistent with previous studies by Amobi (2005), Cebeci (2016) 



164 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
 Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

and Fernández (2010). According to our participants' perceptions, their CiM experience improved 
their ability to design engaging lessons, select activities, and connect instructional materials with 
learning goals. In terms of instructional skills, the CiM experience most benefited the PTs in 
understanding how to modify the instructional language to the age and proficiency level of the pupils.  

Several researchers have observed classroom management as a difficulty for preservice teachers; 
however, microteaching does not provide adequate practice opportunities (He & Yan, 2011; Otsupius, 
2014). He and Yan (2011) demonstrated in their study on the authenticity of microteaching that 
because peers were acting as pupils, their participants felt they had much less opportunity to practice 
real-life teaching skills, particularly classroom management. Unlike previous research, because 
microteaching took place in an actual classroom, our participants reported that the CiM had a 
considerable impact on their classroom management abilities. The experience provided them a chance 
to recognize their own pedagogical shortcomings, the majority of which were related to classroom 
management. Earlier studies confirm our findings that PTs deem microteaching to be a valuable tool 
for evaluating their own strengths and weaknesses (Amobi, 2005; Ismail, 2011; Saban & Çoklar, 2013; 
Mikulec & Hamann, 2020). Our qualitative findings confirmed the quantitative findings of the study. 
The in-situ teaching's authenticity gave PTs a chance to get to know the young learners better in terms 
of their characteristics and classroom behaviour. Furthermore, the feedback that PTs received assisted 
them in gaining an outside perspective on their performance in class. Contrary to earlier research 
(Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021; He & Yan, 2011), our results showed that PTs' instructional skills 
benefited from feedback in a complementary way. For instance, in her study Amobi (2005) reported 
that most PTs exhibited passive and defensive responses to peer feedback. On the contrary, our PTs 
in the current research positively responded to feedback. This result is due to the fact that they worked 
as a team during the CiM experience and that the instruction was performed in an actual classroom. 
Teamwork strengthened social ties among PTs, causing them to perceive feedback more 
constructively. Feedback was made practical rather than hypothetical in an actual school setting. 

Additional advantages of the CiM included learning how to monitor student participation and 
comprehension, how to modify instruction, and how to make the most of class time. These benefits 
were explicitly mentioned in the reflection papers. When these findings are considered together, we 
may infer that having experience in a real classroom environment prior to practicum improves the 
PTs’ teaching abilities. The statistical analyses yielded no significant differences in the perceived 
contribution of the CiM experience to lesson planning and delivery skills according to gender or prior 
experience. This finding suggested that the participants, regardless of their gender and prior 
experience, equally benefited from this experience. 

5. Conclusion 
Microteaching is a technique employed by teacher educators to improve preservice teachers’ 

instructional skills and abilities. It serves as a tool to bridge the theory-practice divide. In initial teacher 
education programs, this technique is embedded into university-led courses in the form of simulated 
microteaching practice. However, as Johnson (2013) points out, this practice has several limitations: 
(1) the students in the microteaching setting are not real students, and the context is artificial; (2) the 
practice duration is limited; and (3) there is limited opportunity to receive feedback. Various 
researchers have extensively remarked that there is a need for practice in an authentic classroom 
setting before school-based experience (Amobi, 2005; He & Yan, 2011). To respond to this call, this 
study attempted to eliminate the constraints of microteaching by providing PTs with a collaborative 
microteaching opportunity in an actual classroom. In the study, we explored PTs’ perceptions of the 
contribution of such an experience to their teaching skills. The findings revealed that the CiM 
experience had a positive influence on their teaching competencies. PTs’ reflections suggested that 
collaboration as a concept should be incorporated into the process of microteaching, particularly in 
preservice education programs. Our PTs reported that spending time in a real classroom was an 
excellent opportunity to get to know young learners and observe their behaviours in a natural setting. 
This study contributed to the findings of Bransford et al. (1999), who found that prospective teachers 
criticize a lack of connection between theory and practice in methods courses. This experience helped 
the PTs notice their weaknesses and begin thinking about general teaching ideas such as time 
management, ways of engaging students in class activities, and the importance of developing 
classroom management skills, as well as a deep understanding of the young learners and their needs. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 165 
Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

Future research needs to address the limitations of the current study. First, the results are confined 
to this specific group of preservice teachers of the English as a Foreign Language Education 
programme. Further studies are needed to confirm our results in other teacher education programmes. 
Second, the majority of the study participants were female preservice teachers. We suggest researchers 
collect data from a more homogeneous sample. The final limitation of the current study is that it only 
considers the perceived contribution of collaborative in-situ microteaching. The goal of the study, 
however, was to get a thorough understanding of the collaborative in-situ microteaching experience. 
Thus, generalisations should be made with caution. More research is needed to understand how 
collaboration could enhance teaching competencies in microteaching practices. 

Acknowledgment 
We would like to express our gratitude to all pre-service teachers who voluntarily participated in 

the study. 

Declarations 
Author contribution : The first author initiated the research idea and was in charge of 

resources, data collection and editing. The second author was in 
charge of conceptualisation, supervision and data analysis.  

Funding statement : The research did not receive any funding. 
Conflict of interest : The authors declare no conflict of interest. 
Additional information : The study was approved by the Yıldız Technical University Academic 

Ethics Committee (number: 2018/11, date: 15.11.2018). All personal 
information of the participants were anonymized. 

 
REFERENCES  

Akkuzu, N. (2014). The role of different types of feedback in the reciprocal interaction of teaching 
performance and self-efficacy belief. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 37-
66. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n3.3  

Allen, D. & K. Ryan. (1969). Micro-teaching. Reading. Addison-Wesley. 

Allen, D. W., & Eve, A. W. (1968). Microteaching. Theory into Practice, 7(5), 181-185. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405846809542153  

Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching 
actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115-130. 

Arsal, Z. (2014). Microteaching and pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching. 
European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 453-464. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627  

Atasoy, V. & Çakıroğlu, J. (2019). Preservice science teachers’ collective efficacy in a science 
methods course, Educational Studies, 45(3), 326-34. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1446333  

Banerjee, K., Halder, S. & Guha, A. (2015). Application of micro teaching skill for improving the 
quality of teachers: exploring opinion of trainee teachers, I-Manager’s Journal of 
Educational Technology, 12(1), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.12.1.3433  

Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Bridgeman, A., Walker, R., Sharma, M., & Smith, L. (2016). The study, 
evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in Higher 
Education, 41(11), 1918-1942. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.999319  

Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge University 
Press.  



166 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
 Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, 
and school. National Academy Press. 

Cebeci, N. (2016). Prospective teachers' beliefs about microteaching. ELT Research Journal, 5(1), 
60-71. 

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th ed. Routledge 
Falmer.  

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 
166-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003002  

Erdemir, N., & Yeşilçınar, S. (2021). Reflective practices in micro teaching from the perspective of 
preservice teachers: teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-reflection. Reflective Practice, 
22(6), 766-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1968818  

Farrell, T.S.C. (2018). Second Language Teacher Education and Future Directions. In The TESOL 
Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching (eds J.I. Liontas, T. International Association 
and M. DelliCarpini). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0922  

Fernández, M. L. (2010). Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through 
microteaching lesson study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 351–362. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.012  

Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.). (2013). Policy and Politics in Teacher 
Education: International Perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315876245  

He, C., & Yan, C. (2011). Exploring authenticity of microteaching in pre-service teacher education 
programmes. Teaching Education, 22(3), 291–302. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.590588  

Hennissen, P., Beckers, H., & Moerkerke, G. (2017). Linking practice to theory in teacher education: 
A growth in cognitive structures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 312–325. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.008 

Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic Learning Environments. In: Spector, J., 
Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (Eds) Handbook of Research on Educational 
Communications and Technology (pp. 401-412). New York: Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32  

Husman, J., & Hilpert, J. (2007). The intersection of students' perceptions of instrumentality, self-
efficacy, and goal orientations in an online mathematics course. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische 
Psychologie, 21(3/4), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.21.3.229      

Ismail, S. A. A. (2011). Student Teachers' Microteaching Experiences in a Preservice English 
Teacher Education Program. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(5). 
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.5.1043-1051 

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students 
regulate emotions evoked by social challenges. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 
79(3), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X402811 

Johnson, K.E. (2013). Innovation and change in teacher education. In: K. Hyland & L. Wong (Eds.), 
Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 75 - 89). Abington: Taylor & 
Francis Books. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 167 
Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

Karlström, M., & Hamza, K. (2019). Preservice science teachers’ opportunities for learning through 
reflection when planning a microteaching unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 
44-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1531345  

Koross, R. (2016). Micro teaching an efficient technique for learning effective teaching skills: Pre-
service teachers’ perspective. IRA-International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary 
Studies, 4(2), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.21013/irajems.v4.n2.p7  

Korthagen, F. A. (2007). The gap between research and practice revisited, Educational Research and 
Evaluation, 13(3), 303-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701640235  

Kotelawala, U. (2012). Lesson Study in a methods course: connecting teacher education to the field. 
The Teacher Educator, 47(1), 67-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.633840  

Lombardi, M. M., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. 
Educause Learning Initiative, 1, 1-12. 

Mikulec, E., & Hamann, K. (2020). “My Eyes Have Been Opened”: Pre-service secondary teachers 
exploring behavior management through a microteaching project. Action in Teacher 
Education, 42(2), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1612297  

Northey, G., Govind, R., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., Dolan, R., & van Esch, P. (2018). The effect of 
“here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British Journal 
of Educational Technology, 49(2), 321-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12589  

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to 
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-13. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691773384  

Onwuagboke, B. B. C., Osuala, R. C., & Nzeako, R. C. (2017). The impact of microteaching in 
developing teaching skills among pre-service teachers in Alvan Ikoku College of Education 
Owerri, Nigeria. African Research Review, 11(2), 237-250. 
https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v11i2.18  

Otsupius, I. A. (2014) Micro-Teaching: A Technique for Effective Teaching. An International 
Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia, 8(4), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v8i4.15  

Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Adams, T. (2003). Technology, science and preservice teachers: 
Creating a culture of technology-savvy elementary teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 
24(4), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2003.10463278  

Ralph, E. G. (2014). The effectiveness of microteaching: Five years’ findings. International Journal 
of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(7), 17-28.  

Ramos, J. L., Cattaneo, A. A., de Jong, F. P., & Espadeiro, R. G. (2022). Pedagogical models for the 
facilitation of teacher professional development via video-supported collaborative learning. 
A review of the state of the art. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(5), 695-
718. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1911720  

Saban, A., & Çoklar, A. N. (2013). Pre-service teachers' opinions about the micro-teaching method 
in teaching practise classes. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 
12(2), 234-240. 

Stanley, C. (1998). A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL quarterly, 32(3), 584-591. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588129  



168 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
 Vol. 5, No. 3, December 2022, pp. 157-168 

 Özcan, E., & Yüksel, H. G. (Investigating the perceptions of preservice teachers on.....) 

van Leeuwen, A., Hornstra, L. & Flunger, B. (2023). Need supportive collaborative learning: are 
teachers necessary or do students support each other’s basic psychological needs? 
Educational Studies, 49(1), 1341-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1835613  

Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates' general 
pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125  

Yan, C., & He, C. (2017). Pair microteaching: an unrealistic pedagogy in pre-service methodology 
courses?. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 206-218. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1286783  

Zhang, S., & Cheng, Q. (2011). Learning to teach through a practicum-based microteaching model. 
Action in Teacher Education, 33(4), 343-358. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2011.620523 


