Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Microteaching: An integral part of a science methods class

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Conclusion

The peer teaching experience can be an informative and most rewarding experience for the science methods student but only if it is well organized and carried out in a conscientious manner. The students can gain valuable insights into the planning, teaching, and evaluation of different science teaching strategies, which could serve them well in their future teaching profession.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, D., & Clark, R. (1967). Microteaching: Its rationale.High School Journal, 51(2), 75–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbogast, G. W., & Kizer, D. L. (1988). Evaluating instruction: An essential link in developing teaching skills.Physical Educator, 45(3), 129–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989).Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargie, W. D., & Dwyer, E. (1982). The reactions of special education teachers in microteaching: A follow-up study.Exceptional Child, 29(1), 53–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, R. C. (1989).Developing a procedural model for the practice of microteaching. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerich, K. F. (1987).Micro-teaching as a model for teacher education preparation: Evaluating the effects of the curricular opponent, classroom instruction, within a general methods micro-teaching approach. Report from the Office of Student Teaching, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986).Models of Teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallenbach, W., & Gall, M. (1969). Microteaching versus conventional methods in training elementary intern teachers.The Journal of Educational Research, 63(3), 136–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Kauchak, D. P., Pendergrass, R. A., Keogh, A. J., & Gibson, H. (1990).Teaching strategies: A guide to better instruction (3rd ed.). Lexington: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P. A., & Wiesenmayer, R. L. (1984).Seven science teacher performance checklists for use in microteaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 241 263)

  • Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1982). Development of a group test of integrated science processes.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowbridge, L. W., & Bybee, R. W. (1990).Becoming a secondary school science teacher (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gannon University School of Education, University Square, 16541-0001, Erie, PA

    Ronald F. Pauline

Authors
  1. Ronald F. Pauline
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Pauline, R.F. Microteaching: An integral part of a science methods class. J Sci Teacher Educ 4, 9–17 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02628852

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02628852

Keywords

Search

Navigation