Student Teachers’ Discourse During Puppetry-Based Microteaching

  • Takehiro WakimotoEmail author
  • Hiroshi Sasaki
  • Ryoya Hirayama
  • Toshio Mochizuki
  • Brendan Eagan
  • Natsumi Yuki
  • Hideo Funaoi
  • Yoshihiko Kubota
  • Hideyuki Suzuki
  • Hiroshi Kato
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)


This study investigates how puppetry-based tabletop microteaching systems can contribute to student teacher training compared with normal microteaching. The study analyzes student teachers’ discourse using a puppetry-based microteaching system called “EduceBoard” introduced to a university class. The analysis included an epistemic network analysis to identify the specific features that influence changes and clarify particular discourse patterns that were found and a qualitative analysis of the discourse data. Results indicate that the puppetry-based microteaching and improvisational dialogs that it elicited enhanced student teachers’ practical insights and gave them the opportunity to develop their students’ learning and run the class smoothly.


Microteaching Teacher education Puppetry 



This work was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grants-in-Aids for Scientific Research (B) (Nos. JP26282060, JP26282045, JP26282058, JP15H02937, & JP17H02001) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, as well as the National Science Foundation (DRL-1661036, DRL-1713110), the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The opinions, findings, and conclusions do not reflect the views of the funding agencies, cooperating institutions, or other individuals.


  1. 1.
    Bakhtin, M.: Discourse in the novel. In: Holquist, M. (ed.) The Dialogic Imagination, pp. 259–422. University of Texas, Austin (1981)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakamoto, T.: Meaning of teaching simulation. Mod. Educ. Technol. 47, 5–11 (1978)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ladrousse, G.P.: Role Play. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cottrell, N., Wack, D., Sekerak, G.: Rittle, R: social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9(3), 245–250 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kira, S., Sato, S., Yoshida, M.: A study on microteaching technique in teaching training. Kumamoto University Department-of-Education Bulletin: Human sciences, 29, 221–236 (1980). in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sasaki, H., et al.: Development of a tangible learning system that supports role-play simulation and reflection by playing puppet shows. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10272, pp. 364–376. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujie, Y.: Children’s in-class participation mixing academic and personal material: teacher’s instructional response. Japan. J. Educ. Psychol. 48, 21–31 (2000). in JapaneseCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaffer, D.W.: Quantitative Ethnography. Cathcart Press, Madison (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marquart, C.L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic network analysis (version 1.5.2) [software]. Accessed 16 Jul 2019
  10. 10.
    Mehan, H.: Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom, Cambridge. Harvard University Press, MA (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sato, M.: Pedagogy as practical inquiry. Japan. J. Educ. Res. 63(3), 275–278 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yokohama National UniversityYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Senshu UniversityKawasakiJapan
  4. 4.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  5. 5.Soka UniversityHachiojiJapan
  6. 6.Tamagawa UniversityMachidaJapan
  7. 7.Ibaraki UniversityMitoJapan
  8. 8.The Open University of JapanChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations