"Innovative approaches to microteaching as a pedagogical tool in Higher Level teacher training: a case study of GMIT, Letterfrack"

In 2006 GMIT, Letterfrack launched its first teacher training initiative; a level 8 programme in Design and Technology Education, with the aim of teacher training (for second level) in the technical subject areas. This initiative was followed by the establishment of a Higher Diploma in Education (Technology) in 2009, aimed at students who had previously graduated from GMIT, Letterfrack. With a view to both flexible and innovative practice, both programmes employed different approaches to microteaching. In the former case, local sixth class children were taught in laboratory circumstances in the GMIT, Letterfrack campus. In the latter case, student teachers engaged in the microteaching process, in situ, in a Co. Galway second level school.The aim of the research was to conduct a comparative analysis of both models of microteaching (described above) with a view to establishing best practice. The context was that of reflective and transformatory practice on the part of the lecturers in Education, GMIT, Letterfrack. An action-research approach was adopted. Primary research methods included semi-formal interviews and focus groups with student-teachers, video analysis of microteaching experiences, informal student-teacher evaluations from the primary and second level pupils, and expert interviews with the second level school principals and co-operating staff.The research analysis indicated that both approaches facilitated significant learning experiences for student teachers. Differences were identified in relation to the maturational readiness of the student-teacher, demonstration of classroom management skills, and impact upon both student-teachers and second level learners. The research recommends the continued flexible use of both models. It significantly affirms the effectiveness of the GMIT, Letterfrack innovation of training student teachers in the more real environment of the school. It argues for a phased pedagogical approach to microteaching, where learning outcomes reflect a developmental process in teacher training, mirrored in the methodological progression from peer and pupil laboratory microteaching to school-based microteaching.