Microclass: A Pedagogical Innovation for Teaching-Learning Process in Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2023.20.1.2Keywords:
Microclass, pedagogy, 21st century skills education, student engagement, soft skills, triangulation methodAbstract
Purpose - Innovation is imperative to address a wide array of challenges in higher education. The term “microclass” is coined by the researcher to describe the division of a large class into smaller classes, which are handled by student facilitators who have undergone microteaching and performed similar teacher tasks to facilitate students, assessment, discussion, and feedback.
Methodology - This was an explorative study and employed the triangulation method (self-designed questionnaire, observation by teacher peers, and semi-structured interview) as well as thematic and descriptive analysis to evaluate the roles of the teacher and student facilitators, level of engagement, and effectiveness of this innovation in the teaching-learning process for the subject, biology.
Findings - Data revealed that the role of the teacher and student facilitators concurred to work responsibly in a synergistic manner as
implementers of microclass. The teacher, conducted microteaching, observed, supervised, consulted, and provided feedback to the student facilitators. The student facilitators acted as discussant, motivator, collaborator, coordinator, and executor of initiatives such as scaffolding and pair method throughout the duration and stages of the microclass, resulting in an organized classroom. Furthermore, the microclass was innovatively effective and improved student engagement in the teaching-learning process, which in turn developed soft skills among the students—leadership, commitment and discipline.
Significance - It assists science teachers in constructively engaging their students in learning science including boosting students’ soft
skills, essential for 21st-century skills education and thus warrants further investigation.
References
Adeniran, A. O. (2019). Application of Likert scale’s type and Cronbach’s alpha analysis in an airport perception study. Scholar Journal of Applied Sciences and Research, 2(4), 1–5.
Akerlof, R. (2017). Value formation: The role of esteem. Games and Economic Behavior, 102, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geb.2016.10.011
Allen, D., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.465
Andrews, B. J., Roberts, J. J., Shipton, Z. K., Bigi, S., Tartarello, M. C., & Johnson, G. (2019). How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection, Solid Earth, 10, 487–516, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-487-2019
Asiksoy, G., & Ozdamli, F. (2017). An overview to research on education technology based on constructivist learning approach. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(3), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v12i3.2444
Astudillo, M. L., Martos, R., Reese, T. M., Umpad, K. J., & Dela Fuente, A. (2019). The effects of time management among working students of selected Grade 12 general academic strand of senior high school in Bestlink College of the Philippines. Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(1). https://ojs.aaresearchindex. com/index.php/aasgbcpjmra/article/view/1254
AUSSE (2011). Student Engagement Questionnaire. https://www. acer.org/files/AUSSE_2011_SEQ.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. https://www.pdfdrive.com/designing-and-conducting-mixed-methods-research-e196908993.html
Chiu, T. K., & Hew, T. K. (2018). Factors influencing peer learning and performance in MOOC asynchronous online discussion forum. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3240
Dayagbil, F., Pogoy, A., Suon II, E., & Derasin, C. (2018). Flipped classroom: Maximizing face time in teaching and learning. CNU Journal of Higher Education, 12, 30–41. https://jhe.cnu. edu.ph/index.php/cnujhe/article/view/238
Delialioğlu, O. (2012). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310–322. www.jstor.org/stable/ jeductechsoci.15.3.310
DepEd. (2019). PISA 2018: National Report of the Philippines. Department of Education-Philippines https://www.deped. gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PISA-2018-Philippine-National-Report.pdf
Glisic, M., & Favaro, P. (2018). Empowering modern learners: 21st century learning - Phase 1 evaluation report. Mississauga, ON: Peel District School Board. http://www.arniedocs.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Cat_3_GlisicFavaro-Paul-Favaro.pdf
Gunduz, N., & Hursen, C. (2015). Constructivism in teaching and learning: Content analysis evaluation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 526–533. doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.04.640
Hammond, L. D., Flook, L., Harvey, C. C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020) Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.201 8.1537791
Hampson, M. Patton, A., & Shanks, L. (2017). 10 ideas for 21st century education. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ search?q=cache:dxUJeJ9sfFMJ:https://www.innovationunit. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/10-Ideas-for-21st-Century-Education.pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph.
Hart, S. R., Stewart, K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2011). The student engagement in school questionnaire (SESQ) and the teacher engagement report form-new (TERF-N): Examining the preliminary evidence. Contemporary School Psychology, 15.http://www.casponline.org/pdfs/pdfs/2011_journal_ individual/2011_student-engagement_67-79.pdf
Holden, C. L., & Sykes, J. M. (2011). Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/ ijgbl.2011040101
Jentoft, N., & Olsen, T. S. (2019). Against the flow in data collection: How data triangulation combined with a ‘slow ‘interview technique enriches data. Qualitative Social Work, 18(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017712581
Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (2nd ed.). Vol. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9
Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(34). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6
Kelleci, O., Kulaksız, T., & Pala, F. K. (2018). The effect of social network-supported microteaching on teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching skills. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet. v10i2.3456
Kipli, M., & Khairani, A. Z. (2020). Content validity index: An application of validating CIPP instrument for programme evaluation. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(4), 31–40.
Krisdiana, I., Masfingatin, T., Murtafiah, W., & Widodo, S. A. (2019). Based learning to increase creative thinking skill in mathematical statistic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188(1), 012042. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012042
Kulgemeyer, C., & Riese, J. (2018). From professional knowledge to professional performance: The impact of CK and PCK on teaching quality in explaining situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1393–1418. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.21457
Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2017). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2016.1259389
Ledger, S., & Fischetti, J. (2020). Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4561
Liu, X., Rates, C., Showers, A., Hutson L., & Baumstark, T. (2020). Redesigning science courses to enhance student engagement and performance. In J. Mintzes & E. Walter (Eds.), Active Learning in College Science. Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-33600-4_19
Lodge, J. M., Kennedy, G., Lockyer, L., Arguel, A., & Pachman, M. (2018). Understanding difficulties and resulting confusion in learning: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00049
Meseguer-Dueñas, J. M., Molina-Mateo, J., Gomez-Tajedor, J. A., Ardid, M., Riera, J., Tort, I., Gimenez, M. H., Serrano, M. A., & Vidaurre, A. (2016). Collaborative teamwork. Relationship between student’s perception and academic results, ICERI 2016 Proceedings, pp. 1277–1283. https://doi.org/10.21125/ iceri.2016.1286
Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Schellens. T., & DeMarez, L. (2015). Teaching and learning with mobile technology: A qualitative explorative study about the introduction of tablet devices in secondary education. PLoS ONE, 10(12): e0144008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144008
Moreira, B. F. T., Pinto, T. S. S., Starling, D. S. V., & Jaeger, A. (2019). Retrieval practice in classroom settings: A review of applied research. Frontiers in Education, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2019.00005
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2019). TIMMS 2019, International Result in Mathematics and Science, Highlights: Countries Achievement in Mathematics and Science. IEA https://timss2019.org/reports/
Myers, M. J. (2013). Keeping abreast of continuous change and contradictory discourses ERIC ED567118: Education in One World: Perspectives from different nations. BCES Conference Books, 11, 327–332. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED567163.pdf
Naz, F., & Murad, H. S. (2017). Innovative teaching has a positive impact on the performance of diverse students. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017734022
Newsome, J. G., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158
Nielsen, S. G., Johansen, G. G., & Jørgensen, H. (2018). Peer learning in instrumental practicing. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00339
OECD. (2014). Measuring innovation in education: A new perspective, educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en
Oliver, B. (2016). Strategies That Promote 21st Century Skills. Just for the ASKing! www.justaskpublications.com
Roediger, H. L., III., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026252
Sarfraz, S. (2019). Rethinking formative assessment through peer observation and reflection: A case study of Pakistani ESL lecturers’ cognition and practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/12364
Schrum, M. L., Johnson, M., Ghuy, M., & Gombolay, M. C. (2020). Four years in review: Statistical practices of Likert scales in human-robot interaction studies. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 43–52).
Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning.
Shulman, R. D. (2018). 10 ways educators can make classrooms more innovative. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insights-ibmai/2020/03/26/trust-at-the-center-building-an-ethical-ai-framework/#3c24565b7bc7
Stroud, R. (2014). Investigating student group discussion participation. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/321361630_Investigating_Student_Group_ Discussion_Participation.
Tait, A., & Faulkner, D. (2018). Dream team: A practical playbook to help innovative educators change schools. ASCD.
Theobald, E. J., Eddy, S. L., Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Crowe, A. J. (2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. PLOS ONE, 12(7), e0181336. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0181336
Wiseman, A. W. (2012). A framework for understanding international perspectives on education. International Perspectives on Education BCES Conference Books, 10. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED567040.pdf
Zabeli, N., Anderson, J., & Saqipi, B. (2018). Towards the development and implementation of learner-centered education in Kosovo. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(4), 49–64. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jsser/issue/43626/534249
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-09Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
