Edward K. M e l l o n and Joseph B. Dence Florida State Univers~ty Tallahassee, 32306
(
1
Orientation for Teaching ~ssistanh using Videorecorded Microteaching
A s is the case with faculties at many inititutions we at Florida State are faced each autumn with the task of int,egrating a number of incoming chemistry graduate students, most of whom are without teaching experience, into our instructional staff. At the strong urging of the university administration we have developed over the past 4 years a teaching orientation program which, incidentally, is usually the only formal teaching preparation received by most of our graduate students. Since me must operate within the confines of time economy, our immediate objective in the program is to make the students minimally competent in the clear transmission of information. Naturally, a longer-ranged objective of the program is to make teaching appeal to some of these students, since they will become part of tomorrow's community college and university teachers. As our program has gradually evolved, we have striven to present a halanced and interesting set of activities. A typical schedule for this program which operates over a major portion of the fall quarter is outlined in the table. We attempt to schedule chemists with challenging ideas in education for the guest lectures. I n 1969 our lecturer was Professor Jay Young, now of, Auburn University, who presented an interesting talk (with demonstrations) on what freshmen should get out of laboratory experience; in 1970 a set of lectures on frequently misunderstood concepts in general chemistry was delivered by Professor A'Iichael ICasha of the Florida State University. This facet of the program has been well-received by the students.
674
/
Journal o f Chemical Education
The major difference h e h e e n the Florida State University program and that conventionally presented is the use of television microteaching. The use of television as an educational tool is by now old hat ( 1 , 8 ) , hut the use of television as a self~educating tool is only recently coming into prominence (3-7). One definition of microteaching is short teaching lessons which are frequently videorecorded for immediate playback arid analysis. This 'scaled-down teaching encounter began at Stanford Univeisity where brief lessons were presented in a laboratory-type setting ~ ~ i t h emphasis on intense supervision, videotape recording for immediate feedback, and the collection and use of student feedback (8,s). Our use of the microteaching approach follows along these lines. A Typical Schedule for the Teaching Assistant Orientation Proorarn "
Week
Day
Time
1
Tues
4 P.M.
2 3
Tues Thurs
4 P.M. 3:30 P.M.
4
Tues
4 P.M.
5
Tues
4 P.M.
Topic Description of FloridnState University undergraduate program Safety Lecture Guest Lecture (one or more talks by an outside speaker) Demonstration ofaodiovisual aids Introduction to microteach-
total cost to the department was $30 for a blank tape which can be reused for a number of years. Most students were enthusiastic about the program, in addition to which we observed a dramatic increase in the quality of their presentations, considering the small investment in time. We have even noted muted interest on the part of some members of the permanent faculty in submitting to the microteaching inquisitorial proceedings. Acknowledgment
Videoremrdlng o graduate itudent demonstration.
The graduate student population was subdivided into groups of six, each of which met on one Saturday morning with one of the authors and a chemistry department staff member. First-year laboratory facilities were adequate for the recording (see the figure); the videorecorder was delivered from the university audio-visual center late Friday afternoon and retrieved by them Monday morning. The faculty and staff of the audio-visual center were uniformly cooperative and were especially helpful on the occasion of minor instrumental foul-ups caused by our unfamiliarity with video-recorder operation. Graduate students were asked to preparc a fiveminute demonstration or presentation on a topic of their choice (we did distribute a list of suggested demonstrations from our general chemistry laboratory program); we asked only that they indicate the level of sophistication of the imaginary audience for which their presentations were intended. The presentations were then recorded without a break. Following this, each presentation was shown with many interruptions to point out deficiencies on the part of the students in clarity, use of the chalk board, eye-contact, etc. All were invited to join in the critique. At this point, the six presentations were then re-recorded (over the old presentations) and, finally, the improved presentations were replayed without interruption. The Saturday sessions ran an average of 3 hr and the
We would like to acknowledge the assistance we received in setting up the program from the Iustructional Television group a t the Florida State University Media Center (Professor Thomas C. Capraro, coordinator) and the Department of Science Education (Professor Paul H. Westmeyer, chairman). Literature Cited (1) See any recent text an audio-visual media such as W ~ r s o ~ n n r ; R. n . A,,
(Edilor). "Instruotional Process and Media Innovation," Rand McNally 61 Co., Chicago, Ill., 1968, partionlady the chapter "Instruotiona1 Televisionin Pers~eotive"by R. M. D ~ M O N D . (2) For developments in ehemiosl education see D m m n o , W. R . . L ~ o o w snl, J . J.. A N D O'CONNOR, R., J. CIIEM. Emc., 45,63 (1968): BAANARD. W. R.. J. C ~ MEDUC., . 45. 136. 681 (1968); DIRNARD,W. R.. AND O'Coxwon. R., J. CXEM.EDUC., 45, 745 (1968). and other p a ~ e r sin
si111e. (7) A reeent, brief description of s program somewhat similar in intent to oursis GABLA LAND, J. K., J. CAEM.EDUC..46.621 (1969). g: 18) Dura. R. N.. A N D A'LEN, D. W., " M i ~ r ~ t e ~ c h i n Controlled Practice in the Training of Teachers," Stanford University Press. Stanford. Calif lona~ .-~ (9) A ~ E N ,D . W.,A N D RYAN,I
