Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 456

  Table of Contents  
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 61-65  

Snap-shot of microteaching as a teaching–learning method among health professionals in university of health sciences, Navi Mumbai

1 Associate Professor, Ph D scholar, Department of Health Profession and Education, MGMIHS Navi Mumbai, India
2 Professor, Department of Community Medicine, MGM Medical College, Navi Mumbai, India
3 Professor & Head, Department of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission01-Jan-2021
Date of Decision01-May-2021
Date of Acceptance10-May-2021
Date of Web Publication04-Jun-2022

Correspondence Address:
Madhavi Jogesh Mankar
Riddhi Siddhi Residency, Sector 03, Flat No. 601 (A) Wing New Panvel, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_2_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Microteaching (MT) is innovative teaching–learning method to honed and refined teaching skills in teachers. The training of medical teachers in India in pedagogical technique is not mandatory. Hence, the quality of teaching imparted in medical school is heterogenous. In today's era of Competency Based Medical Education and society's increasing high expectation on health professionals, it is essential to make competent medical teachers with improved pedagogical skills. Hence, the study was conducted to assess the baseline knowledge, practice, and attitude about MT among health professionals. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted during the period September 18–19 among all postgraduate (PG) students and teachers who have < 5 years of teaching experience after taking written consent in all constituent colleges under an university of Health science in Navi Mumbai. Results: Nearly 76.6% of health professionals were aware about concept of MT and 56.3% of health professionals could defined correctly MT. Only 12.6% of health professionals had correctly enumerated phases of MT. Nearly 65.1% of health professionals reported that MT as a teaching training tool should be included in PG training. Overall, 20–40% of health professionals were strongly agree to agree on various merits of MT. 57.8% health professionals suggested that experts should demonstrate teaching skills, whereas 50.6% of health professionals said that it should be made as mandatory exercise so that PG students and novice medical teachers would improve their teaching Skills. Conclusion: These observations suggest that microteaching exercise should be mainstreamed in health professional's curriculum in phase wise manner in future.

Keywords: Health professionals, medical teachers, microteaching, postgraduate students, teaching learning tools

How to cite this article:
Mankar MJ, Pimparkar M, Dubhashi S. Snap-shot of microteaching as a teaching–learning method among health professionals in university of health sciences, Navi Mumbai. Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth 2023;16:61-5

How to cite this URL:
Mankar MJ, Pimparkar M, Dubhashi S. Snap-shot of microteaching as a teaching–learning method among health professionals in university of health sciences, Navi Mumbai. Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth [serial online] 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 24];16:61-5. Available from: https://www.mjdrdypv.org/text.asp?2023/16/1/61/346567

  Introduction Top

Microteaching (MT) is an innovative, “scaled down” teacher training technique for learning teaching skills through practice of microteaching sessions.[1],[2] Medical professionals always feel that their education does not prepare them for teaching.[3],[4] Teaching in a large class room situation does not provide a conducive atmosphere for the development or refinement of teaching skills. It is mainly due to the absence of opportunity to receive feedback from students.[5] In today's era of Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) and society's increasing high expectation on health professionals, the focus is on active learning and development of teaching–learning skills, rather than on passive acquisition of information.[3],[5] In spite of the fact that microteaching has been practiced extensively in most universities, its actual efficacy has not been studied systematically.[6] Hence, the present study was to find out their perceived baseline knowledge, attitude, and practice of microteaching as teaching–learning tool for postgraduate (PG) students and teachers of Health Sciences in lieu of CBME implementation.


A cross-sectional study was conducted in MGM University of health science during the period of September 18–19 among PG students and teachers of health sciences who have < 5 years of teaching experience. This University of Health Sciences is a Deemed University since August 2006. Under its umbrella, Medical College and Hospital, Nursing, Physiotherapy, Biomedical Sciences, and Prosthetics and Orthotics are providing qualitative education to under graduate and PG students by applying innovative and dynamic pedagogical techniques and services to the community. A total of 261 study subjects such as PG students (183) and teachers (78) (assistant professors and tutors) were enrolled into the study by universal convenient sampling technique after taking written informed consent. Permission was obtained from all institutional heads and ethical clearance was obtained from Institutional Ethical Committee before the commencement of the study. A prestructured validated questionnaire was developed to assess the knowledge regarding the practice of microteaching among PGs and teachers of health sciences (Cronbach's α =52 items = 0.742). This questionnaire was pilot tested in ten PG students and was used for the study after revision. The questionnaire consists of six questions of their sociodemographic factors, ten questions regarding knowledge of microteaching such as definition of microteaching (MT), what are components of MT, Stages of MT, and merits and demerits of MT were assessed in Likert scale(strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree). There were 18 questions regarding study subjects attitude about MT and how they practice MT as teaching–learning tool. This questionnaire was given to the study subjects. After a week time, the questionnaire was collected by research investigator. The data were entered and analyzed with SPSS Software: MGM Institute of Health Sciences has licensed copy of SPSS & it is available in library for use of faculty and students. Training of the software is provided on regular basis to all. City: Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India and proportion and Chi-square test were used to find out association between different groups.

  Results Top

Sociodemographic profile of health professionals

A total 261 health professionals were enrolled for the study, 50.2% of health professionals were in the age group of 25–30 years. Out of 261 health professionals, 64% were female and 36% of male health professionals, respectively. Nearly 58.7% of health professionals were PG students, whereas 41.3% of study participants were faculties from constituent colleges under MGMIHS. Around 62.8% of health professionals had 1–2 years of teaching experience. There were no statistically significant differences among health professionals from the constituent colleges under MGMIHS [Table 1].
Table 1: Sociodemographic profile of health professionals

Click here to view

Knowledge of health professionals about microteaching

Most of the health professionals (76.6%) were aware about the concept of microteaching. Overall, only 56.3% of health professionals could define “microteaching” correctly. Only 22.2% of health professionals had knowledge that“the refeed back to trainee teacher is most the most important component of microteaching”. The most important sources of information of microteaching to health professionals were through lectures (28.1%) and medical education unit (23.8%). Overall, only 12.6% of health professionals correctly enumerate the three phases of microteaching. More number of nursing, physiotherapy, and allied health sciences health professionals had the correct knowledge of microteaching than medical college professionals [Table 2].
Table 2: Knowledge of health professionals about the concept of microteaching

Click here to view

Attitude and practice of health professional about microteaching training (MT)

Ninety-eight percent of health professionals thought that all health professionals should be trained in microteaching. Nearly 55.6% of health professionals revealed that microteaching training is important because health professionals are not trained in it, whereas 29.5% of health professionals reported that it was good for department development. Around 77.8% of health professionals said that peer-reviewed teaching exercise would be beneficial to novice teachers. Nearly 67% of health professionals reported that peer-reviewed teaching increased the confidence of trainee and 31% of health professionals said that teaching skills can be learned in less stressful environment if health professionals trained in to peer-reviewed teaching. Overall, 53.3% of health professionals reported that their department trains health professionals in MT and 33% of them said that they had been trained in MT. Around 65.1% of health professionals reported that MT should be included in their PG training. Overall 84.7% of health professionals used to prepare a lesson plan before teaching.

Merits and demerits of microteaching

Overall, 20%–40% of health professionals were strongly agree to agree on the following merits of MT

  • It clarifies the concept of MT (21.1%–43.7%)
  • Mentally prepares teacher for real teaching (18.8%–49.8%)
  • It is interesting and knowledgeable (15.3%–51.3%)
  • Constructive feedback improves teaching (19.2%–46.7%)
  • Improves presentation skills (19.9%–52.1%)
  • Increased confidence of teaching (18.4%–52.1%)
  • Improves communication skills (20.3%–49.4%) [Table 3]
  • Encourages problem solving and critical thinking (17.2%–48.3%).
Table 3: Demerits of microteaching reported by postgraduates and teachers in health sciences

Click here to view

Overall, 5–30% of health professionals were strongly agree to agree on the following demerits of MT

  • Resistance and ignorance of staff (5.4%–26.8%)
  • Challenging and difficult situation for PG students (5.7%–28.4%)
  • Microteaching confuses novice teacher (5.0%–25.3%)
  • Teaching with video recording is challenging (7.7%–32.9%)
  • MT creates anxiety in teachers (5.7%–33.3%)
  • MT is time consuming (6.5%–24.9%)
  • Criticism by peers (4.6%–32.2%)
  • Fear of change (5.0%–27.5%).

Suggestions to improve microteaching exercise among health professionals

Nearly 57.8% of health professionals suggested that experts should demonstrate MT skills to trainee teachers to improve MT Skills. Around 50.6% of health professionals said to make MT as mandatory exercise, whereas 42.2% of health professionals suggested giving written constructive feedback to teacher trainee in microteaching session. Nearly 11.8% of health professionals reported that there is no need to have mastery over MT skills and 11.8 health of professionals also said that trainee teachers should be given extra remuneration to be trained in MT.

  Discussion Top

Microteaching has acclaimed as one of the best methods for training, preservice, and in-service teachers is a technique that can be used for various types and stages of professional development.[7] The emerging changes in medical curricula by medical Council of India and the role of medical teachers envisage[2] the need of this special training of teachers in implementing CBME in medical curriculum in 2019. Lack of in-depth awareness of the purpose of microteaching has led to criticisms that microteaching produces homogenized standard robots with set smile procedures.[8] In this context, if health professionals are properly trained and motivated for using microteaching as teaching–learning tool then it can be utilized optimally to train novice teachers and PG students in innovative teaching technique such as problem-based learning, cased-based study, and conduction self-directed learning. In our study, we wanted to explore baseline knowledge of microteaching among PG students and teachers and will be used this knowledge for mainstreaming of microteaching in university of health sciences as an intervention project. Most of the literature hypothesizes its benefits primarily in preservice teacher and in-service teacher, but its effectiveness in medical teachers has not been studied.

We found overall 76.6% of health professionals were aware about the concept of microteaching. In our study subjects, nursing faculties and faculties from Biomedical Science were more aware about MT compared to medical faculties. This may be due to Microteaching is part of curriculum in nursing education and medical faculties had time constrained due to more clinical work. A similar study conducted in PG medical students in Tamil Nadu[9] stated that 85% of PG medical students were aware of the uses and benefits of microteaching and they perceived microteaching as important. In our study, 50.6% of study participants stated that, to improve microteaching skills among teachers and PG students, it should be made mandatory exercise for PGs and novice teachers after joining department, whereas 50.2% of participants said that teaching skills should be demonstrated by experts. This result are consistent with the study conducted in MGMIHS Sevagram[10] found that, the MT exercise was useful for honing teaching skills of faculties. The study subjects demanded to extend this activity to senior faculty staff and make this routine activity of department.

  Conclusion Top

Above observations from this study suggests that there is a need to sensitize health professionals about effectiveness of MT as teaching–learning tool and practical implementation of MT in curriculum of PG Students and training of novice teacher.


We highly appreciate the cooperation from students and their class representative for their sincerity and honest response.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Bajaj P, Patil MS, Almale B. Microteaching in medical education. MVP J Med Sci 2014;1:84-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
Remesh A. Microteaching, an efficient technique for learning effective teaching. J Res Med Sci 2013;18:158-63.  Back to cited text no. 2
Chaudhary N, Mahato S, Chaudhary S, Bhatia B. Micro teaching skills for health professionals. J Univers Coll Med Sci 2015;3:60-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava P, Ramasamy J. Microteaching: Inculcating teaching skills in tomorrow's teachers. J Med Soc 2013;27:162.  Back to cited text no. 4
Rani MJ. Microteaching for MBBS students. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol 2017;3:923-3.  Back to cited text no. 5
Dayanindhi VK, Hegde SP. Effectiveness of microteaching as a method of developing teaching competence among in-service medical teachers. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2018;6:155-61.  Back to cited text no. 6
Edward KP. A study of the effects of video tape recording in microteaching training. Br J Educ Technol 2001;32:483-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
Ramsubramaniam S, Renganathan L. Perception and experience of teachers and postgraduate nursing students on microteaching as an effective teaching strategy. Int J Nurs Educ 2014;06:238-43.  Back to cited text no. 8
Karthik RC, Gopalakrishnan S, Uma Devi R, Rama R, Raja S. A study on knowledge, attitude and practices regarding 'microteaching' among the final year postgraduate students in a medical college, Tamil Nadu, India. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 1000;6:997.  Back to cited text no. 9
Anshu D, Singh R, Narang P. Introducing microteaching sessions in an Indian Medical School. Med Educ 2009;43:1087-8.  Back to cited text no. 10


  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded42    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal