See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328738849

Impact of Microteaching on Engineering Students' Communication Skills*

Article  in  International Journal of Engineering Education · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 126

3 authors:

Rodrigo F. Herrera Juan Carlos Vielma

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
40 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    93 PUBLICATIONS   276 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Felipe Muñoz La Rivera

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
13 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lean & BIM Design Management View project

Collaborative Group of Engineering Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodrigo F. Herrera on 05 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 1768–1775, 2018 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00
Printed in Great Britain # 2018 TEMPUS Publications.

Impact of Microteaching on Engineering Students’

Communication Skills*
RODRIGO FERNANDO HERRERA
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so y Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avda. Brasil 2147, third floor, Valparaı́so, Chile.
E-mail: rodrigo.herrera@pucv.cl

JUAN CARLOS VIELMA

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so, Avda. Brasil 2147, third floor, Valparaı́so, Chile. E-mail: juan.vielma@pucv.cl

FELIPE MUÑOZ LA RIVERA

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so, Avda. Brasil 2147, third floor, Valparaı́so, Chile. E-mail: fmunozlarivera@gmail.com

In current educational processes, it is common to find that students make use of oral presentations with the purpose of
exposing a specific topic within the contents of a subject. These types of presentations are also intended for students to learn
or improve oral presentation techniques, which generally enrich their communication skills. However, these activities are
usually carried out without prior preparation or without well-defined terms of reference, obtaining different results, even
within homogeneous groups of students. The objective of the paper is focused on determining the effect of microteaching
on engineering students’ oral presentation techniques and improve communications skills. To measure its impact, three
courses of different levels of the civil engineering career were selected (152 students), separating in each of them two groups
of students. Each group of students has been asked to prepare different oral presentations. The first group of students
prepared the presentation in a traditional way, while, the second group of students prepared the presentation as if it were a
microteaching session. The oral presentations of the groups were evaluated, finding that the microteaching has a favorable
impact on the improvement of the communications skills of the students.
Keywords: microteaching; performance of students; oral presentations; engineering students; engineering education.

1. Introduction author points out that to improve the content

In engineering education, it is becoming increas-
ingly common to make use of students’ oral pre-
sentations to address various topics related to
subjects in the academic curriculum [1]. This
instance emerges under the expectation of the scho-
lastic of being able to implement diverse types of
training and with that accomplish that the students
develop teamwork skills, oral and stage expression,
compilation and synthesis of information, research
and analysis, among others, generating a scenario
where students can ‘‘teach others’’, and contributing
to a more complete development of the students by
themselves [2, 3]. However, this objective not always
is achieved, since the students usually spread the
contents, in this way not everyone handle the inte-
gral topic of the presentation, they cannot deepen or
analyze the same, and consequently, they cannot
effectively explain it to their partners, being trans-
formed into instances of simple demonstration of
contents towards the teacher, losing the most impor-
tant focus, to teach their classmates [4].
According to the Dale Learning Pyramid Theory
(and others authors), traditional expository teach-
ing corresponds to a passive way of learning, where
the student listens, reads, support his learning in
audiovisuals tools, and demonstrations. The same
retention, students must move towards to active
learning strategies, where the speaker has the con-
trol of the progress of the discussion, practical work,
and teaching the other [5–7].
Microteaching as an active learning technique
used to train teachers that is used around the
world today. In fact, microteaching is a technique
in which the teacher makes a complete revision of a
teaching class, which allows him to obtain feedback
from peers or from the students who have worked
with him in the preparation of the class. The class
that is usually prepared for a short duration and
involves students who are not required to be part of
the teacher’s class. In the classic sessions of micro-
teaching, the class that has been planned is recorded
on video to be later analyzed by the work team,
which in addition to the previous participants can be
complemented with an expert teacher. However, in
engineering education the impact of microteaching
has been less measured than in other knowledge
disciplines. In a work about engineering learning, it
was reported that the microteaching process con-
tributes to improving not only the process of self-
learning for the acquisition of new competences, but
also the process of self-regulation by the students [8].
In addition, microteaching allows the audience to
be able to participate in a non-passive way, since it

1768 * Accepted 20 May 2018.

Impact of Microteaching on Engineering Students’ Communication Skills
focuses the development of activities programmed
for the whole group, an aspect that encourages
individual participation and team work [9].
In other teaching areas, such as medicine or
nursing, microteaching is used to teach to teach
tutors who have not received any type of training
in teaching [10, 11]. Given the positive effect of
‘‘teaching others’’ and the reality of today’s oral
presentations, it is attractive to try to replace tradi-
tional oral presentations with microteaching ses-
sions, since this technique, linked to several
branches of knowledge, can improve oral presenta-
tions [12].
This paper seeks to answer the following ques-
tions. Firstly, how much does student performance
improve when they participate in a presentation, in
which the microteaching technique was applied
instead of a traditional presentation? And secondly,
Does the impact of microteaching vary according to
the experience of the students? Therefore, the
hypotheses of the study are: the average achieve-
ment rate after applying the microteaching metho-
dology is greater than the average achievement
percentage before applying the methodology; there
are at least a couple of levels where the difference in
the average achievement percentage before and after
applying the methodology are not the same.
2. Background
The traditional oral presentations are academic
instances where a group of students (2 to 5 members
usually) present in front of the teacher and the rest
of their classmates. These traditional oral presenta-
tions deal with topics related to the subject and have
a duration between 15 to 20 minutes, including a
brief question session and feedback from the
instructor based on their evaluation criteria [13].
Within the development of the activity, only the
speaker students comply an active teaching-learn-
ing role, leaving the rest of the classmates in a
passive state [11]. Research in this regard give an
account of the shortcomings that present these
academic instances: the speaker students say they
do not work as a team during the preparation of the
presentations and declare to learn on average only
60% of the contents expressed in the presentation.
This low-level learning causes that the contents are
not transmitted correctly to the rest of the students
in audience role, which added to the passive role that
they fulfill in the activity, leads them to declare levels
of learning of the presented contents less than 45%.
These problems are accentuated in students of first
engineering courses [14]. On the other hand, some
elements of co-creation as a managerial alternative
help to improve the communication and students’
participation [15].
1769
Microteaching appeared in 1963, allowing since
then the training of teachers and students applying
specific techniques. The microteaching sessions con-
sist of preparing a short lesson on a very well defined
topic, which can be presented orally to an audience
of people who are not the professor’s own students,
and which takes place in a time no longer than 20
minutes. The session is recorded on video. After
that, the entire group, which includes the students,
the guide professor and other invited colleagues,
make observations on the oral presentation, focus-
ing especially on the objectives initially proposed by
the relator. Since then, this technique has been very
popular in colleges and universities, and within the
latter, especially in medicine [16] and nursing
schools [17]. Microteaching is also used for langua-
ge’s distance learning [18] or in basic sciences learn-
ing [19], with limited information about their use in
engineering courses.
There are not many experiences of the use of
microteaching in engineering education. There are
few reported cases of success, among which can be
mentioned UC Davies, in which microteaching is
used precisely to improve the oral presentations of
the students of the college of engineers, following
the steps listed below:
 Delivery of the presentations.
 Feedback and evaluation by the mentor.
 Re-organization of the presentation.
 Delivery and evaluation of the final presentation.
At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, micro-
teaching is used to improve the ability of students in
the initial engineering courses to solve simple pro-
blems, focusing on two objectives:
 Obtain a feedback on how the teaching capacity is
perceived by the audience.
 Provide observations and personal experiences to
classmates.
Desfitri points out the convenience of using micro-
teaching in the training of mathematics teachers,
especially when they must provide real-world pro-
blems to their students [20]. Although it is a different
career to engineering, the approach to the problems
addressed is common, since the initial engineering
courses are intended to teach students using just
such problems.
On the other hand, Meng focused on the problem
of applying microteaching to an information tech-
nology course. He found that the main difficulties
are [21]:
 Limitation of teacher’s time.
 There are no clear boundaries between micro-
teaching and traditional learning objectives.
 There is ambiguity between the roles played by
1770
the mentor and the students during the simulation
of particular situations.
Meng highlights the difficulty of obtaining effective
feedback from the use of microteaching, because it
is applied to professional practices, which take place
in the last semesters of studies.
A microteaching session should be planned to
follow a 4-steps guide: start, introduction to new
content, development and closure. Each of these
stages has a purpose and a guiding question (Fig. 1).
In addition, when planning each of the stages,
students should answer the following questions:
How long will the stage last? What will be the
performance of the speaker? What will be the
performance of the audience? And, what additional
resources will be needed? [11].
According to the previous works shown, it is
necessary to limit the scope of this research to the
three courses of civil engineering students, located
at three different levels of progress, with the aim of
improving their abilities to make oral presentations
and to improve learning. group during these activ-
ities. The subjects assigned to the groups of students
are subjects that are part of the syllabus of each
subject.
The microteaching technique can be implemented
for students to prepare and develop their oral
presentations, through an initial training workshop,
a systematic follow-up and feedback to students
during a specific course. However, this does not
guarantee that students are able to apply the tech-
nique, but rather have knowledge of it. Strengthen-
ing implementation should be done through
Fig. 1. Purpose and guiding question of each stage of the microteaching session [11].
Rodrigo Fernando Herrera et al.
practice among the students themselves, in conjunc-
tion with continuous feedback provided by the
instructor [11]. The presentations that the profes-
sors of each course entrusted to their students dealt
with topics related to the formal contents of each
subject, with the purpose of maintaining the same
degree of difficulty for each group, the assigned
topics were selected on a specific content.
Microteaching has several advantages, such as it
reduces the preparation time of an oral presenta-
tion; increases the percentage of teamwork among
students when they prepare the presentation;
increases the percentage of learning of lecturers
who are presenting their subject; and increases the
percentage of audience achievement about the topic
being presented [11]. However, the impact on stu-
dents of implementing microteaching as a presenta-
tion tool is not yet known, since in the work of
Herrera, Vielma and Miñoz-La Rivera only is given
a proposal of how to implement this methodology.
3. Research methodology
The research methodology used was the case study,
in particular three cases were analyzed simulta-
neously: we worked with first (56 students), fifth
(49 students) and ninth (47 students) semester
students of the engineering degree from Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so, ergo a total of
152 students. The courses where they were applied
were: Introduction to engineering in the first seme-
ster, building engineering in fifth semester and
planning and control of projects in the ninth seme-
ster. These three cases were taken to diagnose
Impact of Microteaching on Engineering Students’ Communication Skills
students of the same career, with a similar income
profile, at different degrees of maturity.
Historically, these three subjects have as manda-
tory activity: at least an oral presentation must be
performed by the students during the semester. The
common characteristic is that all these presentations
were concentrated in a few days (1 to 3 sessions),
where they perform one group after another, not
paying much attention to each other. The first
change requested to the instructors responsible for
the three courses is to distribute the oral presenta-
tions during the semester (no more than 2 per
session) and the topics requested from students
will be linked to topics covered in classes.
The second change that instructors were asked to
do was to ask the students to send the presentation
by email to the course’s instructor one day in
advance. With the presentation file, the instructor
would create a test with alternatives (no more than
10 questions), which would be applied to the whole
group after each presentation. The idea of doing this
test is to measure the percentage of learning of each
student, about the presentation just performed.
To compare the results of learning when the
presentation is in a traditional way or with the
microteaching technique, it was planned in each
course that the first half of the groups must perform
their presentations under the traditional scheme and
the other half of the groups must perform their
presentations according to the microteaching tech-
nique. In order for the students to apply this
technique, a workshop was held and continuous
education was given [22]. In the second half of the
presentations the students were asked to plan the
session, in addition to the presentation file.
To verify if the change in the achievement per-
centages of students is generated before and after
applying the microteaching technique, the instruc-
tors computed the average achievement percentages
at the end of the sessions. Then, for each student, the
difference in the percentage of achievement between
before and after applying the methodology is calcu-
lated and in this way the percentage of increase or
decrease in average of all the students for all
students participating in the study and for each
particular course is obtained. Then, to verify if the
increase is remarkable, the Wilcoxon Test was
applied as a non-parametric test (non-normal
data) to compare the average range of two related
Table 1. Performance of the students for course
First semester Fifth semester
Students % Students
Increase 44 78.57 45
Decrease 12 21.43 4 8.16
1771
samples, as in this case. The proposed hypotheses
are as follows:
H0: the average achievement percentage before
applying the methodology is equal to the average
achievement percentage after applying the meth-
odology.
H1: The average achievement rate after applying the
methodology is greater than the average achieve-
ment percentage before applying the methodol-
ogy.
The Wilconxon Test was applied for the entire
group of students and for each course. Finally, the
percentage of students who exceeded 80% of
achievement before and after applying the micro-
teaching technique for each level will be calculated
and the Krustal-Wallis Test will be applied as a non-
parametric test (non-normal data) to compare the
mean range of unrelated samples. The hypotheses
are as follows:
H0: the difference in the average achievement per-
centage before and after applying the methodol-
ogy is the same for the three levels (first, fifth and
ninth semester).
H1: there are at least a couple of levels where the
difference in the average achievement percentage
before and after applying the methodology are
not the same.
4. Results and discussion
Without considering the differences per course, on
average, when applying the methodology, the per-
centage of achievement of students increases by
15.39%. When applying the Wilcoxon Test with
significance level of 0.05, it is possible to reject the
null hypothesis (H0) with a p-value of 0.0000, that
exist enough sample evidence to say that the average
achievement percentage after applying the micro-
teaching methodology is greater than the average
achievement percentage with traditional presenta-
tions. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained
regardless of the level of advance of the students
which participate in this research.
For first year students, on average, when applying
the microteaching technique, the percentage of
students’ achievement increases by 16.80%. When
applying the Wilcoxon Test with significance level
Ninth semester Total
% Students % Students %
91.84 42 89.36 131 86.18
5 10.64 21 13.82
1772 Rodrigo Fernando Herrera et al.

Fig. 2. Path followed by each student before and after applying microteaching as a methodology, first semester engineering students.

of 0.05, it is possible to reject the null hypothesis
(H0) with a p-value of 0.0000, so, there is sufficient
sample evidence to affirm that the average achieve-
ment percentage after applying the microteaching
technique is greater than the average achievement
rate with traditional presentations. Fig. 2 shows the
path each student follows before and after applying
microteaching as a methodology for oral presenta-
tions of first semester engineering students, lines
with increasing slope representing the students that
increase their percentage of achievement and the
lines with decreasing slope representing the students
that diminish their percentage of achievement. The
latter are only 21.42% of all first semester students.
For their part, the students who lowered their
performance did an average of 5.66%, while the
students who went up did so by 22.93%.
On the other hand, for fifth semester students, on
average, when applying the methodology of micro-
teaching the percentage of student achievement
increases by 16.96%. When applying the Wilcoxon
Test with significance level of 0.05, it is possible to
reject the null hypothesis (H0) with a p-value of
0.0000, there is sufficient sample evidence to assume
that the average achievement percentage after
applying the microteaching methodology is greater
than the average achievement percentage with the
traditional presentations. Fig. 3 shows the path that
each student follows before and after applying
microteaching as a methodology for the oral pre-

Fig. 3. Path followed by each student before and after applying microteaching as a methodology, fifth semester engineering students
Impact of Microteaching on Engineering Students’ Communication Skills 1773

Fig. 4. Path followed by each student before and after applying microteaching as a methodology, ninth semester engineering students.

sentations of the fifth semester engineering students,
lines with increasing slope representing the students
that increase their percentage of achievement and
the lines with decreasing slope representing the
students that diminish their percentage of achieve-
ment. The latter are only 8.16% of all fifth-semester
students. For their part, the students who lowered
their performance achieved an average of 5.25%,
while the students who increased their average
reached 19.36%.
Finally, for ninth semester students, the use of
microteaching improved the percentage of student
achievement by 12.09%. When applying the Wil-
coxon Test with significance level of 0.05, we can
reject the null hypothesis (H0) with a p-value of
0.0000, there is sufficient evidence to show that the
average achievement rate after applying the micro-
teaching technique is greater than the average
achievement rate with traditional presentations.
Fig. 4 shows the path each student follows before
and after applying microteaching as a methodology
for the oral presentations of the ninth semester
engineering students, with gray lines being the
path for students that increase their achievement
percentage and the lines black students who
decrease their percentage. The latter are only
10.63% of all ninth-semester students. For their
part, the students who decreased their performance
did an average of 1.40%, while the students who
went up did so at 14.02%.
While in the three cases significant evidence was
found to state that microteaching as a form for oral
presentations of students improves the learning of
students attending the session, there are important
differences in the different levels of student matur-
ity. Table 2 shows the mean and the standard
deviation of the achievement percentage of each
studied course, before and after applying the micro-
teaching technique. From these data, it can be
evidenced that under normal conditions (traditional
presentations), the students of advanced level have,
on average, better results and there is less difference
between students of the same course, which is
represented with the decrease of the standard devia-
tion. On the other hand, the application of micro-
teaching not only increases the average achievement
percentage among students, but also decreases the
variance among the students themselves. This is
represented dramatically in the first semester stu-
dents, where the standard deviation decreases from
13.42% to 9.96%, this effect is not so evident in the
higher courses since its standard deviation is already
low.
To confirm the above, Fig. 5 shows the percentage

Table 2. Average and standard deviation per course of the achievement percentage

Traditional presentation Microteaching presentation

Average of the Standard Deviation of the Average of the Standard Deviation of the
Course achievement percentage achievement percentage achievement percentage achievement percentage

First Semester 70.46% 13.42% 87.27% 9.96%

Fifth Semester 66.59% 6.93% 83.55% 7.57%
Ninth Semester 77.99% 5.99% 89.11% 5.45%
1774
Fig. 5. percentage of students that exceeds 80% of achievement in each level.
of students that exceeds 80% of achievement in each
level. Since when microteaching is applied as a
technique for oral presentations a percentage of
students over 75% achieves outstanding achieve-
ment percentages. First semester students who
exceed 80% achievement are 39.28% in a traditional
presentation and 80.36% in a microteaching pre-
sentation. Fifth semester students who exceed 80%
achievement are almost in a traditional presentation
and 75.51% in a microteaching presentation.
Finally, ninth semester students who exceed 80%
achievement are 36.17% in a traditional presenta-
tion and 93.61% in a microteaching presentation.
Fifth year students are worthy of attention, as they
are the ones who generate the highest increase in
average. When asked, the students answered that in
traditional presentations their peers did not per-
formed a rigorous work and a lack of accuracy in the
preparation was noted, while with the microteach-
ing methodology many of them had been told for
the first time how to present it correctly.
Finally, when applying the Krustall-Wallis Test
with significance level of 0.05, it is possible to reject
the null hypothesis (H0) with a p-valor of 0.045, that
means there is significant evidence to say that the
difference in average achievement percentage before
and after applying the methodology are not equal
between levels.
5. Conclusions
Microteaching has been used in the improvement of
the teaching of different professions, however there
are not many researches in the field of engineering
education. The results obtained in this research
show that the microteaching applied to the oral
presentations of civil engineering students, improve
Rodrigo Fernando Herrera et al.
their skills. The Wilcoxon Test shows that for all of
the students analyzed who received training with
microteaching, the achievements reached were
improved by 15.39%, regardless of the level of
advancement in the career. When analyzing the
results obtained in each semester, it is found that
the students of the first semester, who had a modest
percentage of achievement, improve their percen-
tage of achievement after receiving the microteach-
ing in the preparation of their oral presentations,
until reaching a value close to the average global.
Something similar happened with the fifth-level
students of civil engineering, who even started
from a much lower level and managed to reach a
level close to the average. On the other hand, the
students of the ninth semester, reached values of
small percentage of improvement of the achieve-
ments, because their initial levels of achievement
were much higher compared to the two previous
semesters peers, which is otherwise expected due to.
They are much more experienced students in this
type of activities. In this way, it has been verified
that the microteaching applied to the training of
students who have to perform oral presentations,
allows to improve the level of achievement achieved,
regardless of the content of the subject being pre-
pared. According to the results, it can be noted that
the use of the technique of microteaching in civil
engineering students improves not only their skills
in oral presentations, but also their ability to achieve
learning outcomes. Finally, according to the
obtained results, it is recommended to replicate
this study in other engineering schools, at other
levels of progress and in different subjects of study.
Acknowledgements—The following investigation was made
thanks to the contributions of the CORFO Project 14ENI2-
 Impact of Microteaching on Engineering Students’ Communication Skills 1775

26905 Ingenierı́a 2030-PUCV. In addition, the Collaborative
Group of Engineering Education and the School of Civil Engi-
neering of the Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaı́so. The
doctoral studies of Professor Herrera are financed with the VRI
Grant of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.
References
1. F. Imbernon, Mejorar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje en la
universidad, Editorial Octaedro, Barcelona, 2009.
2. F. Nogueira Leite, E. Shigueo Hoji and H. Abdala Júnior,
Collaborative Teaching and Learning Strategies for Com-
munication Networks, The International Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, 34(2), 2018, pp. 527–536.
3. J. González, Reflexiones y experiencias sobre la evolución y
el desarrollo de las competencias transversales de trabajo en
equipo y presentaciones orales, XXI Jornadas de la Ense-
ñanza Universitaria de la Informática, Andorra La Vella,
2015, pp. 360–363.
4. S. V. Ginke, J. Gulikers, H. Biemans and M. Mulder,
Towards a set of design principles for developing oral.
Educational Research Review, 14(2), 2015, pp. 62–80.
5. E. Dale, Audiovisual methods in teaching, third edition, The
Dryden Press, New York,1969.
6. C. Blair, Cómo aprenden y recuerdan los estudiantes de
manera más efectiva, 2016, http://studyprof.com (in Spanish)
7. R. F. Herrera and F. Muñoz-La Rivera, Academic Perfor-
mance of teaching assistants/trainers in engineering degrees.
Ágora de Heterodoxias, 3(1), 2017, pp. 118–132.
8. Campos-Sánchez, M. Sánchez-Quevedo, P. V. Crespo-
Ferrer and J. Garcı́a- López, Microteaching as a self-learning
tool. Students’ perceptions in the preparation and exposition
of a microlesson in a tissue engineering course, Journal of
Technology and Science Education, 3(2), 2013, pp. 66–72.
9. E. Luna, El docente presencial. Técnicas de enseñanza para
enriquecer su desempeño académico, Plaza y Valdez Editores,
Madrid, 2002, pp. 19–28.
10. T. Gavriliovic, M. Ostojic, D. Sambunjak, M. Kirschfink, T.
Steiner and V. Stritmatter, Handbook of Teaching and Learn-
ing in Medicine, Tempus, Brussels, 2009.
11. R. F. Herrera, J. C. Vielma and F. Muñoz-La Rivera,
Microteaching: a new way to do oral presentations by
engineering students, Global Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 19(3), 2017, pp. 285–290.
12. J. Gess-Newsome and N. Lederman, The preservice micro-
teaching course and science teachers’ instructional decisions:
A qualitative analysis, Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 27(8), 1990, pp. 717–726.
13. J. Marin-Garcia, C. Santandreu-Mascarel, J. Maheut and G.
Rius Sorolla, El efecto del empleo de anclas verbales o
numéricas en una rúbrica para evaluar presentaciones
orales, sobre la consistencia de las puntuaciones de los
alumnos universitarios, Congreso Nacional de Innovación
educativa y de Docencia en Red, Valencia, 2016, pp. 1–11.
14. R. F. Herrera, J. C. Vielma and F. Muñoz-La Rivera,
Comparación de la efectividad de las presentaciones orales
entre estudiantes con diferentes avances en la carrera,
Encuentro Internacional de Educación en Ingenierı́a ACOFI
2017, Cartagena de Indias, 2017, pp. 1–10.
15. G. Ribes-Giner, M. R. Perello-Marı́n and O. Pantoja Dı́az,
Co-creation in Undergraduate Engineering Programs:
Effects of Communication and Student Participation, The
International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 2018,
pp. 236–247.
16. S. K. Praharaj, Can microteaching be used for teaching
postgraduate psychiatry residents in a small group?, Austra-
lasian Psychiatry, 24(3), 2016, pp. 305–307.
17. Higgins and H. Nicholl, The experiences of lecturers and
students in the use of microteaching as a teaching strategy,
Nurse Education in Practice, 3(4), 2003, pp. 220–227.
18. Merc, Microteaching experience in distance English lan-
guage teacher training: A case study, Journal of Educators
Online, 12(2), 2015, pp. 1–34.
19. S. Bakır, The effect of microteaching on the teaching skills of
preservice science teachers, Journal of Baltic Science Educa-
tion, 13(6), 2014, pp. 789–801.
20. R. Desfitri Pre-service teachers’ challenges in presenting
mathematical problems Journal Physics: Conf. Ser.
948 012035, 2018
21. M. Chen. Thinking on Application of Microteaching to
Teaching of Information Technology Course 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Science and Social Research (ICSSR
2014), Tianjin, China, 2014.
22. R. F. Herrera, J. C. Vielma, F. Muñoz-La Rivera and N.
León, Microteaching como herramienta para mejorar las
presentaciones orales de estudiantes de ingenierı́a, XXX
Congreso Nacional de Educación en Ingenierı́a (SOCHEDI),
Santiago de Chile, 2017, pp. 1–10.

Rodrigo F. Herrera. Civil Engineer and Bachelor of Science Engineering from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Valparaı́so, has a Master’s degree in project management from the University of Viña del Mar, and is currently a PhD
candidate in Engineering Sciences at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. He is currently a Professor for several
courses, such as Applied Computer Science, Introduction to Civil Engineering, Planning and Project Control and Project
Management in the School of Civil Engineering at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so, Chile. He is the
coordinator of the Collaborative Group of Engineering Education at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so,
Chile. His main research is project management and lean construction, besides having a strong focus on engineering
education.

Juan Carlos Vielma Pérez. Civil Engineer from Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. He was awarded his MSc
on Structural Engineering by the Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela, and his PhD was on Structural Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering at Universidad Politecnica de Cataluña. He has been a Professor at Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Valparaı́so since 2016. His areas of interest are seismic vulnerability, numerical methods for non-linear analysis
and innovative techniques to improve learning processes.

Felipe C. Muñoz-La Rivera. Civil Engineer and Bachelor of Science Engineering from Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Valparaı́so. He is currently a teacher assistant in several courses: Structural Analysis, Solid Mechanics, Numerical
Analysis and Geotechnics at the School of Civil Engineering at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so, Chile.
He is a research of the Collaborative Group of Engineering Education at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Valparaı́so, Chile. His current research is in project management and engineering education, data analysis on a large
scale and impact of active teaching in engineering.

View publication stats