Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom

Susan Ledger
Murdoch University

John Fischetti
University of Newcastle

Currently pre-service teachers (PSTs) practise teaching by interacting in real-life situations
naturally occurring within variable school-based practicums. These are not ideal contexts for
beginning teachers because they put novices in situations with real students before
demonstrating capability, feedback is often not at point of need and they do not provide all
students with similar experiences. Simulation and micro-teaching combine to provide a
technological solution to bridge the gap between graduate preparation and real application.
This study draws on situated learning and reflective practice ideologies to critique and
problematise Micro-teaching 2.0 – a combination of traditional micro-teaching practices and
human looped simulations. The findings reveal increased self-efficacy of PSTs (n = 376) and
identify the benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0 for initial teacher education
programs. Micro-teaching 2.0 proved to be an effective diagnostic tool for identifying the
specific needs of PSTs and a preparatory tool for real-life placements. The controlled learning
environment addresses previous issues related to the variability of contexts and subsequent
moderation of individual capabilities. The findings are timely as the teaching profession
continues to be scrutinised and where technological advances continue to offer choice,
challenges and creative options for educators.

Implications for practice or policy:
• Micro-teaching combined with human in the loop simulation provides a powerful and safe

learning environment to practice the art and science of teaching.
• Simulation affords initial teacher educators a controlled learning environment for effective

moderation and diagnosis of practice.
• Simulation in Education for the current generation of students builds on previous embodied,

gaming and immersive learning experiences where the interaction is true and realistic.
• Simulation technologies and micro-teaching combine to bridge the gap between graduate

preparation and real-life application.

Keywords: Micro-teaching, Simulation, Initial Teacher Education, Mixed reality learning
environments, Preservice teacher self-efficacy, Reflective practice, Practice Theory

Introduction

Initial teacher education (ITE) programs within higher education contexts continue to draw interest, debate,
review and recommendations from around the globe (Darling-Hammond, 2016; Ell et al., 2019). Teacher
selection, teacher quality and classroom preparedness have remained key areas of concern for researchers,
policy writers and social commentators (Louden, 2008; Mayer et al., 2015). Much of the scrutiny has
centred on the quality of pre-service teachers (PSTs) and their readiness for the workforce (Darling-
Hammond, 2016; Schleicher, 2011). The readiness concern of graduate teachers evidenced in other
countries and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is mirrored in Australian
educational discourse. Australia’s recent government call for “classroom ready” graduates highlights
ongoing issues and concern related to the quality and variability of graduates and the schools in which they
are placed (Department of Education and Training, 2017).

The corresponding importance of school readiness for those receiving and supporting pre-service and
graduating teachers is negated by the variability that exists within our school systems (Le Cornu, 2015;
Ledger, 2017). Issues surrounding the variability of school experiences for PSTs and the provision of
suitable high-quality mentors is a perennial challenge for coordinators of ITE programs charged with

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

placing PSTs (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). Compounding the situation is the increased number of PST
enrolments within ITE programs and decreasing numbers of quality professional experience placements
(Ure, Hay, Ledger, Morrison, Sweeney, & Szadura, 2018). As a result, universities are exploring alternative
approaches to support traditional practicums in their quest to better prepare their graduates (Bahr & Mellor,
2016).

Traditional and emerging approaches employed to prepare PSTs have typically drawn on situated learning
theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and reflective practice ideologies (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983). Both
ideologies assume knowledge is acquired by doing (Kemmis, et al., 2014). However, professional
experience for PSTs occurs within indeterminate situations characterised by complexity, uncertainty and
variability of setting. Diverse school contexts, variability in the quality of mentors and place-based demands
impact the doing acquired and required by PSTs. This variability of contexts makes researching the
potential impact of teaching and learning approaches challenging. The diversity of contexts also makes it
difficult to identify the common characteristics, benefits and challenges of ITE strategies and self-efficacy
of PSTs. Kraft, Marinell, and Yee (2016) highlight how school contexts have a significant impact on
teachers:

School context measures are stronger predictors of teacher turnover than individual teacher
traits or the average characteristics of students in a school… studies examine somewhat
differing sets of school context dimensions, several of these dimensions consistently emerge
as the strongest predictors, including the quality of school leadership, the degree of order and
discipline in a school, and the support that collegial relationships provide. (p. 2)

Although context is considered influential in its prediction of teachers’ self-efficacy and teacher turnover
rates, Merghler and Tangen (2010) contend that PSTs’ classroom management and personal teacher traits
are the strongest contributing factors impacting teacher self-efficacy. Moreover, Grossman (2005) suggests
the connections between theory and practice are not made explicit in teacher training programs and that
this impacts the development of graduate teachers’ self-efficacy. Bridging the perceived gap between
learning and doing and producing classroom-ready graduates are desired outcomes of ITE programs. The
variability of PSTs’ self-efficacy and variability of experiential classrooms is of concern and adds
complexity to the process.

A controlled learning environment such as a simulation removes some of the complexity and variance
experienced in real-life classroom settings. It also addresses issues related to self-efficacy of teachers in
response to the challenges of bridging the theory-practice divide as suggested by Grossman (2005). The
controlled, non-threatening, synchronous learning environment of simulations allows for valid and reliable
moderation of PST performance and self-efficacy (Dieker, Lignugaris-Kraft, Hynes, & Hughes, 2016).
Furthermore, simulations offer the opportunity to implement, observe and capture the effectiveness of
situated learning and reflective practice approaches, which are typically more difficult to measure within
the variability of real-life contexts.

Situated learning has antecedents in the work of Gibson’s (1986) theory of affordances and Vygotsky’s
(1980) social learning, where perception of the environment inevitably leads to specific courses of action.
These actions are often enacted through embodied learning activities, technology-based learning activities
or real-life contexts such as practicums and simulation rather than abstract concepts. Terms and approaches
including cognitive apprenticeship, embodied learning, practice theory, gradual release of responsibility,
problem-solving, authentic tasks and assessment, scenario-based learning and action research represent
how situated learning theory has been applied within ITE programs. Technology is also playing an
important role within this space with the introduction of simulation and online virtual classrooms such as
Second Life (Gregory & Masters, 2012), simSchool (Tyler-Wood, Estes, Christensen, Knezek, & Gibson,
2017) and more recently human in the loop (HITL) simulated technologies by TeachLivE™ and Mursion™
(Dieker, Rodriquez, Lignugaris-Kraft, Hynes, & Hughes, 2014; Ledger, Ersozlu, & Fischetti, 2019).

Reflective practice, like situated learning, involves knowledge acquisition through experience. However,
the focus is not on the interaction but more importantly on the recognition of the paradigms, assumptions,
frameworks, patterns of thought and behaviour that shape our thinking and actions. Beauchamp’s (2006)
analysis of reflective practice definitions highlights the lack of clarity and ambiguity of the term. Dewey
(1933) argued that experience and interactions build one’s capability to deal with a range of situations.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Schön (1983) purported that knowledge of the situational context in addition to actual practice is important
to develop spontaneous skilful execution. Spontaneous skilful execution distinguishes between reflection-
in-action, where decisions are happening on the spot and action appears intuitive, and reflection-on-action,
which occurs after an incident or experience and demands an additional time commitment. Beauchamp
(2006, p. 106) highlighted definitive aspects of reflective practice as “conceived as a process concerning a
particular object in view of achieving a goal”. Moreover, debate exists about whether reflection is seen as
action (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983), emotion (Valli, 1997) or levels as presented by Van Manen’s (1977)
technical, practical and critical reflectivity and Zeichner’s (1987) factual, prudential, jurisdictional and
critical levels of reflective practice. A combination of reflective practices adds to the many models and
stages of reflection used within ITE programs, supporting Zeichner’s (1994) belief that “all of the domains
of reflection are important and necessary” (p. 14).

Micro-teaching, a strategy widely used across teacher training programs, combines both reflective practice
and situated learning approaches. Micro-teaching is a condensed lesson plan used to practise, rehearse and
reflect on action (Arsal, 2014; Ledger et al., 2019). It is often delivered within a role-play context for real-
time feedback and reflection. Micro-teaching provides a platform for both mastery experiences and
vicarious experiences for PSTs, elements considered essential for the development of teacher self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997; Griffiths, 2016). The strategy has been adopted within a range of contexts and disciplines
such as health, science and medical education (Remesh, 2013). Micro-teaching resembles the Japanese-
inspired collaborative reflective practice entitled lesson study originating in the 1880s. Manifestations of
lesson study have permeated ITE programs and teaching practices around the globe over the last century
(Mergler & Tangen, 2010): Micro-teaching emerged in the 1960s at Stanford University and featured
reflective collaborative practices (Cooper & Allen, 1970); lesson studies have been adapted in the United
Kingdom (Dudley, 2011); Micro-teaching and research-based lessons are embedded in the United States
(Lewis, 2002); and in Australia adaptations include productive pedagogies (Gore, Griffiths, & Ladwig,
2004) and more recently Quality Teacher Rounds (Gore, 2018). These collaborative models of reflective
practice and situated learning coupled with their associated corpus of research respond to Collin, Karsenti,
and Komis’s (2013) call for more sound validated methodologies and clear concepts when implementing
reflective practice processes, objectives and goals. However, micro-teaching, like lesson study, remains
partially embedded, somewhat misunderstood and under-researched across ITE programs (Griffiths, 2016).

This article introduces Micro-teaching 2.0, a combination of traditional micro-teaching methods and new
simulation technologies to address the preparedness and quality of teaching graduates as they transition
into real-life school contexts.

Contextualising Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom

Micro-teaching, a universal approach for reflective practice conceptualised at Stanford University in the
early 1960s, has continued to offer ITE programs a valuable preparatory process for PSTs’ moving into real-
classroom contexts (Allen & Eve, 1968; Arsal, 2014; Griffiths, 2016). Cooper and Allen (1970, p. 1) defined
micro-teaching as:

A teaching situation which is scaled down in terms of time and numbers of students. Usually
this has meant a 4–24minute lesson involving 4-5 students. The lesson is scaled down to
reduce some of the complexities of the teaching act, thus allowing the teacher to focus on
selected aspects of teaching. Frequently, one Micro-teaching episode includes teaching a
lesson and immediate feedback on the teacher’s effectiveness. This feedback may come from
video-or audiotape recordings, supervisors, pupils, colleagues, or from the teachers’ self-
perceptions. Some of the variable aspects of Micro-teaching include lesson length, number
of students, the amount and kind of supervision, the use of video-or audiotape recordings and
number and types of pupils.

Epistemologically, Micro-teaching positions itself within experiential-based situated learning theories and
reflective practice paradigms. It situates experience at the core of the learning process; a dynamic
continuous process of change that relies on self-reflection for improvement (Impedovo, & Khatoon Malik,
2016). Micro-teaching is reported to effectively bridge the school placement gap (Griffiths, 2016). The
principles of Micro-teaching and reflective practice underpin many teacher preparation programs (Donnelly
& Fitzmaurice, 2011), thus helping PSTs who struggle to bridge the perceived theory-practice divide

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

(Grossman, 2005. Micro-teaching experiences can be both process and product involving the transference
of knowledge or skills via dialogic engagement, role play, rehearsal and feedback (Allen & Eve, 1968).

Micro-teaching has many benefits and has long offered ITE programs a useful preparatory tool for real-life
classrooms. Cooper and Allen’s (1970) critique of Micro-teaching research found that performance in a
Micro-teaching situation can accurately predict subsequent classroom performance. Micro-teaching
originally involved small groups of students in schools to practice the delivery of micro lesson plans and
behaviour management strategies. This proved to be problematic in the 1960s due to the difficulty of
accessing school students for trial lessons (Allen, 1980). To overcome this issue, university peers were used
instead of actual school students. Micro-teaching focused on developing a repertoire of teaching skills for
PSTs using a teach/critique and re-teach/re-critique approach (Griffiths, 2016). Variations of the peer
Micro-teaching model have continued to be employed with benefits outweighing challenges (Vare, 1993).
To be successful, however, Micro-teaching requires both teacher and learner behaviours to be operationally
defined and the desired interactions be derived from a theoretical rationale (Cooper & Allen, 1970).

Various forms of Micro-teaching have been used extensively in initial teaching programs, but most PSTs
practise their lesson planning, behaviour management and communication skills by interacting within real-
life situations that are naturally occurring and context specific within practicums (Ledger et al., 2019).
Although considered essential experiences, they are not ideal for beginning teachers and require re-
culturing and redesign (Le Cornu, 2016). Practicums put novices in situations with real students before they
have demonstrated the knowledge, skills and dispositions to be effective; feedback is often not at point of
need; they do not provide the full range of situations that occur in diverse classroom contexts; and effective
moderation is difficult across the cohort (Ledger et al., 2019). Micro-teaching offers a solution to the
inherent variability that occurs in these real-life context-based experiences.

Two decades after the introduction of Micro-teaching in ITE programs at Stanford University, Newton’s
(1983) study “Computer Simulation in Teaching Training” explored the advantages of interacting with
computers in ITE in comparison to Micro-teaching techniques. His conclusions about simulation
highlighted:

(1) the consequences of lack of skill are not so traumatic for student teacher,
(2) the skill or group of skills can be focused upon to any desired degree, either
excluding others or allowing them varying degrees of intrusion,
(3) its patience is inexhaustible. (p. 43)

However, Newton did not explore the possibility of combining micro-teaching with computers; rather
computers and micro-teaching were offered as binaries to support PSTs preparing for practice.
Technological advances now offer ITE program providers the opportunity to combine micro-teaching with
more sophisticated technological choices than traditional student–peer interactions or computer-based
asynchronous experiences. As technologies continue to become more sophisticated and education more
complex, opportunities for incorporating technology into ITE have increased (Fouts, 2000).

Micro-teaching and simulation in teacher education

With the emergence of simulated learning environments, technology has transitioned from being used in
the classroom to technology as the classroom. Simulation has been used successfully in many learning
contexts including flight training, engineering, tactical warfare and medicine (Dalgarmo & Lee, 2010; Lui,
Dede, Jacobson, & Richardson, 2017), yet has had limited uptake within ITE programs. Simulation has the
capacity to address the self-efficacy of PSTs and the variability of experiences afforded in real-life contexts
(Chini, Straub, & Thomas, 2016). Although pockets of trials and research do exist in relation to virtual and
mixed reality simulation software and programs (Christensen, Knezek, Tyler-Wood, & Gibson, 2011;
Dieker et al., 2016; Gregory & Masters, 2012) no comprehensive or widespread adoption or uptake of
simulation within nation states is evidenced.

Research on educational simulation for ITE programs has been limited due partly to the diversity of
simulation types, ever-changing technologies and whole-of-program uptake in universities. Early adopters
have trialled simulation in ITE programs including but not limited to the research on Kindergarten
Classroom (Ferry et al., 2005); simSchool (Christensen et al., 2011); Second Life (Gregory & Masters,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

2012); TeachLivE™ (Dieker et al., 2014) and Mursion™ (https://www.mursion.com/services/education/)
and SimLab™ (Ledger, 2017; Murdoch University, n.d.).

The simulation options adopted within ITE programs tend to be single-user virtual environments such as
simSchool and SimClass and 3D virtual reality environments accessed via headwear and glasses
(Christensen et al., 2011). More recently, a range of virtual and mixed reality learning environments have
been trialled, including Second Life, Teacher Talk and Kognito Interactive (https://kognito.com/) (Ledger
et al., 2019). The introduction of HITL synchronous simulation option currently operates in limited
universities around the globe with the majority programs offered in the United States. TeachLivE™ is one
of the original HITL programs developed at the University of Central Florida; its commercial partnership
with Mursion™ provides site licences that extend around the globe. Murdoch University is the only
licenced HITL technology provider in Australia but has partnered with the University of Newcastle and the
University of Western Australia for research and pedagogical purposes (Ledger, 2017; Ledger et al., 2019).

Although research on educational simulation for ITE programs has been limited due partly to the diversity
of simulation types, ever-changing technologies and whole-of-program uptake in universities (Ledger et
al., 2019, many commonalities exist in the findings: simulated learning environment learners move at their
own rate, rehearse and perfect their skills, build confidence in their personal abilities and in turn increase
their teaching self-efficacy and reflective practice capacity (Christensen et al., 2011; Gregory & Masters,
2012; Ledger et al., 2019; Schwabb, 2017; Straub, Dieker, Hynes, & Hughes, 2015). These benefits align
with findings from other professions where behaviour and mastery of skills are paramount and practised
(Choi et al., 2017).

Although the realm of simulation is moving towards the exploration of artificial intelligence (Schwabb,
2017), humans will never be excluded entirely from the adaptation loop of new technologies (Gil,
Pelechano, Fons, & Albert, 2016). HITL technologies refer to a human process used to validate and improve
artificial intelligence; they have many applications and distinct differences. In simulation technologies
HITL refers to a human interactor working behind the scenes to enable the synchronous voice and body
responses. An HITL learning environment consists of four components – interactor, avatars, students and
observers connected via computer and Internet access. Purposefully trained interactors (improvisation
actors and puppeteers) operate and control the HITL functionality (Figure 1), allowing real-time dialogic
engagement to occur (Nagendran, Pillat, Kavanaugh, Welch, & Hughes, 2014). The unique role of the
interactor in classroom simulation remains the point of difference over earlier simulation models.

Figure 1. Components of SimLab HITL simulation at Murdoch University (Ledger, 2017)

The operational components of HITL simulation are shown in Figure 1. The interactor controls the
responses of the avatars based on the specific scenario or context provided by the academic. The PST
conducts a micro-teaching lesson and practises specific elements of their performance as identified.
Feedback and moderation are provided by the academic on PST performance. The experiential interaction
is recorded for self-reflection. The process is repeated if required.

The connectivity of components is presented in Figure 2; two computers with webcams (one for the
interactor and one for the student), an Internet connection (used for Zoom or Skype) and a microphone
system. Zoom interactions are accessed within an on-campus lab or remotely via Skype or Zoom on any

https://www.mursion.com/services/education/
https://kognito.com/

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

device. The flexible delivery enables access and comparability of experiences between internal and external
enrolled PSTs (Ledger, 2016).

Figure 2. SimLab@Murdoch wiring diagram (Mursion, 2017, p. 2)

Insight into the use of HITL simulation and its impact on PSTs is revealed in a recent systematic review of
100 publications between 2012 and 2017. The benefits of simulation outweighed the challenges within the
findings, with reports capturing its effectiveness to change the practice and build the confidence of PSTs
(Ersozlu, Ledger, Mayne, & Wildy, 2019). Much of the research targeted PSTs rather than actual ITE
programs, implementation processes or teaching methods. The studies were predominately single subject
experimental design using observation and questionnaires as chief data collection tools. Micro-teaching
research is not explicitly addressed within these studies; moreover, no empirical data has been collected on
HITL technologies within an Australian context.

Micro-teaching 2.0

The concept of Micro-teaching 2.0 is introduced as a combination of traditional micro-teaching strategies
hailing from Stanford University in the early 1960s (Allen & Eve, 1968) and HITL simulation technologies.
It differs from previous combinations of micro-teaching and technologies in that traditionally technology
was used to video or capture the simulated experience (recordings) or replicate the experience within an
online environment (Second Life, simSchool). Micro-teaching 2.0 adopts technology as the classroom rather
than in the classroom. HITL technologies remove the need for peers to role-play and in turn eliminate issues
related to anxiety, human fragility and power inequities previously experienced in peer-to-peer role-play
scenarios (Donnelly & Fitzmaurice, 2011). Micro-teaching 2.0 is used for individuals to practise, rehearse
and reflect on the skills, art and science of teaching, including opportunities to engage with parents,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

colleagues and superiors. The synchronous capabilities of HITL technologies are its main point of
difference.

Bahr and Mellor (2016) suggest that teacher education programs have had limited change over the last few
decades and limited uptake of technology, which seems at odds with the rapidly changing technological
backdrop of creativity, commodity and utility afforded by the fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwabb,
2017). In Hixon and So’s (2009) field experience taxonomy for PSTs, Micro-teaching 2.0 would fall into
Type II field experience. Type I refers to concrete, direct experiences in reality (physically present in
schools); Type II refers to vicarious, indirect experiences with reality (videos, observations,
videoconferencing); Type III are abstract experiences that model reality (but lack interaction with teachers,
students). Current ITE programs preference Type 1 in their programs (Hixon & So, 2009).

For the purposes of this study the term Micro-teaching 2.0 signifies an amalgam of previous micro-teaching
approaches coupled with HITL simulation (Ledger et al., 2019). It is adopted in ITE programs as a pre-
placement tool to improve the self-efficacy of PSTs and provide a controlled learning environment to plan,
rehearse, reflect and moderate practice.

Aims and research questions

The research design used situated learning and reflective practice paradigms as a backdrop. It aims to
explore the benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0 and its impact on the self-efficacy of PSTs
preparation for real life placements. It captures initial Micro-teaching 2.0 situated learning experiences and
PST’s reflections on their practice.

A mixed-method combination of research components was employed to gain insight into Micro-teaching
2.0 as a preparatory tool for placements within ITE. The following questions guided this research:

(1) What is Micro-teaching 2.0? Define, critique and problematise. (literature review)
(2) What are the benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0? (literature review, observation,

questionnaire responses)
(3) What is the impact of Micro-teaching 2.0 on the self-efficacy of PSTs? (questionnaire responses,

observations)

Methods

This mixed-method study explored the situated learning experiences of first-year PSTs within a Micro-
teaching 2.0 context through reflective practice processes. Zeichner (1994) encourages a combination of
reflective practices within ITE, knowing experience and interactions build one’s capability to deal with
diverse situations. Perspectives were sought from literature, observation of PSTs within the synchronous
simulation environment and a questionnaire conducted to capture pre-simulation, actual experience and
post-placement self-efficacy. In the virtual world space, measuring performative data enables observers to
see what students can do or know, whereas a student’s self-efficacy has been shown to be a strong predictor
of future achievement (Henderson, Huang, Grant, & Henderson, 2012). Situated learning enables
observation of what Schön (1983) considers reflection-in-action, whilst questionnaires enable us to capture
reflection-on-action.

Participants and processes

All first-year ITE students from Murdoch University and the University of Newcastle were invited into the
study prior to embarking on their first practicum. Of the total 520 students across the two universities, 376
gave consent for all components of the study: construction of a micro-lesson plan; 10-minute micro-
teaching lesson of choice (simulation); observation by academic (performance & possibilities); post-
practicum questionnaire (simulation & practicum). The questionnaire was conducted post-practicum to
capture impact and application (practicums occurred up to a week after the simulation).

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

The goal of the questionnaire and observation sheet (Ledger et al., 2019) was to capture:

(1) Confidence levels before, during and after simulation/practicum;
(2) Outline of chosen teaching strategy;
(3) Effectiveness of Micro-teaching lesson – presence, effective introduction, sustained

communication;
(4) Engagement – gaining attention, questioning, appropriate responses, maintaining interest;
(5) Body language and voice – varied tone and expression, appropriate to situation, clear and

audible;
(6) Feedback – able to draw out knowledge, respond to question, articulates expectations, able to

redirect off-task behaviour;
(7) Rapport building – eye contact, use of names, interaction, positive/smiles;
(8) What do you consider the benefits or challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0?

Data collection

PST self-efficacy was captured using an online self-reported questionnaire conducted after the Micro-
teaching 2.0 task (virtual classroom context) and corresponding professional experience (real classroom
context). Observations of the 10-minute Micro-teaching sessions assisted in the diagnostic moderation of
the first-year cohort. The questionnaire was informed and structured by situated learning and reflective
practice elements; the ten questions provided a range of ways for the PSTs to reflect on their interactions.
A rating scale (1–4, where 1 = not at all confident, 2 = somewhat confident, 3 = confident, 4 = very
confident) was combined with supporting comment sections. An open-ended final question captured the
benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0.

Data analysis

The action research paradigm espouses that knowledge is gained through action and for action (Tripp,
2005); situated learning is positioned within this realm. Capturing PST self-efficacy before, during and
after a Micro-teaching 2.0 produced valuable empirical data for analysis, which was conducted
systematically and sequentially to generate conclusions and future research possibilities.

The PST reflections were analysed using Lichtman’s (2006) 3Cs – code, categorise and develop concepts.
These findings were then aligned to key theoretical concepts related to situated learning and reflective
practice using Van Manen’s (1977) technical, practical and critical levels of reflection. Coding of data was
conducted using NViVo. Final analysis of the data is presented in response to the research questions.
Recommendations are provided as springboards for further research from these findings.

Findings

The findings are presented in three parts aligned to the research design. First, key data from the
questionnaire is presented in a range of formats and key concepts revealed. These findings are aligned to
key concepts from the literature review related to situated learning and reflective practice. Final discussions
are presented in relation to the research questions highlighting the benefit and challenges of Micro-teaching
2.0 and the self-efficacy of PSTs engaged in the process.

Questionnaire

A total of 376 first-year ITE students completed a self-efficacy questionnaire consisting of eight questions,
of which five used a 4-point rating scale and supporting comments, one required uploading of the lesson
plan delivered in the Micro-teaching session and included two reflections on their performance, and one
open-ended question related to benefits and challenges.

Question 1
Question 1 required self-reported reflections on PSTs’ confidence to teach before, during and after
simulation and practicum. Results indicated that the majority of PSTs (85%) were “not at all” or “somewhat
confident” before experiencing Micro-teaching 2.0, whereas during the interaction only 70% were “not all”

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

or “somewhat confident”. The final reflection after the simulation and practicum saw less than 20% “not at
all” or “somewhat confident”. The variance of very confident PSTs rose from 2 to 32% (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Confidence levels before, during and after simulation experience

Question 2
The second question required PSTs to outline the chosen teaching strategy for their micro-lesson. A word
cloud was constructed of the submissions (Figure 4), revealing a limited focus or clear lesson intent rather
than a focus on the strategies or subjects introduced, for instance, questioning, instructions, brainstorming,
discussion, direct instruction, book reading, English and reading.

Figure 4. Word cloud based on responses

Attention also focused on students’ prior knowledge, introductions and good behaviour. Only a few
students referred to the three components of lesson structure, for example, “I introduced students to a
framework for writing paragraphs, explained diagram, modelled a sample and then gave them a chance to
try themselves. I concluded by getting them to identify key components”.

General comments from PSTs centred around “keeping the students engaged” or “ensuring I involved a lot
of group discussion”, “giving praise and feedback” and “asking and modelling questions”.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Question 3
To capture the effectiveness of their micro-teaching lesson, PSTs were asked to rate themselves on
presence, effective introduction, sustained communication and conclusions (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Perceived effectiveness of lesson

In terms of lesson components, PSTs showed more confidence with introductions (70%) than conclusions
(61%). Much concern related to time management issues with comments such as “I realised I was running
out of time so rushed the conclusion”, “I felt pressured to finish the lesson in 10 minutes”, “I was surprised
how fast time passed” and “I let time get the better of me and made a rookie mistake”. Other concerns
related to nervousness, presence, engagement, unpreparedness and minor hiccups. PSTs reflected on their
need to be “more focused, engaging, questioning skills, scaffolding, relevant and concept driven”. Over
half of the PSTs discussed their “desire to improve, do better, perform in more depth, be more effective,
and plenty to reflect upon”.

Question 4
PSTs were asked to reflect on their engagement levels in terms of gaining attention, questioning,
appropriate responses and maintaining interest. Of these four, PSTs considered it more difficult to maintain
interest (34% not meeting the standard) and gaining attention (30% not meeting) rather than respond to
students (23%) and questioning (19%). PSTs were able to judge if students were engaged or not even if
they were confused about how the system worked: “It was difficult to know whether any disengagement
was designed to challenge me or if it was an algorithm for when the avatars were not being controlled”.

In regards to how to engage avatars (Figure 6), over 30% of students stated the importance of questioning,
27% discussed the need for lesson plans, 26% explained the importance of finding the children’s area of
interest and 15% recognised the need to respond appropriately. PSTs commented on specific actions, for
example, “noticed, responded, attentive, discussed, challenged, involved, viewed, encouraged, judged and
choose.” Of the 34% of PSTs who had difficulty maintaining interest, the majority were able to comment
on their impact on avatars:

I found they were not as enthusiastic as I had hoped.
My lesson was foreign to them no wonder they didn’t engage.
I managed to link in some interest.
The text was too difficult.
I feel like the Maths was probably a bit boring.
There was little room for them to act up.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Figure 6. Ways to engage

Question 5
PSTs were asked to reflect on their body language and voice by rating their body language, varied tone and
expression, appropriate to situation, clear and audible. Varied tone and expression was the identified area
of greatest need, with many PSTs commenting on their need to “improve or alter tone, overcome
nervousness, modulate voice, be expressive, slow down, talk clearer, not overuse words like fantastic or
guys”. Many PSTs commented on their inability to adjust body language when using resources such as the
whiteboard or books, expressing concern that “I could focus more on the students rather than turning to use
the whiteboard”, “I didn’t know how to position myself when reading”.

PSTs were aware of the impact of body language on their lessons: “This is an area I definitely need to
improve on, I felt so overwhelmed and my mind went blank as I entered the lab. I feel my body language
and voice would have express how I was feeling”. This section provided the most comments related to the
viewing of their performance: “Although I thought I was expressive, when I viewed my lesson I sounded
really monotonous and monotone”, “I didn’t think I was nervous but I saw I kept scratching my leg even
though it wasn’t itchy”. Others reflected on their character: “I’m an extrovert so it was easy to be bubbly
and energetic”, “When I am nervous, I tend to blend my words or use the same phrase, over it’s something
I have to work on”. Some reflected on their growth:

I felt I was quite shielded when I stood in front of the students, looking quite guarded, that
slowly improved throughout the lesson. I also turned to look at my lesson plan and remember
what questions to ask more than I would have liked.

Question 6
Feedback involves being able to draw out knowledge, respond to questions, articulate expectations and
redirect off-task behaviour (Figure 7). PSTs responded to this question with considerable variance. Many
found it difficult to redirect off-task behaviours, with over four times as many PSTs reporting that they do
not meet the criteria at all. Most comments related to how PSTs would adjust their actions:

I missed the opportunity to redirect the students through nervousness.
I could have extended their answers and drawn out their responses more.
I feel I need to work on my ability to respond to students in a clarifying way needs
developing.

Conversely some blamed other factors:

Due to time constraints it was important to keep lesson flowing and not get too caught up in
any disengagement.
I did not want to enter into a power struggle with her about this, as it would have wasted
valuable time and further disengaged the other students.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Some reflections were insightful: “I think I need to work most on my positive reinforcement and redirection
of off task students and behaviours. I plan to observe how my mentor teacher deals with these two areas
for more ideas”.

Figure 7. Ability to provide feedback

Question 7
PSTs were asked about their rapport-building ability, in particular eye contact, use of names, interaction,
positive/smiles. The word cloud in Figure 8 highlights the collective response.

Figure 8. Response to rapport building

The following comments are indicative of the confidences and perceived ability of PSTs to reflect on their
situated practice:

As I was reading I did not really begin to connect to the avatars until we began the questions
section of the lesson, and watching it back I saw signs of boredom and fidgeting that I missed
during the class. I will need to work on my ability to read and interact/make eye contact
simultaneously.

Comments specifically focusing on the technologies included:

Interacting with the TeachLivE interface was rather confusing at first, as it was unfamiliar,
once I got comfortable with interacting with the avatars, my rapport building improved.
The fact that the avatars felt like actual students made it easy to build rapport with all of them.
Their individual personalities also helped with this.
I did notice that in each attempt I only interacted with 4 out of the five avatars. At the end of
both attempts though, I had interacted with each avatar. I need to make sure that in my next
attempt I am able to engage all the avatars in one session.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Question 8
When asked about the benefits or challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0, PSTs’ responses were extensive. These
reflections have been synthesised and grouped using Van Manen’s (1977) three levels of reflection
(technical, practical and critical).

Overall benefits

Technical
Direct feedback, easy to engage, I found the system surprisingly clever, I love the way that the avatars were
really responsive and even their little mannerisms and traits were evident, technology connected me from
afar, easy to connect, timer in top corner helped schedule, access to video of interaction vital.

Practical
Improves confidence, great to practice strategies, release nerves before practicum, without stress, low risk,
see how lesson flows, great for improving public speaking, good to calm your nerves, gives a rough idea
on what you are dealing with, develop language skills, improved organisation skills, developed time
management and classroom management, practise in a safe context, it allows you to teach and rehearse,
don’t need a class of real students as guinea pigs, don’t feel the pressure of messing something up, if
mistakes are made then it is not detrimental to a child’s education, main benefit being able to review the
video and reflect on my performance, if anxious puts us out of our comfort zone, it greatly improved my
confidence in presenting lesson, it acts as a stepping stone to real life teaching, safe to fail environment,
greater insight into real classroom contexts.

Critical
Highlights your strengths and weaknesses, we learn from doing, reinforced need to deliver clear and
purposeful lessons/tasks, reviewing progress over time is going to be helpful, has ability to improve the
quality of us as PSTs and ultimately teachers, flexible tool for lots of teaching scenarios, it should be
university wide.

Overall challenges

Technical
Make it less confronting for those overwhelmed by VR technology, I want to use visual reinforcement with
pictures and possible power-point presentations with avatars, inbuilt risk of reliance on technology, booking
time was a massive confusion and hassle, difficult mastering external connections with juggling phone so
next time I will simply use the computer.

Practical
It doesn’t really feel like a lesson it just feels really fake and I feel a little bit silly doing it, limited by 10
minutes, I felt like I was in front of a judging panel, one of the challenges is holding a lesson where students
are required to produce work as I am not sure whether the program has those capabilities, better answers
for age specific avatars, more off-task behaviours to occur to practice managing classroom.

Critical
Challenging knowing there is a real person behind the avatars, would be useful if we could access multiple
times, nothing beats being in an actual classroom.

The findings confirm the significance of situated learning and reflective practice ideologies within Micro-
teaching 2.0 practices and the impact it has on PSTs’ self-efficacy.

Discussion

The authors have presented Micro-teaching 2.0 as a process for knowledge transfer in ITE. Knowledge of
the situational context in addition to practicum is important for developing spontaneous skilful execution
(Schön, 1983). Whilst debate exists about the various types of reflective practice and action underpinning
spontaneous skilful execution – intuitive, reflective, emotive or developmental (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983;
Valli, 1997; Van Manen, 1977) – reflection-on-action remains a powerful change agent. It affirms
Zeichner’s (1994) call for the inclusion of reflective practice strategies in ITE programs.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

The following discussion is framed by the research questions in relation to the findings.

What is Micro-teaching 2.0?

Micro-teaching 2.0 combines traditional micro-teaching processes originating from Stanford University
(Allen & Eve, 1968) with HITL simulation technologies originating from the University of Central Florida
(Dieker, Straub, Hughes, Hynes, & Hardin, 2014). The addition of a synchronous mixed reality learning
environment to the process of micro-teaching offers a safe context to practise the art and science of teaching
and enables reflective practice processes to be recorded and reviewed. It overcomes previous micro-
teaching concerns related to peer role plays and asynchronous simulation.

What are the benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0?

The findings evidence that Micro-teaching 2.0 benefits far outweigh the challenges. PSTs’ reflections were
supported by academic observations; they also aligned with the benefits espoused within situated learning
and reflective practice ideologies (Lave & Wagner, 1991). The benefits of Micro-teaching 2.0 impact
multiple stakeholders: PSTs’ improved self-efficacy, a diagnostic tool for academics and better prepared
graduates for the workforce. Interestingly, reflections on benefits related to practical and critical impacts,
whilst challenges related more to technical and practical impacts.

What is the impact of Micro-teaching 2.0 on the self-efficacy of PSTs?

PSTs articulated support for Micro-teaching 2.0 and its capacity to improve their confidence and
preparedness for real classroom contexts. Some offered examples of its usefulness:

The lesson I planned for Micro-teaching 2.0 was the best lesson I had on placement.
Staying abreast of technological advances that support learning and teaching is essential as a
future teacher.
Time to simply talk to a group of children because not all of us have experience with kids.
We talk about Socratic questioning but until you engage with children it doesn’t really sink
in.

These comments resonate with Peterson’s (2014) call for practising, responding and initiating conversations
with children as part of ITE programs.

Micro-teaching 2.0 reinforces the importance of reflective practice and situated learning within ITE
programs. It offers a unique preparatory tool for PSTs by providing a controlled learning environment that
has the capacity to depict a range of authentic contexts and scenarios. It was considered an effective tool
for academics to moderate and diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of PSTs without the complexity
experienced assessing practicum performance in variable school contexts.

Limitations

Whilst the authors acknowledge the limitations of self-reporting, such as bias, selective recall, question
phrasing and social desirability responses, they have tried to mitigate against these limitations by including
observations of simulated experiences by academics and large participant numbers and combining a range
of question and response types that were short, simple and with no leading questions. A critical lens was
employed to identify the benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0 in providing a balanced perspective
to the discussion. Self-reporting is justified in this study; it is considered an essential methodology to
capture the self-efficacy of PSTs and its utility enabled a greater number of participants to be included.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Conclusion

Initial teacher educators continue to search for ways to better prepare PSTs for the demands of real
classrooms and the ongoing scrutiny of PST quality and preparedness. The principles and practices
embedded in Micro-teaching 2.0 offer a practical solution to these concerns. It has the capacity to be a game
changer for ITE programs. Its combination of traditional micro- teaching processes with innovative HITL
simulated technologies is offered as a virtual learning space for knowledge transfer involving theory,
practice and reflection. The controlled learning environment offers a safe place to monitor, practise and
master the art of teaching, unlike the variability and complexity of school contexts in which PSTs are
currently assessed.

Micro-teaching 2.0 draws from situated learning and reflective practice ideologies to develop PSTs’
spontaneous skilful execution of practice (Schön, 1983) and in turn increase the self-efficacy of teaching
graduates. It has the capacity to be a diagnostic tool for early identification of the quality and specific needs
of PSTs enrolled in ITE programs. The comparability between internal and external students enables easier
monitoring of progress and quality.

The authors recommend continued research into the adaptability of Micro-teaching 2.0 and a more
systematic approach to the adoption of HITL technologies, rather than what appears to be traditional ad-
hoc, random pockets of technological uptake found across the ITE sector.

References

Allen, D. W (1980). Micro-teaching a personal review. British Journal of Teacher Education, 6(2), 147–

151. https://doi.org10.1080/0260747800060206
Allen, D. W., & Eve, A. W. (1968). Microteaching. Theory into Practice, 7(5), 181–185.

https://doi.org/10.1080/004058468095421
Arsal, Z. (2014). Microteaching and pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching. European

Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627
Bahr, N., & Mellor, S. (2016). Building quality in teacher education. Melbourne, Australia: Australian

Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/aer/15/
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Beauchamp, C. (2006). Understanding reflection in teaching: A framework for analysing the literature

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Chini, J., Straub, C., & Thomas, K. (2016). Learning from avatars: Learning assistants practice physics

pedagogy in a classroom simulator. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010117

Choi, W., Ollivier, D., Chan, T., Schijven, M., Lajoie, S., Mancini, M. E., … Aggarwal, R. (2017).
Engagement and learning in simulation: Recommendations of the Simnovate Engaged Learning
Domain Group. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2016-000177

Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Tyler-Wood, T., & Gibson, D. (2011). simSchool: An online dynamic
simulator for enhancing teacher preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2),
201–220. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2011.042649

Collin, A., Karsenti, R., & Komis, V. (2013). Reflective practice in initial teacher training: Critiques and
perspectives. Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 14(1), 104–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.732935

Cooper, J., & Allen, D. (1970). History and present status. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED036471)
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3D virtual environments?

British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.01038.x

Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy
and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597

Department of Education and Training. (2017). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Canberra,
Australia: Author. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/36785/

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston, MA: DC Heath & Co.

https://doi.org10.1080/0260747800060206
https://doi.org/10.1080/004058468095421
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627
https://research.acer.edu.au/aer/15/
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010117
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2016-000177
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2011.042649
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.732935
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/36785/

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Dieker, L. A., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., Hynes, M., & Hughes, C. E. (2016). Mixed reality environments in
teacher education: Development and future applications. In B. Collins & B. Ludlow (Eds.), Distance
education in rural special education (pp. 122–131). Louisville, KY: American Council for Rural
Special Educators.

Dieker, L. A., Rodriquez, A., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., Hynes, M., & Hughes, C. (2014). The potential of
simulated environments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 37(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413512683

Dieker, L. A., Straub, C., Hughes, C., Hynes, M. C., & Hardin, S. E. (2014). Learning from virtual
students. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 54–58. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may14/vol71/num08/toc.aspx

Donnelly, R., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2011). Towards productive reflective practice in microteaching,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(3), 335–346,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.593709

Dudley, P, (2011). Lesson Study development in England: From school networks to national policy.
International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies,1(1), 85–100.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211179722

Ell, F., Simpson, A., Mayer, D., McLean Davies, L., Clinton, J., & Dawson, G. (2019). Conceptualising
the impact of initial teacher education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 177–200.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0294-7

Ersozlu, Z., Ledger, S., Mayne, F., & Wildy, H. (2019). Mixed reality learning environments in teacher
education: An analysis of TeachLivE™ research. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Ferry, B., Kervin, L. K., Cambourne, B., Turbill, J. B., Hedberg, J., & Jonassen, D. (2005). Incorporating
real experience into the development of a classroom-based simulation. Journal of Learning Design,
1(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v1i1.5

Fouts, J.T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present and future (Report). Seattle, WA:
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://portical.org/fouts.pdf

Fox, J., Ahn, S. J. G., Janssen, J. H., Yeykelis, L., Segovia, K. Y., & Bailenson, J. N. (2015). Avatars
versus agents: a meta-analysis quantifying the effect of agency on social influence. Human-Computer
Interaction, 30(5), 401–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.921494

Gibson, J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Suffolk, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Gil, M., Pelechano V., Fons J., & Albert M. (2016). Designing the human in the loop of self-adaptive

systems. In C. García, P. Caballero-Gil, M. Burmester, & A. Quesada-Arencibia (Eds.), Ubiquitous
computing and ambient intelligence (vol .10069, pp. 437–449). Zurich, Switzerland: Springer.

Gore, J. (2018, August). Making a difference through Quality Teacher Rounds: Evidence from a
sustained program of research. Keynote presentation at the Teaching Practices that make a
Difference: Insights from Research Conference, Sydney, Australia.

Gore, J., Griffiths, T., Ladwig, J. (2004). Towards better teaching: Productive pedagogies for teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 375–387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.010

Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012). Real thinking with virtual hats: A role-playing activity for pre-service
teachers in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3), 420–440.

Griffiths, J. (2016). Bridging the school placement gap with peer micro-teaching lesson study.
International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-
11-2015-0035

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith &
K. Zeichner (Eds.), Review of research in teacher education (pp. 425–476). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.

Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S. & Henderson, L. (2012). The impact of Chinese language lessons in
a virtual world on university students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.842

Hixon, E., & So, H. J. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for preservice teacher training.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74980/

Impedovo, M. A., & Khatoon Malik, S. (2016). Becoming a reflective in-service teacher: Role of research
attitude. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.6

Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014).
Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer. https://doi/10.1007/978-981-4560-47-4

https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413512683
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may14/vol71/num08/toc.aspx
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.593709
https://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211179722
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0294-7
https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v1i1.5
http://portical.org/fouts.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.921494
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.010
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-11-2015-0035
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-11-2015-0035
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.842
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74980/
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.6
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-47-4

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Kraft, M., Marinell, W., & Yee, D. (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 5(5), 1411–1449.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216667478

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Le Cornu, R. (2016). Professional experience: Learning from the past to build the future. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1102200

Ledger, S. (2016). TeachLive at Murdoch University [Television news article]. Retrieved from
https://vimeo.com/212524840

Ledger, S. (2017). Learning to teach with avatars (Innovative case study). Perth, Australia: Murdoch
University. Retrieved from http://app.iru.edu.au/national-innovation-case-study-collection#browse-
by-theme/theme-details/58e5e58693455a4910526992/?view_125_page=2

Ledger, S., Ersozlu, Z., & Fischetti, J. (2019). Preservice teachers’ confidence and preferred teaching
strategies using TeachLivE™ virtual learning environment: A two-step cluster analysis. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology, 15(3) em1674.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/102621

Lewis, C. (2002). Does Lesson Study have a future in the United States? Nagoya Journal of Education
and Human Development, 1(1), 1–23. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED472163)

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide. London, CA: Sage.
Louden, W. (2008). 101 damnations: The persistence of criticism and the absence of evidence about

teacher education in Australia. Teachers and Teaching, 14(4), 357–368.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802037777

Lui, D., Dede, C., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in
education. Smart Computing and Intelligence Series. Singapore: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7

Mayer, D., Allard, A., Bates, R., Dixon, M., Doecke, B., Kline, J., … Hodder, P. (2015). Studying the
effectiveness of teacher education: Final report. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University. Retrieved
from http://www.setearc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SETE_report_FINAL_30.11.152.pdf

Mergler, A., & Tangen, D. (2010). Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in pre-service
teachers. Teaching Education, 21(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210902998466

Murdoch University. (n.d.). SimLab: A mixed reality learning environment for teaching preparation and
professional learning. Retrieved from https://www.murdoch.edu.au/pages/simlab

Mursion. (2017). Scheduling manual for Mursion. Retrieved from
https://scheduling.mursion.com/resources/download/Mursion_SimLab_EquipmentList.pdf

Nagendran, A., Pillat, R., Kavanaugh, A., Welch, G., & Hughes, C. (2014). A unified framework for
individualized avatar-based interactions. Presence, 23(7), 109–132.
https://doi.org/10.1162PRES_a_000177

Newton, D. P. (1983). Computer simulation in teacher training. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 7(3), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877830070306

Peterson, M. B. (2014). Pre-service special education teachers’ frequency of opportunities to respond in
the TeachLivE™ virtual classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest database.
(3623983)

Remesh, A. (2013). Microteaching: An efficient technique for learning effective teaching. Journal of
Research in Medical Sciences, 18(2), 158–163. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23914219

Schleicher, A. (2011, March). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the
world. Presentation at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development International
Summit on the Teaching Profession, New York. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/4750617

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic
Books.

Schwabb, K. (2017). Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York, NY: Penguin. Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab

Straub, C., Dieker, L., Hynes, M., & Hughes, C. (2015). Using virtual rehearsal in TLE TeachLivE™
mixed reality classroom simulator to determine the effects on the performance of mathematics
teachers (Report). Retrieved from http://teachlive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/2014_GR_Technical_Report_10_20_FINAL.pdf

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216667478
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1102200
https://vimeo.com/212524840
http://app.iru.edu.au/national-innovation-case-study-collection#browse-by-theme/theme-details/58e5e58693455a4910526992/?view_125_page=2
http://app.iru.edu.au/national-innovation-case-study-collection#browse-by-theme/theme-details/58e5e58693455a4910526992/?view_125_page=2
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/102621
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802037777
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7
http://www.setearc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SETE_report_FINAL_30.11.152.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210902998466
https://www.murdoch.edu.au/pages/simlab
https://doi.org/10.1162PRES_a_000177
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877830070306
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23914219
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/4750617
https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab
http://teachlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014_GR_Technical_Report_10_20_FINAL.pdf
http://teachlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014_GR_Technical_Report_10_20_FINAL.pdf

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 36(1).

Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: A methodological introduction. Educacao e pesquisa, 31(3) 443–466.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-97022005000300009

Tyler-Wood, T., Estes, M, Christensen, R., Knezek, G. & Gibson, D. (2017). SimSchool: An opportunity
for using serious gaming for training teachers in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
34(3), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400304

Ure, C., Hay, I., Ledger, S., Morrison, C., Sweeny, T., & Szadura, A. (2018). Professional experience in
initial teacher education: A review of current practices in Australian ITE. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Council Deans of Education. Retrieved from https://www.acde.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Final-Report-NADPE-Project-Revised-March-2018.pdf

Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States.
Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/0.1207/s15327930pje7201_4

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3),
205–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1977.11075533

Vare, J. W. (1993). Co-constructing the zone: A neo-Vygotskian view of microteaching. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED360285)

Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Zeichner, K. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which have
been employed in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Education Research, 11(5),
565–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90016-4

Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in teaching
and teacher education. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions:
Research on teachers' thinking and practice (pp. 9–24). London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Corresponding author: Susan Ledger, s.ledger@murdoch.edu.au

Copyright: Articles published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) are available
under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Authors retain copyright in their work and grant AJET right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Please cite as: 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

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-97022005000300009
https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400304
https://www.acde.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final-Report-NADPE-Project-Revised-March-2018.pdf
https://www.acde.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final-Report-NADPE-Project-Revised-March-2018.pdf
https://doi.org/0.1207/s15327930pje7201_4
https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1977.11075533
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90016-4
mailto:s.ledger@murdoch.edu.au
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4561

Introduction
Contextualising Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom
Micro-teaching and simulation in teacher education
Micro-teaching 2.0
Aims and research questions

(3) What is the impact of Micro-teaching 2.0 on the self-efficacy of PSTs? (questionnaire responses, observations)
Methods
This mixed-method study explored the situated learning experiences of first-year PSTs within a Micro-teaching 2.0 context through reflective practice processes. Zeichner (1994) encourages a combination of reflective practices within ITE, knowing exper...
Participants and processes

All first-year ITE students from Murdoch University and the University of Newcastle were invited into the study prior to embarking on their first practicum. Of the total 520 students across the two universities, 376 gave consent for all components of ...
The goal of the questionnaire and observation sheet (Ledger et al., 2019) was to capture:
(1) Confidence levels before, during and after simulation/practicum;
(2) Outline of chosen teaching strategy;
(3) Effectiveness of Micro-teaching lesson – presence, effective introduction, sustained communication;
(4) Engagement – gaining attention, questioning, appropriate responses, maintaining interest;
(5) Body language and voice – varied tone and expression, appropriate to situation, clear and audible;
(6) Feedback – able to draw out knowledge, respond to question, articulates expectations, able to redirect off-task behaviour;
(7) Rapport building – eye contact, use of names, interaction, positive/smiles;
(8) What do you consider the benefits or challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0?
Data collection
Data analysis

Findings
Questionnaire
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8

Overall benefits
Technical
Practical
Critical

Overall challenges
Technical
Practical
Critical

Discussion
The authors have presented Micro-teaching 2.0 as a process for knowledge transfer in ITE. Knowledge of the situational context in addition to practicum is important for developing spontaneous skilful execution (Schön, 1983). Whilst debate exists about...
What is Micro-teaching 2.0?
What are the benefits and challenges of Micro-teaching 2.0?
What is the impact of Micro-teaching 2.0 on the self-efficacy of PSTs?

The Micro-teaching 2.0 process reinforces learning through doing and reflective practice (Dewey, 1933: Lave & Wagner, 1991; Schön, 1983) as part of knowledge transfer (Grossman, 2005). Increased self-efficacy of PSTs was evidenced in Figure 1 and key ...
PSTs articulated support for Micro-teaching 2.0 and its capacity to improve their confidence and preparedness for real classroom contexts. Some offered examples of its usefulness:
The lesson I planned for Micro-teaching 2.0 was the best lesson I had on placement.
Staying abreast of technological advances that support learning and teaching is essential as a future teacher.
Time to simply talk to a group of children because not all of us have experience with kids.
We talk about Socratic questioning but until you engage with children it doesn’t really sink in.
These comments resonate with Peterson’s (2014) call for practising, responding and initiating conversations with children as part of ITE programs.
Limitations
Whilst the authors acknowledge the limitations of self-reporting, such as bias, selective recall, question phrasing and social desirability responses, they have tried to mitigate against these limitations by including observations of simulated experie...
Conclusion
References