155 Research Article 2023 41(1): 155-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Published by the UFS http://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/pie © Creative Commons With Attribution (CC-BY) Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Abstract Due to the emergence of Covid-19, many educators moved from a face-to-face teaching environment to an online microteaching setting using Zoom. This study explores pre-service teachers’ perspectives on microteaching within Zoom’s breakout rooms. The authors approached this study from a positivist-postpositivist perspective employing a mixed-methods methodology. The exploratory sequential mixed-method design employed here combines qualitative and quantitative data. Analysis entailed open coding of data from Zoom recordings and statistical analysis of a post-course survey. Convenience sampling of pre-service teachers (PSTs) from a teacher education teaching method course provided the data sets. Findings indicate that microteaching activities within breakout rooms facilitated an environment where pre-service teachers engaged and conversed with peers while developing teaching skills. PSTs valued breakout room interactions, though males and females valued different aspects. Finally, although the findings suggest that microteaching in Zoom’s breakout rooms is effective, the findings indicate that the pre-service teachers desired a return to the classroom. This research extends previous research on online microteaching student experiences by providing recommendations regarding microteaching via video conferences. Keywords: Breakout rooms; gender; microteaching; online teaching; teacher education; Zoom 1. Introduction COVID-19 sparked a wave of online teaching and learning as a quarter of all Canadian post-secondary face-to- face courses were postponed or cancelled (Doreleyers & Knighton, 2020). The pandemic caused a wide range of educational impacts (Karakose, Polat & Papadakist, 2021), including the online transition, where educators demonstrated pedagogical agility (Kidd & Murray, 2020). All courses at the Canadian university where this study occurred moved online. As a result, a videoconferencing platform distributed the course content for the teacher education course described here, and Zoom’s breakout rooms became the site for student microteaching activities. While the migration online is intriguing, the impetus for the current investigation came when the instructor reorganised the breakout room student groups. When the professor AUTHOR: Dr Tim Buttler1 Jacob Scheurer1 AFFILIATION: 1Burman University, Canada DOI: https://doi.org/10.38140/ pie.v41i1.6176 e-ISSN 2519-593X Perspectives in Education 2023 41(1): 155-179 PUBLISHED: 31 March 2023 RECEIVED: 8 September 2022 ACCEPTED: 6 March 2022 Research Article https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11341 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9152-0823 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1562023 41(1): 156-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) announced the change, the students instantly objected, saying, “These are our friends!” and “Don’t change our groups!” Had these previously unconnected students developed friendships in a virtual classroom? Although students forced online because of COVID-19 frequently experienced social isolation (Joia & Lorenzo, 2021), the professor of this course observed what appeared to be friendship formation – the dissonance between the researcher’s expectations and the experiences of the PSTs’ stimulated this study. The authors began speculating about students’ perceptions of education and microteaching via videoconferencing. Face-to-face teacher education method courses employ microteaching practices to facilitate pre-service teacher pedagogical development. Microteaching requires PSTs to plan, practice, and reflect on their teaching practices. The value of this teaching practice has been long established; microteaching effectively facilitates PSTs’ mastery of several basic teaching skills (Arifmiboy, 2019). During the pandemic, microteaching continued, despite the significant difficulties of moving online (Bodis, Reed & Kharchenko, 2020; Helda & Zaim, 2021). Previous studies have investigated online learning and microteaching (Bodis et al., 2020; Kelleci, Kuaksiz & Pala, 2018; Ledger & Fischetti, 2020; Pham, 2022), and pertinent to this paper, the use of breakout rooms for microteaching has been examined (Ng, 2022; Zalavra & Makri, 2022). Often examined are the challenges and implications of relocating microteaching practices online (Moralista et al., 2022; Zalavra & Makri, 2022). The challenges include technology issues (Aboagye, Yawson & Appiah, 2021), technology and class process logistics (Mseleku, 2020), isolation of students (Song, 2022), and the emotional impact of moving online (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). Post-pandemic educators in general (Ewing, 2021; Xie, Siau & Nah, 2020) and specifically teacher educators (Assunção Flores & Gago, 2020; La Velle et al., 2020) are grappling with the long-term impacts of altered teaching practices during the pandemic. Is COVID-19 a watershed moment in initial teacher education (ITE) and for pre-service teachers? Although the pandemic “shook the very fabric of education” (Harris & Jones, 2020: 243), answering this question largely depends on how ITE reacts post-pandemic. Many education researchers contend that COVID-19 accelerated academic changes (Kaur & Bhatt, 2020; Lee & Han, 2021; Zhu & Liu, 2020), while others view COVID-19 as a short-term crisis (Zhao, 2020) and are working to return to the status quo (Kaur & Bhatt, 2020). Although some individuals and educational institutions resist, the majority of research suggests that the face of education has undergone a seismic transformation (United Nations, 2020). COVID-19 stimulated extremely rapid changes in ITE, the implications of which might persist long beyond the present decade. Despite the speed of the lockdowns, virtualisation occurred quickly in ITE programmes. Educators quickly adopted a rich repertoire of teaching practices (Zalavra & Makri, 2022) that continue to impact ITE programmes post-pandemic (La Velle et al., 2020). Current trends indicate that online transition will continue in many academic domains post-pandemic (Palvia et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2020). However, ITE faces various institutional, teacher, and student-related issues that block online programmes’ effective introduction and growth. Examples include a lack of understanding of online pedagogy and online learning styles (Kentnor, 2015), faculty resistance to change (Gratz & Looney, 2020), student isolation from peers and professors (Palvia et al., 2018), and increased inequality (Gillis & Krull, 2020; Irwin et al., 2021). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1572023 41(1): 157-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom While there is a growing demand for more online programmes (Irwin et al., 2021), given the obstacles, appropriate planning and execution of best practices and innovative solutions are required for post-secondary programmes to launch and grow effectively (Johnston, 2021). If ITE programmes offer courses online, they must leverage new technology to boost student learning beyond face-to-face sessions rather than dilute the content. Therefore, we argue that examining online teaching and learning is critical for quality ITE in the future. Zhao (2020: 1) makes an audacious proposal for schools to “reimagine and recreate human institutions”. COVID-19 provided a critical opportunity for education scholars to pause, analyse, and envision disruptive innovation in education (Kaur & Bhatt, 2020). In this space, Zhao and Watterston (2021) suggest rethinking teaching and learning in education. Examining all aspects of education goes beyond the scope of this paper. This project focuses on how microteaching via videoconferencing can impact teacher education. Traditionally, ITE occurs face-to-face in a classroom, but teacher education became open to new perspectives, including videoconferencing, when forced online during the pandemic. As online courses continue to increase, ITE must ensure the quality of these courses meets the needs of PSTs. This study is unique, because it used a mixed-methods research design to investigate microteaching in Zoom’s breakout rooms within a Canadian context. We chose this design to broaden and deepen our investigation and improve the study’s potential to inform ITE of positive pedagogical options. In what follows, the literature review examines online learning before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. A methodology section describes the mixed-methods research design, followed by the data analysis sections and the findings regarding PSTs’ interaction and perception of microteaching in Zoom’s breakout rooms. Finally, the discussion examines how COVID-19 has presented an opportunity to change initial teacher education in response to PSTs’ perceptions and the changing educational environment. 2. Literature Review Online learning pre-COVID-19 pandemic Distance learning has a documented history of almost 300 years; however, in the late 1990s, distance learning proliferated along with the development of online technology (Kentnor, 2015). Clark and Mayer (2016) define online learning as education offered on a digital device designed to aid learning. Despite the early conviction that the internet would displace conventional in-person education (O’Donoghue et al., 2001; Platt, Amber & Yu, 2014), online courses have not replaced in-person education. Instead, the acceptance that physical and online courses can coexist evolved (Fuller, 2021). However, online courses are frequently structured to mirror in-person courses (Gierdowski, 2019; Hodges et al., 2020; Pomerantz & Brooks, 2020). Under the banner of blended learning, several forms of teaching developed (Horn & Staker, 2014). Blended learning systems merge face-to-face classroom learning experiences with computer-mediated (online) learning experiences (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2006). Self-paced learning activities and customised learning paths for individual students are two benefits offered online, supporting out-of-class activities and individualised feedback (Castro, 2019). Significantly, Müller and Mildenberger’s (2021) meta-analysis suggests that only minor differences appear in learning outcomes between blended and traditional classroom learning. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1582023 41(1): 158-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) The well-established practices of blended teaching and learning have acted as a guide for many virtual learning instructional delivery combinations (Alammary et al., 2014). Yet, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new form of blended learning arose (Fuller, 2021). This form of blended learning is entirely online and combines online synchronous (real-time interactions) and online asynchronous (independent self-paced) activities using videoconferencing and learning management systems. Videoconferencing is a synchronous technology that has expanded inside and outside education during the last fifteen years due to increased online visual and nonverbal communication (Pearl, 1992). Videoconferencing supports various settings, ranging from large-audience live video lectures to point-to-point individual-to-individual discussions (Coventry, 1995). Online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic Prior to COVID-19, online teaching and learning were integral to higher education (Rahayu, 2020); yet the pandemic triggered an outbreak of distance teaching and learning. Schools quickly adopted diverse educational delivery methods, including television, radio, internet, and traditional postal office services (Schleicher, 2020). Teachers and students’ routines were disrupted, causing them to flock to online learning platforms and instant messaging apps (Grooms & Childs, 2021). This move put students in new territory, especially those consistently avoiding independent and self-directed learning (Kaur & Bhatt, 2020). The idea of attending courses through videoconferencing and completing work without the physical supervision of lecturers did not appeal to many pupils (Goldstein, Popescu & Hannah-Jones, 2020). Nevertheless, some students were ready for virtual learning (Hung et al., 2010). Many educational scholars use the phrase emergency remote teaching (Buttler, George & Bruggemann, 2021; Cheng, Fu & Druckenmiller, 2016; Ferri, Grifoni & Guzzo, 2020) to capture the nature of change in the early phases of the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, the emergency shift in education delivery produced challenges – teaching online during the pandemic was not a panacea. Studies addressed the technical obstacles, particularly in the context of students who experienced network instability and constraints (Xie et al., 2020) or lacked the technological aptitude for navigating the online world (Aboagye et al., 2021; Eun, Shim & Lee, 2020; Gillis & Krull, 2020; Mseleku, 2020; Trust & Whalen, 2020). Students from remote areas and low-income households experienced significant difficulties (Mseleku, 2020), while those with strong technical skills benefited substantially in an online environment (Aguilera- Hermida, 2020). Regardless of the barriers created due to COVID-19, online learning allowed for teaching and learning to continue (Ferri et al., 2020). In light of the COVID-19 outbreak and possible future crises, many educational institutions are investigating replacing part or all of their in-person courses with online alternatives (Peters et al., 2022). For example, during the pandemic, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) worked to aid educational systems with a forward- looking focus. By looking to the future, “actions now being taken to ensure the effectiveness of distance learning will lay a solid foundation for more technology-enhanced pedagogical innovations, more open and flexible learning environments, and a more vibrant education system” (UNESCO, 2020: 6). Thus, the emergency shift online provided a path for continued online education post-pandemic (Fuller, 2021). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1592023 41(1): 159-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Post-pandemic education As noted earlier, teachers altered their pedagogy during the pandemic to some degree. One change of note is how they assessed student progress; removing assignments, changing evaluation procedures, providing flexibility in assessment (Johnston, 2021), extending assignment completion deadlines (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes & Garrison, 2013), and creating alternative assessment methods (Almossa, 2021). Many educators provided increased student choice in learning assessments while delivering experiences involving meaningful application of newly learned skills and knowledge (Conrad & Openo, 2018). Some of these pedagogical adjustments will outlive the pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, numerous distribution technologies will continue to be employed in education (Lockee, 2020); for example, videoconferencing. With these new technologies, a new suite of issues has entered education (Oducado et al., 2022), including videoconferencing exhaustion, which some have termed Zoom fatigue (Fauville et al., 2021; Nadler, 2020). Nevertheless, mindful of future educational crises, many institutions have investigated replacing part or all of their classroom education with an online learning environment (Peters et al., 2022; Saichaie, 2020). While many pandemic education changes were forced, Luthra and Mackenzie (2020) contend that as a result, a worldwide fundamental cascading shift in how teaching and learning are performed is occurring. In this space, this paper responds to Zhao’s (2020) challenge to reimagine education by investigating moving microteaching in ITE online. Zoom and breakout rooms During the pandemic, educators quickly accepted Zoom as an online educational tool of choice, for it is simple and trustworthy. Zoom’s internet software links and engages individuals through videoconferencing technology. Among the features and services available via Zoom are audio and video recording, annotation, closed caption, polling, private rooms, and screen sharing. The ITE programme where this research occurred chose to use a videoconferencing service that facilitates students’ and instructors’ real-time online communication. Zoom met this need. This decision was critical, as synchronous interactions improve human exchanges during online learning (Rahayu, 2020). Zoom frees time to focus on forming relationships with students, devising novel ways to illustrate the subject’s relevance, and inspiring students to produce their best work (Sutterlin, 2018). Breakout rooms are a critical aspect of the Zoom software platform. These virtual spaces enable instructors to place students in private rooms where they may engage in distinct group interactions before returning to the primary classroom. Some educators found that breakout rooms encouraged students to participate in “more in-depth conversations than they had before [using breakout rooms]” (Álvarez, 2020: 113). Zalavra (2022) concludes that breakout rooms supported standard teaching practices (lectures and assessments) while supporting pedagogy such as cooperation and collaboration. In this research, PSTs populated seven breakout rooms (three to four per room), where each student conducted 10-minute lessons utilising teaching approaches explored earlier in the semester. In addition to pedagogical development, the designers of this course hoped that the use of breakout rooms would encourage positive interactions. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1602023 41(1): 160-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Online microteaching Microteaching, a well-established ITE practice, combines situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and reflective practice (Schön, 1983). Microteaching requires PSTs to plan, “practise, rehearse and reflect on action…often delivered within a role-play context for real-time feedback and reflection” (Ledger & Fischetti, 2020: 37). While some education scholars lament that “the forced online transition heavily compromised the vividness of microteaching – a technique inherently connected to face-to- face interaction” (Zalavra & Makri, 2022: 270), many researchers identified positive aspects of online microteaching (Bodis et al., 2020; Kelleci et al., 2018; Ledger & Fischetti, 2020; Pham, 2022). For example, the essential features of microteaching, self-reflective and critical thinking, are facilitated online (Kusmawan, 2017). Also, other educators found that relocating the course “online did not influence the ‘essence’ of the course and its main goal, which was to immerse in microteaching, under the strong effect of roleplay” (Zalavra & Makri 2022: 281). Microteaching in breakout rooms While multiple researchers assert that online microteaching is effective (Zalavra & Makri, 2022), others examine using Zoom for microteaching activities (Maguire, 2021; Roza, 2021), yet few explore the impact of microteaching in breakout rooms. Literature on breakout room microteaching includes the challenges faced (Hodges et al., 2020; Zalavra & Makri, 2022), PSTs’ successful use of breakout rooms (Ng, 2022), and specific learning contexts, including an English communication course (Lee, 2021) and peer mentoring (Tutyandari, Anandari & Ardi, 2022). Significantly, Budin et al. (2021) assert that breakout room microteaching is a high-leverage practice. The current literature examining microteaching in breakout rooms suggests that PSTs are satisfied with learning to teach in this learning environment. This study aims to add depth to understanding this positive perception in PSTs. Theoretical perspective and framework The authors of this study employed a positivist-interpretivism perspective, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. The interpretivist paradigm facilitates depth development through seeking experiences and perceptions of a particular social context. In contrast, the positivist paradigm focuses on the search for facts and causes, developing general findings through statistical analysis. Research focused on either qualitative or quantitative approaches has strengths and weaknesses. A third option, a mixed-methods methodology, aims to take advantage of the strengths of both methods. Choy (2014) argues that complementary studies may provide superior results than either research methodology. This multifaceted research approach is reflected in Creswell and Plano-Clark’s (2017) description of mixed-methods approaches, which generally favour using multiple paradigms. Nevertheless, pragmatism is the most commonly reflected paradigmatic stance in mixed-methods literature (Alise & Teddlie, 2010). A pragmatic perspective is also evident in this paper, as the concluding sections suggest the practical application of the findings. Our pragmatic stance brought the authors to Northrup’s (2009) framework. Northrup identified four attributes of online learning that students perceive to be essential. These attributes are “content interaction, conversation and collaboration, intrapersonal/metacognitive skills, and https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1612023 41(1): 161-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom need for support” (Northrup, 2009: 465). Northrup defines the attribute of content interaction as a mixture of individualised activities, guided activities, and learning from presentations. The conversations and collaborations attribute includes peer discussions, sharing ideas with peers, and teaming with partners. The third attribute, intrapersonal/metacognitive, includes students monitoring their progress, structuring online time, employing advanced organisers, and using notetaking guides. The final attribute, support, includes timeliness of response, corresponding with the instructor, and peer advice. Northrup (2009) suggests that further studies should investigate learners’ perceptions of the online learning environment and instructional strategies. Our study responds to this guidance by examining the learning environment of Zoom’s breakout rooms and the instructional strategy of microteaching. 3. Research question Against the COVID-19 pandemic backdrop, this study seeks to answer the question: What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of microteaching in Zoom’s breakout rooms? 4. Research design and methodology The setting for this research is an education course that introduces PSTs to the curriculum and teaching methods of primary mathematics. This course examines and applies pedagogical concepts and strategies for effective mathematics education. During and after this course, qualitative and quantitative data for the current project were collected and analysed using a mixed-methods exploratory sequential design (Creswell, 2012; Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Harrison, Reilly & Creswell, 2020). The collection and analysis of qualitative data initiate this style of mixed-method research. The data collected during the qualitative phase inform the development and analysis of data from a quantitative instrument (Creswell, 2012). This two-phase design enhances and deepens the understanding of the researcher. Typically, this form of mixed-methods research concludes with interpreting the quantitative data. Additional data collection occurred in this study as three PSTs consented to interviews following the university semester. Convenience sampling of these students occurred; these three remained on campus after their final examinations. This accessory step deepened our study by allowing the participants to validate the findings through a “member checking process” (Creswell, 2012: 259). The PTSs confirmed the results of our study and added comments during a non-structured interview. Following the above description, Figure 1 illustrates the methodology employed. Figure 1: Exploratory sequential mixed-methods design (Modified from sources: Creswell, 2012; Harrison et al., 2020) https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1622023 41(1): 162-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Human interactions are complex; thus, researchers are frequently compelled to analyse interactions in breadth and depth, a problem to which mixed-methods research is well suited (Creswell, 2012). One advantage of the exploratory sequential design is that the survey is based on the information gathered from PSTs. Instead of addressing the research questions with pre-set survey items, this study observed the microteaching activities and then designed a questionnaire to better understand breakout room efficiency during a crisis. Research setting and participants This study was conducted at a small Western Canadian university using convenience sampling of third-year PSTs in a curriculum and instruction mathematics course. The course comprised one semester, 26 virtual sessions (23 involving breakout rooms) of 80 minutes. All Zoom video recordings were analysed. Interactions of students who did not consent to the study were ignored, and pseudonyms were used for participants throughout the research process. Of the 26 PSTs in this course, 93% participated in the research. The PSTs varied in age from 19 to 40 years old. Data collection and analysis process First, all Zoom recordings for this course were collected and reviewed. The 80-minute class periods were recorded, as well as 15 minutes prior to and after the class period. Identifying and categorising interactions became the focus of the qualitative data analysis. Additionally, representative and meaningful participant quotes were recorded at this time. Next, the categorisations and quotes facilitated the creation of a 30-item questionnaire (Twenty- eight closed-response, Likert-like items, and two open-response items). Survey Monkey® distributed the questionnaire and collected the responses. The survey of participants was designed to examine PSTs’ perceptions of their online experience. Qualitative data collection and analysis process The first phase of this study included gathering and interpreting data from Zoom digital recordings (observed interactions). The analysis established the types and frequencies of PSTs interactions. Each interaction’s length and frequency were recorded (rounded to the minute). Both authors completed the coding process, analysed the inconsistencies, and reached a consensus. Northrup’s (2009) components of online student interactions became the initial lens for data analysis. After reviewing three recordings, the authors agreed on the codes used to analyse all Zoom recordings. The codes included casual conversation (non-content discussion), support requests (between peers or between PSTs and the professor), collaboration (peer and instructor discussion and feedback), and content interaction (e.g. microteaching). Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) coding methodologies were used for data analysis and interpretation. Their guidance helped construct the preassigned coding categories from Northup’s (2009) critical online interactions. Table 1 shows one example for each code. Student questions and peer and/or instructor responses were also identified. Nonetheless, only significant interactions (those lasting more than 30 seconds) were examined. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1632023 41(1): 163-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Table 1: Coding examples of observational data from video recordings Date & time of recording Code Description of interaction 2-2-2021 0:00 – 2:55 minutes Casual Conversation Conversations between the instructor and the PSTs began before class and continued into the class session. 2-2-2021 2:55 – 6:35 minutes Request for Support Multiple PSTs asked for assistance regarding lesson plan requirements. 2-2-2021 6:35 – 9:55 minutes Collaboration PST collaborated to select the materials and organise the presentation style for their upcoming microteaching assignments. 2-2-2021 25:25 – 37:20 minutes Content interaction Microteaching. A PSTs instructed their small group (counting to 10 with visual representations) Quantitative data collection and analysis process The second phase of this study addressed the research question by collecting data via an online survey. Although the microteaching occurred in the breakout rooms, aligning qualitative and quantitative data required questionnaire items that addressed the general interactions within Zoom. These questions examining interactions outside the breakout rooms added to the richness of the data collected. Thus, the survey questions probe students’ perceptions of 1) interaction within Zoom between PSTs and the professor (Table 4), 2) general interaction among PSTs (Table 5), and 3) microteaching interactions within breakout rooms (Table 6). In addition, PSTs’ perceptions regarding face-to-face vs Zoom interactions were collected. Table 2 contains the questionnaire items that probed the PSTs’ perceptions of their interactions in breakout rooms. For the complete questionnaire, see Buttler and Scheurer (2022). The first part of the quantitative analysis examined the percentage of respondents who agreed or disagreed with each survey item statement. Further analysis involved IBM’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Two analyses were conducted; Cronbach’s alpha measured the internal consistency of the breakout room survey items, and Pearson correlations (measurement of the covariance) examined the correlation between PSTs’ breakout room items responses and all other survey items. Member check of findings The final step of data collection occurred post-course. Three PSTs consented to interviews regarding their microteaching experiences via Zoom. The primary purpose of these interviews was to check the validity of our findings. The findings were presented to the PSTs, and non- structured questions were asked, encouraging the PSTs to evaluate the study’s findings. The 10-15 minute interviews occurred in the student lounge, a room for casual student interactions within this university’s School of Education building. 5. Findings The current work focuses on PSTs’ perceptions of microteaching via Zoom’s breakout rooms. What follows is a summary of qualitative data (video recordings and PTSs interviews) organised by the codes developed from Northrup’s (2009) components of online interactions, followed by an account of quantitative data (questionnaire results). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1642023 41(1): 164-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) A significant portion of the video data and transcripts of video recordings occurred in the general Zoom meeting area. Overall, PSTs passively interacted in the general area. That is, they watched what occurred on the main Zoom screen. In contrast, breakout room interactions revealed active, engaged PSTs. Each recorded session revealed PSTs participating in casual conversations and collaboration before and after microteaching activities. Nevertheless, the PSTs spent the most time conducting microteaching and providing feedback to peers (81% of the recorded time). Casual conversations At the beginning of the term, the professor predominately initiated non-content, casual conversations. The first pre-service teacher interviewed (PST1) summarises their reluctance, “In a classroom, we can move around and talk to different groups. This [freedom to move] is not the case with virtual meetings, especially in terms of breakout rooms where people are virtually separated” (PST1, spring 2021). Nevertheless, PST1 described a change in interactions halfway through the semester, “later on, there was a desire to communicate… and we even managed to form bonds that we were reluctant to part with once new [breakout room] groups were assigned” (PST1, spring 2021). Requests for support Requests for support were the least common interaction. Students rarely sought assistance with a problem that would take more than a minute to resolve. Almost two-thirds of these conversations involved the clarification of class topics, while the remaining third dealt with technological concerns. Nevertheless, several PSTs reported internet outages and bandwidth issues, especially those who lived in rural areas or households where multiple individuals participated in online education. Collaborations The video recordings showed collaboration occurring following each microteaching session lasting an average of five minutes. PST3 reported that online collaboration reflected in-person collaboration, stating, “[in-person] collaboration normally only happens in the classroom, or in allotted times groups decide to meet outside of class to get work done together. Very little has changed between face-to-face meetings and Zoom in that regard” (PST3, Spring 2021). Nevertheless, PST3 pointed out that the breakout room groups often became silent once the assigned tasks and collaboration were completed; the “dead time” was awkward. Content interactions Two types of content interaction occurred in the breakout rooms: professor-led and student- led. The professor-led interactions involved discussion-based activities that probed PSTs’ opinions and reasoning. The time-intensive microteaching lessons dominated the student- led PSTs content interactions revealing prepared, passionate presenters. Although the video data showed compliant presenters and “students,” PST2 described a unique issue experienced in breakout rooms during microteaching. “Speaking from personal experience … engagement can be far more difficult in an online-only setting than a face-to-face one. There are potentially far fewer distractions in a classroom, and the ‘teacher’ can usually clearly see what their ‘students” attention is focused on. This is not the case in an online- only environment” (PST2, Spring 2021). PST2 admitted to surfing the web while their peers presented a microteaching lesson. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1652023 41(1): 165-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom As noted earlier, the questionnaire contains items examining video conferencing aspects beyond microteaching. Table 1 includes the questionnaire items specific to the current research. Table 2: Questionnaire data on interactions in Zoom’s breakout room Item Questionnaire item SD/D SA/A 19 In BoRs, I could easily converse with my classmates. 5% 84% 20 I was comfortable meeting with my peers in BoRs. 16% 84% 21 I regularly engaged with my peers in our BoRs. 5% 90% 22 I believe the time spent with my peers using BoRs was valuable. 0% 100% 25 I collaborated with my classmates by doing group work in BoRs. 16% 84% 26 I participated in lessons [in BoRs] that used Zoom’s whiteboard/ shared screen. 5% 79% 27 During the BoR conversations, my classmates and I discussed aspects of teaching practices. 0% 100% 28 I became effective using Zoom’s BoRs. 11% 84% Note. Table 1 data are rounded to the nearest whole number (BoRs = breakout rooms, SD/D = aggregate percent of strongly disagree and disagree responses, and SA/A = aggregate percent of strongly agree and agree responses. Neutral responses are not noted. Overall, PSTs perceived breakout rooms positively; 84% of respondents felt comfortable and could easily communicate with peers in breakout rooms. In addition, 90% of the PSTs engaged with their peers in breakout rooms regularly, while 84% collaborated with classmates during group work. Finally, 100% of the respondents discussed their teaching practices and believed the time spent with peers in breakout rooms was valuable. The subsequent data analysis used IBM’s SPSS software. First, the reliability of the breakout room items was determined. Cronbach’s alpha (α) measures the internal consistency of parallel instrument items developed to measure a target. Cronbach’s alpha is regarded as a scale dependability metric. A generally accepted rule is that an α of 0.6–0.7 indicates an acceptable level of reliability, and 0.8 or greater is very good. Cronbach’s alpha for the breakout room interaction items (#19, #20, #21, #22, #25, #26, #27, and #28) is .789. Questionnaire items #23 and #24 did not examine breakout room interactions. An α of .789 suggests that the eight questionnaire items measure the same thing—in this case, PSTs breakout room perceptions. Table 2 illustrates that these items demonstrate internal consistency and that removing an item does not improve the alpha significantly. Table 3: Reliability analysis Item 19 Item 20 Item 21 Item 22 Item 25 Item 26 Item 27 Item 28 Alpha, if this item is deleted .743 .757 .759 .782 .795 .839 .839 .783 Further analysis of the questionnaire data was conducted using SPSS to explore the correlation between PSTs’ breakout room responses and their perceptions of online interaction. Table 3 shows the eight breakout room item correlations with ten professor communication items. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1662023 41(1): 166-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Table 4: PSTs’ Breakout room perceptions and professor interactions Professor interaction Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 P S Ts b re ak ou t r oo m p er ce pt io ns Item 19 .292 .510 * .222 .671** .529* -.440 .701** -.287 .300 .388 Item 20 .386 .504* .224 .613** .522* -.349 .650** -.282 .408 .327 Item 21 .183 .292 .101 .423 .388 -.487* .494* -.096 .530* .281 Item 22 .217 .416 -.182 .254 .306 -.098 .213 .151 .201 .236 Item 25 .219 .348 .056 .151 .127 -.564* -.068 .390 .207 .339 Item 26 .270 -.039 .269 -.068 .102 .130 .183 .031 -.116 .513* Item 27 .338 .410 .542* .257 .383 -.565* .015 .036 .084 .269 Item 28 .497* .450 .190 .513* .480* -.107 .615** -.147 .156 .691** Note: Table 3 contains Pearson Correlation data, **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), and *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). All but one PSTs breakout room perception items correlate with one or multiple professor interaction items (Table 3), suggesting the professor’s interaction with the PSTs impacted breakout room perceptions. Three professor interaction items (4, 7 & 10) demonstrate highly significant positive correlations with three breakout room items (19, 20 & 28). PSTs felt at ease meeting and conversing with their peers in breakout rooms (Items 19 and 20), highly correlated with comprehension of lessons, and feely corresponded with the professor via text (Items 4 and 7). Item 28 (My use of breakout rooms was effective) also demonstrated a highly significant correlation with Item 7 and Item 9 (I readily communicated with the professor via written correspondence, and technical difficulties did not impede my understanding of the material or the professor). Item 6 (In face-to-face lessons, access to course material is more manageable than via Zoom) negatively correlated with three items (21, 25, & 27). These breakout room items examined comfortable peer interactions, peer collaborations, and peer discussion of teaching practices. Item 8 (Face-to-face meetings facilitated more efficient and effective student-professor interactions compared to online meetings) is the one non-significant professor interaction item. This lack of correlation suggests that the PSTs found breakout room interactions with peers more impactful than interactions with their professors. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1672023 41(1): 167-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Table 5: PSTs’ perceptions and general peer interactions in Zoom Zoom peer interactions Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Item 17 Item 18 P S Ts b re ak ou t r oo m p er ce pt io n Item 19 .341 .561* .396 -.332 .277 .299 .019 -.533* Item 20 .267 .362 .341 -.334 .313 .350 .142 -.520* Item 21 .499* .485* .232 -.184 .508* .460* .113 -.402 Item 22 .413 .416 -.038 .396 .319 .321 .149 -.352 Item 25 .212 .421 -.066 .459* .392 .307 .174 -.248 Item 26 -.532* -.082 .067 .067 .144 -.004 .283 -.209 Item 27 .070 .429 .368 -.043 .281 .365 .218 -.421 Item 28 -.240 .656** .149 .000 .222 .139 .198 -.394 Note: Table 4 contains Pearson Correlation data, **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), and *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). PSTs’ perception of general Zoom interactions with their peers (Table 4) impacted their perception of breakout rooms. Highly significant positive correlations suggest that Zoom interactions allowed them to develop teaching skills, connect with peers, and build friendships. The significant negative correlations reflected technical aspects of Zoom: the digital whiteboard and chat format. The data suggest that many PSTs did not perceive Zoom’s digital whiteboard as practical. This perception may have resulted from the timing of when instruction was provided. Halfway through the course, the professor demonstrated Zoom’s digital whiteboard. The second negative correlation occurred with PSTs’ chat preference (text chat is more comfortable than video chat) and comfortable, accessible peer communication. These respondents perceived video chat as the preferred communication medium over text chat. Table 6: PSTs’ perceptions – Peer interactions within breakout rooms Breakout room peer interaction Item 19 Item 20 Item 21 Item 22 Item 23 Item 25 Item 26 Item 27 Item 28 P S Ts b re ak ou t r oo m p er ce pt io n Item 19 1 .856** .661** .527* .533* .343 -.095 .340 .467* Item 20 .856** 1 .597** .413 .404 .172 .138 .398 .325 Item 21 .661** .597** 1 .460* .453 .423 -.034 .404 .240 Item 22 .527* .413 .460* 1 .483* .491* -.214 .108 .418 Item 25 .343 .172 .423 .491* .304 1 -.127 .349 .126 Item 26 -.095 .138 -.034 -.214 -.085 -.127 1 .182 .288 Item 27 .340 .398 .404 .108 .167 .349 .182 1 .264 Item 28 .467* .325 .240 .418 .459* .126 .288 .264 1 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1682023 41(1): 168-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Note: Table 5 contains Pearson Correlation data, **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), and *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The PSTs’ perception of interactions between peers within breakout rooms (Table 5) significantly impacted their perceptions of microteaching in breakout rooms. The highly significant correlated items suggest that PSTs regularly engaged with peers in breakout rooms, could easily converse with classmates, were comfortable meeting peers, and became effective using breakout rooms. Two breakout room peer interaction items did not correlate with any other breakout room interaction item. The data suggest that Zoom’s whiteboard/shared screen did not impact PSTs’ breakout room experiences. Also, peer conversations that specifically focused on aspects of teaching practices did not affect any interaction items. This response is interesting because 100% of the PSTs indicated that they discussed aspects of teaching within breakout rooms. Breakout rooms vs in-person setting The questionnaire data suggest that PSTs prefer in-person classes to lessons delivered via Zoom. Five questionnaire items investigate this perception (#6, #8, #14, #17, and #24). Delving deeper, an aggregate of the results for these questions was created, allowing for the investigation of the factors influencing PSTs’ perceptions of course delivery. SPSS identified significant correlations between this aggregated variable and the remaining questionnaire items. Table 6 displays these correlations separated by male and female responses (gender identified via course registration). Table 7: Course delivery impact (online vs in-person) Ite m 2 Ite m 4 Ite m 7 Ite m 9 Ite m 1 0 Ite m 1 1 Ite m 1 2 Ite m 1 9 Ite m 2 0 Ite m 2 1 Ite m 2 2 Ite m 2 5 Ite m 2 8 Fe m al e .6 24 * .4 59 .5 85 * .1 18 .8 87 ** -.1 40 .6 73 * .7 77 ** .7 77 ** .7 77 ** .6 53 * .6 44 * .7 67 * M al e .4 61 .9 71 ** .5 04 .9 03 * -.7 33 .8 93 * .5 42 .9 71 ** .8 85 * .8 72 .8 07 .7 21 .6 77 Note: Table 6 contains Pearson Correlation data, **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), and *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). For female PSTs, multiple items significantly correlate with the course delivery aggregate. Although these include effective communication with the professor and minor technical issues, most items involve peer interaction. The course delivery aggregate correlates strongly with five interaction items for male PSTs. The significant correlations included understanding the course content, a sense that their efforts were valued, brief conversations prior to class, and comfortable interactions in breakout rooms. The male response suggests the desire for agency, or as Trede and Jackson (2021) explain, a desire for self-efficacy or the belief that one can do something and make a difference. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1692023 41(1): 169-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom 6. Discussion Distance learning (Kentnor, 2015), online education (Soon, 2011), and blended learning (Fuller, 2021) have a significant documented history. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, literature described blended learning as a combination of computer-mediated (often online) and in-person education (Graham, 2006). The new form of blended learning examined in this research occurred entirely online. PSTs used an asynchronous learning management system to access learning materials and submit assignments while interacting synchronously during microteaching activities. Recent technological innovations made online educational delivery available for blended learning within this study. Nevertheless, various technologies have enabled schools to provide online education for quite some time, resulting in a continual increase in students enrolled in online courses (Palvia et al., 2018). This increased demand for online education has impacted ITE in several ways, including increased course offerings (Irwin et al., 2021) and increased challenges relating to meeting PSTs’ needs (Zalavra & Makri, 2022). As a result of the increased online presence in ITE, we argue that examining multiple online education experiences will provide a deeper understanding and enhance future ITE programmes. For example, Moorhouse and Wong (2022) suggest that ITE programmes should provide opportunities for PSTs to develop online teaching practices to prepare future teachers for online teaching. The course reported on here facilitated asynchronous and synchronous online experiences. Some literature suggests synchronous classes cause students distress and reduce student- teacher time (Dorn et al., 2020). Nevertheless, each participant in this study reported that time spent in Zoom’s breakout rooms was valuable, and most reported that they were happy with their interactions with the professor. Additionally, PSTs in this study reported developing teaching practices as they collaborated with classmates and formed personal connections. These positive results also seem at odds with other literature which report significant dropout numbers in online courses (Bañeres et al., 2023); all PSTs who began the course reported here completed the course. When examining relationship building, the participant responses in this study reflect the findings in the literature, i.e. relationship building is vital to successful online education experiences (Jenney, Straka & Walsh, 2021). These results confirm the importance ITE programmes should place on building positive instructor-student and student-student relationships within an online course. This study’s use of Zoom’s breakout rooms appeared to encourage positive interactions, perhaps because the virtual rooms facilitated instructor- student interactions not present in the general Zoom room where the entire class met (Vyas et al., 2022). Peer relationships also developed while PSTs worked together in breakout rooms. “As we became comfortable in breakout rooms, we began to open up to each other ... It is natural in human interaction, regardless of whether it is virtual or not” (PST3, Spring 2021). Breakout rooms also provided a space where PSTs reported they conducted necessary activities, including preparing lessons, practising teaching, conducting self-reflection, and engaging in peer feedback. It is possible that the positive feedback from the PSTs occurred because the breakout rooms provided a more personal student-teacher and student-student interaction. After all, the professor interacted with groups of four students instead of the entire class. Rather than passively experiencing a lecture and listening to general comments https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1702023 41(1): 170-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) regarding projects, the PSTs received customised counsel, advice, and assistance within a small-group setting. The breakout rooms also encouraged PSTs to participate actively in making decisions about their education process. Within this study, the data revealed that the PSTs appreciated the opportunities to make pedagogical decisions. PSTs valued the freedom to engage in microteaching and design their own collaboration processes inside breakout rooms. Although this was important for both genders, this aspect was especially significant for the males in this study. Overall, they appreciated the agency provided within the breakout room environment. This response is consistent with Billett’s (2011) assertion that student agency is necessary for effective learning experiences. PSTs used their agency as the breakout room microteaching experience began. They were given a general framework for guidance, yet each group developed group-specific processes and procedures. The decisions made by the PSTs reflect those required by in-service teachers, thus promoting the development of tacit teaching knowledge (Bodis et al., 2020; Boz & Belge-Can, 2020). Although the participants received the breakout microteaching positively, the PSTs’ desire to return to in-person education settings should not be overlooked. Was this a response to the pandemic and forced isolation, or was it a response to the medium, a form of Zoom fatigue (Nadler, 2020)? Examining microteaching using this new form of blended learning without the influence of COVID-19 would be enlightening. Will ITE make use of this delivery option in the future? The teacher certification body where this research occurred allowed for online curriculum and instruction (lived curriculum) courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, currently, purely online teacher education degrees are not accredited. 7. Conclusion The final data analysis reveals positive and significant correlations between breakout room items and PSTs’ interaction with their professor and peers. Highly significant positive correlations suggest that Zoom interactions allowed PSTs to develop teaching skills, connect with peers, and build friendships despite interacting only online. Within breakout rooms, where microteaching activities occurred, PSTs regularly engaged with peers, easily conversed with classmates, were comfortable meeting peers, and became effective using breakout rooms. Gender impacted the perception of microteaching in Zoom. Both genders were comfortable meeting peers and could easily converse in breakout rooms. Nevertheless, females prioritised connections with the professor and peers, whereas males focused more on course content and a desire to contribute during lessons. These findings suggest a significant distinction in perception between the genders. While the data reflect positively on microteaching in Zoom’s breakout rooms, individuals designing online courses should note that our findings suggest that the PSTs desired to return to the classroom. For example, although PSTs viewed online interactions with the professor positively, they found it more manageable and effective to access lesson materials and resources in face-to-face learning settings. Furthermore, although most PSTs indicated that they formed friendships while taking this course, a third of the PSTs indicated that they could not form strong friendships. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1712023 41(1): 171-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom In a rapidly evolving educational environment, COVID-19 has accelerated change and will continue to impact the next decade of online course delivery. As online education continues to increase, the quality of online courses must be enhanced. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic experiences, a fruitful model of a blend of online and face-to-face learning alternatives (Zhao & Watterston, 2021) has developed. Based on the findings above, Zoom breakout rooms provide an effective site for microteaching activities. Online education presents challenges yet to be overcome (Palvia et al., 2018). On the other hand, innovative solutions have evolved to give students and families the facilities and resources required to participate in and complete a curriculum when education is inaccessible (Darling-Hammond, Schachner & Edgerton, 2020). Concerning the focus of this paper, Zoom’s synchronous meeting platform increased accessibility to microteaching. The pandemic was the impetus; will we use this as a catalyst for lasting change? The ability to serve learners online has increased, and ITE programmes and teacher educators have an opportunity to listen to PSTs to incorporate relationship-building opportunities, facilitate student agency, and adjust for online gender preferences. Students will benefit from ITE programmes that reflect these online needs. Although this group of PSTs expressed a desire for in-person education, the financial benefits to post-secondary institutions and the increased demand for online courses revealed in education literature suggest that a complete return to the status quo is improbable. While online ITE is unlikely to become the norm soon, online ITE courses must continue to improve. As the movement toward online teacher education classrooms continues to grow, so should the knowledge base that supports the development of such courses and programmes. Given the challenges, effective online post-secondary programme launch and growth require significant planning and implementation of best practices and new solutions. Continued research is required to understand how online teacher education methods courses might effectively prepare PSTs to enter the profession. Many questions remain unanswered and significant research must occur before the impact of online teacher education programmes is fully understood. 8. Study limitation Response bias may have occurred during the data collection and analysis process. Self- report questions, such as those found in our surveys and non-structured interview questions, are especially vulnerable to this type of bias. The sample size of this study also limits the generalisations of the findings. Adding data from further iterations of this course would add statistical power. Declaration of interest statement This work received no specific grants from any funding sources, and the authors have no financial ties to or engagement with any organization. Ethical statement This research received approval from the University’s Ethics Board. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 1722023 41(1): 172-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) References Aboagye, E., Yawson, J. & Appiah, K. 2021. COVID-19 and E-learning: The challenges of students in tertiary institutions. Social Education Research, 1-8. Available at https://doi. org/10.37256/ser.122020422 [Accessed June 24, 2022]. Aguilera-Hermida, A.P. 2020. College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1: 100011. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011 [Accessed June 24, 2022]. Alammary, A., Sheard, J. & Carbone, A. 2014. Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4): 440-454. Available at https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.693 [Accessed July 4, 2022]. Alise, M. & Teddlie, C. 2010. A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2): 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805 Almossa, S.Y. 2021. University students’ perspectives toward learning and assessment during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6): 7163-7181. Available at https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10554-8 [Accessed Feb. 2, 2023]. Álvarez, D.O. 2020. Maximizing engagement between online and on-campus students via Zoom. The Wabash Center Journal on Teaching, 1(1): 113-113. Available at https://doi. org/10.31046/wabashcenter.v1i1.1495 [Accessed July 23, 2021]. Arifmiboy, A. 2019. Tadaluring microteaching: An effective learning model to develop basic teaching skills. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Dan Kejuruan, 25(1): 141-151. https://doi. org/10.21831/jptk.v25i1.23157 Assunção Flores, M. & Gago, M. 2020. Teacher education in times of COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: National, institutional and pedagogical responses. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4): 507-516. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1799709 [Accessed June 2, 2022]. Bañeres, D., Rodríguez-González, M., Guerrero-Roldán, A. & Cortadas, P. 2023. An early warning system to identify and intervene online dropout learners. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1): 1-25. Available at https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41239-022-00371-5 [Accessed January. 30, 2023]. Billett, S. 2011. Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences – Final report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Sydney. Bodis, A., Reed, M. & Kharchenko, Y. 2020. Microteaching in isolation: Fostering autonomy and learner engagement through VoiceThread. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(3): 1-12. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 2007. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Boz, Y. & Belge-Can, H. 2020. Do pre-service chemistry teachers’ collective pedagogical content knowledge regarding solubility concepts enhance after participating in a microteaching lesson study? Science Education International, 31(1): 29-40. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31. i1.4 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.122020422 https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.122020422 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.693 https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10554-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10554-8 https://doi.org/10.31046/wabashcenter.v1i1.1495 https://doi.org/10.31046/wabashcenter.v1i1.1495 https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v25i1.23157 https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v25i1.23157 https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1799709 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00371-5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00371-5 https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i1.4 https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i1.4 1732023 41(1): 173-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Budin, S., Hashey, A., Patti, A. & Rafferty, L. 2021. Translating high-leverage practices to remote environments: Tips for teacher educators. Journal of Special Education Preparation, 1(1): 25-35. Available at https://doi.org/10.33043/JOSEP.1.1.25-35 [Accessed July 5, 2022]. Buttler, T., George, D. & Bruggemann, K. 2021. Student input on the effectiveness of the shift to emergency remote teaching due to the COVID crisis: Structural equation modeling creates a more complete picture. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2(2): 100036. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100036 [Accessed May 21, 2021]. Buttler, T, & Scheurer, J. 2022. Breakout with Zoom: Mixed-methods research examining pre-service teachers’ perceptions of Breakout Room interactions. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 11(2): 1-18. Available at https://doi.org/10.5121/ ijite.2022.11201 [Accessed July 31, 2022]. Castro, R. 2019. Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4): 2523-2546. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019- 09886-3 [Accessed July 4, 2022]. Cheng, X., Fu, S. & Druckenmiller, D. 2016. Trust development in globally distributed collaboration: A case of US and Chinese mixed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(4): 978-1007. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1267521 [Accessed July 19, 2021]. Choy, L.T. 2014. The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4): 99-104. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-194399104 Clark, R., Mayer, R. 2016. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (4th ed). Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA. Conrad, D., & Openo, J. 2018. Assessment Strategies for Online Learning: Engagement and Authenticity. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/ aupress/9781771992329.01 Coventry, L. 1995. Video conferencing in higher education (pp. 1-50). Support Initiative for Multimedia Applications. Creswell, J. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Creswell, J.W. & Plano-Clark, V.L.P. 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A. & Edgerton, A.K. 2020. Restarting and reinventing school: Learning in the time of COVID and beyond. Learning Policy Institute. Available at http://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/restarting-reinventing-school-covid [Accessed June 6, 2022]. Doreleyers, A. & Knighton, T. 2020. COVID-19 Pandemic: Academic Impacts on Post- secondary Students in Canada. StatCan COVID-19: Data to Insights for a Better Canada. Statistics Canada. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.33043/JOSEP.1.1.25-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100036 https://doi.org/10.5121/ijite.2022.11201 https://doi.org/10.5121/ijite.2022.11201 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3 https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1267521 https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-194399104 https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771992329.01 https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771992329.01 http://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/restarting-reinventing-school-covid 1742023 41(1): 174-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. 2020. COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company. Available at https:// mck.co/3A9l5zm [May 30, 2022]. Eun, T., Shim, S. & Lee, Y. 2020. College students’ experience of emergency remote teaching due to Covid-2019. Children and Youth Services Review, 119: 105578. Available at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578 [Accessed June 24, 2022]. Ewing, L.-A. 2021. Rethinking higher education post COVID-19. In The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, Volume 1 (pp. 37-54). Singapore: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_3 Fauville, G., Luo, M., Muller Queiroz, A.C., Bailenson, J.N. & Hancock, J. 2021. Nonverbal mechanisms predict zoom fatigue and explain why women experience higher levels than men (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3820035). Social Science Research Network. Available at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3820035 [Accessed November 25, 2021]. Ferri, F., Grifoni, P. & Guzzo, T. 2020. Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency situations. Societies, 10(4): 1-18. Available at https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10040086 [Accessed June 6, 2022]. Fuller, L. 2021. Negotiating a new blend in blended learning: Research Roots. Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 24(1): 6. Garrison, D. & Kanuka, H. 2004. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2): 95-1005. Available at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 [Accessed July 4, 2022]. Gierdowski, D.C. 2019. ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Available at https://bit.ly/3KFRZNe [Accessed August 6, 2021]. Gillis, A. & Krull, L.M. 2020. COVID-19 remote learning transition in spring 2020: Class structures, student perceptions, and inequality in college courses. Teaching Sociology, 48(4): 283-299. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X20954263 [Accessed June 24, 2022]. Goldstein, D., Popescu, A. & Hannah-Jones, N. 2020. As school moves online, many students stay logged out. The New York Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/ coronavirus-schools-attendance-absent.html [Accessed June 1, 2022]. Graham, C. 2006. Blended learning systems. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, 1: 3-21. Gratz, E. & Looney, L. 2020. Faculty resistance to change: An examination of motivators and barriers to teaching online in higher education. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), 10(1): 1-14. Available at https://doi.org/10.4018/ IJOPCD.2020010101 [Accessed June 6, 2022]. Grooms, A.A. & Childs, J. 2021. “We need to do better by kids”: Changing routines in US schools in response to COVID-19 school closures. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 26(2): 135-156. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2021.1906 251 [Accessed July 4, 2022]. Harris, A. & Jones, M. 2020. COVID 19-school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4): 243-247. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.20 20.1811479 [Accessed May 31, 2022]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://mck.co/3A9l5zm https://mck.co/3A9l5zm https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_3 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3820035 https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10040086 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 https://bit.ly/3KFRZNe https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X20954263 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/coronavirus-schools-attendance-absent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/coronavirus-schools-attendance-absent.html https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2020010101 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2020010101 https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2021.1906251 https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2021.1906251 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479 1752023 41(1): 175-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T.M. & Creswell, J.W. 2020. Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4): 473-495. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819900585 [Accessed August 9, 2021]. Helda, T. & Zaim, M. 2021. Effectiveness of The Zoom meeting applications in micro teaching lectures in the pandemictime COVID-19. English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC) Proceedings, 4: 128-135. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, A. 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(1): 1-9. Horn, M.B. & Staker, H. 2014. Blended: Using descriptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Hung, M.-L., Chou, C., Chen, C.-H. & Own, Z.-Y. 2010. Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3): 1080-1090. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004 [Accessed June 1, 2022]. Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F. & Dilig, R. 2021. Report on the Condition of Education 2021 (NCES 2021-144). National Center for Education Statistics. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo [Accessed June 28, 2022]. Jenney, A., Straka, S. & Walsh, C.A. 2021. Responsible pedagogy during a pandemic: Teaching social work courses on interpersonal violence during COVID-19. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(4): 796-808. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.195773 9 [Accessed January 30, 2023]. Johnston, J.P. 2021. Distance education administrators starting online programmes in higher education: A case study of the tasks, processes, and challenges of change to e-learning. Theses and Dissertations-Education Sciences, 93. Available at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ edsc_etds/93 [Accessed June 28, 2022]. Joia, L.A. & Lorenzo, M. 2021. Zoom in, zoom out: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the classroom. Sustainability, 13(5): 1-19. Available at https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052531 [Accessed August 6, 2021]. Karakose, T., Polat, H. & Papadakis, S. 2021. Examining teachers’ perspectives on school principals’ digital leadership roles and technology capabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(23): 13448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448 Kaur, N. & Bhatt, M.S. 2020. The face of education and the faceless teacher post COVID-19. Horizon, 2, 39-48. Available at https://doi.org/10.37534/bp.jhssr.2020.v2.nS.id1030.p39 [Accessed May 31, 2022]. Kelleci, O., Kulaksiz, T. & Pala, F.K. 2018. The effect of social network-supported microteaching on teachers self-efficacy and teaching skills. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(2): 115-130. Available at https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet. v10i2.3456 [Accessed June 24, 2022]. Kentnor, H.E. 2015. Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1): 21-34. Kidd, W. & Murray, J. 2020. The Covid-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education in England: How teacher educators moved practicum learning online. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4): 542-558. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820 480 [Accessed June 24, 2022]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819900585 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004 https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1957739 https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1957739 https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edsc_etds/93 https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edsc_etds/93 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052531 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448 https://doi.org/10.37534/bp.jhssr.2020.v2.nS.id1030.p39 https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i2.3456 https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i2.3456 https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820480 https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820480 1762023 41(1): 176-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Kusmawan, U. 2017. Online microteaching: A multifaceted approach to teacher professional development. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 15(1): 42-56. La Velle, L., Newman, S., Montgomery, C. & Hyatt, D. 2020. Initial teacher education in England and the Covid-19 pandemic: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4): 596-608. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1803051 [Accessed June 2, 2022]. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situating learning in communities of practice. Cambridge University Press. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Accessed June 17, 2022]. Ledger, S. & Fischetti, J. 2020. Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1). Available at https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4561 [Accessed June 16, 2022]. Lee, A.R. 2021. Breaking through digital barriers: Exploring EFL students’ views of Zoom breakout room experiences. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 21(1): 510-524. Lee, J. & Han, S. 2021. The future of service post-COVID-19 pandemic, Volume 1: Rapid Adoption of Digital Service Technology (Vol. 1). Singapore: Springer Nature. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5 Lockee, B. (2020). Designing forward: Instructional design considerations for online learning in the COVID-19 context. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(3), 1-8. https://dx.doi. org/10.51869/93bl Luthra, P. & Mackenzie, S. 2020. 4 ways COVID-19 could change how we educate future generations. Available at https://bit.ly/3my47I5 [Accessed June 1, 2022]. Maguire, K.R. 2021. Preparing pre-service teacher for teaching post-pandemic: Reflections on how to adapt microteaching. Journal of Scholarly Engagement, 4(1): 6-16. Available at https://doi.org/10.9743/JSE.2021.4.1.2 [Accessed July 5, 2022]. Moorhouse, B. L., & Wong, K. M. (2022). Blending asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate remote learning. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8 Moralista, R.B., Oducado, R.M.F., Robles, B.R.G. & Rosano, D.A. 2022. Determinants of Zoom fatigue among graduate students of teacher education programme. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(13), 176-185. Available at https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet. v17i13.31511 [Accessed January 30, 2023]. Mseleku, Z. 2020. A literature review of E-learning and E-teaching in the era of Covid-19 pandemic. SAGE, 57(52): 588-597. Müller, C. & Mildenberger, T. 2021). Facilitating flexible learning by replacing classroom time with an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education. Educational Research Review, 34: 100394. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2021.100394 [Accessed July 4, 2022]. Nadler, R. 2020. Understanding “Zoom fatigue”: Theorizing spatial dynamics as third skins in computer-mediated communication. Computers and Composition, 58: 102613. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102613 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1803051 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4561 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5 https://dx.doi.org/10.51869/93bl https://dx.doi.org/10.51869/93bl https://bit.ly/3my47I5 https://doi.org/10.9743/JSE.2021.4.1.2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i13.31511 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i13.31511 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102613 1772023 41(1): 177-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Ng, C.H. 2022. Microteaching via zoom in pre-service English language teacher training: Technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. EDULEARN22 Proceedings, 2078-2084. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2022.0541 Northrup, P.T. 2009. Online learners’ preferences for interaction. In Orellana, Hudgins, & Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 463-473). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. O’Donoghue, J., Singh, G., Caswell, S. & Molyneux, S. 2001. Pedagogy vs. Technocentrism in virtual universities. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13(1): 25-46. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02940943 Oducado, R.M.F., Villaruz, J.F., Christine V,. Dequilla, M. A. & Parreño-Lachica, G.M. 2022. Zoom fatigue and mental well-being among school executives. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 27(4): 393-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2021.2002617 Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R. & Sindhi, S. 2018. Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4): 233-241. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10 97198X.2018.1542262 [Accessed June 6, 2022]. Pearl, A. 1992. System support for integrated desktop video conferencing. Sun Microsystems Laboratories, Inc. Available at https://bit.ly/3ohJgsS [Accessed July 15, 2021]. Peters, M.A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M. & Robertson, S. 2022. Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19: An EPAT Collective Project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(6): 17-760. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655 [Accessed July 7, 2022]. Pham, N.K.T. 2022. Vietnamese students’ perspectives on Online Micro-Teaching (OMT) as a Technique in English teacher education in the 4.0 era. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 13(1): 40-72. Platt, C.A., Amber, N.W. & Yu, N. 2014. Virtually the same?: Student perceptions of the equivalence of online classes to face-to-face classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(3): 489. Pomerantz, J. & Brooks, C. 2020. ECAR study of faculty and information technology. Research report. Available at https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2017/10/ facultyitstudy2017.pdf [Accessed August 6, 2021]. Rahayu, D. 2020. Students’ e-learning experience through a synchronous Zoom web conference system. Journal of ELT Research: The Academic Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning, 5(1): 68-79. Available at https://doi.org/10.3126/seltal. v1i1.40609 [Accessed May 20, 2021]. Roza, V. 2021. Incorporating both Zoom and YouTube in micro teaching class during the Covid-19 pandemic: An effectiveness investigation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1779(1): 1-9. Available at https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1779/1/012033 [Accessed June 16, 2022]. Saichaie, K. 2020. Blended, flipped, and hybrid learning: Definitions, developments, and directions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 164: 95-104. Available at https://doi. org/10.1002/tl.20428 [Accessed July 4, 2022]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2022.0541 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940943 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940943 https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2021.2002617 https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262 https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262 https://bit.ly/3ohJgsS https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655 https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2017/10/facultyitstudy2017.pdf https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2017/10/facultyitstudy2017.pdf https://doi.org/10.3126/seltal.v1i1.40609 https://doi.org/10.3126/seltal.v1i1.40609 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1779/1/012033 https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20428 https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20428 1782023 41(1): 178-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Schleicher, A. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on education: Insights from education at a glance 2020. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basie Books. Song, B. 2022. Alone together? Fighting student isolation in online art education. Art Education, 75(4): 43-44. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2022.2053460 [Accessed January 30, 2023]. Soon, L. 2011. E-learning and m-learning: Challenges and barriers in distance education group assignment collaboration. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(3): 43-58. Available at https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2011070104 [Accessed August 6, 2021]. Sutterlin, J. 2018. Learning is social with zoom video conferencing in your classroom. ELearn Magazine, 12: 1-6. Available at https://doi.org/10.1145/3302261.3236697 [Accessed August 6, 2021]. Trede, F. & Jackson, D. 2021. Educating the deliberate professional and enhancing professional agency through peer reflection of work-integrated learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(3): 171-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419869125 Trust, T. & Whalen, J. 2020. Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2): 189-199. Tutyandari, C., Anandari, C. L., & Ardi, P. (2022). The implementation of virtual peer mentoring in micro teaching classes. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 25(2), 447-460. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4213 United Nations. 2020. Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. United Nations. Available at https://bit.ly/3L71fLN [Accessed June 2, 2022]. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. UNESCO Digital Library. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 [Accessed June 6, 2022]. Vaughan, N.D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D.R. 2013. Assessment in teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca Univ. Press. Vyas, D., Rogan, E.L., Guangyu Wu, Galal, S.M., Solorio, G. & Chandra, R. 2022. Social and emotional development in a telehealth-based ambulatory care skills course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(8): 940-945. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8733 Xie, X., Siau, K. & Nah, F.F.-H. 2020. COVID-19 pandemic – online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3): 175-187. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884 [Accessed June 5, 2022]. Zalavra, E. & Makri, K. 2022. Relocating online a technology-enhanced microteaching practice in teacher education: Challenges and implications. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 20(3): 270-283. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.3.2180 [Accessed May 8, 2022]. Zhao, Y. 2020. COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1): 29-33. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y [Accessed May 30, 2022]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2022.2053460 https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2011070104 https://doi.org/10.1145/3302261.3236697 https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419869125 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4213 https://bit.ly/3L71fLN https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8733 https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884 https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.3.2180 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y 1792023 41(1): 179-179 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 Buttler & Scheurer Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom Zhao, Y. & Watterston, J. 2021. The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of Educational Change, 22(1): 3-12. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3 [Accessed June 2, 2022]. Zhu, X. & Liu, J. 2020. Education in and after Covid-19: Immediate responses and long-term visions. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3): 695-699. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/ s42438-020-00126-3 [Accessed May 30, 2022]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6176 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00126-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00126-3 _6xvqm4ww06mb