Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-9
An Empirical Study of VR Microteaching Training to Enhance Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Skills: Teaching Behaviors Analysis Based on Two-phase Training
Virtual reality-based teaching training helps to overcome the limitations of traditional microteaching, especially in terms of the authenticity and complexity of simulated teaching scenarios. However, most of the existing related studies focus on the enhancement of trainees’ teaching skills and relatively neglect the characteristics of teaching behaviors during the training process. In addition, the lack of effective training on classroom management skills is also an important challenge of traditional microteaching. Therefore, in this study, the microteaching training was divided into two phases: basic teaching skills training and classroom management skills training. Fifty-eight pre-service teachers were randomly divided into two groups to receive two phases of training in the traditional microteaching classroom and the virtual classroom respectively. The results showed that the VR teaching training not only helped to improve the basic teaching skills of the pre-service teachers, but also significantly improved their classroom management skills and the overall level of teaching skills. In addition, in both phases of the experiment, the teaching behavior patterns of the two groups showed significant differences, with the experimental group displaying more diverse and complex behavior patterns.
AbucayonR. I.BautistaY. T.RomanoJ. M. (2016). Levels of proficiency on the essential teaching skills among the pre-service teachers of the college of education. In 9th international Conference On Educational Research, Khon, November 12-13Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15464.26882
2.
AllenD. W. (1966). Micro-teaching: A new framework for in-service education. High School Journal, 49(8), 355–362.
3.
AllenD. W.CooperJ. M.PoliakoffL. (1972). Microteaching. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
4.
AntoniouP.KyriakidesL. (2013). A dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001
5.
ArsalZ. (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
BanerjeeK.HalderS.GuhaA. (2015). Application of micro teaching skill for improving the quality of teachers: Exploring opinion of trainee teachers. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.12.1.3433
8.
BautistaN. U.BooneW. J. (2015). Exploring the impact of TeachME™ lab virtual classroom teaching simulation on early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9418-8
9.
CaiS.NiuX.WenY.LiJ. (2021). Interaction analysis of teachers and students in inquiry class learning based on augmented reality by iFIAS and LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5551–5567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2012808
CharalambousC. Y.HillH. C.BallD. L. (2011). Prospective teachers’ learning to provide instructional explanations: How does it look and what might it take?Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(6), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9182-z
12.
ChenC.-Y. (2022). Immersive virtual reality to train preservice teachers in managing students' challenging behaviours: A pilot study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 998–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13181
13.
ChernikovaO.HeitzmannN.StadlerM.HolzbergerD.SeidelT.FischerF. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
14.
ChinC. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
15.
ChinC. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171
16.
ChristensenR.KnezekG.WoodT. T.GibsonD. (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
DaiC. P.KeF.DaiZ.PachmanM. (2023). Improving teaching practices via virtual reality‐supported simulation‐based learning: Scenario design and the duration of implementation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 836–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13296
19.
DalgarnoB.GregoryS.KnoxV.ReinersT. (2016). Practising teaching using virtual classroom role plays. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 41(1), 126–154. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.8
20.
DalgarnoB.LeeM. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3D virtual environments?British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
21.
DawsonM. R.Lignugaris/KraftB. (2017). Meaningful practice: Generalizing foundation teaching skills from TLE TeachLivE™ to the classroom. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416664184
22.
DealeD.PastoreR. (2014). Evaluation of simSchool: An instructional simulation for pre-service teachers. Computers in the Schools, 31(3), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.932650
23.
DonnellyR.FitzmauriceM. (2011). Towards productive reflective practice in microteaching. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.593709
24.
ErsozluZ.LedgerS.FischettiJ. (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 Education, 15(3), em1674. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/102621
25.
Fernández-GarcíaC. M.Inda-CaroM.MaulanaR.Torío-LópezS. (2022). Teaching behaviours under observation: An instrument for assessing teaching quality in Spain. Culture and Education, 34(2), 466–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2022.2039537
26.
GangZ.WenjuanZ.BilingH.JieC.HuiH.QingX. (2021). A simple teacher behavior recognition method for massive teaching videos based on teacher set. Applied Intelligence, 51(12), 8828–8849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02329-y
GleasmanC.KimC. (2020). Pre-service teacher’s use of block-based programming and computational thinking to teach elementary mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00056-1
29.
GravettS.Van der MerweD.RamsaroopS.TshabalalaP.BremnerC.MelloP. (2023). Mixed-reality simulation to support practice learning of preservice teachers. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101062
30.
GrossT. J.LiQ.McCarrollP. (2023). Preliminary outcomes from a learning community to increase biology course knowledge. Journal of Biological Education, 57(2), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909639
31.
HamaH. Q.OsamŰ. V. (2021). Revisiting microteaching in search of up-to-date solutions to old problems. Sage Open, 11(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061534
32.
HounsellD.McCuneV.HounsellJ.LitjensJ. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658765
HuangY.RichterE.KleickmannT.RichterD. (2023a). Comparing video and virtual reality as tools for fostering interest and self‐efficacy in classroom management: Results of a pre‐registered experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13254
35.
HuangY.RichterE.KleickmannT.RichterD. (2023b). Virtual reality in teacher education from 2010 to 2020. Bildung für eine digitale Zukunft, 15, 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37895-0_16
36.
HuangY.RichterE.KleickmannT.WiepkeA.RichterD. (2021). Classroom complexity affects student teachers’ behavior in a VR classroom. Computers & Education, 163, 104100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104100
37.
HughesC. E.NagendranA.DiekerL. A.HynesM. C.WelchG. F. (2015). Applications of avatar mediated interaction to teaching, training, job skills and wellness. In Lecture notes in computer science (8844, pp. 133–146). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17043-5_8
38.
JensenL.KonradsenF. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
39.
KeF.PachmanM.DaiZ. (2020). Investigating educational affordances of virtual reality for simulation-based teaching training with graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(3), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09249-9
40.
Kelleci AlkanÖ.AksoyN. C.KulaksızT.KaplanH. A.DurmazB. N.ÖzcanM.KalkavanB. (2024). A multi-feedback system integrated simulation-based teacher training to scaffold pre-service teachers’ teaching skills: A phenomenological approach. Education and Information Technologies, 29(15), 20691–20713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12657-4
41.
KomolafeB. F.OgunniranM. O.ZhangF. Y.QianX. S. (2020). A comparative perspective of teaching skill acquisition in pre-service physics teacher (PSPT) training program in China and Nigeria. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.356
42.
KourtesisP.CollinaS.DoumasL. A.MacPhersonS. E. (2019). Validation of the virtual reality neuroscience questionnaire: Maximum duration of immersive virtual reality sessions without the presence of pertinent adverse symptomatology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00417
43.
KucukS.SismanB. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.002
KyriakidesL.CreemersB. P.AntoniouP. (2009). Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.001
46.
MaX.XieY.YangX.WangH.LiZ.LuJ. (2024). Teacher-student interaction modes in smart classroom based on lag sequential analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 15087–15111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12487-4
47.
MahonJ.BryantB.BrownB.KimM. (2010). Using Second Life to enhance classroom management practice in teacher education. Educational Media International, 47(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2010.492677
48.
MandahN. N. S.GbaratoO. L. (2016). The influence of reinforcement skill on academic performance of secondary school physics students in Obio-Akpor Lga, Rivers State Nigeria. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 17(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjesbs/2016/25551
49.
ManenovaM.ŠpilkaR. (2014). Research in pedagogical communication in flipped classroom model, using methods FIAS. In In ICERI2014 Proceedings (pp. 996–1003). IATED.
50.
MaulanaR.Helms-LorenzM.Van de GriftW. (2016). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 471–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102
51.
McGarrO. (2021). The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behaviour and classroom management skills: Implications for reflective practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1733398
52.
MerglerA. G.TangenD. (2010). Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in pre‐service teachers. Teaching Education, 21(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210902998466
53.
MikeskaJ. N.HowellH.KinseyD. (2023). Inside the black box: How elementary teacher educators support preservice teachers in preparing for and learning from online simulated teaching experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103979
54.
MuS.ZuoP.-P. (2015). Research on the method of classroom teaching behavior analysis under the information-based teaching environment. E-Education Research, 36(9), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2015.09.011
55.
MucklerV. C. (2017). Exploring suspension of disbelief during simulation-based learning. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 13(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.004
56.
Muntaner-MasA.Vidal-ContiJ.SeséA.PalouP. (2017). Teaching skills, students’ emotions, perceived control and academic achievement in university students: A sem approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.013
57.
NobenI.DeinumJ. F.HofmanW. H. A. (2022). Quality of teaching in higher education: Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. International Journal for Academic Development, 27(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2020.1830776
58.
Odiri AmatariV. (2015). The instructional process: A review of Flanders’ interaction analysis in a classroom setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3(5), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150305.11
RestuningrumN. (2018). Teachers’ strategy of positioning in teaching young learners. International Journal of Educational Best Practices, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.31258/ijebp.v2n1.p1-13
61.
SchillingJ. (2017). Instructional strategy: Didactic media presentation to optimize student learning. Athletic Training Education Journal, 12(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.4085/120151
62.
SchneiderM.PreckelF. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
63.
ShernoffE. S.Von SchalschaK.GabbardJ. L.DelmarreA.FrazierS. L.BucheC.LisettiC. (2020). Evaluating the usability and instructional design quality of interactive virtual training for teachers (IVT-T). Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(6), 3235–3262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09819-9
64.
ShodipeO. T.OgbuanyaC. T. (2024). Building aspiring teachers’ capabilities, professional and skill development: Auspice to quality teaching practice in technical vocational education and training institutions. European Journal of Education, 59(3), Article e12677. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12677
65.
SpencerS.DrescherT.SearsJ.ScruggsA. F.SchrefflerJ. (2019). Comparing the efficacy of virtual simulation to traditional classroom role-play. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1772–1785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119855613
66.
StavrouliaK. E.BakaE.LanitisA.Magnenat-ThalmannN. (2018). Designing a virtual environment for teacher training: Enhancing presence and empathy. In In Proceedings of Computer Graphics International 2018 (pp. 273–282). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3208159.3208177
67.
SteuerJ. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Communication in the age of virtual reality. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
68.
SugihartiniN.SinduG. P.DewiK. S.ZakariahM.SudiraP. (2020). Improving teaching ability with eight teaching skills. In 3rd international conference on innovative research across disciplines (ICIRAD 2019) (pp. 306–310). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200115.050
69.
TaylorJ. (2003). Managing staff development for online education: A situated learning model. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800305742
70.
TsegawS. A. (2019). An analysis of classrom interaction in speaking class by using fiac system: Teachers questioning and feedback (grade seven students in focus). Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 4(7), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v4i7.301
71.
YanC.HeC. (2017). Pair microteaching: An unrealistic pedagogy in pre-service methodology courses?Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1286783
72.
YangX.LiJ.GuoX.LiX. (2015). Group interactive network and behavioral patterns in online English-to-Chinese cooperative translation activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.003
73.
YeX.LiuP. F.LeeX. Z.ZhangY. Q.ChiuC. K. (2019). Classroom misbehaviour management: An SVVR-based training system for preservice teachers. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1579235
74.
ZahabiM.AbdulR.MohammedA. (2020). Adaptive virtual reality-based training: A systematic literature review and framework. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 725–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00434-w
75.
ZengB. (2024). Visual interactive mobile analysis of online English learning behavior based on lagged sequence analysis approach. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 18(10), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i10.49035
76.
ZhanZ.WuQ.LinZ.CaiJ. (2021). Smart classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioural sequence analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6523
77.
ZhangJ.PanQ.ZhangD.MengB.HwangG.-J. (2024). Effects of virtual reality based microteaching training on pre-service teachers' teaching skills from a multi-dimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(3), 655–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231226179
78.
ZhengR. (2010). Effects of situated learning on students' knowledge acquisition: An individual differences perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(4), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.43.4.c
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
