Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Video recordings have been used in pre-service teacher preparation programs to facilitate greater self-reflection through pre-service teachers’ observation of their own and their peers’ microteaching. Few studies have, however, examined the perceptions of pre-service teachers regarding the use of peer feedback reaction videos on their microteaching. Therefore, video-recorded microteaching lessons were taught by preservice English teachers and then they were given video recordings of their peer’s reaction and feedback to their microteaching video. Qualitative data about their perceptions of microteaching and feedback they received were collected and analyzed. Participants indicated that the peer reaction video feedback helped them to discern their strengths and weaknesses as teachers, and learn more about how to teach from observing others. They also said it allowed them to view themselves through others’ eyes, provided detailed feedback, encouraged honest feedback, and allowed them to analyze and reflect on their own practice. Among the criticisms they raised were feeling like they were unprepared, concerns about technical difficulties, and reacting emotionally to negative feedback. Recommendations made to improve the peer reaction video feedback experience were to provide more detail in the feedback using more detailed feedback guidelines and sample lesson activities beforehand. Implications for practice are also discussed.

Keywords

peer feedback online video feedback teacher education microteaching language teaching Web 2.0 technologies

Introduction

Teachers in training face several interlocking problems which are that teacher education programs are too theoretically oriented (Chen, 2020) and they do not provide pre-service teachers with enough chances to actually practice teaching (Afdal, 2017). Besides insufficient practice teaching opportunities, they also often do not have enough chances to get feedback on their teaching (N. J. Ellis & Loughland, 2017) or to reflect on their developing practice (Khan, 2015). Fortunately, over the years, several methods have been developed to address these issues. For instance, microteaching has long been promoted as a useful way for teachers in training to experiment with new teaching techniques and strategies. As well, peer evaluation of other’s teaching has been integrated into many teacher education programs in the hope that it can help novice teachers learn from each other (Diana, 2013) and refine their critical thinking ability (Serdar Tülüce & Çeçen, 2018).

Videos of microteaching allow for pre-service teachers to see themselves teaching and directly observe the aspects of their teaching their feedback provider is referencing. When these videos are available as part of an online course, they offer the added advantage of flexibility of access (Soffer et al., 2019) and interaction with a community of peers with whom pre-service teachers can discuss their microteaching (Hidayah & Indriani, 2021). Previous investigations of video microteaching have typically been conducted with students receiving feedback from their instructor (Murphy Odo, 2022). However, there are substantially fewer studies of video microteaching that incorporates peer feedback. Furthermore, because students rarely keep a record of their feedback, it is possible that they will forget what feedback they received (Tuzi, 2004). This kind of peer reaction video format allows the feedback receiver to keep track of the feedback that they have gotten. By exploring preservice teachers’ perceptions of having the opportunity to receive and provide video-recorded peer reaction feedback about their microteaching, this study aims to address these oversights.

A number of advantages for pre-service teachers and teacher educators are also anticipated from the utilization of online microteaching videos. For instance, these videos can allow them to receive feedback from their peers in a more engaging and dynamic way (Karakaş & Yükselir, 2021). This type of feedback can also be more personalized feedback tailored to their specific needs and learning styles (Pham, 2022). By watching and analyzing their peers’ work, pre-service teachers can develop their critical thinking skills and gain a deeper understanding of their teaching practice (Brookfield, 2017). Besides, as teachers in training, by providing and receiving feedback through online videos pre-service teachers can improve their digital literacy (Aslan, 2022), which is essential for success in both personal and professional contexts. They also have to be prepared to deliver feedback in this way to their own students (Kessler & Hubbard, 2017), so the earlier they can begin working with it the better. However, at present, there is a substantial amount of research that remains to be conducted in the domain of online microteaching (Hama & Osam, 2021; Pham, 2022).

Review of Related Research Literature

Prior studies of the use of microteaching video feedback in teacher education: Past research has identified several advantages that combining microteaching with the use of video feedback can provide. One such advantage is that novice teachers with a relatively safe and controlled environment where they can experiment and refine their practices before they begin working with actual students where their mistakes could cause real harm (Brent et al., 1996). Likewise, watching videos of peers’ teaching can provide inexperienced teachers with exposure to a wider range of teaching scenarios than they otherwise would encounter prior to teaching their own classes (Wang & Hartley, 2003).

A second advantage was that access to videos of their microteaching allowed pre-service teachers to revisit their lesson and the feedback that they received on it. This in turn enabled them to refer to the video multiple times to reflect more deeply on the content of their lesson (Setyaningrahayu et al., 2019) without feeling as rushed as they might in a face-to-face microteaching session (Jordan, 2012). Thus, they could reflect more deeply on their teaching practice (Tripp & Rich, 2012) and learn more from the experience (Jordan, 2012). In this way, microteaching videos facilitated more detailed analysis of their teaching because it gave them extra time to do the analysis (Hoath, 2012). Additionally, pre-service teachers could focus on the videos more and understand them on a deeper level through their ability to pause and replay them (Setyaningrahayu et al., 2019). This improved focus on the lessons allowed novice teachers to move away from concentrating excessively on classroom management to notice more about their instruction and learner behavior (Rosaen et al., 2008).

Having these opportunities for more sustained and deeper reflection can thus develop reflection skills (Kuter et al., 2012) allowing them to become more capable evaluators of their own teaching. Through their self-reflection, pre-service teachers become conscious of their tacit assumptions and develop their practical knowledge (Zhang et al., 2011). They assume a more objective perspective on their teaching and think about it in a more abstract manner (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013). Thus, they can gain a clearer understanding of what teaching practices are most appropriate to their context (Dochy et al., 1999) ultimately fostering their professional development (Roth et al., 2011). This reflection facilitated by access to microteaching videos can also make pre-service teachers aware of their relative strengths and weaknesses as teachers (Dayal & Alpana, 2020; Gungor, 2016) and their unconscious behaviors while teaching (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013; Serdar Tülüce & Çeçen, 2018) that they unaware of (Agbayahoun, 2017) thereby improving their future teaching (Saban & Çoklar, 2013).

Microteaching videos can also offer guidance on how to teach. Through their sharing of their microteaching experience among peers pre-service teachers can become more conscious of the goings-on in their classrooms (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013). They can begin to notice more effective teaching strategies (Saban & Çoklar, 2013) or techniques for classroom management (Setyaningrahayu et al., 2019) or how to use the target language (Gungor, 2016) that they might have previously not noticed (Galvis & Nemirovsky, 2003).

In addition to the advantages offered by video microteaching, a number of concerns about it have been raised as well. One complaint was with regard to the technical aspects of the assignment. They sometimes did not have easy access to the technology required to complete the assignment (Koc, 2011). When they did have access to the requisite equipment, there were sometimes other technical problems completing the assignment such as limited internet access (Riyanti, 2021) or trouble accessing files (Jordan, 2012). A second issue was that creating microteaching videos is labor-intensive and time consuming (Savas, 2012). Others complained that the videos felt artificial (Savas, 2012) and said that face-to-face microteaching would be more authentic (Riyanti, 2021). Another problem was that pre-service teachers were sometimes hurt by derisive video feedback which could cause them to ignore potentially useful advice (Okumuş & Yurdakal, 2016).

Given these issues with microteaching videos, several researchers have suggested that pre-service teachers need guidance on how to do it properly. Yuan et al., (2022) observed that the participants in their study had trouble understanding what to do for their video reflection assignment because they had never done an assignment like this before. This is likely the case for pre-service teachers in most teacher education contexts. To help guide pre-service teachers in how to complete a novel type of assignment like this, careful instructor explanation and use of explicit rubrics can provide pre-service teachers with helpful guidance (Kourieos, 2016). With such support in place, pre-service teachers can then achieve deeper reflection on their peers’ work (Karatepe & Yilmaz, 2018) and offer productive feedback that avoids undue praise (J. Ellis et al., 2015) or criticism (Higgins & Nicholl, 2003).

Microteaching and Peer Feedback

The ultimate aim of peer feedback is to provide pre-service teachers with the chance to give useful guidance regarding their peer’s instructional practice (Diana, 2013). Several previous studies have demonstrated that peer feedback improves attitudes toward both microteaching (Bağatur, 2015) and helps students to see the value of peer evaluation (Al-Barakat & Al-Hassan, 2009).

One of the most important benefits of peer feedback identified in the research literature is that it pushes beginning teachers to reflect more (Hama & Osam, 2021) and makes them more aware of their teaching practice (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013). This may be because they are more emotionally invested in viewing videos of peers’ teaching than their own (Jordan, 2012). Regardless, peer assessment makes beginning teachers more self-aware of their teaching and better able to connect their practice with relevant explanatory theories (Kourieos, 2016). It also helps them become better at evaluating themselves and their peers (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013; Hoath, 2012) which in turn improves their ability to find novel solutions to teaching problems they face (Jordan, 2012).

Pre-service teachers themselves believe that peer feedback improved their teaching (Pham, 2022; Riyanti, 2021; Savas, 2012). The mechanism by which this is thought to occur is that microteaching enables novice teachers to observe and evaluate a variety of effective instructional techniques (Yuan et al., 2022) and learn from the strengths and limitations of their peers (Koc, 2011). Also, when it is their turn to teach, they get another perspective on their teaching and feedback that relates directly to their teaching. Thus, they can realistically attempt to implement their peers’ suggestions (Jordan, 2012).

Besides improving their teaching skill, feedback from multiple peers encourages beginning teachers to think more objectively and critically about theirs (Savas, 2012; Tripp & Rich, 2012) and their peers’ teaching (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013; Serdar Tülüce & Çeçen, 2018). This in turn sharpens their ability to identify their own strengths and weaknesses as teachers (Diana, 2013) as they also become better able to provide a rationale for their teaching practice and take other perspectives on their actions into consideration (McCullagh et al., 2013). As with video-recorded microteaching, peer feedback encourages deeper reflection on their lessons and drawing more on their developing teaching knowledge to inform their classroom practice (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). The critical thinking skills developed through peer assessment can then foster greater learner independence (Sluijsmans et al., 2002).

Although past research on peer feedback in pre-service teacher microteaching has generally highlighted its value, a number of concerns have also been raised. For one, Al-Barakat and Al-Hassan (2009) found that the participants in their study did not trust their peer’s judgement because their peers did not yet have enough knowledge or experience. Possibly due in some degree to this mistrust, others have reported that some participants disagreed with their peer’s feedback and thought that they were underestimated by their peers whose feedback did not have enough justification for the claims they made (Hidayah & Indriani, 2021). Others objected that the feedback that they received was too superficial (Dayal & Alpana, 2020; Hidayah & Indriani, 2021) possibly because peers lack the knowledge or experience to give helpful feedback (Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021).

Al-Barakat and Al-Hassan (2009) point out that some students have doubts about their ability to be objective when giving peer assessment so they would prefer not to do it at all. A number of pre-service teachers had concerns about giving negative feedback to their peers (Hidayah & Indriani, 2021; Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013) because they worry about it damaging their relationships (Al-Barakat & Al-Hassan, 2009; Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021). Classroom dynamics and politics have also been shown to come into play when pre-service teachers evaluate their friends more highly than other classmates (Brindley & Scoffield, 1998).

One recommendation was made that teacher educators should demonstrate how to give and receive peer feedback to give their students a more concrete example of what it looks like (Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021). A second suggestion was to give students access to sufficient scaffolding through access to peer assessment tools like appraisal forms so they can have a clear understanding of how to give appropriate feedback (Kuter et al., 2012). Lastly, J. Ellis et al. (2015) recommend ongoing thoughtful class dialog to better demonstrate how to give honest and insightful feedback.

Despite the valuable insights that previous research has provided thus far, there are still remaining questions whose answers might help us to more effectively use video peer feedback to support novice teachers’ professional development. Peer feedback has typically been provided via face-to-face dialog, completing a written form, or adding written comments on an annotated video (e.g., VideoAnt). However, as technology continues to develop, we can now ask about pre-service teachers’ experiences when they had access to picture-in-picture screencast software rather than the written commentary for peer reflection that they are traditionally asked to give. The results of this investigation can help us to better understand what pre-service teachers can learn through providing peer feedback via picture-in-picture screencast software and their perceptions regarding its usefulness as well as how they think the process might be improved. To address these issues, the following research questions have been developed to guide the present investigation: (1) what did pre-service EFL teachers learn from the peer reaction video feedback on their microteaching lessons? (2) what were the pre-service EFL teachers’ opinions of the peer reaction video feedback they received on their microteaching lessons? (3) What suggestions do pre-service EFL teachers have to improve the peer reaction video feedback experience?

Method

Participants and Context

The participants were 11 pre-service teachers in a third-year TESOL methods class during the fall semester of 2021. Most of the students in the course had no to minimal teaching experience and had enrolled to develop their English teaching skills and fulfill the requirements of their B.Ed. in English education. They ranged in age from 21 to 27 years with a mean age of 21.9 years old. They were pre-service teachers attending the college of education in a national university in a large city in the southern region of South Korea. About 8 of the 11 class members majored in English education, 2 in German education and 1 in education. There were 10 females and 1 male in the class.

The elective course was designed for students to prepare for their teaching practicum and the demonstration lesson phase of the national teacher’s exam. The first few classes covered various instructional techniques and strategies to plan and deliver effective lessons for the four skills and we discussed the traits of an effective English teacher. In the second phase of the course, the participants each taught a 20-minute presentation where they demonstrated a microteaching lesson that will be described in the following section.

The Peer-Feedback Reaction Video Lesson

Each participant taught an abbreviated a 20-minute microteaching lesson presentation that was based upon a lesson plan that they had previously discussed with the instructor. The pre-service teachers video recorded their lesson and uploaded it to the course website where it was viewed and given feedback by both the course instructor and the peer indicated in Figure 1. Regrettably, due to Covid-19-related restrictions, they were unable to teach their lesson to a “live” class so instead they recorded themselves simulating teaching an in-person lesson. Despite the somewhat limited authenticity of this form of microteaching, it did still expose many of the challenges (e.g., explaining concepts logically, giving comprehensible instructions, etc.) that the participants faced as beginning teachers. Thus, they could benefit from feedback on several aspects of their teaching shown on the videos.

Figure 1.

Screenshot of a participant providing feedback on her peer’s microteaching lesson presentation.

Upon completing their microteaching video, participants submitted it to the course management system where the course instructor and their peers could download it. The instructor and one peer then separately recorded themselves watching and reacting to the video micro-lesson using various types of picture-in-picture screencast software such as Open Broadcaster Software and Imovie etc. All class members and the instructor had access to the instructor’s feedback videos, but only the instructor, peer feedback provider and peer feedback receiver could watch the peer feedback videos. Participants were given guidance on how to record a peer reaction video in the form of a handout and a demonstration video where the course instructor watched a sample lesson and demonstrated how to react to it. During the demonstration, the instructor paused the video during a part of the microteaching that related to one of the guiding questions on the handout and commented on that aspect of the lesson as it related to the guiding question. For example, he might comment on whether the teacher’s language was at a suitable level for the class. He also paused at other points in the lesson to comment on parts of the lesson that he felt warranted feedback and he encouraged the participants to do the same. Participants were also provided with a handout that contained ten guiding questions that they had to answer about their peer’s microteaching presentation while they watched it. Figure 1 contains a screenshot of a participant commenting on her peer’s presentation.

Data Collection and Analysis

The findings were based upon a thematic analysis of the qualitative data generated by the participants in the microteaching peer reaction video feedback sessions. This study is an example of practitioner research because it is based upon systematic inquiry of one’s professional practice with the aim of improving that practice (Campbell, 2013). Eleven open-ended refection forms were used to ascertain the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the feedback that they received from their peers on their microteaching videos. Participants provided feedback on their partner’s general lesson organization and delivery, use of language, instructions and feedback, and non-verbal communication as well as other issues that occurred during the lesson.

The participants were asked to complete a qualitative questionnaire containing ten open-ended questions at the conclusion of the course. The questionnaire asked about advantages and drawbacks of giving and receiving peer feedback in this way, and what they learned about their teaching from it. They were also asked about what they wish their peer had covered more, if they thought the peer feedback would improve their teaching, suggestions to improve the process, and to compare this kind of feedback with feedback in face-to-face classes. They could answer in English or Korean and the Korean responses were translated by a native-speaking Korean assistant.

The questionnaire data were analyzed manually with techniques based on grounded theory which is an inductive approach to data analysis that involves a continuous process of data collection and analysis, and the development of theoretical constructs that emerge from the data itself (Charmaz, 2014). The data were read in their entirety to obtain a general sense of their meaning. They were then reread to inductively and iteratively generate the codes that were developed into the themes presented in the findings (Lichtman, 2012). An inductive approach was used to generate codes, which means that the codes emerged from the data rather than being imposed on the data from preconceived theories or concepts. The data were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and differences and to identify patterns and relationships. Codes were generated that related to the research questions through the constant comparison method (Creswell, 2013) by analyzing participants’ responses via open, axial, and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As the analysis progressed, similar codes were grouped into categories and developed themes. Axial coding was used to develop categories, which involves grouping codes into categories based on their relationships to each other. More carefully developed codes were then organized into related categories and themes that addressed the research questions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).

To ensure credibility of the results, various techniques were used, such as member checking, and peer debriefing. Member checking involved sharing the preliminary findings with the participants to confirm their accuracy and completeness. Peer debriefing involved discussing the study findings with other researchers to obtain different perspectives and ensure the credibility of the research. To ensure confirmability of the findings, the researcher used reflexivity and peer review. Reflexivity entailed acknowledging and reflecting on my assumptions, biases, and experiences throughout the study. Peer review involved having other researchers review and critique the study to identify and address any potential biases.

Results and Discussion

RQ1: What Pre-Service EFL Teachers Learned From the Peer Reaction Video Feedback

Understandings Developed Based on Peer Feedback

One theme that emerged from the data was that participants felt that they learned a lot about teaching by watching and providing feedback on their peers video lessons. Jung Sunhee (all names are pseudonyms) mentioned how the feedback sessions enabled her to see various teaching methods and come into contact with a variety of appropriate speaking styles. Similarly, Geum Chinsun and Mu Soyoung discussed how watching their classmates’ microteaching video exposed them to some effective teaching methods that they incorporate into their teaching repertoire. Others identified specific instructional techniques that they learned from watching their peers such as adding transitions to a lesson (Moon Yoohee) and highlighting the importance of student participation (Pyo Seulgi). These results were also in accordance with other studies whose findings reported that pre-service teachers who used videos as a basis of their reflection felt that doing so had a positive effect on their teaching ability (Yatun, 2017). Like the pre-service teachers in the present study, their participants reported that videos of their peers can help them to gain new ideas (Benton-Kupper, 2001), share their teaching experience (Lee & Wu, 2006), and teaching strategies (Saban & Çoklar, 2013).

Not only did they get ideas from observing their peers, they also learned from the feedback that they received on their own lessons. Shim Jinae stated that watching her peers’ videos showed her which parts of her lesson she needed to pay more attention to and the unconscious bad habits that she had. Similarly, Go Narae reflected on how feedback from her partner highlighted her negative habits of making the lesson too teacher centered or using language that might be too difficult for her learners to understand. Other researchers also noted that viewing videos of peer microteaching can also focus pre-service teachers’ attention on particular features of their teaching like classroom management (Setyaningrahayu et al., 2019) that they might otherwise ignore (Galvis & Nemirovsky, 2003). They also observed that reflection upon peer feedback can make novice teachers aware of their unconscious behaviors while teaching (Serdar Tülüce & Çeçen, 2018) that they might not have considered (Agbayahoun, 2017) and the effect that those actions can have on their lesson (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013).

As with these favorable views of peer feedback, several pre-service teachers also mentioned that they felt that peer feedback would improve their teaching. Moon Yoohee explained that she expected the detailed online peer feedback she received could improve her teaching considerably because her partner gave her feedback and suggestions for how each point of feedback could be addressed to improve the lesson. Although she was generally dissatisfied with the peer feedback that she received, Geum Chinsun did also acknowledge that watching her peers’ lessons that also had feedback from the course instructor could give her some helpful ideas for how she could add more varied student practice activities into her lesson. These findings are generally in accordance with those of previous researchers who have also concluded that the activity of microteaching can positively influence learning of new instructional strategies (Kelleci et al., 2018). Likewise, pre-service teachers had positive views of online video microteaching (Saban & Çoklar, 2013) as well as video peer feedback and believed that it helps them to improve their teaching skills (Pham, 2022; Riyanti, 2021; Savas, 2012).

Identified Strengths and Weaknesses

In addition to the perception that online video microteaching reaction videos could improve their teaching, several participants also commented on how peer reaction videos provided them with helpful feedback on the strengths and limitations of their lessons. For instance, Seo Sunjung remarked that

“It was nice to be able to receive the impressions and evaluations of my classes from the perspective of others, so that I could learn about my clear strengths and areas for improvement.” She later stated that “By making good use of these strengths, it seems that you will be able to compose a class that stands out even more.”

Mu Soyoung pointed out several of the specific strengths (e.g., use of clear visuals) and weakness (e.g., inconsistent energy levels) of her lesson that she became aware of after watching her peer’s reaction video. Similarly, Gu Jinkyoung also identified some particular strengths (e.g., high level of activity) and limitations (e.g., need to speak more clearly) of her lesson that she discovered based upon the feedback that her peer gave her. Based on the feedback, she said she could determine what her habits were and refine them. These findings largely correspond with those of other researchers who have noted that sharing peer feedback on practicum teaching videos helps pre-service teachers to become more knowledgeable about their capabilities as a teacher and better able to provide constructive feedback to their peers (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013). It also helps them to realize their shortcomings and make adjustments to their teaching based on the feedback that they had received (Özonur & Kamisli, 2019).

Learn From Observing Others’ Strengths and Shortcomings

Besides receiving peer feedback that allowed them to improve their teaching, watching their peer’s lesson and providing feedback on it helped several participants to learn about some new techniques that they could then attempt in their own teaching. Gu Jinkyoung stated that the peer feedback sessions allowed her to think about the strengths of her peer’s lesson from an observer’s point of view. This seems to indicate that the peer feedback session gave her the chance to reflect on her peer’s teaching somewhat more objectively. Pyo Seulgi said that the peer reaction video gave her “a good opportunity to know what the other person’s strengths are and to imitate the good things.” She added that “I realized that I had learned a lot by being able to understand the other person’s shortcomings, and it was a good opportunity to think about how to improve these shortcomings.” That is, she did not only learn from watching the positive aspects of her peer’s lesson, she also learned from seeing their limitations.

This learning from peers is possible because videos can expose pre-service teachers to diverse and vivid teaching situations (Wang & Hartley, 2003) and combining video with critical reflection can make future teachers more conscious of their strengths where they need to improve as teachers (Brookfield, 2017; Dayal & Alpana, 2020; Gungor, 2016; Hama & Osam, 2021) that they otherwise may not have considered (Agbayahoun, 2017). This can in turn improve their future teaching (Gungor, 2016; Saban & Çoklar, 2013). Additionally, as they observe and give feedback to their peers, they also develop their own critical thinking (Koc, 2011), ability to assess instructional performance (Al-Barakat & Al-Hassan, 2009; Higgins & Nicholl, 2003) and learn from the strengths and weaknesses of their colleagues (Koc, 2011).

RQ2: Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Opinions of the Peer Reaction Video Feedback

Positive Views of the Peer Reaction Video Feedback

When asked about their opinions regarding the peer reaction video feedback, many participants indicated that they were satisfied with the process and offered several reasons why. Jung Sunhee, Moon Yoohee and Gu Jinkyoung agreed that the online microteaching with video peer feedback was very helpful and that there were no drawbacks to giving feedback to their peer online. Go Narae added that it was helpful for her improvement because she could look back on herself. These comments all correspond with the findings of several other studies which were that pre-service teachers were shown to have generally have positive views of microteaching (Bağatur, 2015) and that having chances to do peer assessment helped develop positive attitudes toward peer assessment as a learning tool (Al-Barakat & Al-Hassan, 2009).

Several participants also offered various reasons for why they were satisfied with the peer reaction video feedback. One reason mentioned by a few participants was that the process provided them with various perspectives on their teaching that also allowed them to see themselves through the eyes of others. Geum Chinsun said that she was hoping to get feedback from each of her classmates because she noticed that they had different teaching styles which means that she could get feedback from various perspectives. She believed that kind of feedback would be more helpful to her. Jung Sunhee explained that the different perspectives she was able to get through peer feedback allowed her to discover something she hadn’t considered about her teaching.

Several participants commented that the peer feedback that they received allowed them to see themselves through the eyes of others. Mu Soyoung mentioned that she could get a new perspective on more appropriate teacher’s classroom language and student guidance methods to more effectively organize and conduct her class. Gu Jinkyoung agreed that getting feedback from the professor and her peer enabled her to see herself from a different perspective. Seo Sunjung articulated her views on the topic as follows:

It was my first class demonstration, so there were a lot of things I was clumsy about, but I think I was able to see myself getting better through practice, and I think it was good to be able to see how I looked in the eyes of others through feedback.

This comment indicates that she thought being able to hear about others’ reaction to her teaching gave her a clearer sense of what they thought of her instruction. Jung Sunhee also described how the feedback that she received on her microteaching video helped her to see her teaching in a new light. She said that after she watched her feedback, she reexamined her teaching and saw what was lacking in her lesson. She could then speculate about what her lesson might have been like if she had done certain parts differently.

A number of researchers also reported on findings on how feedback on videotaped lessons had given prospective teachers new insights into their instructional practices. As was echoed by several of the participants in the present study, this feedback allowed them to review their instructional practice from more of an outside perspective (Zhang et al., 2011). This shift in perspective can encourage them to reflect more deeply on their teaching (Rosaen et al., 2008; Tripp & Rich, 2012) which can enhance their reflection skills (Amobi & Irwin, 2009). This altered perspective can then allow them to learn more about effective instructional practices (Amobi & Irwin, 2009; Hidayah & Indriani, 2021; Yuan et al., 2022) and devise possible solutions to problems they may be having that they may otherwise have never considered (Jordan, 2012).

A second positive feature of the peer reaction video format brought up by several participants was their satisfaction with the detailed feedback that they could give and receive. Gu Jinkyoung stated that she was able to “be a little more detailed when giving feedback.” Go Narae agreed saying “I was able to watch the videos of different people several times and look at the details, and it feels like I was able to give meticulous feedback accordingly.” A number of researchers likewise noted that giving pre-service teachers feedback with video-enabled computer-mediated communication effectively enhanced their teaching experience due to the more concrete feedback that it allowed them to receive (Lee & Wu, 2006). It also allowed them to make explicit their tacit assumptions, deepen their thinking, and expand their knowledge (Zhang et al., 2011).

A related comment that several participants made was that the peer video feedback process allowed them to focus on specific parts of the lesson. Shim Jinae stated that it was nice to be able to able to check the exact part of a lesson by replaying the actual video that she took while receiving feedback online. Mu Soyoung stated that the online video peer feedback “enables detailed feedback on specific points to comment directly on the actual presentation video, and it is possible to …analyze it in detail by repeating the video several times in advance.” She also highlighted how “it can be difficult to explain the context of a lesson part to give feedback only in words, but [online peer reaction feedback] was effective because it was possible to comment immediately after showing a specific section of the video.” That is, the online peer video feedback can allow the feedback receiver to see the context of the lesson that the feedback is addressing. Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. Eröz-Tuğa (2013) observed that the participants in her research became more sensitive and more conscious about classroom events as they watched themselves on screen. Likewise, Gungor (2016) also found that watching videos of their teaching enabled teachers to focus more on specific aspects of their instruction such as classroom management or use of the target language.

A number of participants also brought up how they felt that the peer reaction video format facilitated more honest feedback than might be the case in a face-to-face feedback session. Mu Soyoung remarked that “when conducting face-to-face feedback, it is more difficult to give honest feedback because the person giving the feedback faces the person receiving the feedback.” Seo Sunjung agreed adding “I thought that it might be more difficult to openly talk to other people about things for improvement if they received feedback face-to-face.” However, Guem Chinsun highlighted how one of the key advantages of these online peer reaction videos was that:

…because online peer feedback detaches us from the person whom we are giving feedback to, I believe we can be more honest when giving feedback. If done in face-to-face, I am sure some people will be afraid to comment on others. Quite a significant amount of people will believe giving ‘harsh’ or ‘negative’ comments to another person publicly or to their face could be rude (and potentially harm their relationship). It is more so if they are not close to each other.

In other words, the fact that they peer feedback is online can help to create some psychological distance between the feedback giver and receiver that helps to reduce the discomfort and potential harmfulness of delivering the feedback that they need to improve as a novice teacher. Other research has confirmed that online peer feedback can serve as a catalyst for thoughtful and rigorous enquiring dialog among class members that could promote honest feedback. Nevertheless, to facilitate these beginning teachers’ ability to give insightful feedback to their peers, scaffolding on how to provide useful feedback is needed (J. Ellis et al., 2015).

A final benefit of peer reaction video feedback was that some class members felt that receiving the feedback that they did from their peer provided them with deeper insight into their lesson. For instance, Moon Yoohee described how peer feedback from both her face-to-face and online microteaching was interesting and humorous. However, her online feedback was that the audience could not easily connect the lesson activities to its stated objectives. After reviewing the lesson, she said “Accepting that feedback, I watched the part that I got comment and noticed that I constructed that part to draw attention from students but it failed to properly connect it to the class goal.” Likewise, Guem Chinsun stated that while she wanted her feedback video as soon as possible, she came to realize that receiving the feedback a bit later in the course is better because the peers have more knowledge and thus they can offer deeper insights. In similar studies, investigators found novice teachers can provide objective feedback to presenters if they are provided with appropriate scaffolding, such as appraisal forms (Kuter et al., 2012). This peer feedback then provides the lesson presenter with the opportunity to evaluate their own performance in a more objective manner (Savas, 2012).

Negative Views of the Peer Reaction Video Feedback

As one might expect, the responses provided by participants regarding the use of video peer reaction videos were not all positive. Several limitations of this kind of online peer feedback were also highlighted. Geum Chinsun said that she felt that she was unprepared to do the video lesson in the beginning of the semester. She mentioned that she was:

…really confused and stressed out at the beginning of the semester when I was informed that I need to film a full lesson demonstration. I felt like I barely knew anything to film one myself at that point. I felt so because I have written a couple of lesson plan for previous courses, but I have never gotten any feedback about them. So, was not sure whether I was on the right track at all.

Yuan et al. (2022) also reported that the pre-service teachers in their study had difficulty working out how to do a video reflection assignment and said that they needed more guidance on how to do it. This is likely due to the fact that they had never previously done an assignment like this before. Geum Chinsun did add that having access to example lesson plans and demonstration videos helped her feel more confident about demonstrating an effective lesson. Mu Soyoung likewise said that seeing the course instructor’s lesson examples and doing a face-to-face lesson planning workshop was helpful where students could write their plans for their microteaching lesson and get feedback from the course instructor.

A second issue that two participants mentioned was the potential for technical difficulties to arise. Jung Sunhee said that were times watching her peers’ video lesson presentations when she couldn’t hear their voices well or she couldn’t see their writing on the board well. Mu Soyoung did not report having any technical problems, but she said that her fear of having technical problems bothered her to some extent. She stated that “students unfamiliar with video recording may have difficulties in producing feedback videos, so it would be good to inform them in advance of technical problems that may occur during video recording and ways to minimize them.” Other scholars have also identified potential technical problems for these kinds of assignments such as handling large media files (Jordan, 2012), unreliable internet connections (Riyanti, 2021), and inadequate facility with using technology (Koc, 2011; Riyanti, 2021).

A third issue raised by several participants was that they felt as though they were unable to have authentic classroom experience. Go Narae speculated that there must be a difference between performing in the video and performing in front of other people, but she said that it was a bit disappointing that she could not feel how the class would be when there were actually people evaluating the class demonstration in front of her. Yuan et al. (2022) likewise mentioned the same concern some of their participants had that the video microteaching did not reflect the situations that they would encounter in actual classrooms. Ga Miyeon raised a related complaint that the online microteaching lacked real-time interactivity in terms of the lesson presenter not being able to explain the decisions they made during the lesson to the feedback provider or ask them any follow up questions. This issue with lack of interactivity between the feedback provider and receiver was also raised by Jordan (2012) who noted that feedback givers misunderstandings could not be clarified which could lead to unproductive feedback and wasted time.

A fourth shortcoming of the peer reaction video feedback to the microteaching was that some participants felt that it was difficult to give negative feedback. For instance, Shim Jinae felt that while “it [was] easy to give positive feedback, but it seems difficult to give negative feedback directly.” Several past researchers pointed out that participants felt a burden about giving negative feedback to their peers (Hidayah & Indriani, 2021; Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013) due to fears of harming their relationships (Al-Barakat & Al-Hassan, 2009; Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021). This is unfortunate because experiencing some amount of negative emotions like disappointment may actually encourage teachers to reflect more deeply (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013). Equally, there is also the matter of potential hurt feelings for the feedback receiver. Shim Jinae mentioned that a downside of this kind of peer reaction video feedback was that “it was embarrassing first and the students could feel sad about each other about the content of the feedback.”Okumuş and Yurdakal (2016) also observed that pre-service teachers can feel sensitive over critical comments that they receive which may then cause them to disregard the negative feedback more than they should.

RQ3: What Suggestions Do Pre-Service EFL Teachers Have to Improve the Peer Reaction Video Feedback Experience

Participants offered several suggestions for how they think the online video peer feedback can be improved. One recommendation related to the feedback they wish that they had gotten. Moon Yoohee said that she wished that she had gotten more feedback about the effectiveness of her lesson objectives. Geum Chinsun stated that she wanted more feedback on how she could improve her lesson demonstration by building on the strengths of the lesson and obtaining feedback from more peers.

Some other participants mentioned that they wanted more feedback on what to improve in their lessons. Pyo Seulgi remarked that “…in the peer evaluation video, he only talked about the good points of the class. Of course, there are some good points, but there are also some things that the class lacks. It would have been better if you could tell us about these shortcomings.” Ga Miyeon mentioned that while she was generally satisfied with the feedback that she received, “it would have been of great help if there was more detailed feedback about the overall structure or flow of my class.” These comments demonstrate that at least some pre-service teachers wanted more constructive criticism of their lessons.

A third complaint from some participants was that they could not get sufficiently detailed feedback. For example, Jung Sunhee stated that she thought that she would have gotten more information if she had received it through offline conversations. Guem Chinsun also criticized the feedback she received from her partner as being superficial. She stressed that she believed this was a “great” way to share feedback with peers, but her personal experience was disappointing because her peer only addressed the specific criteria in the assignment rubric rather than trying to stop the video and comment on other aspects of her lesson that were not necessarily addressed in the assignment rubric. Based on her experience, she remarked that:

I hope there was a way to ensure (at least to some degree) that peers who are giving comments to my lesson demonstration will put in effort to their feedback, because I definitely put in significant amount of my time in other people’s feedback. I just watched video feedback for my lesson only to notice the feedback video itself was much shorter than the one I filmed for another peer (which means less comments), and it barely mentioned the points I wanted to get feedback on. When this sort of unbalance occurs, I cannot help but feel demotivated to try my best in sharing my feedbacks about others.

This quote conveys Guem Chinson’s sense of frustration about what she perceived to be a significant imbalance in the amount of feedback that she provided for her peer and the amount of feedback that she was given herself. Several other researchers discussed the limited detail provided as a drawback of peer feedback (Dayal & Alpana, 2020; Hidayah & Indriani, 2021) noting that peer feedback could be insufficient and undetailed (Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021). One possible explanation for this shortcoming in the feedback are that the pre-service teacher peers may simply lack the knowledge and experience necessary to provide helpful feedback (Erdemir & Yeşilçınar, 2021).

Participants also made a few suggestions for how to improve the peer feedback process in future iterations of the class. Guem Chinsun suggested some additional feedback guidelines which included peers having to give a minimum number of comments with a minimum number of words per comment that students should write for each person. She also recommended that peers be asked to suggest alternative ways of teaching aspects of the lesson. “Whatever the method be, I am willing to put in more time and effort for the others, when I am certain I will get feedbacks that others put in as much as I did.” As mentioned above, participants were given a checklist to guide their peer review. However, it may be helpful to add more specific guidance about the number of comments and words per comment in future iterations of the course.

Other researchers have commented on the value of using rubrics with instructor guidance on how to give suitable peer feedback (Higgins & Nicholl, 2003; Kourieos, 2016). Such guidance could include direction on how to reflect more deeply on their peer’s lesson (Karatepe & Yilmaz, 2018) and avoid excessive praise (J. Ellis et al., 2015) or criticism of their peer’s teaching (Ropohl & Rönnebeck, 2019). In addition to the video peer microteaching feedback, space should also be made in the course for instructor-guided discussions of common themes and problems that are arising in the microteaching sessions to give participants a chance to reflect a bit more deeply on their teaching practice (Karakaş & Yükselir, 2021).

Conclusions and Implications

Pre-service EFL teachers indicated that the peer reaction video feedback helped them to develop their understanding of teaching. It also allowed them to identify their strengths and weaknesses as teachers and learn more about teaching from observing others’ strengths and limitations. Their positive opinions of the peer reaction video feedback were that it allowed them to see themselves through others’ eyes, gave them detailed feedback, encouraged honest feedback, and provided them with time to analyze and reflect. Negative points they raised were that some felt unprepared for it, worried about potential technical issues, and had emotional reactions to negative feedback. Suggestions offered to improve the peer reaction video feedback experience were that there should be more feedback with greater detail. Participants also recommended more specific feedback guidelines and additional lesson activity examples beforehand. This study investigated pre-service teachers’ views of a new kind of process of video-facilitated peer feedback on their demonstration lessons that has not previously been studied. It also compared their perceptions to relevant findings from previous studies that researched other types of peer feedback used in teacher education. This research underscores the potential of online peer video feedback as a valuable tool for teacher education and offers valuable insights into the use of technology-mediated feedback in teacher education as a novel and effective approach to improving teaching practice.

A number of implications for practice can be drawn from these findings. First, online peer feedback reaction videos can be an effective way for pre-service teachers to learn about the strengths and weaknesses in their teaching and for them to learn from observing the strengths and limitations of their peers. Second, peer feedback reaction videos can be a helpful way to give pre-service teachers access to detailed feedback and another perspective on their teaching, but teacher educators need to be aware of potential anxieties they might have around time requirements, technical issues, and receiving negative feedback from peers. Lastly, users of this technique should give specific guidelines for the assignment to avoid minimally-engaged pre-service teachers from providing insufficient feedback to their peers.

One limitation of this study is that it only focused on pre-service English teachers, therefore, the results may not be generalizable to in-service teacher education programs. Additionally, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. Further studies with larger sample sizes and with in-service teachers are needed to confirm the findings of this study. Another limitation of the study is that it only examined the perceptions of the pre-service teachers and did not measure the actual impact of the video feedback on the development of teaching skills and dispositions of pre-service teachers. Future studies could also explore the effectiveness of peer reaction video feedback on actual teaching performance. That is, this research could examine the impact of peer reaction video feedback on the long-term teaching practices of pre-service teachers, including its effect on their retention and success as teachers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable. IRB approval was not required in the study context (South Korea).

ORCID iD

Dennis Murphy Odo

References

Afdal

H. W.

(2017). “Research-based” and “profession-oriented” as prominent knowledge discourses in curriculum restructuring of professional programs. Higher Education, 74(3), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-9998-7

Agbayahoun

J. P.

(2017). Assessment for learning: What EFL student teachers learn from video self-reflection tasks. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(4), 74–86.

Al-Barakat

Al-Hassan

(2009). Peer assessment as a learning tool for enhancing student teachers’ preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660903247676

Amobi

Irwin

(2009). Implementing on-campus microteaching to elicit preservice teachers’ reflection on teaching actions: Fresh perspective on an established practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 27–34.

Aslan

(2022). Using cooperative learning and the flipped classroom model with prospective teachers to increase digital literacy self-efficacy, technopedagogical education, and 21st-century skills competence. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.9

Bağatur

(2015). Dismayed or enchanted: ELT students’ perceptions towards microteaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 770–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.610

Benton-Kupper

(2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education, 121(4), 830–835.

Bogdan

R. C.

Biklen

S. K.

(2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.

Brent

Wheatley

Thomson

W. S.

(1996). Videotaped microteaching: Bridging the gap from the university to the classroom. The Teacher Educator, 31(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878739609555115

10.

Brindley

Scoffield

(1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356215980030106

11.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.

12.

Campbell

K. H.

(2013). A call to action: Why we need more practitioner research. A response to “a teacher educator uses action research to develop culturally conscious curriculum planners.” Democracy and Education, 21(2), Article 7.

13.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

14.

Chen

Y.-M.

(2020). How a teacher education program through action research can support English as a foreign language teachers in implementing communicative approaches: A case From Taiwan. SAGE Open, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900167

15.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

17.

Dayal

H. C.

Alpana

(2020). Secondary pre-service teachers’ reflections on their micro-teaching: Feedback and self-evaluation. Waikato Journal of Education, 25, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v25i0.686

18.

Diana

T. J.

(2013). Microteaching revisited: Using technology to enhance the professional development of pre-service teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(4), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2013.790307

19.

Dochy

Segers

Sluijsmans

(1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935

20.

Ellis

McFadden

Anwar

Roehrig

(2015). Investigating the social interactions of beginning teachers using a video annotation tool. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 404–421.

21.

Ellis

N. J.

Loughland

(2017). “Where to next?” Examining feedback received by teacher education students. Issues in Educational Research, 27(1), 51–63.

22.

Erdemir

Yeşilçınar

(2021). Reflective practices in micro teaching from the perspective of preservice teachers: Teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-reflection. Reflective Practice, 22(6), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1968818

23.

Eröz-Tuğa

(2013). Reflective feedback sessions using video recordings. ELT Journal, 67(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs081

24.

Galvis

Nemirovsky

(2003). Video case studies: Grounded dialogue matters most. Concord, 7(1), 8.

25.

Gungor

M. N.

(2016). Turkish pre-service teachers’ reflective practices in teaching English to young learners. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n2.9

26.

Hama

H. Q.

Osam

Ű. V.

(2021). Revisiting microteaching in search of up-to-date solutions to old problems. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211061536. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061534

27.

Hidayah

Indriani

(2021). Real time feedback in English microteaching practice: A case study on online learning. Metathesis, 5(2), 155–167. http://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i2.4004

28.

Higgins

Nicholl

(2003). The experiences of lecturers and students in the use of microteaching as a teaching strategy. Nurse Education in Practice, 3(4), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-5953(02)00106-3

29.

Hoath

(2012). The emotions of reflective practice. Primary Science, 125, 21–23.

30.

Jordan

(2012). Video for peer feedback and reflection: Embedding mainstream engagement into learning and teaching practice. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 16–25. http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19192

31.

Karakaş

Yükselir

(2021). Engaging pre-service EFL teachers in reflection through video-mediated team micro-teaching and guided discussions. Reflective Practice, 22(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1860927

32.

Karatepe

Ç.

Yilmaz

. (2018). Promoting structured reflectivity in teacher education: An innovative approach. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 7(1), 57–74.

33.

Kelleci

Kulaksiz

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. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i2.3456

34.

Kessler

Hubbard

(2017). Language teacher education and technology. In Chapelle

C. A.

Sauro

(Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 278–292). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch19

35.

Khan

M. I.

(2015). Impediments to reflection in teacher education: A UK case. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 22–31.

36.

Kleinknecht

Schneider

(2013). What do teachers think and feel when analyzing videos of themselves and other teachers teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.002

37.

Koc

(2011). Let’s make a movie: Investigating pre-service teachers’ reflections on using video-recorded role playing cases in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.006

38.

Kourieos

(2016). Video-mediated microteaching–A stimulus for reflection and teacher growth. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.4

39.

Kuter

Gazi

Z. A.

Aksal

F. A.

(2012). Examination of co-construction of knowledge in videotaped simulated instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 174–184.

40.

Lee

G. C.

C.-C.

(2006). Enhancing the teaching experience of pre-service teachers through the use of videos in web-based computer-mediated communication (CMC). Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290600973836

41.

Lichtman

(2012). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Sage.

42.

McCullagh

J. F.

Bell

Corscadden

(2013). How does video analysis support student teachers in the very early stages of their initial teacher education? Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal (TEAN), 5(3), 39–51.

43.

Murphy Odo

. (2022). An action research investigation of the impact of using online feedback videos to promote self-reflection on the microteaching of preservice EFL teachers. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 35(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09575-8

44.

Nicol

D. J.

Macfarlane-Dick

(2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

45.

Okumuş

Yurdakal

İ. H.

(2016). Peer feedback through SNSs (social networking sites): Preservice teacher views about using Facebook for peer feedback on microteachings. Ilkogretim Online, 15(4), 1206–1216.

46.

Özonur

Kamisli

(2019). Evaluation of pre-service teachers’ views related to microteaching practice. Online Submission, 7(5), 1226–1233. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070508

47.

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. http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.13.01.003

48.

Riyanti

(2021). The use of google meet for online microteaching. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 8(2), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v8i2.3374

49.

Ropohl

Rönnebeck

(2019). Making learning effective–quantity and quality of pre-service teachers’ feedback. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2156–2176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1663452

50.

Rosaen

C. L.

Lundeberg

Cooper

Fritzen

Terpstra

(2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022487108322128

51.

Roth

K. J.

Garnier

H. E.

Chen

Lemmens

Schwille

Wickler

N. I.

(2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20408

52.

Saban

Çoklar

A. N.

(2013). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the micro-teaching method in teaching practise classes. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 234–240.

53.

Savas

(2012). Use of digital video recording in the preparation stage of pre-service foreign language teachers’ micro-teachings. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(3), 107–116.

54.

Serdar Tülüce

Çeçen

. (2018). The use of video in microteaching: Affordances and constraints. ELT Journal, 72(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx028

55.

Setyaningrahayu

Widhi

P. R.

Murtisari

E. T.

(2019). The use of video-based reflection to facilitate pre-service English teachers’ self-reflection. Indonesian JELT, 14(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.25170%2Fijelt.v14i2.1467

56.

Sluijsmans

D. M.

Brand-Gruwel

van Merriënboer

J. J.

Bastiaens

T. J.

(2002). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29(1), 23–42.

57.

Soffer

Kahan

Nachmias

(2019). Patterns of students’ utilization of flexibility in online academic courses and their relation to course achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.3949

58.

Tripp

Rich

(2012). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01234.x

59.

Tuzi

(2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003

60.

Wang

Hartley

(2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 105–138.

61.

Yatun

(2017). The use of video recording as self-reflection in teaching skill at microteaching class of English teacher education department in Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya [Doctoral Dissertation, UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya].

62.

Yuan

Mak

Yang

(2022). ‘We teach, we record, we edit, and we reflect’: Engaging pre-service language teachers in video-based reflective practice. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 552–571. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168820906281

63.

Zhang