2.1 TELL preparation in language teacher education

The quality of teaching and learning often depends on the teacher’s knowledge, experience, and skills. As many technologies are emerging and advancing quickly, it is challenging for language teachers to keep up with technological change and understand how to effectively integrate emerging technologies into their classrooms (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Zhang and Lee2024). Thus, teachers’ TCs are required more than ever. Teachers’ TCs can be defined as knowledge, attitudes, and skills that enable a teacher to successfully use a wide array of technologies in and beyond the classroom (Foulger et al., Reference Foulger, Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford and Slykhuis2017). According to Tondeur, Howard and Yang (Reference Tondeur, Howard and Yang2021), teachers’ TCs are highly influenced by their previous experiences with technology, efficacy, knowledge, and pedagogical beliefs and attitudes towards technologies.

One of the most powerful and well-known ways to integrate technology into education is the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) model (Mishra & Koehler, Reference Mishra and Koehler2006). TPACK has been also widely used to educate pre- and in-service teachers, measure their TCs, and evaluate technology training programs for teachers (Eutsler, Reference Eutsler2022). According to TPACK, to acquire appropriate TCs, teachers need to develop knowledge in multiple domains: technology, content, pedagogy (core domains), and technological content, pedagogical content, and technological pedagogical knowledge, derived from the interaction and reciprocal relationships among the core domains (Koehler, Shin & Mishra, Reference Koehler, Shin, Mishra, Ronau, Rakes and Niess2011; Wang, Schmidt-Crawford & Jin, Reference Wang, Schmidt-Crawford and Jin2018). The core concept of TPACK is that teachers should acquire technological pedagogical content knowledge to meaningfully and authentically apply technology in their classrooms.

Another widely adopted framework as a pragmatic guide for building teachers’ TCs is the substitute adaptation modification replacement (SAMR) model. The SAMR model proposes four stages in using technology in education (Puentedura, Reference Puentedura2013). At the substitution and augmentation stages, technology is used merely for enhancement and acts as a direct tool substitute. At the modification and redefinition stages, technology is used for transformation and requires significant task redesign. At the redefinition stage, technology enables the creation of new tasks that were not previously conceivable and supports greater levels of curriculum innovation. While TPACK describes what knowledge is required for effective technology integration in education, SAMR shows the levels of teachers’ TCs (Falloon, Reference Falloon2020).

Over the last few decades, a number of studies have emphasized the importance of TELL teacher preparation (Hubbard, Reference Hubbard2021; Kessler, Reference Kessler2021; Lee & Ahn, Reference Lee and Ahn2021); however, at the same time, they have also pointed to the insufficiency, inadequacy, and inappropriateness of TELL preparation and, most significantly, the lack of TELL in teacher education (Kessler, Reference Kessler2021). With the lack of TELL preparation an issue worldwide, educators such as Hubbard (Reference Hubbard2021) and Park and Son (Reference Park and Son2022) have reminded us that many pre- and in-service language teachers tend not to be well prepared for 21st century teaching, and they often experience difficulties utilizing technology or are not able to use technology at all.

More specifically, Hauck and Kurek (Reference Hauck, Kurek, Thorne and May2017) outlined the challenges of teacher education and the necessity of improving teachers’ TCs. First, preservice teachers may not have the chance to fully update their beliefs and practices due to the lack of first-hand experience using technology in education. Second, most pre- and in-service language teachers have not received adequate training regarding the integration of technology. As a result, they may not be able to develop their TCs as situated knowledge practices. Therefore, the involvement of future teachers in practical, hands-on experience with new technology is beneficial for understanding the affordances and constraints of technologies. Furthermore, preservice teachers should be prepared for “diversity, unpredictability, and change” (Hauck & Kurek, Reference Hauck, Kurek, Thorne and May2017: 283) so that they can become more confident and make better judgments about when, where, and how to use technology in their future language teaching.

2.2 Microteaching and iVR

In language teacher education programs, microteaching is a common pedagogical technique to support teachers in understanding pedagogical theory, sharpening teaching skills and strategies, putting their TPACK knowledge into practice, and improving core teaching competencies (Theelen, van den Beemt & den Brok, Reference Theelen, van den Beemt and den Brok2019). Microteaching aims to help student teachers plan, teach, observe, and reflect on their teaching through teaching a short lesson with a small number of students (Fernández, Reference Fernández2010). It also bridges the gap between theory and practice and allows teachers to reflect on and refine their practice (Thompson & Woodman, Reference Thompson and Woodman2019).

Studies have reported that using VR and iVR technology can further benefit microteaching. It offers a safe, low-anxiety environment for experimenting with teaching practices (Chen, Reference Chen2022), increases the enjoyability of microteaching (Bautista & Boone, Reference Bautista and Boone2015), enhances preservice teachers’ technological competencies and confidence, and enables situated learning for trainee teachers’ skill acquisition, including TCs (Kozlova & Priven, Reference Kozlova and Priven2015; Wu & Lee, Reference Wu, Lee, Lee, Zou and Guin press). In particular, prior literature suggests that the iVR environment can increase trainee teachers’ interest, motivation, and engagement in knowledge acquisition (Lin, Yu, Sun & Jong, Reference Lin, Yu, Sun and Jong2021), enhance their sense of immersion and presence, and empathy (Stavroulia, Baka, Lanitis & Magnenat-Thalmann, Reference Stavroulia, Baka, Lanitis and Magnenat-Thalmann2018), and improve their learning performance (Lee & Hwang, Reference Lee and Hwang2022). Billingsley, Smith, Smith and Meritt (Reference Billingsley, Smith, Smith and Meritt2019) suggested in their systematic review that iVR provided enriched learning opportunities and better preparation for future teachers, but research in this area is significantly lacking.

In addition, there is still a lack and inadequacy of teacher education regarding TELL (Kessler, Reference Kessler2021; Park & Son, Reference Park and Son2022). Similarly, in Korea, most preservice teachers start their careers without adequate training to bridge knowledge and practice (Cho & Ma, Reference Cho and Ma2019; Lee & Ahn, Reference Lee and Ahn2021) and both pre- and in-service teachers do not have enough opportunities to explore and integrate technology into practice (Choi, Reference Choi2020). In particular, considering the potential benefits of using iVR for language education, training to prepare teachers to better incorporate this new technology into their own teaching requires special attention (Lan, Reference Lan2020). In this study, both pre- and in-service teachers engaged in practice based on the TPACK and SMAR models in their teacher training courses. The aim was to observe how these two distinct groups of educators showcased their TCs by integrating iVR into their microteaching. The current paper addresses the following questions:

1. 1. How did pre- and in-service teachers utilize the iVR environment in their microteaching?

2. 2. To what extent did each group demonstrate their TCs differently in microteaching? What factors affected the differences between the groups?

4.1 Students’ use of iVR in microteaching

Based on the coding of the recordings of the participants’ microteaching, 12 categories emerged in three themes (Table 2): language input, language practice, and the use of iVR technology. For microteaching, both groups, based on the nature of the iVR environment, made the pedagogical decision to focus their lessons on the enhancement of oral language skills. The participants employed a variety of activities, both in language input and practice. As shown in Table 2, speaking practice and the teacher’s explanations appeared most frequently.

In terms of the use of iVR technology, the participants employed various activities and strategies. The first common example was utilizing the objects embedded in the environment. The participants often used the objects found in the environment to teach vocabulary, such as animal names in the zoo and food names in the restaurant. They also utilized objects to teach grammar, such as using animals of different sizes to teach comparative adjectives (e.g. The elephant is bigger than the shark). The second common example was actions using objects. For example, in the resort, students spoke sentences while tossing a ball to the next person in line. One of the most popular objects was a backpack given to each student, which contained a camera, a notepad, and a pen to use within the environment for taking a photo or writing a review (Figure 4). As the third common example, the participants utilized various instructional functions embedded in Immerse. The most commonly used function was material embedding. The participants created a board or TV monitor and embedded materials, such as presentation slides, images, animations, and movies, to show during microteaching (Figure 5). They also used prompts to give instructions, kept a scoreboard and ran a timer for a game, and used flashcards to practice target expressions. In addition, the participants provided time for exploration, during which they gave students some time to look around and become familiar with the environment.

Figure 4. Backpack items

Figure 5. Use of embedded materials

As an example, Table 3 demonstrates the basic structure of G4’s (an in-service teacher with three years of teaching experience) microteaching. From Scenes 1 to 3, the teacher (G4) prepared the learners with basic linguistic knowledge and skills by locating new words, viewing an animation, and making sentences. With such relevant linguistic input, the learners in this lesson were then motivated to role-play ordering and eating meals (Scenes 4 to 7). This was an authentic learning activity in that it simulated real-world actions ranging from ordering, preparing, and tasting, to evaluating a meal. In particular, this sample included a photo-taking and food-review activity (Scene 7), which added more authenticity to the lesson since these food shots and writing food reviews are common practices among the younger generations. The students were able to experience multisensory learning as well; they showed different gestures, performed different actions, and moved around the restaurant based on their willingness. To conclude microteaching, students shared their pictures and reviews, which further consolidated their learning (Scenes 8 to 9).

Table 3. The basic structure of G4’s microteaching lesson in iVR

4.2 Differences in microteaching between the groups

In the present study, a few differences were noted between the groups during microteaching. The most distinctive difference concerned their pedagogical approach. While the graduate students employed student-centered activities, the undergraduate students more frequently used a teacher-centered approach. For instance, when teaching vocabulary, the in-service graduate students provided scaffolding for vocabulary and engaged the target students in a vocabulary game to find words in the environment in teams. However, most of the undergraduate students verbally explained the target vocabulary using PowerPoint slides. Additionally, in terms of interaction, while the graduate students allowed student‒student interaction more frequently, the undergraduate students were engaged more in teacher-initiated interactions or teacher–student interactions, such as the process from teacher initiation to student response to teacher evaluation. In contrast, the graduate students assigned different roles to the target students according to the scene, engaged them in role-play, and increased interactions among students.

In addition, the graduate students fully utilized the space and often moved within the space. For instance, G1 started her lesson near the ocean (finding vocabulary and learning target expressions) and then moved to the beach (playing a game using the objects), to inside the resort (spinning a wheel and making up avatars), and to the bar (ordering and making drinks). In contrast, the place where the undergraduate students usually spent much class time was in front of the board or TV monitor as they spent a considerable amount of time explaining the language and showing the learning materials. They also had the target students be seated and pay attention to the teacher while they were explaining, which never occurred with the graduate students. Consequently, teacher-centered activities occupied 79.1% of undergraduate students’ microteaching and 21.0% of graduate students’ microteaching. On the other hand, student-centered activities accounted for 20.8% of undergraduate students’ microteaching and 78.9% of graduate students’ microteaching.

To further exemplify the differences, some representative teaching moments from undergraduate and graduate students are presented below. In Table 4, the teacher, played by a graduate student (G4), adopted the role of facilitator in the iVR environment. In the first two screenshots (Scenes 1 and 2), the teacher assigned students to participate in a competition (represented by a scoreboard) that required learners to explore the virtual space: a restaurant. G4 initiated small talk (e.g. “You guys look excited.”), issued detailed instructions (e.g. “Let’s make two groups.”), and elicited feedback from the learners (e.g. “Is this clear?”), which made the class more interactive and student centered. In the following two scenes (Scenes 3 and 4), the teacher observed the students’ learning performance and only provided feedback (e.g. “Check the backpack.”) when necessary. Most of the learning time was devoted to students’ collaborative work. In Scenes 5 and 6, G4 rallied the students and monitored their learning progress. In this example, the teacher played the basic role of facilitator and allowed learners to be actively involved in learning by interacting with peers, the teacher, and the environment.

Table 4. Example of G4

Note. T = teacher (G4); TS = target students (played by other students).

In contrast, Table 5 vividly shows how the undergraduate students taught differently in iVR. Although this group selected an appealing scene of making potions in a wizard’s classroom, the teaching arrangements did not deviate much from the teaching practices in a traditional classroom. First, in the six screenshots in Table 5, most of the lesson time was occupied with teacher talk, which was largely restrained in the graduate student’s example in Table 4. Second, from the beginning of Scene 1, the teacher (U2) decided to mimic the traditional approach to learning by asking students to take a seat and watch the screen. Then the teacher started teaching by talking about learning objectives and asking students to look at a picture on a PowerPoint slide, which was similar to the typical approach in the traditional classroom. Such teacher-led learning continued in Scenes 3 and 4. In Scene 5, the students were required to participate in a group activity where they were required to produce a pot of potion. The teacher, again, controlled the process by sending meticulous instructions (e.g. “Now stand up!”). In a similar vein, the teacher made extensive use of the functions such as the whiteboard and the rally function to get learners’ attention.

Table 5. Example of U2

Note. T = teacher (U2); TS = target students.

The reflection papers, which helped to identify the reasons underlying the participants’ microteaching, also exhibited the differences between the groups. Most importantly, the undergraduate students expressed regrets and concerns about teaching and the teacher’s role, such as in the following example:

In this excerpt, U3 considered a lecturer to be an important part of the role of a teacher and undermined the value of a teacher as a planner. Similarly, other students commented about their teacher-centered approach that “I was worried I was not teaching enough” (U1) and “because silence during the activity felt awkward, I tried to avoid it and ended up explaining and teaching too much” (U2). On the other hand, the graduate students showed a pre-existing awareness of the advantages of iVR. G3 pointed out that “there was no space restriction in VR”; thus, there was “no need for static teaching methods, unlike in the traditional classroom where students always sit down and fill in the worksheet.”

In addition, both groups mentioned anxiety, although from different perspectives. The graduate students wrote that iVR could benefit students’ L2 learning, particularly speaking, because using avatars could reduce learners’ performance anxiety around speaking. G1 and G5 mentioned that saving face was very important in Korean classrooms, and this often hindered students’ speaking in class, but speaking in iVR could mitigate the situation. On the other hand, the undergraduate students talked about their own reduced anxiety during microteaching. They reported that, while they often felt uncomfortable microteaching in front of their peers and with the instructor in the classroom, they felt less anxious and more comfortable during microteaching in iVR.

On the other hand, the reflection papers indicated that both groups were aware of the pedagogical benefits of using iVR in English education. They mentioned “interest,” “fun,” and “immersion” most frequently in the reflection papers, and they chose places that could “maximize the fun and authenticity effect.” “Context,” “situation,” and “authenticity” also appeared frequently. The participants mentioned that “the iVR environment could realize the situational/functional syllabus in the classroom” and “was the most effective learning environment to practice oral language skills by placing target students in a specific situation”; thus, they “expected that target students would actively communicate” in iVR. They also pointed to the disadvantages of using iVR, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Summary of the reflection paper analysis

Note. U = undergraduate students; G = graduate students.

Overall, despite a few initial difficulties (e.g. becoming familiar with the device and the specific functions of Immerse), both groups regarded microteaching in iVR as “a great learning opportunity to think about teaching strategies and classroom practice” and “future classrooms that we are going to teach in.” They also mentioned that microteaching in the iVR environment provided a valuable learning experience through which they were able to “apply what [they] learned to the new environment” and to realize what they could apply and what they could not do easily in the classroom. Both groups discussed a number of ideas to effectively integrate technology connecting to pedagogy and content knowledge in the reflection papers. Whereas the undergraduate students showed a lack of technological pedagogical knowledge in microteaching, the reflection papers showed their awareness of TCs (e.g. discussing how to effectively integrate pedagogy and technology) – 37 times for the undergraduates and 36 times for the graduates in total. In sum, both groups said that microteaching in iVR enabled an opportunity to reflect on their pedagogical and technological skills and connect the skills. They believed that their teaching competencies and technological integration strategies were enhanced through microteaching and that they were “better prepared for the future English classroom.”