Perceptions of pre-service teachers on breakout room micro-teaching with Zoom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the emergence of Covid-19, many educators moved from a face-to-face teaching environment to an online microteaching setting using Zoom. This study explores pre-service teachers’ perspectives on microteaching within Zoom’s breakout rooms. The authors approached this study from a positivist-postpositivist perspective employing a mixed-methods methodology. The exploratory sequential mixed-method design employed here combines qualitative and quantitative data. Analysis entailed open coding of data from Zoom recordings and statistical analysis of a post-course survey. Convenience sampling of pre-service teachers (PSTs) from a teacher education teaching method course provided the data sets. Findings indicate that microteaching activities within breakout rooms facilitated an environment where pre-service teachers engaged and conversed with peers while developing teaching skills. PSTs valued breakout room interactions, though males and females valued different aspects. Finally, although the findings suggest that microteaching in Zoom’s breakout rooms is effective, the findings indicate that the pre-service teachers desired a return to the classroom. This research extends previous research on online microteaching student experiences by providing recommendations regarding microteaching via video conferences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".