Teacher educators use of feedback to facilitate reflective practice among pre-service teachers during microteaching

Abstract

This study investigated how teacher educators utilize feedback to enhance reflective practices among pre-service teachers during microteaching sessions. Conducted at a government-run teacher education college in Ethiopia, this research adopted a case study approach, employing semi-structured interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGD), and observations for data collection. Both pre-service teachers and teacher educators were sources of data. Thematic analysis facilitated the interpretation of the data. Findings indicated that teacher educators often relied on evaluation criteria as preliminary feedback (feed-up), delivered feedback that lacked dialogue following teaching practices and did not offer forward-looking feedback (feed-forward). The unchecked use of evaluation criteria for every aspect of pre-service teachers’ practices, coupled with non-dialogic feedback on identified shortcomings and the absence of constructive feed-forward mechanisms, hindered opportunities for pre-service teachers to genuinely engage in reflective practices during microteaching sessions. The study deduced that teacher educators inadequately leveraged varied feedback methods to foster active reflective practices among pre-service teachers. This suggests a missed opportunity in utilizing feedback as an effective pedagogical tool to encourage reflective practice among pre-service teachers. Given the limitations regarding the generalizability of this study, it is recommended that future research gathers more comprehensive data on the subject and delves into the nature and content of feedback in relation to the depth of reflection in teacher education.

Keywords:

• feedback
• reflective ractice
• microteaching
• teacher education
• checklist
• dialogic feedback

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

Reflective practice, fundamentally, involves learning from experience. It is an introspective, critical, and explorative method, enabling educators to dissect their pedagogical choices in light of real-world teaching scenarios (Loughran, 2002; Walshe & Driver, 2019). Larrivee (2008:342) highlights reflective practice as an “on-the-job performance” that stems from a contemplative approach toward daily decision-making and problem-solving. Such reflection, defined further, is a cognitive endeavor, one that involves both individual inquiry and collaboration, fostering learning from experiences (Mezirow, 1991; Schon, 1983). But this skill of critical reflection is not instinctual for teachers; it requires intentional cultivation (Ahmet, 2019; Bognar & Krumes, 2017; Pow & Lai, 2021; Straková & Cimermanová, 2018; Yang & Carless, 2013). Hence, it is pivotal for teacher educators to create an environment and establish professional strategies that actively involve pre-service teachers in reflective practices during their training.

Microteaching serves as a valuable practice ground for these pre-service teachers. Described as a condensed teaching experience, it involves pre-service teachers designing a brief lesson, delivering it to their peers, and subsequently reflecting on their approach (Arsal, 2014; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Ledger & Fischetti, 2020). Such sessions see these pre-service teachers adopt varied roles—as the teacher, as students, and as observers—with the accompanying responsibility of giving and accepting performance feedback. As emphasized by Mergler and Tangen (2010), this cycle of feedback within microteaching plays a significant role in nurturing reflective practices among pre-service teachers. Consequently, microteaching is recognized as an instrumental method in offering on-campus clinical experience, contributing extensively to the evolution of competent and introspective teachers (Dharma et al., 2022; Msimanga, 2021; Oluwatoyin & Femi, 2022; Otsupius, 2014; Sithole, 2023).

Reflection is not confined to post-action contemplation; it pervades various stages of professional practice (Loughran, 1997; Schon, 1983, 1987). These stages, or temporal dimensions, of reflection, encompass reflection-in-action (contemplating during the act), reflection-on-action (pondering upon concluded actions), and reflection-for-action (forward-looking contemplation for future actions) (Killion & Todnem, 1991). Aligned with these ideas, Van Manen (1991) introduced anticipatory, contemporaneous, and retrospective reflections. Hence, for holistic engagement of pre-service teachers in reflective practices, it becomes vital for teacher educators to offer feedback tailored to these varied reflective stages: feed-up, feedback, and feed-forward (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Dialogic feedback stands out for its effectiveness. When feedback transitions from being unidirectional to dialogic, it fosters a richer collaborative environment between teacher educators and pre-service teachers. According to Lichtenberger-Majzikne and Fischer (2017), who reaffirm this idea, feedback is a bidirectional process, and the recipient’s interpretation of the feedback is just as important as the way it is delivered. In this interactive dynamic, pre-service teachers gain insights from educators, peers, and self-evaluations, enriching their overall learning experience (Yiğitoğlu-Aptoula, 2021). Pow and Lai (2021) further argue that sole reliance on instructor feedback might hinder the growth of reflectivity in pre-service teachers.

Understanding the importance of reflective practice, the Ethiopian Ministry of Education (MoE) has enshrined it within its education framework. Reflective practice is highlighted not just as an intrinsic element of practicum and professional courses, but also as a guiding principle of teacher education programs (MoE, 2013). To quote the Ministry’s directive, it describes reflective practice as “infused… as a mainstay of the pre-service program for teacher educators and prospective teachers… modeled in all teaching and learning and as an essential part of the practicum experience” (MoE, 2013, p. 9). In essence, one of the primary objectives of the Ethiopian pre-service teacher training program is to shape educators who, as they progress in their careers, continually analyze and refine their teaching practices (MoE, 2013).

2. Statement of the problem

Reflection is not an arbitrary act. As articulated by Loughran (2002, p. 33), reflection is “a well-defined and crafted practice that carries a very specific meaning and associated action.” Recent discourse in educational circles underscores the importance of structured mediation that can foster reflection (Larrivee, 2008). Teaching, as a practice, is structured into planning (pre-teaching), execution (during teaching), and assessment (post-teaching) phases. In a similar vein, reflective practice adheres to its own structured timeline (Schon, 1987, Killion & Todnem, 1991; Loughran, 1997). Teachers, and by extension pre-service teachers, reflect at strategic intervals—while planning and executing their lesson or following its completion. Consequently, to nurture pre-service teachers’ reflective capacities, it’s imperative to strategize support measures tailored to these distinct phases and their corresponding reflective levels.

Microteaching, as a pedagogical tool, has garnered attention for its ability to enhance the reflective practices of pre-service teachers (Arsal, 2014; He & Yan, 2011; Ledger & Fischetti, 2019). Studies consistently highlight an uptick in the reflective capacities of pre-service teachers owing to their active participation in the give-and-take of feedback during microteaching. However, these studies fall short in providing clarity on the nature of the reflective practices that were enhanced. Questions remain regarding the strategies employed by teacher educators to foster reflective practices and the specifics of feedback provided.

The utility of feedback in bolstering reflective practices during microteaching is undeniable. Yet, curiously, no research has delved into the nuances of how microteaching in Ethiopia facilitates pre-service teachers’ reflective practices. This gap underscores the need for this study, which zeroes in on the feedback dynamics within microteaching and its potential to cultivate diverse reflective practices among pre-service teachers. To navigate this uncharted territory, the research hinges on answering the following pivotal questions:

1. In what manner do teacher educators extend varied feedback on pre-teaching, in-teaching, and post-teaching phases?

2. What impact does the feedback from teacher educators, spanning pre-teaching, in-teaching, and post-teaching phases, exert on pre-service teachers’ inclination towards reflective practices?

3. Theoretical framework

This research is grounded in the theory of social constructivism, which posits that learning emerges from interactions with peers, educators, and the broader societal context (Vygotsky, 1978). A key tenet introduced by Vygotsky is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). He delineates ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level, gauged by independent problem-solving, and the potential developmental level discerned through problem-solving under the guidance of an adult or in partnership with more adept peers” (p. 86). Feedback, in this context, serves as an instrument to articulate the discrepancy between a student teacher’s current performance and the anticipated level of proficiency.

At its core, learning is a communal endeavor. The potency of feedback is intricately linked to the ambiance in which it is imparted and the rapport shared by the feedback provider and recipient. Consequently, it is imperative for teacher educators to cultivate an atmosphere imbued with openness and receptivity. Such an environment not only establishes their credibility but also ensures an authentic experience in the dispensation and assimilation of constructive feedback (Lichtenberger-Majzikne & Fischer, 2017). Both feedback and reflection are rooted in collaborative dynamics; reflection is engendered in synergy with others (Harford & MacRuairc, 2008). Hence, the efficacy of standards and guidelines hinges on their clear communication. Moreover, feedback dispensed by teacher educators (as the more knowledgeable others) and peers (as the more capable peers) within a dialogic framework assist pre-service teachers in pinpointing the disparities between their extant capabilities and desired outcomes. Armed with this feedback, student teachers are better positioned to recalibrate their plans and teaching strategies, bridging performance gaps, and achieving their zenith potential.

3.1. Review of related literature

This section delves into prior studies that explore microteaching, reflective practice, and feedback within the realm of teacher education. It further examines the intersection between feedback and reflective practice, detailing how teacher educators harness feedback to augment the reflective practice of pre-service teachers during microteaching sessions.

3.2. Microteaching in teacher education

Microteaching has emerged as a pivotal technique for the professional growth of pre-service teachers in teacher education programs. It offers an abbreviated teaching experience, allowing pre-service teachers to hone their teaching skills (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). Revered as a preferred method for equipping pre-service teachers with on-campus practical exposure, microteaching facilitates the mastery of teaching skills through condensed lessons (Amobi, 2005; Arsal, 2014; Banga, 2014; Ledger et al., 2019). Within microteaching, the teaching sessions are typically condensed to 10–15 minutes, during which student-teachers instruct their peers, emphasizing specific skill sets. Key elements include acquiring these skills, dispensing and accepting feedback, and engaging in self-reflection (Mergler & Tangen, 2010).

Since its introduction by Allen and Ryan in the 1960s, the use of microteaching has evolved. Recent studies have increasingly focused on the potential of technology, especially video, to bolster teachers’ reflective practices and ongoing professional development (e.g., Ahmet, 2019; Arsal, 2015, Batman & Saka, 2021; Karakaş & Yükselir, 2021; Yuan et al., 2022). This enables teachers to scrutinize a myriad of knowledge sources to gauge their strengths and weaknesses and to formulate enhancement strategies (Zhang & Cheng, 2011). Benefitting from technological strides, pre-service teachers can now video-record their sessions to introspectively assess their pedagogical prowess (Kourieos, 2016; Payant, 2014).

Several studies underscore the instrumental role of microteaching in professional growth. For instance, He and Yan (2011) investigated the efficacy of microteaching in pre-service teacher education programs, uncovering that pre-service teachers perceived microteaching as a valuable tool for their professional advancement. Similarly, Elias (2018) delved into the impact of microteaching experiences on pre-service teachers’ attitudes, revealing that these experiences significantly aided in recognizing their pedagogical strengths and areas of growth.

Microteaching equips pre-service teachers with an array of vital skills, including the ability for reflective practice. Richard (2021) probed the effects of micro-teaching on the professional competencies of South African pre-service teachers, finding that such sessions significantly bolster skills like lesson planning, resource deployment, and professional conduct. Adu-Yeboah and Kwaah (2018), in their study in Ghana, reiterated the benefits of on-campus experiences in fortifying general pedagogical skills.

3.3. Reflective practice in teacher education

The nurturing of reflective abilities in teachers ideally commences during their teacher education. Recognized as an integral component of teacher education (Beauchamp, 2015; Farrell, 2016; Lee & Choi, 2013), reflective practice must be embedded within pre-service teacher training. To amplify pre-service teachers’ reflective capabilities, educational programs should cultivate an environment brimming with hands-on activities under expert guidance. Enhancing their professional prowess is the primary goal, achieved in part through constructive feedback (Batman, 2021).

Evidence suggests that early immersion in reflective practices empowers novice teachers to be proactive decision-makers, persistently striving for professional enhancement. Engaging in reflective practice early in their careers equips pre-service teachers with a diverse teaching repertoire, enabling them to adeptly navigate the challenges of their initial teaching years (Yuan & Lee, 2014). A study by Slade et al. (2019) further confirmed the benefits, highlighting that reflective practice strengthens students’ knowledge acquisition, bolsters their self-awareness, and thereby fosters their confidence in handling real-world challenges.

3.4. Different types of feedback in microteaching

Productive practice in microteaching is underpinned by feedback. Feedback illuminates performance discrepancies, prompting pre-service teachers to introspect and evolve (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Zhang & Cheng, 2011). In essence, feedback lays the groundwork for reflection (Amobi, 2005; Diana, 2013) and is often deemed the inception of the reflective journey (Lichtenberger-Majzikne & Fischer, 2017).

Feedback can be categorized into three segments as proposed by Hattie and Timperley (2007): feed-up, feedback, and feed-forward. These guide pre-service teachers through self-inquiry: “Where am I going?”, “How am I doing?”, and “Where to next?”. Clear criteria and objectives are fundamental to effective feedback, fostering student engagement, and driving improvement (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, despite its recognized value, many educational institutions fall short in furnishing students with these necessary guidelines (Adu-Yeboah & Kwaah, 2018).

Performance feedback offers objective insights based on observational data, highlighting areas of strengths and improvements (Cornelius & Nagro, 2014; Sweigart et al., 2015). Feedback that equips students to enhance future performance is pivotal. Unfortunately, the utility of feedback is often diminished in higher education settings due to its timing, often coming post-course completion, leaving no window for actionable improvements (Ferguson, 2011; Jonsson, 2013).

3.5. Feedback and reflective practice in microteaching

Feedback has consistently been identified as a crucial element of microteaching, underpinning the reflective practices of student instructors. Arsal (2015) explored the impact of microteaching on pre-service teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking using a quasi-experimental approach. The study revealed that those in the experimental group displayed a more pronounced advancement in their critical thinking disposition. Arsal posited that one of the contributing factors to this development was the feedback provided by teacher educators on video-recorded sessions.

Several studies have underscored the value of microteaching, drawing on pre-service teachers’ perspectives on the practice. He and Yan (2011) delved into the realism of microteaching in teacher education programs. Through reflective writing, they gleaned insights into the pre-service teachers’ views on their microteaching experiences. The study found that these teachers viewed microteaching as invaluable for their professional growth. They noted how feedback from both their educators and peers illuminated their strengths and weaknesses, further fueling their reflective processes. In a similar vein, Elias (2018) examined pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the efficacy of microteaching in instructional programs. The findings highlighted that these teachers felt the microteaching experience was instrumental in helping them discern both their strengths and areas needing improvement. Additionally, they claimed to have honed a range of teaching skills.

Regarding the methodology of integrating microteaching in teacher education curriculums, Adu-Yeboah and Kwaah (2018) conducted a study titled Preparing Teacher Trainees for Field Experience: Lessons from the On-Campus Practical Experience in Colleges of Education in Ghana.” The objective was to comprehend the on-campus practical experience’s role in shaping pre-service teachers for their fieldwork and their perspectives on the process. The findings illustrated that on-campus practical sessions were pivotal in refining the knowledge and skills of these budding teachers. However, a glaring gap was the lack of standardized guidelines for these practicums. The limited engagement with supervisors impeded the pre-service teachers in-depth analysis and reflection on their methodologies. The study consequently recommended the creation of explicit standards and guidelines for such practices. Similarly, Yiğitoğlu-Aptoula (2021) examined pre-service teachers” perspectives on the efficacy of feedback they received during microteaching activities. The results confirmed that feedback from teacher educators was deemed paramount in their professional evolution.

Innovative methodologies have been introduced in microteaching to further elevate the professional learning of pre-service teachers. Ahmet (2019) scrutinized pre-service teachers’ reflective accounts of their video-recorded microteaching sessions. The study discovered that integrating smartphone video recording technology significantly enhanced the feedback and reflection stages as compared to traditional microteaching methods. Another noteworthy approach was the “practicum-based microteaching” proposed by Zhang and Cheng (2011). This model adeptly blended on-campus microteaching with real-world school teaching experiences. The model emphasized planning, execution, and feedback, underscoring the pivotal role of feedback. Similarly, Batman and Saka (2021) investigated the impact of micro-reflective teaching practices on the professional competencies of pre-service physics educators in Turkey. The study’s results indicated that feedback played an instrumental role in enhancing their professional acumen.

In conclusion, the literature highlights the indispensable role of microteaching as a platform for pre-service teachers to hone their skills, collaborate with peers, and engage deeply with feedback. Even with its simulated context, microteaching proves pivotal in cultivating reflective practices among pre-service teachers. These studies accentuate the significance of timely feedback, both before and after instructional practice. It is evident that such feedback is crucial in fostering reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, and reflection-for-action among educators. However, the practice of delivering this feedback in teacher education, especially within microteaching, remains an area warranting further exploration.

3.6. Research methods

3.6.1. Research design

The primary objective of this study was to delve into the utilization of varied feedback types in microteaching, emphasizing their impact on pre-service teachers’ reflective forms and discerning contextual factors influencing student-teacher participation in microteaching. A qualitative case study design was chosen to aptly address these objectives.

Yin (2018) conceptualized a case study as “an empirical inquiry that delves into a current phenomenon in-depth within its real-life context.” He advocated its versatile nature that allows an in-depth exploration across diverse situations, be it individuals, groups, or organizations. The central ambition is to furnish a holistic, accurate depiction. The focus of a case study, as expounded by Yin, is its in-depth nature, addressing the “how” and “why” dimensions. The Hawassa College of Teacher Education was consequently chosen as the study’s subject.

Stake (1995) differentiated case studies into intrinsic and instrumental. The former targets the case itself for learning, while the latter pertains to understanding broader issues through the case. Our study aligns with the instrumental approach, delving into the reflective practices of pre-service teachers during microteaching.

3.6.2. Study context and participants

The research was carried out at an Ethiopian government teacher education college. The primary subjects were third-year pre-service teachers enrolled in a subject methodology course, employing microteaching as a pivotal strategy to facilitate teaching practice and peer feedback. The study incorporated three departments: English Language, Mathematics, and Physics. Two microteaching groups from each department were chosen for observation. Six microteaching groups were hence included in the study. 18 pre-service teachers were chosen from the six groups-three from each group, comprising 12 males and 6 females—and divided into three FGD groups, each with six participants (designated FGD 1–3). Six students (lesson presenters, four males and two females, designated ST1–6) were chosen from the six microteaching groups to participate in semi-structured interviews. In addition, three teacher educators who taught subject area methodology courses in the chosen departments were chosen for the study (two males and one female, classified as TE1–3).

Evaluation standards created for microteaching are used by teacher educators. The objectives, activities, assessments, teachers, and student components make up the evaluation criteria, and there are specific criteria for each component to determine how well the lesson was performed. A rating system from 1 to 5 was used to determine the evaluation criteria. The scales show the degree to which the criteria were met during the lesson: 1 indicates that they were not met; 2 indicates that they were not met satisfactorily; 3 indicates that they were met at a good level; 4 indicates that they were met at a very good level; and 5 indicates that they were met at an excellent level.

Informants (pre-service teachers and teacher educators) were chosen through purposive sampling. Finding informants who are willing to participate in the study is essential because the research entails a labor-intensive process of data gathering, including repeated classroom observations and interviews for a case study. Finding informants with relevant knowledge and experience on the topic under research is also essential in case studies. Purposive sampling was described by Yin (2018) as a suitable method for choosing participants for a qualitative case study design. It aids in finding people who can guide students in learning about, comprehending, and gaining a thorough understanding of the topic at hand.

3.6.3. Data collection procedures

Several ethical considerations were made prior to data collection, ensuring participants’ informed consent, confidentiality, and their rights to refuse or withdraw. The study adopted multiple data collection tools: semi-structured interviews, FGDs, and unstructured observations. Interviews with teacher educators and pre-service teachers were conducted post-microteaching, while FGDs were convened after all departmental microteaching sessions concluded.

3.6.4. Data analysis

The analysis gravitated towards understanding types of feedback and their influence on reflective practices. Emphasis was laid on the dialogic nature of feedback. A preliminary analysis spotlighted how pre-service teachers used established evaluation criteria during lesson planning and rehearsals.

Thematic analysis was the preferred methodology. Initial steps included transcription and translation of interviews and FGDs into English. This was followed by multiple readings to gain a holistic understanding of the data, in line with Creswell’s (2007) recommendations. Utilizing MAXQDA2020 software, the data was coded and thematically categorized. Two primary themes and six sub-themes were discerned. The insights from FGDs and observations were integrated into the identified themes (See Table 1).

Table 1. Themes, subthemes, issues under sub-teams, and codes

Themes	Sub-themes	Issues in sub-themes	Codes
Teacher educators use of different types of feedbacks	Feed up – evaluation criteria and briefings on the practice	In sufficient clarification on the purpose of microteaching, unclear orientation on evaluation criteria to be used in Microteaching	-explain purpose of microteaching - orienting standards - demonstrating skills - exemplars - explaining expectation - evaluation criteria
	Feedback – non-dialogic instructive feedback	Corrective and non-dialogic feedback given by teacher educators	- indicating gap - reflection on performance - identifying weakness and strengths - giving correction
	Feed forward - no feed forward	Identifying and telling the performance gap is the end of the microteaching practice	- using feedback data - re-planning - re-teaching
Effect of feedbacks for student teachers’ engagement in reflective practice	Unintended effect of evaluation criteria	Using evaluation criteria as standards of microteaching practices, and attempt to guide every activity according to the criteria, expecting complete alignment of practice to the criteria	- evaluation criteria is standard - planning in alignment to evaluation criteria - adherence to evaluation criteria while teaching - no improvisation
	Effect of non-dialogic feedback	Teachers are the only source of feedback, they did not facilitate student teachers participation in the process of feedback	- telling as feedback - self-reflection - peer feedback
	Feed Forward and its Absence	Telling the performance gap is the end of the microteaching practice, no attempt were made to re-plan the practice using the feedback	- using feedback data - re-planning lesson - re-teaching lessons

3.7. Findings from data analysis

The analysis of data from semi-structured interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGD), and observational notes, in light of the research questions, yielded the following results:

3.8. Types of feedback used by teacher educators

3.8.1. Feed up: briefings on evaluation criteria for practice

From interviews with teacher educators and pre-service teachers, it was apparent that evaluation criteria played a pivotal role in guiding student approaches during microteaching. Teacher educators oriented pre-service teachers about the significance of microteaching and the instrumental role of evaluation criteria. Using these criteria as benchmarks, pre-service teachers gauged their performances. As one pre-service teacher (ST1) articulated:

Our group designed a lesson plan grounded in the evaluation criteria. We chose a presenter to relay the lesson to our group. We assessed the lessons through the lens of the evaluation criteria, refined our plan based on the feedback, and re-presented the lesson.

Additionally, observational data underscored the profound influence of evaluation criteria in facilitating pre-service teachers’ deliberations and exchanges during rehearsal sessions. However, a recurring sentiment from FGD participants was the educators’ lack of demonstration or provision of exemplary models during preparatory sessions. This sentiment was corroborated by classroom observations, which showed educators outlining procedures and assigning tasks, but not engaging in comprehensive discussions.

3.8.2. Feedback: predominantly instructive with limited dialogue

Feedback post-presentation, as described by student teachers, was rooted in the evaluation criteria, allowing them to discern their strengths and areas of improvement. Yet, this feedback lacked interactive elements. Pre-service teachers felt they were not accorded space for self-reflection or engagement in dialogues with educators and peers. One respondent (ST1) mentioned, “The educator highlighted the errors in my peer teaching, but I was not granted the chance to introspect and discern my areas of strength and improvement.”

The trend of feedback was consistent, with another student (ST2) pointing out the educator’s unwillingness to allow self-reflection and the lack of participation from peers in giving feedback. FGD participants emphasized the absence of open dialogue in their practices, with educators often resorting to prescriptive feedback. They also critiqued the evaluation criteria’s rating system, which, with its 1–5 scale, seemed uninformative and non-conducive to dialogue.

Observational data highlighted that while pre-service teachers did provide written feedback on peers’ lessons using the given evaluation criteria, this feedback was not shared. Instead, the feedback forms were harnessed by educators for grading, leaving pre-service teachers with solely oral feedback from their instructors.

Conversely, in interviews with teacher educators, they asserted that identifying students’ gaps was their prerogative, given that inexperienced pre-service teachers might not be adept at recognizing their own shortcomings. One educator (TE2) expressed, “My students anticipate clear identification of their areas of improvement from me, which I believe is integral to the practice.”

3.8.3. Feed forward and its absence

Feedback’s primary purpose is to utilize the information to reflect on practices and enhance performance—termed feed-forward. Yet, the analysis revealed that pre-service teachers did not leverage this feedback to enhance their microteaching performance; there was no instance of re-planning or re-teaching. Moreover, although teacher educators provided improvement suggestions, they didn’t require the pre-service teachers to re-plan or re-teach lessons.

A pre-service teacher (ST3) during the interview had the following to tell; “we garnered invaluable feedback from our educators, and we intend to incorporate this during our school practicum teaching. However, the notion of re-planning and re-teaching based on this feedback is nearly inconceivable”.

One recurrent challenge was the lack of time. ST1, somewhat taken aback by the query, remarked, “Our schedules are tight; we are gearing up for practicum in a mere three weeks and have numerous course contents to address beforehand. Finding time for even an initial teaching round is challenging, let alone revisiting lessons based on feedback.”

In the context of feed forward, teacher educators noted that while they highlighted students’ areas of improvement in their feedback, there was often no opportunity for re-teaching or re-planning lessons due to time constraints.

3.9. Impact of feedback on pre-service teachers’ reflective practice

3.9.1. The unintended consequence of evaluation criteria

Many pre-service teachers believed that the evaluation criteria positively influenced their engagement in preparatory activities. They actively planned, assessed, and debated lessons based on these criteria. Peer discussions and continuous revision to meet the criteria allowed them to anticipate and reflect upon their practices.

Yet, some felt restricted. From the onset, they were instructed to strictly adhere to these criteria, effectively making them the gold standard for microteaching. As ST4 mentioned, “Any deviation from the plan was instantly flagged as an error.” ST3 echoed this sentiment, stating that deviating from the teaching plan, regardless of classroom dynamics, was seen as an error.

These sentiments were reinforced during group discussions where participants voiced concerns about the restrictive nature of the evaluation criteria, which seemed to limit their freedom and creativity.

3.9.2. Issues stemming from non-dialogic feedback

One concern raised was the predominantly one-sided nature of the feedback, which rendered pre-service teachers passive recipients. The absence of dialogue meant they could not justify or explain their teaching methods, further pushing them to focus only on the preset checklist and abide by strict instructions.

During group discussions, pre-service teachers voiced their concerns about this lack of dialogue. They felt stifled, unable to present alternative teaching approaches without facing criticism. On the flip side, teacher educators acknowledged that a dialogic feedback system, where pre-service teachers can reflect on their practice and actively engage in feedback exchanges, would be more beneficial.

3.9.3. Microteaching as an assessment strategy

Both teacher educators and pre-service teachers viewed microteaching primarily as an assessment tool, a means to gauge student performance. This assessment-focused mindset seemed to limit constructive feedback, with both parties sometimes reluctant to engage in open discussion for fear of affecting grades.

Pre-service teachers also admitted to bias when evaluating their peers, often scoring them favorably to ensure better grades.

3.9.4. The ramifications of neglecting feed forward

Despite receiving feedback, pre-service teachers felt lost without actionable steps to improve—often termed as feed-forward. This lack of direction hindered their ability to reflect on their practice post-completion.

During their interviews and group discussions, pre-service teachers underscored the significance of feed-forward in rectifying observed shortcomings. They believed that if provided with opportunities to re-teach or re-plan lessons based on feedback, they would grasp the teaching practice more effectively.

4. Discussion

Feedback plays a pivotal role in shaping students’ professional experiences and serves as an instrumental tool in honing pre-service teachers’ reflective skills. The manner and timing of feedback, particularly as provided by teacher educators before and after teaching practice, critically influences the degree to which pre-service teachers engage in reflective practice.

Research findings indicate consistent feedback practices among teacher educators across departments. The concept of “feed up” was introduced through evaluation criteria designed by educators, which subsequently guided the teaching practices of pre-service teachers in the desired direction. Such findings echo the sentiments of Boud and Molloy (2013), as well as Hattie and Timperley (2007), suggesting that well-defined criteria and standards play a pivotal role in effective feedback, directing pre-service teachers towards intentional actions. Using these evaluation criteria can offer provisional support to pre-service teachers, encouraging them to eventually establish their own practice goals.

However, a gap was observed in the post-practice feedback process, characterized by a lack of dialogue between educators and pre-service teachers. This one-sided feedback approach aligns with the observations of Nicol and Macfarlane‐Dick (2006) and Ajjawi and Boud (2018), pinpointing the issues stemming from monologue feedback which neglects the interactive nature of learning.

Another gap identified was the absence of “feed forward” in microteaching practices. As underscored by Price et al. (2010), feedback that promotes improvement lies at the heart of student engagement. Yet, results show that educators only identified flaws without offering actionable solutions for future practices.

These findings highlight a concerning trend: evaluation criteria misuse, non-dialogic feedback, and the absence of forward-looking, assessment-centered feedback detract from opportunities for reflective practice. The prevalent use of evaluation criteria narrows the perspective of pre-service teachers, discouraging reflection before teaching.

Moreover, results demonstrate the restrictive influence of teacher educators. Their dominant role in the feedback process and the lack of opportunities for pre-service teachers to justify their actions mirror Kourieos (2016) and Nicol (2010)‘s findings on feedback dynamics in education.

Emphasizing summative assessments also impeded dialogic feedback practices. Pre-service teachers became overly focused on adhering to set practices, sidelining the importance of experiential learning and on-the-spot reflection.

Finally, findings indicate that in the microteaching cycle, teaching stands as the final step, with no emphasis on revising or re-teaching based on feedback. This aligns with Ferguson (2011) and Jonsson (2013)‘s discussions on the suboptimal use of feedback in higher education.

5. Conclusions and implications

This study sought to explore the feedback types provided by teacher educators during microteaching and their influence on reflective practices among pre-service teachers. Data collection involved interviews, observations, and group discussions with third-year pre-service teachers and their respective methodology instructors.

Results unveil a clear deficiency in the feedback mechanisms, particularly in promoting pre-teaching reflection, contemporaneous reflection during teaching, and retrospective reflection post-teaching.

Recognizing that reflection is central to pre-service teachers’ pedagogical development, feedback should be optimally employed to enhance this. Current findings, however, point towards a significant gap in this area. Therefore, there’s a pressing need for teacher educators to undergo training to harness feedback as an effective pedagogical tool.

While the findings make significant contributions to the microteaching literature, the study’s limited scope does restrict its broader application. Hence, more expansive research, involving a greater number of participants, is recommended. Further studies could also delve deeper into feedback content in relation to reflection levels.

Availability of data

The data used to support the findings of this study have been included within the manuscript. The authors can provide raw data on demand.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the teacher educators and pre-service teachers who provided the data for this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).