Self-Efficacy in a 3-Dimensional Virtual Reality Classroom—Initial Teacher Education Students’ Experiences

Abstract

This study explores initial teacher education (ITE) university students’ experiences of work-integrated-learning (WiL) placements in a virtual reality environment. The COVID-19 pandemic was the catalyst for this study when schools around the world were inaccessible to ITE students. Undertaking WiL, which is typically a mandated component of ITE programs, became challenging, if not impossible. In this uncertain environment and the broader context of a nation-wide teacher shortage in Australia, the need to pivot and consider alternatives became a high priority. This study reports on a simulated experimental space as an alternative WiL for ITE students in a virtual classroom environment, exploring the impact on the self-efficacy of the participants. The ITE students explored the platform as a teaching space, designing, delivering and participating in lessons. Data about their experiences were collected utilising a multi-methods design comprised of self-efficacy surveys and self-reflections. The findings reveal: (i) an increase in self-efficacy upon completion of the experience, with a small decline post program; and (ii) reported development of technological and pedagogical confidence. These findings contribute to the field as low teacher self-efficacy is identified as one of the inhibitors for the integration of technology in teacher education. This study provides an insight into the transformative potential of enhancing ITE students’ self-efficacy in simulated, virtual environments.

1. Introduction

Since early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted education systems globally to the extent that the United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has declared that it “constitutes the worst education crisis on record”. As an emergency response, many education systems pivoted to remote learning; however, “the quality of remote learning initiatives varied greatly, as did access” [1] (p. 4). School closures alone have affected more than 1.6 billion learners, with students displaced from their usual classrooms, and some experiencing gaps of learning of more than a year [1]. On average, each country around the world has experienced 20 weeks of full school closures and 20 weeks of partial closures, and students lost two trillion hours of in-person teaching [2]. This makes the present and future potential of virtual learning of great importance to educators. Indeed, the disparities in the quality and access to virtual learning highlights the need to better understand the effectiveness of virtual platforms for learning and makes visible the vulnerability of the schooling sector. The closure of schools also placed initial teacher education (ITE) under strain as a core component of teacher preparation programs is classroom-based professional experience (PEx), also referred to as Work Integrated Learning (WiL). In Australia, where this study is based, it is mandatory for ITE students to engage in PEx in-person in classrooms, and virtual PEx has not been the pedagogical norm for most programs of study [3]. With in-person teaching unavailable due to school closures, this presented a real challenge. It was in this disruptive environment and the broader context of a nation-wide and indeed a global teacher shortage, that the need to pivot and consider alternatives became a high priority. The study reported here shares findings related to the confidence and competence (self-efficacy) of ITE students as part of a larger project that explored an alternative online PEx in a 3-dimensional (3D) virtual world. Specifically, the research question explored was: What is the reported self-efficacy of participants in a 3D simulated WiL experience?

2. Literature Review

2.1. WiL in ITE

Work integrated learning (WiL) is an important feature of higher education, providing a unique opportunity for translating knowledge and understanding into experiences of authentic workplace practices [4]. In teacher education, WiL takes the form of a ‘professional experience’ (PEx) in which designated components of the academic program entail sustained placements in school and classroom settings. The PEx is considered a core element of the ITE curriculum, and a primary mechanism for demonstrating and assessing readiness for the teaching profession [5]. As a specific form of WiL, the ITE PEx entails a sequence of clearly articulated, structured and scaffolded experiences sustained cumulatively across the program, in which the ITE students demonstrate knowledge, practices and engagement capabilities against a set of professional standards (the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers/APSTs) by ‘working like a teacher’ under the guidance and supervision of a registered, experienced teacher. ITE students regularly identify the PEx as having the greatest impact on their development as a teacher, sense of confidence about teaching and readiness for the profession [6,7,8,9,10].

While the experience of ITE student learning in WiL has been well researched, this research has largely been undertaken in the context of school-based WiL settings. These studies continue to point to the influential and reflexive relationship between the characteristics of specific WiL placements and the ITE students’ WiL experience. We know for example that social arrangements in place within the WiL setting can qualitatively shape the transfer of academic learning into particular types of professional practice in ways that reflect those situational distinctions [11]. Similarly, contextual features—such as relationships with supervisors and ITE students’ sense of belonging [12], the degree to which ITE students are required to conform to localised practices or are able to include new ways of working, and the nature of pedagogical or professional opportunities—can directly impact ITE students’ confidence and sense of professional readiness [6]. In a recent analysis of WiL learning processes, Dean and Skyes [13] foregrounded the intermediary ‘transitioning practices’ that ITE students initiate as they orient, adapt and conform to the social arrangements and configurations of the PEx settings. This affirms the highly reflexive nature of context and learning in WiL. This study offered an opportunity to deepen our understandings of WiL in a 3D virtual context while the ITE students explored pedagogical practices and understandings of learning and teaching in a virtual world, with particular attention to their reported self-efficacy.

2.2. Virtual Learning Spaces in ITE

A 3D virtual learning space is the context for this study. A 3D virtual world is a non-immersive virtual reality (VR) where content is displayed via a computer screen and traditional hardware such as keyboard and mouse are used for interactions rather than special equipment [14]. Some of the more well-known 3D environments include Second Life, Active Worlds and Minecraft, all of which use avatars, real-life objects and scenes, and the individual has free movement and action through the computer rather than being immersed via augmented reality. There has been a long history of the use of virtual worlds in higher education, such as when students who are at a distance meet in a virtual campus that hosts lectures and tutorials [15], share student projects with industry partners [16] or engage in virtual field trips, virtual laboratories or simulations [17]. There has also been use of virtual worlds for WiL in higher education faculties such as engineering and construction management for the purpose of mitigating safety concerns, accessibility to onsite opportunities and spatial and temporal constraints of work experiences (see for example [18,19]). In relation to the preparation of preservice teachers, virtual worlds have been used to provide a simulation of a classroom to practise teaching, but not with ‘real’ students [20]. Other uses of virtual worlds include using a simulation to explore discipline content [21] or exploring purpose-built environments to practise specialised communication skills [22].

Within ITE programs, virtual innovations in teaching and learning are embedded in the scholarship of teaching [23]. For over thirty years, information and communication technologies have been key pedagogical tools [24,25]. A 3D virtual world in this case was the place for a WiL experience as well as the study of how to teach virtually. This juxtaposition was not present in other faculty WiL experiences mentioned previously and therefore positioned our ITE students with a heightened proposition to explore their own pedagogic capabilities in this virtual space. Educators’ personal confidence and competencies (their self-efficacy) with technologies have long been found to affect teaching practice [26,27].

2.3. Teacher Self-Efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy is the belief teachers hold about their own perceived capability in undertaking certain teaching tasks and is an important motivational construct that shapes teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Bandura [28] defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). It is comprised of confidence and competence, and is a multi-faceted construct that has significant implications for teacher practices and student outcomes [29]. Ingvarson and colleagues found a link between teachers’ self-efficacy and improved practices and subsequently a link between teachers’ improved practices and improved student outcomes [30].

Self-efficacy therefore influences thought patterns and emotions that enable actions. In the context of teacher education, teacher self-efficacy is a powerful influence on teachers’ overall effectiveness with students [28]. Teachers with a high level of teacher self-efficacy have been shown to be more resilient in their teaching and more likely to try harder to help all students to reach their potential [31,32]. In contrast, teachers with a low level of teacher self-efficacy have been found to be less likely to try harder to reach the learning needs of all their students [31,32]. Woolfolk Hoy [32] suggests that supporting the development of teachers’ self-efficacy is essential for producing effective, committed and enthusiastic teachers. Furthermore, collective teacher efficacy, that is, the belief about the ability to work as a team to achieve positive results, has been increasingly identified as a key factor impacting student learning [33]. Hattie [34], for example, has conducted meta-analyses of published studies on factors impacting student learning and has determined collective teacher efficacy to be the most influential factor affecting student achievement.

The beliefs that preservice teachers hold about their pedagogical capabilities are formatively influential as they transition into the profession [35]. In the context of ITE students and beginning teacher experiences, teacher efficacy mediates motivation to teach and the individual’s perseverance [36], and predicts the development of effective pedagogical capabilities, particularly differentiation and inclusive practices [37]. In turn, the quality and characteristics of PEx have been shown to shape ITE students’ teacher efficacy in impactful, though not always positive, ways [38,39,40].

While there is a substantial body of literature to inform our understandings of self-efficacy within the ITE and beginning teacher contexts [41], the impact of a virtual PEx on ITE students’ efficacy and collective teacher efficacy are less well researched [3,42,43]. Cooper and Thong [44] note that teacher self-efficacy is one of the inhibitors for the integration of technology in teacher education, pointing to the importance of the study at hand.

3. Methods

A project was designed to examine the experiences of six ITE students experimenting with and reflecting on virtual pedagogy and the potential nature of PEx in a 3D space. The ITE students were asked to conduct a learning experience for each other alongside a registered teacher to provide comments back to the research team about the potential of supervision and assessment in an online PEx. The project included two research foci: (i) exploring the virtual teaching practices employed by the participants; and (ii) reporting the self-efficacy of participants as they engaged in the experience. A multi-methods approach was employed, with the first study examining video-recordings of the learning experiences and applying an observation protocol developed from an analysis of the literature on the use of technologies and virtual worlds to examine the recorded participant-led learning experiences. Study 1 has been published elsewhere and determined that virtual teaching practices can be categorised by: technology function; pedagogical approach, classroom organisation, teacher role and learner action; feedback and modality; and quality dimensions [23]. The second research study, reported here, explores the self-efficacy of participants in the 3D simulated WiL experience as they participated over the stages of the project. The data were collected through the administration of self-efficacy surveys and written self-reflections.

3.1. Recruitment of Participants

A convenience sampling technique was employed. An advertisement was emailed to a cohort of approximately 380 third year Bachelor of Education students who were intending to undertake an in-school PEx later in the semester. Self-nominating applicants applied via an online portal where they answered a series of written pre-screening questions. The participants were selected based on the following criteria: having an interest in technology-enhanced teaching (evidence of a positive association); evidence of being pedagogically creative (examples provided); conceived potential within the desktop VR platform (an openness to explore the tool utilised); ability to communicate ideas (written and verbal skills); and ability and willingness to work as a team (evident through previous university experiences). Following a telephone interview, six ITE students were selected from the pool of applicants. Participants represented both primary school and secondary school ITE streams.

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, including the use of their images. Following informed consent procedures, the participants were paid for 20-h of participation time at an entry level research assistant rate. In

Table 1. Study participants and their teaching disciplines.

Participant Number	Participant (Pseudonym)	Teaching Stream	Lesson Focus and Learning Zone
1	Gabrielle	Secondary school (English, Drama)	Art gallery excursion in the dynamic zone
2	Henry	Secondary school (History, Biology)	World War I trench in the holodeck
3	Lee	Secondary school (English, Drama)	Drama improvisation in the social zone
4	Ruth	Primary school	Art elements in the dynamic zone
5	Sam	Primary school (Science major)	Classifying species in the lab zone
6 *	Patricia	Primary school years	Mrs Gren classification strategy in the lab zone

* Participant 6 did not complete all TESE data collection points, hence this aspect is not reported for this participant.

, the participants have been assigned a pseudonym for the purposes of this analysis.

3.2. The Self-Efficacy Instrument

The Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES) [45,46] is the standardised instrument utilised in this study. It was selected because it has been used extensively in the education field to gauge self-efficacy. Typically, the tool is used for aggregated samples to determine changes across a number of dimensions of teacher self-efficacy. However, more recently, self-efficacy measures have been used to examine individual patterns of self-efficacy [47], the approach taken in this study.

The instrument is fixed and is comprised of three sections. The first section has 24 items with the following sub-scales: instruction; adapt instruction to individual needs; motivate students; maintain discipline; cooperate with colleagues and parents; and cope with change. Participants were asked to rate their level of confidence and competence on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not certain at all) to 7 (very certain) for pedagogical effectiveness in the context of teaching in the eLearning platform. The fixed questions and the subscales appear in Appendix A.

The survey includes two additional sections: Working in Teams with six items, which enables data to be obtained about collective efficacy; and Beliefs with five items, which provides insight into the nature of the respondents’ views about the influence of the home environment and the abilities of students they teach, and their capacity to influence learning outcomes in this context. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (false) to 6 (true), in the context of teaching in the eLearning platform (see Appendix B).

3.3. Self-Reflection Data Collection

While the NTSES has high validity and reliability for measuring teacher efficacy [45,46], there is emerging interest in the potential of qualitative data to enhance and enrich understandings of individual experiences of teacher efficacy [48]. For this reason, the study included participants’ written self-reflections, collected as written responses to the questions listed in Appendix C at the conclusion of each project stage and aimed to provide insights into each participant’s individual experience of teacher efficacy [48]. This resulted in five self-reflections being completed by each participant using a consistent instrument across five key points of the project implementation.

3.4. The 3D Virtual Spaces

Two types of real-time virtual spaces were utilised during this study. The first was Microsoft Teams (hereafter Teams) (see Figure 1), which was used to house shared documents and hold online focus group meetings. The second virtual space, which was the site for the project implementation, was iSee (see Figure 2), a desktop, non-immersive VR platform. Within iSee, users represent themselves physically moving around a shared virtual learning space that features different classroom configurations and an outdoor social space. iSee is different from other VR platforms because it integrates user webcam feeds to represent each student’s avatar, thereby supporting real facial expressions that can be seen by other users. While Teams also afforded the researchers and participants the capacity to share real-time webcam feeds, real facial expressions and some body language, users do not represent themselves moving around a virtual space as they do in iSee.

3.5. Project Stages and Data Collection Points

There were six stages to the project in which researchers and participants collaboratively engaged with the immersive desktop VR platform (see Figure 3 for a visualisation). In Stage 1, participants discussed their experiences and perceptions of using technology in classrooms and were provided with written instructions for downloading and entering the platform. Participants were encouraged to explore the platform and to ‘play’ with different features. In Stage 2, participants experimented with features of the platform, e.g., navigating to different rooms, loading videos, PowerPoints and images onto interactive whiteboards.

Participants spontaneously and regularly sought each other out inside the platform to share learnings and observations. In Stage 3, participants spent half a day in the platform designing a 45 min mock classroom experience. They were not instructed in, or provided modelling for, best-practice virtual pedagogy, and were asked to be creative with their own ideas about what might represent good practice in this space. In Stage 4, participants each facilitated a 45 min mock classroom experience in the platform, with one ITE student as a support teacher and other participants as ‘students’. In Stage 5, an unstructured group debrief occurred where participants reflected on their experiences utilising the virtual platform and perceptions of how PEx could be represented in online and virtual learning spaces. Following this, participants resumed their normal studies and completed a 3-week in-school PEx that was separate from this study.

Self-efficacy data were collected at three points from each ITE student: (i) at the beginning prior to commencing the project; (ii) at the end of the learning experiences; and (iii) a week after the project ended. Self-reflection data were collected from each ITE student at six points across the project, as outlined in Figure 3. Interviews were held three weeks later. Participant 6 did not complete all survey data points, hence the findings and discussion exclude this participant from the analysis.

4. Findings

4.1. Quantitative Analysis of NTSES

The research question explored was: What is the reported self-efficacy of participants in a 3D simulated WiL experience? In order to examine this, the NTSES data were analysed according to the protocols of the instrument [45]. The numeric data is presented in tabular form in Appendix D. The self-efficacy scores for each participant were plotted on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not certain at all), 3 (quite uncertain), 5 (quite certain), to 7 (very certain) for pedagogical effectiveness in the context of working in the eLearning platform for teaching and learning over Time 1 (T1), Time 2 (T2) and Time 3 (T3). Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the data for each participant for the six dimensions in the subscales: instruction; adapt instruction to individual needs; motivate students; maintain discipline; cooperate with colleagues and parents; cope with change; and an overall self-efficacy score at each time. The final box provides the average for each subscale for the group, and an overall average self-efficacy score across all sub-scales. Participant 6 data were excluded as all data points were not attempted.

Overall self-efficacy scores for 4 of the 5 participants with all subscales combined followed the same pattern: Time 1 (T1) at the beginning of the project was followed by an increase at Time 2 (T2), which was the end of the week of activity, and then a decline at Time 3 (T3) when the survey was administered several weeks after the project ended, with the decline at T3 still being a higher score than at T1. This means the participants increased their confidence and competence with regard to teaching and learning in the eLearning space for pedagogical effectiveness and this was retained post the immersion, though it was not as high in the weeks following the project. The one exception to this pattern was Participant 1, who reported an increase in self efficacy scores from T1 to 2, and then again at T3. Each of the sub-scales will now be considered in turn.

4.1.1. Instruction

The questions related to instruction (see questions 1, 8, 12, 16) had a relatively high level at T1, with the participant average at 5.50, representing the participants being more than quite certain they are confident and competent enough to provide instruction in the eLearning space for pedagogical effectiveness. This score lifted to 6.40 at T2 and dropped to 6.20 at T3. A score of 7.0 represents very certain. Three of the five participants reported the same score for T2 and T3; meanwhile, the others noted a small decline, but none lower than T1. This suggests that all five participants reported an increase in their confidence and competence related to their instruction ability in the eLearning space for pedagogic effectiveness during and after the project.

4.1.2. Adapt Instruction to Individual Needs

The questions related to adapting instruction to individual needs (see questions 5, 11, 18, 23) also commenced with a relatively high score at T1 (5.40), with an increase to 6.40 at T2 and a subsequent decline to 6.20 at T3. Four of the five participants followed this pattern, all having a much higher score at T3 than T1. Only Participant 1 reported the same score at T2 and 3—the highest possible score of 7.00 representing very certain. This data indicates that all five participants reported an increase in their confidence and competence related to adapting instruction to meet individual needs from the beginning of the project through to the end, and then several weeks later retained this at a higher rate than prior to the project.

4.1.3. Motivating Students

The questions related to motivating students (see questions 2, 10, 15, 21) commenced at a participant average of 5.60, revealing that the participants were quite certain of their pedagogical effectiveness in eLearning spaces to motivate students prior to the commencement of the project. At T2 this increased to 6.25 and then declined to 5.50 at T3, several weeks after the project ended. The T3 score is the lowest combined score at T3 of all of the sub-scales and the only sub-scale score that is lower at T3 than T1. However, only two of the five participants followed this pattern, with the other three each retaining a higher T3 score than the original T1 score.

4.1.4. Maintaining Discipline

Maintaining discipline (see questions 6, 9, 14, 19) followed a different pattern for the combined participant data than reported in the other sub-scales. The average at T1 (4.90) was the lowest of all scores, moving to 5.20 (T2) and increasing to 5.60 at T3. However, there are five different patterns for this sub-scale; that is, each individual reported differently in terms of working in eLearning spaces for pedagogical effectiveness with regards to maintaining discipline. This is evident in Figure 4. Importantly, the trend of retaining a higher score following the project indicates an increase in confidence and competence.

4.1.5. Cooperating with Colleagues and Parents

In terms of cooperating with colleagues and parents (see questions 3, 7, 13, 22), the overall average commenced at a high score of 6.00, increased to 6.35 (T2) and returned to 6.00 (T3). The score on this sub-scale again reflected a different pattern for each participant. All five participants shared in common an increase from T1 to T2; however, some reported reduced scores at T3 while others increased.

4.1.6. Coping with Change

The final sub-scale is coping with change (see questions 4, 17, 20, 24). The combined average score followed the trend of increasing from T1 (5.80) to T2 (6.50) with a decline to T3 (6.40), but higher than the beginning of the project (T1). Again, the increase in score reflects a self-reported enhancement of confidence and competence that is sustained beyond the project. Two participants (1 and 4) reported increases from T1 to T2 and then to T3, both with the final high score of 7.0, reflecting their being very certain of their ability to work in eLearning spaces for pedagogical effectiveness. Participants 2, 3 and 5 all reported an increase from T1 to T2 and a decline at T3, but with T3 a higher score than T1.

The survey included two additional sections: Working in Teams, with 6 items; and Beliefs, with 5 items. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (false) to 6 (true) in the context of working in the eLearning platform for teaching and learning. The scores for each participant are reported in Figure 5 and the final box provides an average for the group. Participant 6 data were excluded as all data points were not attempted.

Figure 5 provides a visual representation of each participant’s scores related to Working in Teams, which enables data to be obtained about collective efficacy; and Beliefs, which provides insight into the nature of the respondents’ views about the influence of the home environment and the abilities of school students.

4.1.7. Working in Teams

The statements about Working in Teams (see Appendix B) revealed an initial increase from T1 (5.34) to T2 (5.49) and then a decline at T3 (4.80). T1 indicates that most participants regarded the statements, which were positively disposed to the benefits of working in teams, to increase collective efficacy, to be mostly true, dropping below mostly true towards more true than false at T3. This trend occurred for all participants, with T3 lower in each case than T1. This indicates a reduction in the view that working in teams can be successfully achieved after engagement in the project.

4.1.8. Beliefs

Finally, Beliefs (see Appendix B) provides insight into the malleability of learners based on their abilities and influences from home. The data revealed minimal shift for each of the participants, with the average T1, T2 and T3 the same at 2.44, which suggests the participants found the statements to be mostly false and the project had little influence on their beliefs. The statements were framed as fixed and negative statements, hence this low score reveals that the participants believe they can influence learners despite their ability and home influences.

4.2. Qualitative Analysis of Self-Reflection

Written self-reflection data were collected from all participants across five points in the project implementation phase. This data provided an opportunity to consider the qualitative nature of individual ITE students’ experience of teacher efficacy [48] and to describe individual patterns of self-efficacy [47]. This enabled the research question, i.e., What is the reported self-efficacy of participants in a 3D simulated WiL experience?, to be explored with commentary adding depth to the quantitative survey findings.

The thematic analysis was undertaken by using the teacher self-efficacy subscales from the NTSES as reference points, which entailed the following five themes: overall self-efficacy; instruction; adapt instruction to individual needs; motivating students; and maintaining discipline. The text from all 5 participants was then thematically analysed to identify and collate extracts from the self-reflections that best reflected the participant experience of that theme.

4.2.1. Overall Self-Efficacy

Immediately following the project, the combined average score from the NTSES was high for all participants. This means the participants increased their confidence and competence in teaching and learning in the eLearning space during the project. This increase in confidence was expressed in two distinct forms: the expanded possibilities that the eLearning platform provided for learning and teaching, and the emerging familiarity and use of the eLearning platform.

Participants feeling confident noted the possibilities that the eLearning space held for expanding the experience of learning for students. For example, Gabrielle, who had the highest levels of NTSES overall scores, noted in her final reflection that “[A]t this point of the program, I feel incredibly prepared and confident that I would be able to teach lessons”. Gabrielle elaborates by noting the potential of the VR platform, where:

Students could go on excursions, travel back in time through different historical eras, travel to space and be astronauts or scientists. Travel to different countries through images in the holodeck, analyse artwork in the dynamic room, listen to music, participate in drama. The list could go on and on.

Similarly, Henry pointed to the potential that particular functions of the eLearning space held for teaching and learning:

The holodeck has so many exciting opportunities and would open up a lot more different lesson types. Being able to engage and practise with these various lesson types would be really exciting for me on [PEx], and hopefully for the students as well as they would be able to experience the content in a new way.

This focus on the possibilities of the eLearning platform seemed connected to some participants’ sense that the platform would provide opportunities to expand their pedagogical practice, as Sam notes here:

I would feel confident as I think the tool has a great opportunity to display my skillset and capabilities in all of those areas. I would be able to demonstrate a fantastic level of planning through considerations involved with the use of ICT.

In contrast, other participants expressed their confidence based on knowledge about, and their growing familiarity with, the eLearning platform. In these examples, teacher efficacy strengthened in parallel with experience in and confidence about using the technology. For example Ruth noted:

After completing my lesson and having it glitch, I feel extremely confident that I could do a practicum in this environment. It’s not the end of the world if technology doesn’t work 100% of the time; mishaps happen in the physical classroom as well.

Similarly, Lee describes how her confidence is drawn from her renewed ability to find her way around the eLearning space and her levels of comfort about implementing her ‘usual’ pedagogical practice within the eLearning space:

I would feel confident, especially after the trial run today. I am comfortable navigating the space, and apart from the virtual aspect of it, it plays out similar to a normal classroom in regards to teaching.

Sam described an increase in confidence based on understanding and navigating the eLearning platform:

After completing the initial activity, my confidence has increased in working around this program. I think over time with more experience troubleshooting with students and with further experience navigating the program, I could expect my confidence to continue to increase. I think my confidence in classroom performance could therefore be directly linked to my own self-efficacy with manipulating the application itself.

4.2.2. Instruction

All five participants reported an increase in instructional efficacy on the NTSES scale. The self-reflection data showed that increases in instructional efficacy appeared related to growing levels of confidence in understanding and managing the technology. For example, just prior to reporting that she felt “incredibly prepared and confident” about teaching in the space, Gabrielle expressed the following concerns:

I think the biggest worry is just making sure that your instructions are clear to students. It is also a little hard to help students if they are having technology problems. I think it worries me as well with the lag or delay in responses. I would need to be very well equipped to ensure that all students are being included and not left behind.

Lee also discussed how she felt increased instructional efficacy following an opportunity to practise teaching in the space:

After teaching a mock drama lesson to the team, I am gaining a lot more confidence. I felt relaxed and grounded in my ability to instruct and direct an activity. I believe everyone enjoyed it and I had lots of fun experimenting with this interactive and new lesson.

4.2.3. Adapt Instruction to Individual Needs

The self-reflection data illustrated qualitative differences in participants’ experience of adapting instruction to individual needs. Participants who rated highly talked about the potential of the technology to enable them to meet various student learning needs. For example, Sam noted:

I am excited by the different functionalities of this program and the varying uses that it offers. With the option of browser and whiteboard, etc., it provides teachers with a large range of options to assist their pedagogy.

Ruth outlined her excitement about the potential of the eLearning platform to address diverse needs of learners, particularly to track their learning progress:

It has demonstrated to me how diverse this space is and also the different magnitudes in which it can be utilised. The functionality of the program and the ability to collaborate live with other classmates whilst also receiving live instruction is a fantastic resource.

Similarly, Sam emphasised the potential of the technology to facilitate some specific pedagogical strategies including ability streaming:

As discussed in my context this application could allow for students to be streamed or grouped in ability and access activities or content relative to their current level of understanding... This tool allows teachers to differentiate the instruction and the process in a way that is inclusive for all students.

In contrast, participants who rated lower in this scale were concerned about how they might manage the needs of students in the space, particularly with larger sized classes. Lee’s statement captures this concern in terms of her capacity to make best use of the technology to communicate and reach a larger group of students:

Not so confident with the behaviour management if the class was a big size such as 25 people.

Henry expressed similar concerns about reaching a larger group of students in the eLearning space when teacher and students are not in-person, stating: “The most challenging part was probably making sure everyone understood the tasks and that my instructions were clear”.

4.2.4. Motivating Students

In the NTSES sub-scales for ‘motivating students’, the final scores reflected the lowest combined scores across the group, and was the only sub-scale to score lower at the end of the project compared to the beginning scores. The self-reflection data provides an opportunity to consider the complex nature of building confidence in this area of teacher efficacy, and in particular the reflexive nature of this sub-scale as it relates to the context in which the participants were learning. Participants who scored highly on the sub-scale ‘motivating students’ expressed their enthusiasm for the potential of the eLearning platform to engage and motivate students by providing a rich, immersive learning environment.

Gabrielle outlined key features of her lessons and the lessons of her peers that offered alternative learning experiences that contrasted with everyday classroom learning:

I really loved participating in Ruth’s lesson as she was able to demonstrate how quiz platforms could be used through external programs such as Microsoft Teams. I also enjoyed the way she constructed the environment and split everyone into groups to explore each painting within the art gallery. Similarly, I really enjoyed Henry’s lesson on WWI. I thought the use of the holodeck to create a physical atmosphere where students can be physically immersed within an image, rather than placing an image on a board in a real-life setting, was incredibly effective and engaging. Not only did this space allow for critical reflection, but it also enhanced the emotional connection of the topic. I really like the potential that these environments have for learning, and it opens up a world of new and exciting opportunities for all subjects particularly, history, The Arts (Drama), Science (Space), etc.

I also really enjoyed teaching my own lesson and being able to test what a process drama lesson could look like in a classroom through a virtual environment. I think that reflecting on my idea to take students on an excursion to a museum was a fun way to get them engaged and sort of ‘eliminate’ the mind-set that they are in a classroom learning. I have observed many students who become disengaged if they don’t understand or they are bored. Therefore, I feel this was a fun way that students could engage with learning at their own pace and talk to students next to them and discuss ideas in a fun manner.

Similarly, Ruth described the value of the platform for providing novel yet authentic contexts for student learning and the features of the platform that assist with the assessment role of a teacher:

I like the recording feature with iSee because if you have an exam heavy subject, the teacher/students can record their sessions and be able to go back and re-watch the content rather than just going back and reading through the materials.

Participants who scored lower on the sub-scale ‘motivating students’ tended to focus on the potential that the eLearning platform held for their teaching. Lee noted that iSee:

… has unlocked the potential for drama forms such as storytelling to be taught through VR. Furthermore, I was starting to make connections between the content and the setting/space the students are in. There is so much that we can draw on purely from the space.

In later comments Lee added: “[W]hat excites me is that I feel the VR is a chance for students to have a lot of fun as they learn”.

4.2.5. Maintaining Discipline

The sub-scale ‘maintaining discipline’ generated the most diverse response amongst the study participants, and the lowest of all subscale scores. Once again, the self-reflection data provided an opportunity to make visible the individualised nature of teacher efficacy, as experienced by these five participants. The ‘maintaining discipline’ score was different for all five participants. Across the five participants their confidence in maintaining discipline seemed tightly related to their perception of how to make effective use of the eLearning platform. For example, Gabrielle scored 6.0 initially for maintaining discipline, but finished the project with a score of 5.8. In this reflection, Gabrielle points to challenges with the technology:

The most challenging part of today was the issues with technology … Sometimes it was hard to hear, and I had to keep re-joining the session. However, I think this provided a great insight to how these issues could be monitored on an actual [PEx] placement and how important it is to be able to navigate around these problems. Ruth handled the technology issues extremely well and I was really impressed with how she improvised by asking students to continue on with work whilst she re-joined the session.

In contrast, Ruth showed the greatest growth in this subscale, increasing from 4.5 at the beginning of the project, to 6.2 at the completion of the project. Ruth’s sense of confidence about maintaining discipline appeared connected to her willingness to be flexible and respond to the characteristics (including lag time) of the technology and students’ access to hardware:

I was a little nervous about teaching in a platform I had never used before and I think that caused me to be over-prepared. It started to run more smoothly once I let go of my rigid plan and went with the flow of the lesson. The lagging in the dynamic room was a difficulty I did not foresee; I had to think on my feet about how I might need to combat it. So, I dropped in and out to try and get the lagging to stop. I gave each group more time to respond to the artwork as their partners were also having to sign back in and out and I also gave instructions in the chat box for those who were having issues with my audio distorting.

4.2.6. Cooperating with Colleagues and Parents

As the participants in this study were working in a virtual environment designed to explore the possibilities for completing a WiL, their responses to the subscale ‘cooperating with colleagues and parents’ would most likely refer only to their experiences in cooperating with colleagues. In this regard, Gabrielle was the only member of the participant group to demonstrate an upward trend in this subscale across the period of the study. At the second data collection point (after the participants had a tour of the virtual site and time to explore the potential of the context for learning and teaching), Gabrielle noted the potential of this context for collaboration amongst participants:

I am excited about the potential opportunities it has for students to engage within this environment. I am finding it super fun, so I could confidently say that students would really enjoy working, collaborating and engaging within this VR environment as well.

By the third data collection point, Gabrielle outlined her excitement for the potential for cooperation and collaboration with colleagues, as follows:

I am excited about opportunities to perhaps co-teach with either another student or supervising teacher. It would be interesting as well to do a placement with another university student of the same subject area and perhaps plan lessons where the other could assist with behaviour management and helping ask student questions (similar to the pair teaching strategy in this project for lesson planning). I think this would be effective because it allows pre-service teachers to bounce ideas around with one another and have support when planning activities

In contrast, all other participants indicated a dip in efficacy related to this subscale (and their confidence in cooperating with colleagues). For example, Henry, who scored the lowest on this subscale of all of the participants, commented on the potential for collaboration with others in the early stages of the project, but did not revisit the potential for collaboration or cooperation with colleagues again:

A supervising teacher or partner to bounce ideas off and reflect with. Due to the technology being new it is hard to reign in and focus on one idea, so having a partner to help and co teach with would make it a lot easier.

Similarly, Ruth showed a marked decline in this subscale by the conclusion of the project, which seemed to reflect her concerns about matching teaching styles as a basis for cooperation in this context:

I would worry about co-teaching with another pre-service teacher that perhaps doesn’t have the same teaching style that I might and figuring out how to integrate them together.

These experiences appear in sharp contrast to other perspectives. For example after delivering her mock lesson Sam provided the following reflection:

A thought that I have had, was that over a year level when delivering content, teachers could work collaboratively in teams to deliver the content in groups to students based on levels of understanding to help progress the students to work towards the same goals in different ways.

4.2.7. Coping with Change

In relation to the subscale ‘coping with change’ there was an apparent relationship between high efficacy and an openness to instructional change. This connectedness was illustrated in Sam’s comment, who scored highly in both instructional change and coping with change:

After completing the initial activity, my confidence has increased in working around this program. I think over time with more experience troubleshooting with students and with further experience navigating the program I could expect my confidence to continue to increase. I think my confidence in classroom performance could therefore be directly linked to my own self-efficacy with manipulating the application itself. The more training I had with this program and maybe experience watching/observing different examples of its uses by other teachers could really aid and benefit more developed use of this program.

Similarly, Ruth provided a positive view of coping with change pedagogically in response to the virtual environment:

Being placed in such a unique setting that we’re not used to, means pre-service teachers might be more willing to step outside the box, to try a new idea or implement something the supervising teacher doesn’t do. We don’t fall back into teaching how we were taught. It gives me a greater sense of freedom to change the classroom to meet my purposes, I’m not invading someone’s physical space and radically implementing changes. After I’ve left the teacher can put the space back how they prefer it very easily.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study set out to explore the research question: What is the reported self-efficacy of participants in a 3D simulated WiL experience? The findings provide insights into the potential for the continued expansion of virtual simulations into ITE, particularly in the WiL aspects of the program. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent disruption to ‘normal’ practices has been a catalyst for this investigation. Of particular note, according to Cooper and Thong [44], is that teacher self-efficacy is one of the inhibitors for the integration of technology in teacher education; therefore, this study provides a window into the effects on teacher efficacy of a simulated, experimental WiL program.

The findings reveal the overall trend for the participants was an increase in self-efficacy from the beginning to the end of the week of the novel program, with a decline after the program but also a retainment of a higher level of self-efficacy than from the outset of the program. This finding aligns with those of Nissim and Weissblueth [49], who reported that using VR learning environments increased ITE students’ self-efficacy, creativity and innovation. This is an exciting finding given that self-efficacy directly impacts student learning outcomes, with higher reported self-efficacy leading to improved student learning [30]. The data in this study also revealed that Beliefs (about learning) were not affected by the eLearning experience, whereas Working in Teams was affected, with a decline in the overall reported scores. This is likely to be a product of the approach taken in the program, which encouraged individual development of projects and skill development rather than team collaboration.

This study also confirmed the value of the NTSES tool applied to individual cases as there are differences in the patterns for individuals. The usual reporting approach is that participant scores are aggregated and averages are reported in teacher self-efficacy data sets. This study explicitly addresses this gap in the self-efficacy research field [47]. In addition, in order to better understand the individual responses, the self-reflection data provides clear insights into the explanations for these changes in efficacy across the process.

This study has limitations which impact the generalisability of the findings. Participant selection, while based on eligibility criteria, resulted in a convenient rather than a representative sample. The sample size of five participants prohibits the generalisability of the findings related to changes in self-efficacy to a wider population. In addition, the NTSES instrument is self-reporting, which may be influenced by a desire to please the research team.

The transformative potential of virtual reality learning spaces in ITE WiL is yet to be realised. This study points to the experience of a small group of students who reported an enhancement of their self-efficacy, and evidence of this confirmatory insight is what is needed, at least in part, to serve as a catalyst to achieve this vision.