Since the last decades of the 20^th century, globally we are living in a rapidly changing technological world. From the outset, attempts have been made to adapt technology for learning environments. Some scholars argue, that because of natural or manmade disasters (Sener, 2010) or marketised efforts (Williamson et al., 2020), integrating online tools into formal education seemed almost inevitable. However, rather than following a natural trend, as Sener anticipated, technology was forced upon the educational sector with the unexpected outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic from early 2020. Although technology was moving towards being a centrepiece in education pre-pandemic in many countries, it suddenly became the whole story (Spector, 2010). 

On foot of unanticipated COVID-19 regulations, adopting to online education became an imperative rather than a prerogative.This happened against the background of insufficient preparation of institutions (Chakraborty et al., 2020; Hejase & Chehimi, 2020; Maphosa, 2021), teachers (Andarwulan et al, 2021; Wijaya et al., 2020), and students (Rosida, et al.2021). One of the major challenges related to online learning environments is participation (Hrastinski, 2009) which is influenced by characteristics of technology and interface; experience in content area; student roles; instructional tasks; and information overload (Vonderwell & Zachariah, 2005). Participation is influenced by social presence in the learning environment. This is further facilitated by the ability to effectively engage with the community by means of purposeful communication taking place in a collaborative environment (Carillo & Flores, 2020). A further issue in online learning environments is the vexed question of feedback. This arises because there are fewer opportunities for various types of feedback in the online learning space when juxtaposed to the in-person experience (Li et al., 2020).

More positively; online learning environments may be as effective as the in-person experience provided approaches to classroom management are planned meticulously in advance (Steward, 2008). Professionally managing any learning environment requires expertise in planning, implementation, and evaluation. Given the experiences around online learning environments, we can safely that it is likely to have a greater impact on pre-service teachers owing to their dual experiences and roles of student and teacher.

It is established practice that student teachers undergo a teaching practicum by applying their theoretical and practical knowledge to real-life classrooms (Goh & Blake, 2005). They develop, grow, and mature as teachers as a result. The challenge with the online experience is that the term “real-life environments” loses could be seen as redundant as there is a lack of real and authentic interaction opportunities.

The question arises, how effective is teaching in an online learning environment? How are content and pedagogical knowledge applied in the online environment? In attempts to find an answers to the above, the perceptions of PSTs of their online and in-person practicums may provide insightful revelations. Despite the new experiences of teaching and learning during n coronavirus times, so-called ‘pandemic pedagogies’ in which PSTs had exposure to traditional and online learning/teaching, both as a student teacher and preservice teacher.

This study also explores the reasons for such perceptions. It specifically asked the following questions: (1) Are there any differences between PSTs’ perceptions of their micro-teaching and learning in their online and in-person experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) Which factors shape the PSTs' perceptions of the online education?

Participants and design Data was gathered from preservice student teachers (PSTs) enrolled in a school placement course as part of a professional master’s in education (PME) programme. In total, 110 students were enrolled to the course. At the end of the semester, on voluntary basis, 43 of them completed an online survey. PME students were from various subjects, namely, business, languages, mathematics, music, physical education, science, and technology. Procedure During the semester PSTs' education was delivered in online and in-person format following government responses to COVID-19. The school placement experience of PME students involved five weeks of online education and three weeks of in-person. Online teaching and learning involved synchronous and asynchronous classes that followed a variety of teacher- and student-centred approaches. For group works, discussions and debates, synchronous learning was facilitated by ‘breakout rooms’. Asynchronous learning included pre-class engagement with resources such as research articles, podcast and videos. Data collection and data analysis Forty-three PSTs' students completed an online survey that gathered demographic information and that included survey questions relating to online teaching and learning experiences. The questions were adapted from the TALIS (2018) survey. In the original TALIS survey, there were 58 items, however four items and 38 questions in total were selected for this study as they were deemed to be relevant. The questions on the survey were asked in the form of self-rating items rated from 1 to 4. The research sought to investigate PSTs' students' online and then in-person teaching experiences. To address potential issues with self-reporting data, qualitative data was gathered through open ended items on the online survey to enable the participants to provide personal responses. Among them, three questions addressed PSTs’ overall experience (OE), subject content knowledge (SCK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). A final open-ended question sought their suggestions for improving their engagement considering the technical challenges they encountered in the online education environment. In analysing the quantitative data, paired samples t-test analysis was used to compare PSTs’ perceptions of their online and in-person teaching experiences. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to measure the relationship between online and in-person teaching and learning. Furthermore, items that addressed a particular element of teaching and learning were combined using compute variables function on SPSS. The qualitative data was analysed by an inductive content analysis.

Overall, quantitative analysis demonstrates that 80% of PSTs viewed their Subject Content Knowledge (SCK) and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) to be high, however, they considered less favourable their experience of online teaching and learning than in-person. Further analysis finds that PSTs’ thought they were better able to effectively manage the learning environment in-person (M=3.07, SD=.49), t(42)=5.99, p<.0005 (two-tailed)) than online (M=2.58, SD=.55). PSTs’ perceptions of their effective instruction were also significantly higher in in-person (M=3.15, SD=.46), t(42)=5.13, p<.0005 (two-tailed)) than online (M=2.88, SD=.44). Pearson’s correlations] analysis reveal statistically significant relations between several online and in-person pairs. Namely, the correlations between online and in-person pairs in telling students to listen to what they say, ensuring that students with and without a migrant background work together, raising awareness for cultural differences amongst students, and reducing ethnic stereotyping amongst students were high for in-person and online pairs (r=.527, r=.753, r=.764, r=.641, respectively, N=43, p<.005). Results of the content analysis show that PSTs’ positive and negative perceptions of online teaching and learning regarding Online Education (OE), SCK and PCK were related some of the following elements: - Effective online teaching tools (OE); Increased knowledge in curriculum and assessment (SCK); Learning variety of online pedagogical tools, effective lesson planning, and feedback strategies (PCK) This study shows that PSTs’ perceptions of in-person education were significantly higher than online. Furthermore, it reveals the elements related to positive and negative perceptions of PSTs of online education. It is envisaged that the PSTs’ perceptions we unpacked would be utilised in the design and implementation of more effective online learning environments. We must strive towards quality improvement of initial teacher education programmes, whilst not forgetting that online teaching responses were hastily developed, delivered 'warts and all' as emergency teaching measures. It behoves the teaching profession to improve and embrace.

Andarwulan, T., Fajri, T. A. A., & Damayanti, G. (2021). Elementary Teachers' Readiness toward the Online Learning Policy in the New Normal Era during COVID-19. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 771-786. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14345a Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184 Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P., Gupta, M. S., Yadav, S., & Arora, A. (2020). Opinion of students on online education during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.240 Goh, P. S. C., & Blake, D. (2015). Teacher preparation in Malaysia: needed changes. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), 469–480. https://doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1020 Hejase, H. J., & Chehimi, G. M. (2020). E-learning: what to look for amid the pandemic. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 21, 1-4. https://10.13140/RG.2.2.17011.35369 Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82. https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06 Li, J., Wong, S. C., Yang, X., & Bell, A. (2019). Using feedback to promote student participation in online learning programs: evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 485–510. https://doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09709-9 Maphosa, V. (2021). Factors influencing student’s perceptions towards e-learning adoption during COVID-19 pandemic: A developing country context. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 2(2), e02109. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/11000 Rosida, A., Muin, S. A., & Sakka, W. (2021). An Internal Analysis of E-Learning Implementation Readiness: Present Evaluation and Future Planning. Utamax: Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.31849/utamax.v3i1.5715 Sener, J. (2010). Why online education will attain full scale. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 3-16. Spector, J. M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive educational multimedia, (3), 27-37. Stewart, D. (2008). Classroom management in the online environment. Journal of online learning and teaching, 4(3), 371-374. Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that Influence Participation In Online Learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213–230. doi:10.1080/15391523.2005.1078 Wijaya, T. T., Zhou, Y., Purnama, A., & Hermita, N. (2020). Indonesian students’ learning attitude towards online learning during the coronavirus pandemic. Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research, 3(1), 17-25. https://dx.doi.org/10.33292/petier.v3i1.56 Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641