This study contributes to research on the impact that Virtual reality (VR) supported lessons in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) courses may have on the Pre-Service Teachers (PSTs)’ confidence and VR Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Our aim was to analyse if the implementation of VR-supported lessons in the practical aspect of already packed ITE courses, such as Post-Graduate Diploma in the Education (PGDE) course, alongside with already existing traditional effective pedagogies, could have an impact on PSTs’ willingness to try this new digital technology in their classroom and to explore its pedagogical potential.

Emerging evidence has demonstrated that VR-supported lessons are able to enhance positive emotions and engagement when compared to more traditional tools, such as readings from textbooks and videos (Allcoat & von Mühlenen, 2018). However, to experience and facilitate these benefits in a learning environment, educators should consider their self-efficacy while teaching with VR technologies, their safety in the classroom, as well as the need for technical support. These have been identified as potential obstacles for PSTs, who are interested in the effective use of VR in the classroom but may not feel well equipped to deliver VR-based lessons (Cooper et al., 2019).

In addition, according to Kavanagh et al. (2017), there are several external barriers to classroom implementation such as costs, hardware and software usability, and internal barriers such as confidence in teachers’ ability to use and create content, as well as PSTs’ VR Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) to consider (Jang et al., 2021).

In a recent pilot study, we explored the PSTs’ learning experience with a specific interest in the impact of VR-supported lessons on their Specific Self-Confidence (SSC) as an aspect that could be improved by research evidence-based, well-designed hands-on lessons in ITE courses. We decided to focus on SSC after making two important considerations. On the one hand, we reflected on the assumption that self-efficacy could be considered a multifaced personality trait that spans in several domains including motivational, cognitive, and affective domains (Cramer et al., 2009) and could require a lifetime to be changed.  On the other hand, SSC is only one aspect of self-confidence, but it seems to be mainly affected by everyday performance and circumstances, exerting higher levels of effect on the recurrent behaviours and attitude towards technology of an individual  (Oney  & Ulugad, 2013). This, in return, could have an impact on PSTs’ willingness to use technology such as VR in their practice (Yilmaz & Bayraktar, 2014) even after a short intervention, and it may affect their self-efficacy on a long-term (Kent, 2017). 

The initial pilot study results, presented at ECER Geneva 2020, showed  that engagement with VR lessons, for example in ITE science courses, encouraged PSTs to explore this technology for their future practice and expand the range of their pedagogical activities to teach various subjects, positively impacting on their self-confidence.

In this study, we moved on to explore the second possible internal barrier: the VR Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The TPACK refers not only to teachers’ VR technological knowledge, but also to their ability to choose this technology in conjunction with the appropriate pedagogical approaches that could support learning when teaching specific subject content (Fragkaki et al., 2020; Mishra, 2019). We aimed to provide further evidence on the minimal intervention required in ITE courses to support sustainable development of VR supported lessons in school education. This involves reflections on possible daily implementation of VR, alongside other effective pedagogical strategies in student-teachers’ career, as we present in the research design below. 

99 PGDE Primary student teachers (group A) and 33 PGDE Secondary Sciences student teachers (group B), enrolled in the class 2022-2023, participated in this study. The process involved a purposive sampling approach (Palys, 2008). Participants were all PSTs, and they all attended the PGDE science course on which one of the researchers had a tutor’s responsibilities. Demographic data have been collected to set up the general study context with a strong prevalence of females (84) vs. males (11) in Group A, and an equal number of females (16) vs. males (16) in Group B. In both groups most participants were in the age range between 18-34 years old. An initial overview of teachers’ attitudes towards technology, was examined by using the five categories of adopters defined by Hixon et al. (2012). Data showed that in both group A and B, about 80% of participants showed a positive attitude towards innovative technologies, defining themselves as early adopters and early majority. Implementation of VR in PGDE primary Science classes The VR intervention has been planned in science lessons with a total 2 two-hour VR supported sessions, a week apart. Session 1: PST explored and analysed the TPACK framework in the context of science and pedagogical approaches to VR lessons, with a blending of individual and collaborative tasks. Students analysed available digital resources including AR and desktop VR programmes and reflected on own beliefs through peer- and tutor- supported discussion. Session 2: Several ideas of active learning strategies on the topic of Body System were explored by student-teachers to better understand benefits and disadvantages of different pedagogical strategies, from more traditional, such as peak flow meters and body organ aprons, to more innovative such as AR T-shirt Virtuali Tee and VR-technology, ClassVR®, with an immersive virtual tour around the body. Data was collected using a mixed method approach and an online version of the Graham et al. (2019) validated tool to measure the TPACK confidence of science teachers, with some modifications to suit the VR supported lessons. A baseline was established by providing participants with a pre- and post- intervention survey, with quantitative data measured using a series of Likert scale questions. Qualitative data were collected through five open-ended questions in the post-intervention questionnaire related to the VR-supported intervention and aimed to explore participants’ opinions. To analyse the data, we used a combination of descriptive statistics and qualitative inductive thematic analysis (Thomas, 2006).

Our findings indicate that the VR-supported intervention had a significant impact on both groups of student-teachers (group A primary and group B secondary). Data showed a significant percentage increase in both groups’ VR TPACK confidence, after the intervention. For example, participants said they would feel more confident to effectively manage a VR-supported lesson (group A +20%, group B +40 %) and use VR to actively engage students in learning (group A +32%, group B +37 %). Student-teachers showed a growing disposition towards exploring the pedagogical potential of VR content and expressed an interest in continuing to engage with VR technologies, should these be available in their schools,“Gained an insight into the types of activities and learning that VR could be used for. Before this class I was unaware that VR could be introduced into the classroom”. However, moving from experimenting with VR to using it consistently in a classroom context requires further professional support and continued opportunities to develop pedagogical expertise in this area, “I am keen to explore VR options, but feel I would need some specific training/development”. Data showed an increase in PSTs’ willingness to explore VR for their teaching practice to draw the benefits afforded by VR-based learning. Nevertheless, although PSTs’ responses showed how this intervention can move teachers over the threshold of non-use and newness of innovative digital technologies such as VR, it is interesting to note that it also did not have a significant impact on the majority of the other TPACK measurements. In other words, student-teachers’ wider perceptions of their attitudes towards the use of digital technologies in general did not change. These findings raise interesting considerations regarding the impact and transferability of knowledge and practice when we introduce new digital technologies and pedagogies in teacher professional development.

Allcoat, D., & von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology, 26: 2140. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2140 Cooper, G., & Thong, L. P. (2018). Implementing virtual reality in the classroom: envisaging possibilities in STEM Education. In STEM education: An emerging field of inquiry (pp. 61-73). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391413_005 Cramer, R. J., Neal, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Self-efficacy and confidence: Theoretical distinctions and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(4), 319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017310 Fragkaki, M., Mystakidis, S., Hatzilygeroudis, I., Kovas, K., Palkova, Z., Salah, Z., Hamed G., Khalilia W. M., Ewais, A. (2020). TPACK instructional design model in virtual reality for deeper learning in science and higher education: From ‘apathy’ to ‘empathy’. In EDULEARN20 Proceedings (pp. 3286-3292). IATED. Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0328-0 Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 102-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.005 Jang, J., Ko, Y., Shin, W. S., & Han, I. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: An examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 9, 6798-6809. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048708. Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85-119. URL: http://earthlab.uoi.gr/theste Kent, A. M., & Giles, R. M. (2017). Pre-service teachers' technology self-efficacy. SRATE Journal, 26 (1), 9-20. Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611 Oney, E., & Uludag, O. (2013). Classification of self-confidence: Is general self-confidence an aggregate of specific self-confidences? In 6th International Conference on Service Management (pp. 20-22). At: Kyrenia, North Cyprus Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (Vol.2). Sage: Los Angeles, pp. 697-8 Thomas, D. R. (2006). ‘A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.’ American Journal of Evaluation 27(2): 237-246. DOI: 10.1177/1098214005283748 Yilmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 116, 3458-3461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.783