The Effect of Sustainability-Based Microteaching Practices on the Beliefs and Pedagogical Reflections of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates
Abstract
1. Introduction
Importance of Research
2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
2.1. Sustainability Beliefs: Definition and Measurement
2.2. Sustainability-Focused Planning in Mathematics Education
2.3. Microteaching and Its Role in Teacher Training
2.4. Research Problem
- How do sustainability-focused microteaching practices affect pre-service teachers’ beliefs about sustainability?
- How do reflective journals reveal pre-service teachers’ perceptions of sustainability and their reflections on their teaching processes?
- Which pedagogical elements stand out in the sustainability-based mathematics lesson plans prepared by pre-service teachers?
- How effectively do the assessment rubrics employed in the microteaching process reflect the degree to which pre-service teachers incorporate sustainability principles into their instructional design and teaching strategies?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Model
3.2. Participants
3.3. Data Collection Tools
3.4. Application Process
3.5. Data Analysis
3.6. Validity and Reliability
4. Results
4.1. Sustainability Belief Scale Results
4.2. Themes Emerging from Reflective Journals
4.3. Rubric Evaluation Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Development of Sustainability Beliefs in Pre-Service Teachers
5.2. The Role of Reflective Diaries and Lesson Plan Content
5.3. Microteaching Practices and Holistic Competence Development
6. Conclusions
6.1. The Effect of Sustainability-Focused Microteaching Practices on Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About Sustainability
6.2. Reflections in Journals: Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Sustainability and Teaching Processes
6.3. Pedagogical Elements Observed in Sustainability-Based Mathematics Lesson Plans
6.4. Effectiveness of Assessment Rubrics in Capturing Sustainability Integration
6.5. Implications and Recommendations
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
STEM | Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics |
KMK | Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Culture journals |
BMZ | Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development |
PCK | pedagogical content knowledge |
EPT | teacher candidate in the experimental group |
CPT | teacher candidates in the control group |
PA | pedagogical approach |
CF | course flow |
DE | difficulties experienced |
SP | solution proposal |
PTOP | the prospective teacher’s own performance |
Appendix A. Sustainability-Based Mathematics Lesson Plan Assessment Rubric
Criteria | Excellent (4 Points) | Good (3 Points) | Medium (2 Points) | Not Developed (1 Point) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Course Content and Suitability of Objectives | Mathematical concepts related to sustainability are covered in depth and clearly targeted. The objectives provide students with skills in the context of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. | The sustainability theme is associated with mathematical concepts, but the objectives are not completely clear. | The sustainability theme is covered in a limited way, with some goals being unclear. | The sustainability theme is poorly covered, and the mathematical objectives are not clear. |
Applications and Activities | Activities and events enable students to think deeply about sustainability issues and develop their creative and problem-solving skills. | Activities are meaningful in the context of sustainability, but some could be more effective in achieving this goal. They support the mathematical thinking process well. | Activities provide a general overview of the sustainability theme but could have been more creative or interesting. | Activities are insufficient or have a weak connection to the sustainability theme. Mathematical skills are not developed. |
Mathematical Approach and Applications | Mathematical concepts are skillfully combined with the sustainability theme, allowing students to learn in depth by working on real-world problems. | Mathematical concepts are well integrated, but some sections could have been practiced more thoroughly. | Mathematical concepts are generally treated in a linear manner, with little connection made to sustainability. | The connection between mathematical concepts and sustainability is weak, and there is no practical approach. |
Interest and Participation | The course content, which attracts students’ attention and encourages active participation, is supported by sustainability-themed problems and discussions. | Some activities are interesting for students, but participation could have been encouraged more. | Some parts of the course do not interest students, and participation is limited. | The entire course is boring, and participation is low; students do not actively engage. |
Resources and Tools | Resources and tools (visuals, models, technology, etc.) are used effectively to support mathematical problems with sustainability themes. | The resources are well-selected, but some tools could have been utilized more efficiently. | Resources and tools are used limitedly, more variety is needed to support sustainability and mathematical context. | Resources and tools are insufficient; they do not contribute to the course content. |
Assessment and Feedback | Students’ learning processes are continuously evaluated and feedback is provided with sustainability-themed projects. | The evaluation and feedback process was based on specific criteria, but some students may require additional explanation. | Evaluation is provided, but feedback is generally superficial. | Assessment and feedback are absent or very limited. Student progress could not be monitored. |
Achieving Learning Objectives | By the end of the course, students have developed mathematical skills related to sustainability and can apply them to real-world contexts. | Students demonstrated an understanding of basic sustainability and mathematical connections by the end of the lesson. | Although students understand some basic concepts, they do not have a deeper understanding. | Students did not achieve most of the targeted learning outcomes. |
Social and Environmental Awareness | The course plan enables students to develop social and environmental awareness about sustainability. | The lesson plan provides students with information on environmental and social sustainability. | The lesson plan provides students with limited environmental and social awareness. | The course plan does not provide students with sufficient social and environmental awareness in terms of sustainability. |
Appendix B. Microteaching Evaluation Rubric: Sustainable-Based Mathematics Education
Evaluation Criteria | Levels of Success | Point | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 4: Teaching explicitly links mathematical concepts and processes to sustainability. Strong links are established among the environmental, social, and economic dimensions. 3: Teaching is linked to sustainability, but the links are not strong enough. 2: The concept of sustainability is only superficially included in teaching. 1: Links to sustainability are not clearly present. | ||||
| 4: Students actively participate, and meaningful interactions occur with the guidance of the teacher candidate. Suggestions are made to solve environmental or social problems. 3: Students participate, but the depth and meaningfulness of the interactions are limited. 2: Student participation and interaction are limited, usually consisting of repeating what the teacher says. 1: Students do not participate. | ||||
| 4: Learning objectives are clear, explicit, and measurable. Objectives include sustainability-themed mathematical skills. 3: Objectives are specific, but some may not be clear enough in the context of sustainability. 2: Learning objectives are vague and do not make direct connections to sustainability. 1: Learning objectives are vague and unrelated to sustainability. | ||||
| 4: Teaching strategies emphasize sustainability while developing students’ mathematical thinking skills. Variety is added to the lesson by using various teaching methods. 3: Teaching strategies develop mathematical skills, but sustainability elements are limited. 2: Teaching strategies are based on a single method and sustainability is emphasized very little. 1: Teaching strategies are ineffective and sustainability is not used at all. | ||||
| 4: Course materials provide examples of sustainability and environmentally friendly resources are used. Students are encouraged to think environmentally sensitively. 3: Materials are suitable for teaching, but materials directly related to sustainability are few. 2: Course materials are limited and do not focus on sustainability. 1: Resources are insufficient and the concept of sustainability is ignored. | ||||
| 4: Feedback from students improves their understanding of sustainability as well as mathematical processes. Assessment processes are clear and diverse. 3: Feedback is limited to mathematical processes, and there is little emphasis on sustainability. 2: The assessment process is one-way, and there is limited feedback on sustainability. 1: The assessment process is absent or creates misunderstandings. | ||||
| 4: Classroom management is effective, and solutions have been developed to address the diverse learning needs of students. Everyone is included in the lesson with sustainability-themed examples. 3: Classroom management is generally effective, but the needs of some students may be ignored. 2: Classroom management is weak and does not focus enough on student needs. 1: Classroom management is inadequate, and the diverse needs of students are not being addressed. |
References
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 27 March 2025).
- World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Biçer, R.; Bulut, B. The Place and Importance of Sustainable Development Education in Teacher Education (Türkiye Example). Ahi Evran Univ. Kirsehir Fac. Educ. J. 2023, 24, 215–252. [Google Scholar]
- Bonnet, M. Lost for words: The educational implications of awareness, sustainability and meaning. Environ. Educ. Res. 2004, 10, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, S. Embedding Sustainability in Early Childhood Education: Weaving Principles into Practice; Pademelon Press: Amberoo, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Tavşan, F.; Yanılmaz, Z. Sustainable approaches in educational structures. Art Des. J. 2019, 24, 359–383. [Google Scholar]
- Tozduman Yaralı, K.; Didin, E. An effective example of education for sustainable development: The education of ‘Little Tree’. Uludag Univ. Fac. Arts Sci. J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 19, 850–869. [Google Scholar]
- Köybaşı Şemin, F. A theoretical evaluation on sustainable education. Kastamonu Educ. J. 2022, 30, 35–47. [Google Scholar]
- Sterling, S. Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 49–70. [Google Scholar]
- Şeker, H. Sustainability education: A conceptual framework. J. Acad. Soc. Res. 2019, 7, 132–140. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, I. Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education, and problem-based learning in universities. In Sustainability at Universities: Opportunities, Challenges and Trends; Filho, W., Ed.; Peter Lang: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2009; pp. 391–400. [Google Scholar]
- Jablonka, E. Mathematical literacy and the role of mathematics in society: The case of South Africa. Educ. Stud. Math. 2003, 53, 145–170. [Google Scholar]
- Sriraman, B.; English, L.D. (Eds.) Theories of STEM Education: Theoretical Landscapes in Mathematics and Science Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Bamber, P.; Bullivant, A.; Glover, A.; King, B.; McCann, D. Educating Global Citizens in Colleges and Universities: Challenges and Opportunities; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hunt, F.; Chung, Y.C.; Rogers, M.; Inman, S. Developing the Global Teacher: Student Teacher Perceptions of Learning to Teach Global Perspectives; Development Education Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- KMK/BMZ. Education for Sustainable Development in German Teacher Training: Joint Project of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2016. Available online: https://www.bne-portal.de/ (accessed on 27 March 2025).
- Kılınç, A.; Kartal, C.; Koçak, C.; Demiral, Ü.; Eroğlu, B. Pre-service science teachers’ beliefs about environmental education and sustainable development. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2013, 36, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeichner, K.; Bier, M. Opportunities and pitfalls in the turn toward clinical experience in US teacher education. Educ. Res. 2019, 48, 432–440. [Google Scholar]
- Aydın, F.; Coşkun, M. Examining the views of prospective teachers on sustainable environmental education. Int. J. New Approaches Soc. Stud. 2022, 6, 415–432. [Google Scholar]
- Özsoy, S. A study of Turkish pre-service science teachers’ environmental literacy and its components. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 449–470. [Google Scholar]
- Ardoin, N.M.; Bowers, A.W.; Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Van Petegem, P. Eco-school evaluation beyond labels: The impact of environmental policy, didactics and nature at school on student outcomes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 1251–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skovsmose, O. Mathematics education and uncertainty: Towards an ethics of mathematical modelling in the context of sustainability. ZDM–Int. J. Math. Educ. 2019, 51, 945–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boz, N.; Boz, Y. Pre-service mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the context of sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darmawan, I.G.N.; Sarwan, H.; Jatmiko, B.; Patahuddin, S.M. Sustainability education through contextual mathematics: A design-based research approach in Indonesian secondary schools. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, M.L. Microteaching: An indispensable tool for developing teaching skills in pre-service teacher education. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 510–512. [Google Scholar]
- Koç, Y.; Erbaş, A.K. Exploring pre-service mathematics teachers’ noticing in microteaching: A focus on student thinking. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 114, 103703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harteis, C.; Prenzel, M.; Elster, D. How microteaching supports pre-service mathematics teachers in developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2020, 23, 389–408. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.J.; Lim, C. Pre-service mathematics teachers’ reflections on their microteaching practices: A focus on mathematical communication. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2019, 17, 943–960. [Google Scholar]
- Kilic, H. Pre-service mathematics teachers’ noticing of students’ mathematical thinking in a video-based microteaching environment. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 75, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kariuki, P.N.; Marangu, K. Effect of microteaching on pre-service mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in teaching secondary school mathematics. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022, 10, 45–59. [Google Scholar]
- Kaasila, R.; Pehkonen, L.; Hellinen, A. Learning to teach mathematics through microteaching: Finnish preservice teachers’ experiences. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 44, 105–122. [Google Scholar]
- Ortaçtepe, D. EFL teacher candidates’ identity (re)construction as teachers through a reflective practicum. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 2015, 46, 247–264. [Google Scholar]
- Yost, D.S.; Sentner, S.M.; Forlenza-Bailey, A. An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. J. Teach. Educ. 2000, 51, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdogan, N.; Campbell, T. Pre-service teachers’ reflective thinking development through microteaching: A mixed methods study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 104, 103391. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, T.S.C. Reflective Practice for Language Teachers; Equinox Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Panadero, E.; Jonsson, A. The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2013, 9, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çelik, M.; Aydın, S. The effect of using rubrics in microteaching practices on the performance of prospective teachers. J. Qual. Res. Educ. 2022, 10, 55–72. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández, M.L. Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VJung, H.; Lee, Y. Developing a rubric for evaluating teaching performance in microteaching: A design-based research approach. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 48, 241–257. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, R.B.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 2004, 33, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Albion, P.R.; Lucas, P. Ecological sustainability as the context for preservice teacher education. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2013, 41, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, J.; Ryan, L.; Davis, J. Mainstreaming education for sustainable development: A review of international research on teacher education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2015, 21, 955–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yavuz Konokman, G.; Yelken, T.Y. Examining the sustainable lifestyle behaviors and beliefs of prospective teachers. Educ. Sci. 2021, 46, 99–123. [Google Scholar]
- Yıldız, D.; Altınok, H. The effects of sustainable development-focused teaching activities on the pedagogical awareness of prospective teachers. J. Educ. Sci. 2023, 52, 75–94. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, N.; Stevenson, R.B.; Lasen, M.; Ferreira, J.A.; Davis, J. Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 63, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şahin, E.; Erbaş, A.K. Pedagogical reflections of prospective teachers on sustainability concepts: An evaluation in the context of microteaching practices. Educ. Sci. 2020, 45, 231–250. [Google Scholar]
- Sund, P.; Wickman, P.O. Socialization content in schools and education for sustainable development–Inevitable or impossible? Environ. Educ. Res. 2011, 17, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bozdoğan, A.E. Determining the self-efficacy beliefs of classroom teacher candidates towards education for sustainable development. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2011, 11, 1799–1809. [Google Scholar]
- Gürbüz, A. Determining Classroom Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Views on Education for Sustainable Development. Master’s Thesis, Firat University, Elazığ, Turkey, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Tilbury, D. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261448 (accessed on 27 March 2025).
- Leicht, A.; Heiss, J.; Byun, W.J. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2018; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261445 (accessed on 27 March 2025).
- Hawkes, J. Teacher Education for Sustainable Development: International Perspectives. J. Educ. Teach. 2019, 45, 474–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rieckmann, M. Learning to Transform the World: Key Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2017; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 (accessed on 27 March 2025).
- Che, S.M.; Zhang, D. Integrating education for sustainable development into pre-service mathematics teacher education: A case study from China. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 22, 1267–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, D.; Gericke, N.; Chang Rundgren, S.N. The effect of implementation of education for sustainable development in Swedish compulsory schools—Assessing pupils’ sustainability consciousness. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 22, 176–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loughran, J.J. Developing Reflective Practice: Learning About Teaching and Learning Through Modelling; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Korthagen, F.; Vasalos, A. Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teach. Teach. 2018, 24, 631–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, P.; King, S. Reflective journals as a tool for enhancing sustainability education in teacher training. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 1351–1365. [Google Scholar]
- Vossoughi, S.; Bevan, B. Learning through practice: A critical review of reflective teaching and learning in STEM education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2019, 56, 626–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nolet, V. Preparing sustainability-literate teachers. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2009, 111, 409–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaberi, R. Integrating sustainability issues in primary mathematics education: A project-based learning approach. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 2020, 12, 201–209. [Google Scholar]
- Öhman, J.; Östman, L. Mathematics education for sustainability: The role of content and context. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021, 27, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papenfuss, J.; Merritt, E.; Manuel-Navarrete, D.; Coutinho, B.; Clark, D. Sustainability in mathematics curricula: Connections, challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L. Constructing 21st-century teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 71, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, D.; McGinnis, J.R. Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Integration of Sustainability in STEM Microteaching Lessons. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2022, 20, 889–910. [Google Scholar]
- Borko, H.; Jacobs, J.; Koellner, K. Examining novice teacher learning in the context of practice-based teacher education: A micro-teaching perspective. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 85, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodgers, C. The role of reflection in the learning and professional development of teachers: A study of reflective practice in teacher education. J. Teach. Dev. 2020, 24, 101–119. [Google Scholar]
- Lannin, J.K.; Webb, M.; Chval, K.B.; Arbaugh, F. Learning to teach mathematics: Professional growth through lesson planning, teaching, and reflection. Math. Teach. Educ. 2021, 9, 45–68. [Google Scholar]
- Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner in Practice-Based Teacher Education. Int. J. Reflective Pract. 2022, 11, 14–31. [Google Scholar]
Research Group | Gender | N | Pre-Test Average (SD) | Post-Test Average (SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 (Control) | 1 (woman) | 17 | 3.74 (0.91) | 3.58 (0.49) |
2 (male) | 6 | 4.36 (0.19) | 3.23 (0.60) | |
Toplam | 23 | 3.90 (0.83) | 3.49 (0.53) | |
2 (Experiment) | 1 (woman) | 14 | 3.75 (0.68) | 3.76 (0.68) |
2 (male) | 7 | 4.44 (0.39) | 4.22 (0.58) | |
Toplam | 21 | 3.98 (0.68) | 3.92 (0.67) | |
Grand Total | 1 (woman) | 31 | 3.75 (0.81) | 3.67 (0.58) |
2 (male) | 13 | 4.40 (0.30) | 3.76 (0.77) | |
Total | 44 | 3.94 (0.75) | 3.69 (0.63) |
Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p (Sig.) | Partial Eta Squared |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Corrected Model | 1.974 | 1 | 1.974 | 5.408 | 0.025 | 0.114 |
Intercept | 602.317 | 1 | 602.317 | 1649.853 | <0.001 | 0.975 |
Research Group | 1.974 | 1 | 1.974 | 5.408 | 0.025 | 0.114 |
Error | 15.333 | 42 | 0.365 | |||
Total | 617.734 | 44 | ||||
Corrected Total | 17.308 | 43 |
Group | Topics | PA | f | CF | f | DE | f | SP | f | PTOP | f |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | Volumetric measurement—water saving | Group work | 3 | Presentation—question and answer—presentation—problem solving | 1 | The formulas were difficult for students to understand | 2 | Tangible material was used | 3 | I engaged the students in the lesson (positive) | 2 |
Problem solving | 1 | Reminder—Activity application—Presentation—Activity—Summary | 3 | Student comments are limited | 3 | More relatable to daily life | 3 | I could have explained it better (negative) It could be more related to daily life (negative) | 1 1 | ||
Cooperative learning | 2 | I could have known the subject better (negative) | 1 | ||||||||
Interaction with the student was good (positive) | 1 | ||||||||||
I overcame my excitement (positive) | 1 | ||||||||||
I could have given more examples from daily life (negative) | 1 | ||||||||||
Group 2 | Data analysis—carbon footprint | Problem solving | 2 | Problem solving through daily life examples | 3 | Integration into sustainability | 3 | Writing your own problem | 2 | The flow of the lesson was good (positive) | 2 |
Group work | 1 | Presentation—Problem solving through group work | 1 | Lack of examples | 1 | Group work | 1 | Increasing problems from daily life (negative) | 3 | ||
Use of Technology | 1 | With peer learning | 1 | Using different resources (negative) | 1 | ||||||
Being able to use more technology (negative) | 1 | ||||||||||
Ability to add games (negative) | 1 | ||||||||||
Group 3 | First Order Equations—Recycling | Problem solving | 5 | Problem solving through daily life examples | 5 | Integration into sustainability | 2 | Writing your own problem | 2 | The flow of the lesson was good (positive) | 2 |
Cooperative learning | 2 | Group work | 1 | Students do not know about sustainability | 2 | More group work can be performed | 1 | I could have increased the use of technology (negative) | 1 | ||
Question- Answer | 2 | Subject explanation—Problem solving through daily life examples | 3 | Low student participation | 2 | Giving definitions and examples | 1 | Group work was good (positive) | 1 | ||
Presentation | 1 | Question and answer—presentation—problem solving | 2 | about sustainable | 2 | Association with daily life was good (positive) | 1 | ||||
Adding an activity | 1 | The subject could have been explained in more detail (negative) | 1 | ||||||||
Keeping the student more active (negative) | 1 | ||||||||||
Classroom management was strong (positive) | 1 | ||||||||||
I could have prepared the material (negative) | 1 | ||||||||||
Group 4 | Natural numbers and operations—Planting trees | Problem solving | 3 | Reminder—question and answer—problem writing with group work- Summary | 4 | Students do not know about sustainability | 4 | Relating to daily life | 1 | Group work could have been increased (negative) | 1 |
Cooperative learning | 2 | Integration into sustainability | 2 | Problem solving | 1 | I asked good questions (positive) | 1 | ||||
Group work | 1 | Students had difficulty writing problems | 1 | Group work | 1 | Your lecture was good (positive) | 1 | ||||
Solving more examples | 2 | I could have solved more examples (negative) | 1 | ||||||||
Informing students by watching videos | 1 | ||||||||||
Group 5 | Area surveying—Sustainable city | Question—Answer | 2 | Exploration-based—Information-oriented | 4 | Students are becoming teacher candidates | 1 | Asking questions like a child | 1 | The flow of the lesson is good (positive) | 3 |
Active participation | 1 | Students have incorrect or incomplete knowledge about sustainability. | 3 | Increasing the problems from daily life | 3 | I asked good questions (positive) | 1 | ||||
Activity | 2 | Diversifying the problems from daily life | 2 |
Criterion | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 3.6 |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 3.4 |
| 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 3.8 |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 3.4 |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 3.0 |
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 2.8 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 3.6 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 3.6 |
Total | 31 | 19 | 25 | 30 | 31 | - | - |
3.87 | 2.37 | 3.12 | 3.75 | 3.87 | - | - |
Evaluation Criteria | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 3.6 |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 3.4 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 3.6 |
| 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 3.8 |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 3.0 |
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 2.8 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 3.6 |
Total | 27 | 18 | 21 | 26 | 27 | - | - |
3.85 | 2.57 | 3.00 | 3.71 | 3.85 | - | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tastepe, M. The Effect of Sustainability-Based Microteaching Practices on the Beliefs and Pedagogical Reflections of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167318
Tastepe M. The Effect of Sustainability-Based Microteaching Practices on the Beliefs and Pedagogical Reflections of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167318
Chicago/Turabian StyleTastepe, Mehtap. 2025. "The Effect of Sustainability-Based Microteaching Practices on the Beliefs and Pedagogical Reflections of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167318
APA StyleTastepe, M. (2025). The Effect of Sustainability-Based Microteaching Practices on the Beliefs and Pedagogical Reflections of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates. Sustainability, 17(16), 7318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167318