Abstract
Background: Effective vocabulary instruction underpins learners’ oral and reading comprehension; however, persistent comprehension difficulties in South African schools linked to limited vocabulary teaching highlight the need to strengthen preservice teachers’ instructional capacity.
Objectives: This study examined how engagement in iterative cycles of practice, supported by coaching and reflection within mixed reality simulation (MRS) microlessons, enhances preservice teachers’ isiZulu vocabulary instruction in the Foundation Phase.
Method: A qualitative interpretive case study design was used, drawing on lesson observations, coaching and reflection sessions, and focus group interviews. The study involved 19 second-year university students in Johannesburg preparing to teach isiZulu Home Language reading in Foundation Phase classrooms.
Results: Preservice teachers initially struggled with appropriate word selection, systematic instruction, and the provision of learner-friendly definitions, resulting in fragmented explanations and limited learner understanding.
Conclusion: Engagement in MRS microlessons, coaching, and reflection discussions improved participants’ ability to select, explicitly teach, and clearly explain vocabulary, thereby enhancing learners’ contextual understanding.
Contribution: The findings of this study show that integrating MRS microlessons, coaching, and reflection discussions strengthens preservice teachers’ vocabulary instruction and supports their preparation to address comprehension challenges in South African classrooms through simulated practice, feedback, and reflective approaches that transform teaching practices into effective and inclusive ones.
Keywords: mixed reality simulation; vocabulary instruction; deliberate practice; Foundation Phase; isiZulu.
Introduction
Vocabulary is one of the five essential components of effective reading instruction (Learning Point Associates 2004) and a crucial aspect of oral and written language comprehension (Durgunoğlu et al. 2021). Developing readers rely on the pronunciation and meaning of words in their oral vocabulary to recognise and comprehend written words (Gough & Tunmer 1986; Kambach & Mesmer 2024; Learning Point Associate 2004).
Vocabulary plays a critical role in reading comprehension, as familiarity with word meanings is essential for interpreting and understanding written text (Eray 2017). When learners are more familiar with the meanings of oral vocabulary, they are more likely to understand what they read (Manihuruk 2020). The reader’s level of vocabulary knowledge determines the reader’s reading comprehension performance in that language (Sidek & Rahim 2015).
Despite the importance of vocabulary knowledge, studies have shown that many learners continue to experience substantial gaps in their vocabulary development (Ayana, Mereba & Alemu 2024). Learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to enter school with a more limited vocabulary than their peers from higher socio-economic backgrounds (Pretorius & Stoffelsma 2017) ‘a disparity often attributed to limited access to resources that support language growth. Sibanda (2014) argues that English First Additional Language learners face challenges with vocabulary acquisition due to contextual environments that inadequately foster language development. Vocabulary deficits, which are a significant barrier to reading comprehension, often hinder learners’ ability to make sense of texts (Howie et al. 2017; Pretorius & Spaull 2016). Research by Kiliç (2019), Mbhele (2019), Vundla (2020), Mamabolo (2022), and Simelane (2022) further indicates that teachers frequently overlook vocabulary instruction, despite its centrality to reading comprehension and language proficiency, thereby contributing to learners’ weak vocabulary knowledge.
Similarly, Khan and Krishnasamy (2024) and Kiliç (2019) note that classroom instruction often provides limited opportunities for the practical application of vocabulary and often neglects explicit vocabulary instruction. Some educators view vocabulary instruction as particularly demanding and thus devote minimal time to it, despite its critical role in language development (En-Nda & Koumachi 2022).
The lack of systematic vocabulary instruction in schools underscores the need to reconsider how preservice teachers (PSTs) are trained to teach vocabulary and prepared for the actual classroom. Teacher education institutions (TEIs) commonly use microlessons to develop student teachers’ instructional skills, which are short, structured lessons intended to help students practise teaching (Richard 2021). A student teacher prepares a short lesson and presents it to 3–4 peers posing as learners; the lesson is recorded for the mentor to review and provide feedback (Ping 2013). However, traditional microlessons, like any other phenomenon, have limitations. One of these limitations is the lack of authenticity and intentional feedback. In the researcher’s view, this is because students often prioritise completing the session over engaging in meaningful reflection and providing constructive, critical feedback to their peers, thereby undermining the development of their reflective and evaluative skills. In a similar vein, He and Yan (2011), Ye, Fan and Wang (2025), and Inyang (2022) argue that the artificial nature of students’ feedback fails to capture the dynamic and unpredictable realities of classrooms, leaving PSTs underprepared for behavioural and instructional challenges. Though microlessons provide valuable practice, they might have some limitations for effective instruction.
To address these limitations, this study explores the potential of mixed reality simulation (MRS) microlessons as an innovative approach to improving and refining PSTs’ vocabulary instruction.
Mixed reality simulation integrates physical and digital environments to create immersive teaching contexts that enhance authenticity and engagement. In platforms such as TLE TeachLivE™, PSTs interact with student avatars controlled by trained simulation specialists, who provide real-time responses to simulate authentic classroom dynamics (Gravett et al. 2023; Hudson et al. 2019; Dieker et al. 2014). Unlike traditional microlessons, MRS affords PSTs the opportunity to engage in multiple cycles of repeated teaching, thereby allowing them to deliberately practise essential instructional skills in realistic scenarios (Van der Merwe et al. 2024). These sessions also incorporate structured coaching and reflection, which foster professional growth through targeted feedback and peer collaboration (Mraz et al. 2016). The coaches’ observations of PSTs’ instructional practices provide critical insights and constructive feedback, which participants can apply in subsequent teaching cycles (Harris & Newcomb 2024).
Several recent studies have examined the use of MRS to support PSTs’ professional learning. In the United States, research has demonstrated the effectiveness of platforms such as TeachLive in developing instructional and classroom management skills (Dieker et al. 2014, 2023), while more recent studies have explored PSTs’ perceptions of classroom-based MRS (Freeman & Lee 2024) and the use of MRS to promote equitable opportunities to respond in classrooms (Anderson & Calandra 2025). In Australia, studies have focused on the use of MRS to prepare PSTs for inclusive classroom management and to practise de-escalation skills in safe, supported environments (Cumming, Lee & Hoenig 2025).
Within the South African context, growing research has investigated the value of MRS for PST education. Studies have examined MRS as a tool to support practice-based learning (Gravett et al. 2023), to elicit learners’ prior knowledge during instruction (Nel & Marais 2023), and to enhance reading literacy teaching within initial teacher education programmes (Nel, Dieker & Marais 2024). Additional postgraduate studies have explored how MRS combined with coaching supports the development of core teaching practices, such as questioning (Bremner 2024; Tshabalala 2024), the experiences of teacher educators as coaches (Van der Merwe et al. 2024) as well as simulation specialists maintaining fidelity in MRS environments (Mello & Van der Merwe 2026).
Despite this growing body of research, existing studies have predominantly focused on general pedagogical skills, classroom management, or English-medium literacy instruction. There remains a notable gap in research examining the use of MRS and coaching to prepare PSTs to teach African language content, particularly vocabulary instruction in the Foundation Phase. This study addresses this gap by investigating how MRS microlessons and coaching refine PSTs’ isiZulu vocabulary instruction in Grade 3 classrooms. In doing so, the study provides empirically grounded insights into how to plan and structure an effective vocabulary instruction lesson, which will add to the body of literature on African language literacy and how TEIs can combine MRS and coaching to advance PSTs’ vocabulary practices and prepare them for the actual classroom. It will also broaden MRS research to include discipline and language-specific instructional development beyond English.
This study was grounded in two complementary theoretical frameworks: Deliberate Practice (Ericsson 2008) and Explicit Vocabulary Instruction (Beck, McKeown & Kucan 2013). Deliberate Practice is defined as structured, learner-focused training that targets challenging aspects of a task through repeated practice, optimal planning, and immediate feedback (Dill 2019; Moulaert et al. 2004). It emphasises purposeful engagement with clearly defined sub-skills, enabling students to refine performance through iterative cycles of practice and reflection. In this study, PSTs participated in two cycles of presenting a vocabulary lesson in a simulated environment, allowing students to rehearse and improve their instructional strategies. Explicit Vocabulary Instruction advocates systematic, intentional, and robust vocabulary instruction, ensuring that learners receive rich, in-depth information about words (Beck, McKeown & Kucan 2002). This approach includes the pre-selection of high-value Tier 2 words1, the provision of clear definitions, the exploration of word relationships, such as morphology and synonyms, and guided practice accompanied by feedback (Young-Davy 2014).
Together, these frameworks offer a dual lens for professional development: (1) Deliberate Practice facilitates repeated, feedback-driven teaching cycles; while (2) Explicit Vocabulary Instruction ensures depth and intentionality in vocabulary learning. This integration supports the development of metalinguistic skills and enhances PSTs’ capacity to deliver effective vocabulary instruction.
The two frameworks underpinning this study operated synergistically to strengthen PSTs’ vocabulary instruction through MRS microlessons, coaching, and structured reflection sessions. This bifocal lens facilitated engagement in two cycles of intentional practice aimed at refining a specific instructional skill: vocabulary teaching within a controlled, feedback-rich environment.
Deliberate Practice emphasises purposeful engagement in repeated, targeted activities to develop teaching competencies, while Explicit Vocabulary Instruction provides a systematic approach for teaching words with precision and depth, focusing on metalinguistic awareness and successful word learning.
Building on these complementary frameworks, the intervention provided PSTs with opportunities to rehearse and improve their vocabulary instruction through two iterative lesson presentation cycles. Each cycle required participants to prepare and deliver lessons that incorporated explicit strategies for teaching high-value words, supported by feedback and reflection. An identified area for improvement was the development of vocabulary instruction, which informed the design of this targeted professional development initiative. Through repeated practice and guided coaching, PSTs refined their instructional techniques and enhanced their capacity to teach vocabulary effectively.
The study, therefore, aimed to investigate the impact of MRS, supplemented by coaching sessions, on equipping PSTs with instructional skills to effectively teach vocabulary to their students. It sought to answer the research question: How effective are MRS microlessons, when combined with coaching, in developing PSTs’ vocabulary instruction in the Foundation Phase? The objective of this study was to examine the extent to which MRS microlessons, supported by coaching, enhance PSTs’ ability to implement effective isiZulu vocabulary instruction in the Foundation Phase. To achieve this aim, the study drew on Beck et al.’s (2002) framework for Explicit Vocabulary Instruction and Ericsson’s (2008) Deliberate Practice framework. These frameworks are particularly relevant, as Deliberate Practice emphasises purposeful engagement in multiple activities to develop teaching skills, while Explicit Vocabulary Instruction focuses on teaching each word explicitly and systematically. Together, they provide a theoretical lens for understanding how MRS microlessons coupled with coaching can refine PSTs’ vocabulary instruction.
Research methods and design
This article has studied an interpretivist research paradigm, which recognises that reality and knowledge are socially constructed through individuals’ interactions and subjective interpretations of their experiences (Kumatongo & Muzata 2021; Omodan 2022). It aims to understand how the participants being studied view the phenomena being observed and their interpretations and understandings of the world they live in (Kivunja & Kuyini 2017). An interpretivist research design was appropriate for this study as it sought to gain an in-depth understanding of PSTs’ experiences and meaning-making processes within MRS contexts. The study focused on observing PSTs’ engagement during MRS microlessons, coaching interactions, and reflective sessions, and on exploring how PSTs interpreted their participation in these learning experiences. In addition, a qualitative case study design was employed to enable an in-depth, contextualised exploration of a bounded group of participants within a specific community or setting (Schoch 2020). In the field of education, case study research enables close engagement with participants, facilitating rich descriptions of complex educational phenomena (Muzari et al. 2022). In this study, a case study design was suitable, as the research sought to investigate a group of second-year Bachelor of Education (Bed, Foundation Phase) PSTs at a university in Johannesburg who were studying isiZulu as a Home Language. The design was well-suited for examining their development of vocabulary instruction strategies through participation in MRS microlessons, coaching, and reflection.
A qualitative approach was adopted to foreground participants’ perspectives, meanings, and lived experiences within their natural learning context (Busetto, Wick & Gumbinger 2020). This approach enabled the researcher to generate detailed insights into how MRS microlessons supported PSTs’ development of vocabulary instruction for teaching isiZulu vocabulary in the Foundation Phase, without seeking statistical generalisation (Hazari 2024).
The participants (n = 19) comprised purposively selected second-year Foundation Phase PSTs specialising in isiZulu as a Home Language. These were all second-year students doing isiZulu as a Home Language. The participants were selected for three key reasons aligned with the aims of the study. First, given that the purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of MRS, supplemented by coaching sessions, on PSTs’ development of vocabulary instructional skills, it was essential to select participants who were enrolled for isiZulu Home Language. Secondly, as the study specifically focused on vocabulary instruction within an isiZulu context, it was therefore relevant to identify BEd students specialising in isiZulu Home Language. Lastly, the study sought to provide PSTs with opportunities to develop and practise vocabulary teaching skills in preparation for real classroom contexts. Second-year BEd students were purposefully selected because, within their programme, they are enrolled in an isiZulu Methodology module during their second year of study. This module provided an appropriate and authentic context for implementing the intervention, as the MRS-based microlessons formed part of the students’ practical assessment tasks which were conducted within the premises of the institution, during which they practised teaching isiZulu vocabulary. This alignment enabled the researcher to meaningfully assess the intervention’s effectiveness within an existing curricular structure.
Data were generated through MRS lesson presentations, coaching and reflection sessions, and focus group interviews. All microlessons and coaching and reflection sessions discussions were video-recorded and focused group interviews were audio recorded to allow for detailed analysis. Data collection focused on examining instructional practices, engagement during coaching and reflection, and how participants incorporated feedback from the first cycle into subsequent teaching. Following the two cycles, focus group interviews were conducted to explore shared experiences of MRS microlessons and participants’ perceptions of the value of coaching and reflection in shaping their instructional practices. The researcher was not actively involved in the data collection process during cycles 1 and 2. During the MRS micro-lesson presentations and the coaching and reflection sessions, during this process of data collection, the researcher’s role was limited to observation. The researcher took an active role only during the focus group interviews, serving as the interviewer. Figure 1 shows a chart indicating and detailing the MRS microlesson cycles and the coaching sessions.
 |
FIGURE 1: Mixed reality simulation microlesson cycle. |
|
Data were analysed using a thematic analysis, which is effective for identifying patterns of meaning across qualitative datasets (Braun & Clarke 2006; Finlay 2021). An inductive data analysis approach was used to analyse data, which included generating codes and themes from the existing data (Braun & Clarke 2006). It is a detailed process of analysing data that includes a thorough reading of the data, identifying codes, analysing and comparing codes to generate categories, and analysing categories to generate themes (Thomas 2006). Below is a detailed process of analysing data that was followed in the current research.
Data analysis process
Transcription of data
For ease of data analysis, the video-recorded MRS microlessons, coaching and reflection sessions, and the audio-recorded focus group interviews were transcribed into Microsoft Word documents. To ensure participant anonymity, a coding system was used across all transcriptions. In the lesson presentation transcripts, the code PST1L referred to Preservice Teacher 1 Lesson. For the coaching and reflection session transcripts, the code C&R GR1 (PST1) was used, referring to Coaching and Reflection Group 1 (Preservice Teacher 1). In the focus group interview transcripts, participants were identified using the code FG1R1 (Q1), referring to Focus Group 1, Respondent 1, Question 1.
Observation notes
In relation to the MRS microlesson presentations, the researcher revisited the lessons from cycle 1 and compared them with the feedback discussions. She then examined the lesson presentations in cycle 2 in comparison with those from cycle 1, as well as the coaching and reflection discussions that took place. While watching these presentations, the researcher took notes comparing the PSTs’ lesson presentations between cycle 1 and cycle 2.
Coding
In relation to the coaching and reflection sessions and the focus group interview sessions that were transcribed into Word documents, the researcher read the transcriptions multiple times, analysing them to identify codes. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show coding samples for the coaching and reflection sessions and interview discussions.
 |
FIGURE 3: Coaching and reflection coded transcription. |
|
Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate a sample of coded interview transcripts and coaching and reflection transcripts, where different colours indicate different codes and the corresponding codes are listed on the right of the highlighted text.
Categorisation
After a thorough analysis and identification of codes, the researcher combined the codes generated from both datasets (interviews and coaching and reflection sessions). The relationships among the codes were examined, and codes addressing similar concerns were grouped into categories (see Figure 4). The following section illustrates how the transition from coding to categorisation was undertaken.
 |
FIGURE 4: An example of codes addressing similar concerns grouped into categories. |
|
Development of themes
After a thorough analysis and comparison of the categories, the researcher grouped categories addressing similar concerns to generate broader themes. The example in Figure 5 illustrates how categories were grouped to formulate overarching themes.
 |
FIGURE 5: Depiction of how themes were generated. |
|
Writing up
Following the development of themes, the researcher proceeded to the write-up phase, which involved a detailed presentation and discussion of each theme.
Triangulation across multiple data sources enhanced the trustworthiness of the findings. The findings reported in this article form part of a doctoral study. Prior to data collection, ethical clearance was obtained from the institution’s faculty ethics committee in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the researcher is registered as a PhD student at the institution. The researcher subsequently met with the students selected as participants to explain the purpose and nature of the study, emphasising that participation posed no risk or harm. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty. It was further clarified that no financial compensation would be provided for participation. However, participants were informed that their involvement would contribute not only to addressing the research questions but also to the development and improvement of their vocabulary instruction practices.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Faculty of Education Research Ethics Committee at the University of Johannesburg (No. SEM 1-2024-053).
Findings
Theme 1: Coaching through mixed reality simulation reveals preservice teachers’ limited awareness in selecting instructionally appropriate vocabulary
During the first cycle of the MRS microlessons, the researcher observed PSTs presenting their lessons in the simulation environment. The observations revealed that many PSTs struggled to identify vocabulary that learners were likely to find challenging. Rather than selecting instructionally appropriate or conceptually demanding words, several of them chose high-frequency words that young learners were likely to understand already. The field notes presented in Box 1 illustrate some of the high-frequency words that PSTs selected and taught as if they were difficult.
| BOX 1: Fieldnotes of preservice teachers illustrating high-frequency words taught. |
During coaching and reflection sessions, the coach observed and addressed instances of inadequate word selection, emphasising the need for PSTs to prioritise words that pose genuine learning challenges for learners, rather than opting for familiar or simplistic vocabulary. The following excerpts illustrate the coach’s guiding comments:
‘Zama ukuthi wenze amagama amasha abangawazi ukuze kubekhona abakufundisa because if ufundisa anagama abawziyo then akukho okusha abakufundile esifundweni sakho.’ [‘Try to select new words that they don’t know so that they have something to learn, because if you teach them words they know, then they won’t learn anything new in your lesson.’] (C&R, GR2, PST2)
‘Usebenzise amagama ajwayelekile abafundi okungenzeka ukuthi bayawazi; zama ukuthi uwashintshe amagama akho kube amagama abafundi abangawazi.’ [‘You used common words that students may know; try to change your words to words that students may not know.’] (C&R, GR3, PST2)
‘You are teaching new vocabulary. Do not choose words that we use every day.’ (C&R, GR4)
In the second iteration of their teaching practice, PSTs exhibited improved discernment in vocabulary selection, although time constraints precluded some from completing their lessons. Notably, those who completed their lessons tended to substitute familiar words with more advanced, less familiar alternatives.
The examples in Box 2 are from the researcher’s observation notes and illustrate the words chosen by PSTs in place of more common vocabulary.
| BOX 2: Examples from the researcher’s observation notes demonstrating the words used by preservice teachers instead of more prevalent language. |
This improvement was also acknowledged by the PSTs themselves in the coaching and reflection sessions. Next follows some of the PSTs’ remarks:
‘Uthe ngishintshe amagama cause it’s not difficult words ngashintsha two ngifake anhlanhlatheke and amafosi.’ [‘You said I should change the words because they’re not difficult words, so I changed two and put in anhlanhlatheke and amafosi.’] (C&R, GR2, PST2)
‘Last week, angenzanga difficult words; this time ngikwenzile.’ [‘Last week I didn’t do difficult words; this time I did.’] (C&R, GR3, PST3)
This learning was further reinforced during the focus group discussions, where PSTs acknowledged that, initially, they were unaware of the need to select vocabulary that learners might find challenging to understand. They reflected that their earlier choices focused on familiar or high-frequency words rather than words requiring explicit instruction. The next excerpts illustrate comments made by PSTs during the interview discussion:
‘Mina, I didn’t know ukuthi, I just picked amagama at random. I didn’t know ukuthi kumele kube amagama abangawa understand.’ [‘I didn’t know, I just picked words at random. I didn’t know they had to be words that they do not understand.’] (FG1R1, Q3)
‘Bekumele ngikhethe amagama that the learners are not familiar with.’ [‘I had to choose words that the learners are not familiar with.’] (FG1R2, Q3)
During the initial MRS microlesson cycle, PSTs exhibited limited awareness of selecting vocabulary that posed genuine learning challenges for learners, frequently opting for familiar words. However, in the second cycle, most PSTs demonstrated improved vocabulary selection, substituting familiar words with more challenging alternatives, indicative of their increased awareness and intentional application of feedback in their teaching practice.
Theme 2: MRS microlessons and coaching sessions sharpened preservice teachers’ structured and learner-centred vocabulary instruction
In the first teaching cycle, some PSTs adopted a fragmented approach to vocabulary instruction, presenting information about the target words in disconnected steps. For instance, several PSTs first provided definitions for all five words, then returned to demonstrate how each word could be used in context, and only thereafter offered example sentences. This segmented approach prevented learners from receiving a comprehensive understanding of each word before moving on to the next. The extracts in Box 3 from the researcher’s observation notes illustrate this pattern.
| BOX 3: Extracts from the researcher’s observation notes to illustrate the segmented approach of preservice teachers. |
This practice was further highlighted by the coach, who indicated that PSTs should not present the content of each word in separate chunks as is evident in the following comments:
‘Uma ufundisa igama, yenza konke ofisa ukukwenza ulidiscusse uqede ngaphambi kokundlulela egameni elilandelayo ngoba if wenza bits by bits undulela kwelinye uconfuser abafundi.’ [‘When teaching a word, do everything you want to do to discuss it and finish it before moving on to the next word, because if you do it bit by bit and move on to another word, you confuse the students.’]. (C&R, GR2, COACH)
‘Teach a word in chunks by chunks. Ungalindi ukuthi uze ufundise wonke amagama.’ [‘Teach a word in chunks by chunks. Don’t wait until you have taught all the words.’] (C&R, GR3, COACH)
In their second cycle of teaching, PSTs indicated a better understanding of teaching each word systematically by presenting the content of each word before moving on to the next. This improvement was evident in the way PSTs (PST8L, PST9L, PST12L and PST13L) presented their lessons. They taught each word systematically, presenting all information about the word before moving on.
Preservice teachers also acknowledged this improvement in their coaching and reflection discussions as demonstrated in their remarks:
‘You said when I teach angifundise igama ngiliqede before ngiya kwelinye, which I did.’ [‘You said that when I teach, I should finish teaching one word completely before moving on to the next one, which I did.’] (C&R, GR2, PST8)
‘Okunye, you said I must not teach each word in separate chunks, ngikwazile ukukwenza lokho.’ [‘Another thing, you said I must not teach each word in separate chunks, and I was able to do that.’] (C&R, GR2, PST8)
‘I liked that ukuthi wenze igama ngokuphelele.’ [‘I liked that you taught each word completely.’] (C&R, GR2, COACH-PST4)
This improvement was further acknowledged by a PST in the focus group discussion:
‘I think amagama nawo kumele abe amagama abangawazi.’ [‘I think the words also need to be words that they do not understand.’] (FG3, R3, Q3)
Secondly, in the initial cycle of MRS microlesson implementation, PSTs demonstrated limited ability to provide learner-centred definitions. Their explanations were often superficial and lacked clarity, potentially hindering learner comprehension. Box 4 presents examples from the researcher’s notes during study observations, which illustrate how some PSTs defined certain words.
| BOX 4: Examples from researcher’s observation notes to illustrate preservice teachers’ definitions of certain words. |
This finding was further identified by the coach, who then made PSTs aware that they needed to provide learner-friendly definitions. Guiding comments made by the coach include:
‘Amadefinitions akho ebekahle, but try ukuthi u- explain more.’ [‘Your definitions were good, but try to explain them in more detail to the learners.’] (C&R, GR3, COACH-PST2)
‘Definitions were fair, but you could have explained the words further to the learners.’ (C&R, GR3, COACH-PST3)
‘Your definitions were insufficient; just try explaining more to the learners.’ (C&R, GR3, COACH-PST5)
During focus group discussions, PSTs revealed that they were initially unaware of the importance of providing detailed vocabulary explanations to enhance learner understanding as is evident in the following comments:
‘Nakimi, it’s the same thing. I did not know ukuthi when teaching vocabulary, you have to be in detail uchaze in detail, and whatnot [sic], ngifunde lokho.’ [‘For me, it was the same. I didn’t know that when teaching vocabulary, you have to explain words in detail.’] (FG1, R2, Q3)
‘I also did not discuss the words in detail, like ukuthi igama limeleni azange ngikuchaze.’ [‘I also did not discuss the words in detail, such as what the word means. I did not explain that in detail.’] (FG1, R2, Q5)
‘Ekuqaleni kufirst cycle yami bengingakwazi ukuthi ngithi go deeper ngichaze igama.’ [‘At the beginning, in my first cycle, I didn’t know how to go deeper and explain the word.’] (FG1, R3, Q6)
In the second cycle of MRS microlesson implementation, PSTs demonstrated notable improvement in the quality of their vocabulary definitions. This progress was evident in their lesson presentations, where definitions became more detailed and learner-centred. Box 5 shows examples of how PSTs amended their definitions.
| BOX 5: Examples of amended definitions. |
In addition, coaching and reflection sessions highlighted this shift, and coaches acknowledged the enhanced clarity and relevance of the vocabulary explanations as the following comments illustrate:
‘Otherwise, your definitions were sufficient.’ (C&R, GR3, COACH-PST5)
‘Kula magama owakhethile you asked for the definitions, provided sufficient definitions, and wabakhombisa izithombe.’ [‘For these words you chose, you asked for the definitions, provided sufficient definitions, and showed them pictures.’] (C&R, GR2, COACH)
‘Your definitions were sufficient and learner-centred.’ (C&R, GR3, COACH-PST)
Focus group discussions further confirmed this development, as PSTs articulated a deeper understanding of the importance of providing comprehensive, accessible definitions to support learner comprehension as evident in the following examples:
‘Amameaning akhona cause you can teach a word omunye umntwana acabange elinye igama so kumele uwafundise kahle.’ [‘The meanings of the words, because you can teach a word and another child will think of another word, so you have to teach them well.’] (FG2, R1, Q3)
‘Ngifunde ukuthi kumele senze ama definitions and examples that they can relate to.’ [‘I learned that we need to provide definitions and examples that they can relate to.’] (FG2, R3, Q3)
‘Ngifunde ukuthi umfundi ngamunye kufanele ngimchazele kanjani ngendlela yakhe ukuze a-andastende.’ [‘I learned how to explain to each student in a way that they can each understand.’] (FG3, R2, Q2)
The findings presented indicate that PSTs initially lacked a structured approach to vocabulary instruction, often presenting word meanings in fragmented segments and offering superficial definitions.
However, in their second cycle, PSTs demonstrated improved ability to teach vocabulary holistically, integrating meaning, context, and usage, and provided clearer, more accessible definitions. This progression was consistently evident across lesson presentations, coaching and reflection sessions, and focus group discussions, highlighting the value of sustained practice and feedback in enhancing instructional competence.
Discussion
The findings in this study revealed that PSTs often struggled to identify domain-specific terminology or novel lexical items; thus focusing on selecting high-frequency or commonly known words rather than conceptually demanding or domain-specific terms. This finding is concerning as it suggests a misalignment between PSTs’ practices and established principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Effective vocabulary instruction requires a careful identification of conceptually demanding or unfamiliar words that can enhance comprehension and develop learners’ vocabulary, rather than selecting words that learners readily understand (Spencer et al. 2012; Young-Davy 2014). For a vocabulary lesson to be effective, it requires a deliberate selection of targeted vocabulary, thereby facilitating a focused, explicit pedagogical approach likely to yield substantial improvements in learning outcomes (Young-Davy 2014). The PSTs’ poor selection of novel lexical terms suggests that they lacked the necessary content knowledge to select relevant, high-utility words for instruction and may not fully appreciate the importance of explicit vocabulary instruction. According to Beck et al. (2013), effective vocabulary instruction depends on teachers’ ability to differentiate between high-utility and low-utility words, and poor word choices indicate limited knowledge of how words function within texts and across disciplines. Hiebert (2005) adds that the ability to choose novel lexical terms requires sufficient content knowledge. A lack of content knowledge to choose novel lexical words combined with limited pedagogical awareness can lead PSTs to present vocabulary instruction that lacks depth and rigor, resulting in superficial vocabulary instruction.
Vocabulary instruction can become superficial when words are taught without adequate attention to meaning, usage, and context (Lilienthal 2009). Beck et al. (2013) and Graves (2006) show that when familiar words are incorrectly treated as new vocabulary, learners miss opportunities to acquire deeper, more generative word knowledge, thereby limiting conceptual growth. These findings underscored the need for targeted support and training in vocabulary instruction for PSTs. Coaching through MRS played a crucial role in addressing this gap. Following engagement in MRS, coupled with coaching and reflective discussion, PSTs demonstrated marked improvement in identifying instructionally important vocabulary, shifting from high-frequency, commonly known words to those central to story comprehension. This shift illustrates how structured, practice-based learning opportunities can refine PSTs’ instructional decision-making. This progress resulted from deliberately engaging in two cycles of practice, intentional reflection, targeted feedback, and guided practice, which strengthened instructional reasoning and enhanced teaching effectiveness (Taras & Everett 2017). It also reflects a more sophisticated application of pedagogical content knowledge, supporting professional growth (Mathew, Mathew & Peechattu 2017).
Secondly, PSTs often presented vocabulary in disconnected segments, offering definitions first, then contexts, and finally examples. They struggled to present words holistically, which disrupted learners’ comprehension, as they found it difficult to follow fragmented information and integrate meaning. This finding is concerning because it highlights a lack of instructional coherence, which is essential for effective vocabulary learning. Successful vocabulary instruction requires a systematic and coherent instructional sequence (Vaughn & Fletcher 2021). Learners understand words better when the instruction is organised so that meanings, contextual information, and examples are presented cohesively (Barends & Reddy 2024; Stone & Urquhart 2008). This pattern demonstrates that PSTs were unaware of the impact of segmented instruction on learners’ ability to construct meaning, focusing primarily on delivering information rather than monitoring comprehension. This reflects a limited understanding of robust vocabulary pedagogy, which emphasises the integration of definitions, contexts, examples, and usage (Beck et al. 2013; Hiebert & Kamil 2005). Such practice may also stem from an insufficiently integrated knowledge base needed to sequence and connect information effectively (Shulman 1987). The fragmented approach disrupts learners’ ability to integrate word components, resulting in incomplete and superficial learning (Beck et al. 2013; Carrier 2013; Decraene et al. 2023). When information is fragmented, learners tend to memorise rather than develop durable word knowledge (Graves 2006; Kucan 2013).
In addition, the PSTs often provided definitions that were superficial or overly complex, limiting comprehension. This finding was also concerning, as providing learner-friendly definitions in accessible language is critical for conveying the core meaning of each word (Beck et al. 2013). Word learning involves deep conceptual connections rather than mere exposure to definitions (Stahl & Nagy 2007). Their struggle to deliver learner-centred definitions stemmed from a lack of understanding and awareness of these principles, resulting in superficial content. Novice teachers often plan and teach teacher-centred lessons that prioritise content coverage over meaningful learning due to poor awareness of the importance of learner-centred lessons (Donkoh & Amoakwah 2024; Du Plessis 2020; Muganga & Ssenkusu 2019). Teacher-centred definitions can limit learning because learners may not fully grasp the meanings of words, negatively impacting their comprehension. When definitions are not learner-friendly, comprehension gains are reduced, transfer to new contexts is limited, and instructional quality declines (Kennedy et al. 2018; Lilienthal 2009; McKeown 2019). These findings also underscored the importance of comprehensive training for developing PSTs’ awareness of structured, systematic, and learner-centred vocabulary instruction.
After engaging in two cycles of MRS microlessons and explicit guidance from the coach, PSTs learned to present each word holistically, providing sufficient meaning, learner-centred explanations, contextualisation, and examples before moving on, reflecting Graves’s (2006) recommendation for integrating vocabulary instruction. This shift illustrates the value of scaffolded, practice-based learning opportunities in developing coherent and learner-centred instructional approaches. Structured practice with guided coaching and reflection further enhanced PSTs’ ability to deliver learner-centred, purposeful instruction, aligning with best practices in teacher preparation (Nel & Marais 2023; Suphasri & Chinokul 2021; Van der Merwe et al. 2024).
The improvement in PSTs’ vocabulary instruction occurred through purposeful engagement in structured MRS microlessons supported by targeted instructional coaching. This improvement can be explained by multiple scaffolded opportunities to practise vocabulary instruction in an authentic yet controlled MRS environment, where real-time simulator responses, immediate post-lesson reflection, and focused feedback made instructional gaps visible and prompted timely pedagogical adjustments. Through iterative, student-centred practice addressing the most challenging elements of vocabulary instruction, combined with structured reflection and immediate, targeted feedback, PSTs refined their instructional decisions across cycles. This process aligns with the principles of Deliberate Practice, which emphasise goal-oriented practice supported by feedback and guided reflection (Dill 2019; Moulaert et al. 2004). Across two MRS microlesson cycles, PSTs identified areas for improvement and, with scaffolded coaching support, developed more intentional and effective approaches to vocabulary instruction.
As a result, their teaching increasingly reflected the principles of Explicit Vocabulary Instruction, characterised by systematic and intentional practices that promote robust word learning and deeper learner understanding (Beck et al. 2002).
Conclusion
This study explored how MRS, coupled with coaching sessions, can support PSTs in developing effective vocabulary instruction. The findings revealed that through multiple cycles of intentional, structured, and feedback-driven engagement with the coach during MRS micro-lessons, PSTs demonstrated substantial professional growth in their instructional practice. Specifically, they progressed to selecting instructionally meaningful words central to comprehension, presenting vocabulary information holistically and systematically, and crafting learner-centred, accessible definitions. These results indicate that repetitive, intentional practice, reflective engagement, and focused coaching within MRS environments are effective in strengthening PSTs’ pedagogical decision-making and vocabulary-teaching competencies in the Foundation Phase. Despite these contributions, the study has certain limitations. The sample comprised 19 PSTs from a single university in Johannesburg, limiting the generalisability of the findings. In addition, the study focused exclusively on isiZulu vocabulary lessons, and the findings may therefore not be directly transferable to other languages or instructional contexts.
Nevertheless, this study makes a meaningful contribution to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence that repeated engagement in simulated teaching environments, combined with targeted instructional coaching, can refine PSTs’ vocabulary instruction practices and overall classroom teaching readiness. Furthermore, the study contributes to scholarship on explicit vocabulary instruction by demonstrating how robust vocabulary lessons for Grade 3 learners can be systematically designed through intentional planning, practice, reflection, and coaching within MRS contexts, and by illustrating a structured approach to effective isiZulu vocabulary instruction.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Nthabiseng T. Tsotetsi’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Using mixed-reality simulation (MRS) as a tool to teach isiZulu vocabulary in the Foundation Phase’, to be submitted to the Department of Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg in 2026. The thesis is supervised by Fikile Simelane and Sarita Ramsaroop. The supervisors were not involved in the preparation of this article and not listed as co-authors. Portions of the thesis have been revised, updated, and adapted for publication as a journal article. The author confirms that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.
Competing interests
The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Nthabiseng T. Tsotetsi: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that supports the findings of this study can be made available upon reasonable request from the author, Ntshabisesng T. Tsotetsi. The data is not publicly available due to ethical considerations and confidentiality agreements with the participants.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’’s results, findings, and content.
References
Anderson, E. & Calandra, B., 2025, ‘Equitable opportunities to respond: A mixed-reality simulation design case’, International Journal of Designs for Learning 16(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v16i1.37067
Ayana, H., Mereba, T. & Alemu, A., 2024, ‘Effect of vocabulary learning strategies on students’ vocabulary knowledge achievement and motivation: The case of grade 11 high school students’, Frontiers in Education 9, 1399350. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1399350
Barends, Z. & Reddy, C., 2024, ‘Moving beyond a balanced approach to reading instruction – In search of a contextualised alternative’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v14i1.1528
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G. & Kucan, L., 2002, Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G. & Kucan, L., 2013, Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bremner, C., 2024, ‘Mixed reality simulation to enhance pre-service student-teachers’ use of questioning as a core teaching practice in the intermediate phase’, Master’s dissertation, University of Johannesburg, University of Johannesburg Institutional Repository, viewed 20 April 2026, from https://hdl.handle.net/10210/512667.
Busetto, L., Wick, W. & Gumbinger, C., 2020, ‘How to use and assess qualitative research methods’, Neurological Research and Practice 2, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z
Carrier, S.J., 2013, ‘Elementary preservice teachers’ science vocabulary: Knowledge and application’, Journal of Science Teacher Education 24(2), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9270-7
Cumming, T.M., Lee, H.M. & Hoenig, J., 2025, ‘Using mixed reality simulations to prepare preservice teachers for inclusive classroom management’, Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education 49(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2025.10005
Decraene, E., Vanparys, S., Montero Perez, M. & Van Keer, H., 2023, ‘Building vocabulary bridges: Exploring pre-service primary school teachers’ dispositions on L2 vocabulary instruction for emergent bilinguals through interactive book reading’, Education Sciences 13(12), 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121220
Dieker, L.A., Rodriguez, J.A., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Hynes, M.C. & Hughes, C.E., 2014, ‘The potential of simulated environments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities’, Teacher Education and Special Education 37(1), 21–33.
Dieker, L.A., Straub, C.L., Hughes, C.E., Hynes, M.C. & Hardin, S., 2014, ‘Learning from virtual students’, Educational Leadership 71(8), 54–58.
Dieker, L., Hughes, C. & Hynes, M., 2023, ‘The past, the present, and the future of the evolution of mixed reality in teacher education’, Education Sciences 13(11), 1070.
Dill, K., 2019, ‘Deliberate practice: A framework for enhancing competence in field education’, Field Educator 9(1).
Donkoh, S. & Amoakwah, A., 2024, ‘The use and challenges of learner-centred pedagogy: Basic school teachers’ perspective’, European Journal of Education and Pedagogy 5(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.1.774
Du Plessis, E., 2020, ‘Student teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and challenges regarding learner-centred teaching’, South African Journal of Education 40(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n1a1631
Durgunoğlu, A.Y., Sagar, A., Fagan, K.E. & Brueck, A., 2021, ‘Improving the comprehension and vocabulary skills of English language learners with content integrated language instruction for adults’, Adult Literacy Education 3, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.35847/AYucesan.ASagar.KFagan.ABrueck.3.1.34
En-Nda, S. & Koumachi, B., 2022, ‘Key issues in vocabulary teaching: A brief overview’, Journal of Learning and Development Studies 2(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.32996/jlds.2022.2.1.3
Eray, E.A., 2017, ‘Vocabulary and comprehension: How much do they interact?’ International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching 5(4), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2294
Ericsson, K., 2008, ‘Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview’, Academic Emergency Medicine 15(11), 988–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x
Finlay, L., 2021, ‘Thematic analysis: The “good,” the “bad” and the “ugly”’, European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy 11, 103–116.
Freeman, I.M. & Lee, H.K., 2024, ‘Pre-service teacher candidates’ perceptions of classroom-based mixed-reality simulations’, Education Sciences 14(4), 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040347
Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E., 1986, ‘Decoding, reading, and reading disability’, Remedial and Special Education 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Graves, M.F., 2006, ‘Building a comprehensive vocabulary program’, New England Reading Association Journal 42(2), 1.
Gravett, S., Van der Merwe, D., Ramsaroop, S., Tshabalala, P., Bremner, C. & Mello, P., 2023, ‘Mixed-reality simulation to support practice learning of preservice teachers’, Education Sciences 13(10), 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101062
Harris, S. & Newcomb, M., 2024, ‘A simulated placement: Using a mixed-reality learning environment for social work field education’, Australian Social Work 77(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2023.2231416
Hazari, A., 2024, ‘Introduction to research methodology’, in Research methodology for allied health professionals: A comprehensive guide to thesis & dissertation, Springer, Singapore.
He, C. & Yan, C., 2011, ‘Exploring authenticity of microteaching in pre-service teacher education programmes’, Teaching Education 22(3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.590588
Hiebert, E.H., 2005, ‘In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for elementary students’, in E.H. Hiebert & M.L. Kamil (eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice, vol. 1, pp. 243–264, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Hiebert, E.H. & Kamil, M.L., 2005, Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice, Routledge, Mahwah, NJ.
Howie, S.J., Combrinck, C., Roux, K., Tshele, M., Mokoena, G. & McLeod Palane, N., 2017, PIRLS literacy 2016: South African highlights report (Grade 4), Centre for Evaluation and Assessment (CEA), Pretoria.
Hudson, M.E., Voytecki, K.S., Owens, T.L. & Zhang, G., 2019, ‘Preservice teacher experiences implementing classroom management practices through mixed-reality simulations’, Rural Special Education Quarterly 38(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519841421
Inyang, H., 2022, What are the advantages and disadvantages of micro-teaching, viewed 17 February 2026, from https://projectkings.com.ng/2022/04/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-micro-teaching/.
Kambach, A.E. & Mesmer, H.A., 2024, ‘Comprehension for emergent readers: Revisiting the reading rope’, The Reading Teacher 77(6), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2315
Kennedy, M.J., Rodgers, W.J., Romig, J.E., Mathews, H.M. & Peeples, K.N., 2018, ‘Introducing the content acquisition podcast professional development process: Supporting vocabulary instruction for inclusive middle school science teachers’, Teacher Education and Special Education 41(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417745655
Khan, A.U.R. & Krishnasamy, H.N., 2024, ‘The importance of vocabulary learning to improve speaking skills among English language undergraduates in a public university in Pakistan’, Pakistan Journal of Life & Social Sciences 22(2), 23381–23391. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.2.001667
Kiliç, M., 2019, ‘Vocabulary knowledge as a predictor of performance in writing and speaking: A case of Turkish EFL learners’, PASAA 57(1), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PASAA.57.1.6
Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A.B., 2017, ‘Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts’, International Journal of Higher Education 6(5), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
Kucan, L., 2013, ‘What is most important about vocabulary teaching?’, The Reading Teacher 67(1), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1197
Kumatongo, B. & Muzata, K.K., 2021, ‘Research paradigms and designs with their application in education’, Journal of Lexicography and Terminology 5, 16–32.
Learning Point Associates, 2004, A closer look at the five essential components of effective reading instruction: A review of scientifically based reading research for teachers, Learning Point Associates, Naperville, IL.
Lilienthal, L.K., 2009, ‘Preservice teachers’ development of children’s vocabulary’, paper presented at the Southwest Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, 04–06 February.
Mamabolo, J.S., 2022, ‘Investigating reading challenges experiences by intermediate phase learners in Sekgosese West Circuit, Limpopo Province’, Doctoral dissertation.
Manihuruk, D.H., 2020, ‘The correlation between EFL students’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A case study at the English Education Department of Universitas Kristen Indonesia’, Journal of English Teaching 6(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v6i1.1264
Mathew, P., Mathew, P. & Peechattu, P., 2017, ‘Reflective practices: A means to teacher development’, Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication Technology 3, 126–131.
Mbhele, S.A., 2019, ‘Educators’ knowledge of teaching isiZulu within Ugu cluster’, Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Edgewood.
McKeown, M.G., 2019, ‘Effective vocabulary instruction fosters knowing words, using words, and understanding how words work’, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 50(4), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0126
Mello, P. & Van der Merwe, D., 2026, ‘Maintaining fidelity in mixed reality simulation: Insights from simulation specialists at a South African university’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 16(1), a1816. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v16i1.1816
Moulaert, V., Verwijnen, M.G., Rikers, R. & Scherpbier, A.J., 2004, ‘The effects of deliberate practice in undergraduate medical education’, Medical Education 38(10), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01954.x
Mraz, M., Salas, S., Mercado, L. & Dikotla, M., 2016, ‘Teaching better, together: Literacy coaching as collaborative professional development’, English Teaching Forum 54(4), 24–31.
Muganga, L. & Ssenkusu, P., 2019, ‘Teacher-centred vs. student-centred: An examination of student teachers’ perceptions about pedagogical practices at Uganda’s Makerere University’, Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry 11(2), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.18733/cpi29481
Muzari, T., Shava, G.N. & Shonhiwa, S., 2022, ‘Qualitative research paradigm: A key research design for educational researchers, processes and procedures: A theoretical overview’, Indiana Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3, 14–20.
Nel, C., Dieker, L. & Marais, E., 2024, ‘The integration of mixed reality simulation into reading literacy modules’, Education Sciences 14(10), 1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101128
Nel, C. & Marais, E., 2023, ‘Pre-service teachers’ perceptions on eliciting learners’ knowledge in a mixed-reality simulation environment’, Reading & Writing 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v14i1.422
Omodan, B.I., 2022, ‘A model for selecting theoretical framework through epistemology of research paradigms’, African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies 4(1), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.51415/ajims.v4i1.1022
Ping, W., 2013, ‘Micro-teaching: A powerful tool to embedding the English teacher certification testing in the development of English teaching methodologies’, International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies 2(3), 163–175.
Pretorius, E.J. & Spaull, N., 2016, ‘Exploring relationships between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension amongst English second language readers in South Africa’, Reading and Writing 29, 1449–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9645-9
Pretorius, E.J. & Stoffelsma, L., 2017, ‘How is their word knowledge growing? Exploring Grade 3 vocabulary in South African township schools’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v7i1.553
Richard, M.M., 2021, ‘The impact of micro teaching lessons on teacher professional skills: Some reflections from South African student teachers’, International Journal of Higher Education 10, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n2p164
Schoch, K., 2020, ‘Case study research’, in G.J. Burkholder, K.A. Cox, L.M. Crawford & J.H. Hitchcock (eds.), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner, vol. 31, pp. 245–258, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shulman, L., 1987, ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard Educational Review 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Sibanda, J., 2014, ‘Investigating the English vocabulary needs, exposure, and knowledge of IsiXhosa speaking learners for transition from learning to read in the foundation phase to reading to learn in the intermediate phase: A case study’, Doctoral dissertation, Rhodes University.
Sidek, H.M. & Rahim, H.A., 2015, ‘The role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension: A cross-linguistic study’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 197, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.046
Simelane, W.F., 2022, ‘Learning to read in isiZulu’, PhD thesis, University of Johannesburg.
Spencer, E.J., Goldstein, H. & Kaminski, R., 2012, ‘Teaching vocabulary in storybooks: Embedding explicit vocabulary instruction for young children’, Young Exceptional Children 15(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250611435367
Stahl, S.A. & Nagy, W.E., 2007, Teaching word meanings, Routledge, New York, NY.
Stone, B. & Urquhart, V., 2008, Remove limits to learning with systematic vocabulary instruction, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), Denver, CO.
Suphasri, P. & Chinokul, S., 2021, ‘Reflective practice in teacher education: Issues, challenges, and considerations’, PASAA 62(1), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PASAA.62.1.9
Taras, J. & Everett, T., 2017, ‘Rapid cycle deliberate practice in medical education: A systematic review’, Cureus 9(4), e1180. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1180
Thomas, D.R., 2006, ‘A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data’, American Journal of Evaluation 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Tshabalala, N.P., 2024, ‘Mixed Reality Simulation (MRS) to enhance pre-service teachers’ use of the core teaching practice of questioning’, Master’s dissertation, University of Johannesburg, University of Johannesburg Institutional Repository, viewed 20 April 2026, from https://hdl.handle.net/10210/512704.
Van der Merwe, D., Ramsaroop, S. & Fonseca, K., 2024, ‘Teacher educators’ coaching experiences in a mixed-reality simulation intervention’, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 14(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-03-2024-0035
Vaughn, S. & Fletcher, J., 2021, ‘Explicit instruction as the essential tool for executing the science of reading’, The Reading League Journal 2(2), 4.
Vundla, C.N., 2020, ‘Improving reading comprehension in English first additional language speakers’, Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State.
Ye, J., Fan, W. & Wang, Y., 2025, ‘Decoding identity shifts in Chinese EFL pre-service teachers: Insights from the intersubjectivity FLT model’, Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 10(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00316-7
Young-Davy, B., 2014, ‘Explicit vocabulary instruction’, OrTESOL Journal 31, 26–32.
Footnote
1. High frequency academic words that are used are across the subjects.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
