Preparing Preservice Teachers to Manage Behavior Problems in the Classroom: The Feasibility and Acceptability of Using a Mixed-Reality Simulator

Abstract

Given the high percentage of new teachers who struggle with classroom management, preservice educators need more opportunities to develop their skills in managing challenging student behaviors prior to entering the classroom. There is growing interest in using mixed-reality simulators to provide educators opportunities to receive guided practice in implementing a variety of techniques, including classroom management strategies. Yet these technologies may be difficult for preservice programs to integrate into the curriculum and may be perceived as stressful for some student teachers. The current article presents findings from a feasibility and acceptability study of the TeachLive™ mixed-reality teaching simulator, which was used as a supplemental guided practice opportunity for preservice student teachers enrolled in classroom management and special education methods classes. Data from 62 preservice teachers suggest there is potential for acceptability among teachers in training, particularly if adjustments are made to reduce their stress and performance anxiety. Recommendations for using mixed-reality simulators in preservice training are provided.

Keywords

positive behavior supports educational perspectives preservice teachers professional development simulations technology perspectives at risk of school failure exceptionality

Upon entering the profession, novice teachers routinely face a difficult transition as they find their expectations about teaching conflict with the realities of the classroom (Dicke, Elling, Schmeck, & Leutner, 2015; Veenman, 1984). In particular, the challenges associated with managing a classroom contribute to high rates of teacher stress and, ultimately, teacher turnover (Friedman, 2000; Ingersoll, 2001). Moreover, rates of student discipline issues are considerably higher in urban schools, which tend to have higher concentrations of less experienced teachers, and in classrooms with high proportions of students with disabilities (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Daniel & King, 1997; Gottfried, 2014; Ingersoll, 2001; Kapadia, Coca, & Easton, 2007). Such challenges can disrupt the ability of students to learn and of teachers to deliver instruction. However, effective classroom management practices have been shown to reduce disruptive behavior and promote student learning (Oliver, Wehby, & Reschly, 2011; Scott, Hirn, & Cooper, 2017). These research findings regarding high rates of externalizing behavior for students with and without disabilities in inclusive classrooms suggest it is critical for both special and general educators to be able to address behavior problems using effective classroom management techniques (Briere, Simonsen, Sugai, & Myers, 2015; Oliver & Reschly, 2007).

Student misbehavior has been linked to high rates of teacher burnout and turnover. In a meta-analysis of studies exploring the relationship between student behavior issues and teacher burnout, Aloe, Shisler, Norris, Nickerson, and Rinker (2014) found a significant relationship between student misbehavior and teachers’ emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and negative feelings of accomplishment. Researchers have linked classroom management issues and teacher turnover. For example, data obtained from three cycles of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Teacher Follow-Up Survey (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1987–1988, 1990–1991, 1993–1994) revealed teachers working in schools with lower levels of student discipline problems reported greater satisfaction and were less likely to leave their schools or the profession (Ingersoll, 2001; Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016). Ingersoll and Perda (2010) followed up on this research with a review of data from three national data sets and found that the strongest predictors of math and science teacher turnover were (1) the degree of student discipline problems within a school and (2) teachers’ stated need for professional development related to student discipline and classroom management.

In light of these findings, it is incumbent upon teacher educators to prepare preservice teachers to prevent student misbehavior before teachers enter the profession. Although in-service teachers may receive additional classroom management training, high-quality professional development is not available to all in-service teachers. For example, in an analysis of the 2007–2008 SASS, Wei, Darling-Hammond, and Anderson (2009) found only 46% of teachers reported participating in professional development trainings related to content on student discipline and classroom management. Only 62% of teachers participating in classroom management-related professional development rated the training as “useful” or “very useful,” and 20% of teachers identified further training in classroom management as a top priority for professional development.

Given the association between student behavior and teacher turnover, teacher educators must employ effective methods to help preservice teachers prepare to respond to difficult student behavior that can impede learning and teaching. This can be particularly challenging for teacher educators working in university-based preparation programs in which preservice teachers do not have full-time access to schools. Critics of university-based teacher preparation often argue that traditional programs are too theoretical (Goodlad, 1990; Levine, 2006). Many preservice programs front-load coursework and present skills in isolation, leading to a single culminating field experience with limited opportunity for guided practice and feedback (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Because most coursework is disconnected from the field, instructors often ask preservice teachers to discuss and analyze practices rather than enact them (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). Therefore, preservice teachers often find it difficult to apply their learning when they enter the classroom, especially when faced with challenging student behaviors (LaBoskey & Richert, 2002; Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004).

To further complicate this issue, many preservice teachers do not receive sufficient classroom management training prior to teaching (Chesley & Johnson, 2012). A review of state accreditation policies indicated that many states do not require preparation programs to provide instruction on research-based classroom management practices (Freeman, Simonsen, Briere, & MacSuga-Gage, 2014). When opportunities for learning exist, they are often limited in their effectiveness because they do not offer exposure to specific student behaviors and situations nor do they allow for repetition after reflection (Dieker, Rodriguez, Lignugaris-Kraft, Hynes, & Hughes, 2014). These issues lead to gaps in preservice teachers’ knowledge and skills in classroom management (Gable, Tonelson, Sheth, Wilson, & Park, 2012; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012), which can make it difficult for novice teachers to respond to the needs of students exhibiting challenging behavior. Consequently, many teachers feel ineffective at managing the most challenging student behaviors (Baker, 2005). Therefore, university-based educators must employ research-based, innovative practices to help preservice teachers learn how to implement classroom management strategies.

The Use of Mixed-Reality Simulators to Train Teachers

To address issues related to university-based teacher preparation, many training programs have begun to incorporate innovative technologies as part of the digital revolution (Rock et al., 2016). Further, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the power of technology within teacher preparation. A recent policy brief from the Office of Educational Technology (OET) provided guidance on how to integrate technology into teacher education programs. One recommendation developed by OET is to “Build sustainable, program-wide systems of professional learning for higher education instructors to strengthen and continually refresh their capacity to use technological tools to enable transformative learning and teaching” (OET, 2016, p. 9). Moreover, scholars in the field encourage teacher educators to maximize the potential of technology and use practice-based teacher education to improve teacher use of evidence-based and high-leverage practices (McLeskey et al., 2017; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015). There are a variety of technology tools to help prepare preservice teachers. These tools include the Iris Modules (https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/), content acquisition podcasts (Kennedy & Thomas, 2012), and bug-in the ear coaching (Rock et al., 2009). Recently, the inclusion of mixed-reality and virtual environments has enhanced teacher preparation (e.g., see Dawson & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2016; Pas et al., 2016; Vince Garland, Vasquez, & Pearl, 2012).

Mixed-reality simulators provide opportunities for preservice teachers to practice skills and reflect on their implementation before entering the classroom. Research suggests opportunities to reflect on experiences can help preservice teachers minimize knowledge-to-practice gaps, particularly if facilitated by teacher educators whose practices align with those promoted in methods coursework (Clift & Brady, 2005). Because university-based teacher educators are not always present in the field, simulators create unique opportunities for teacher educators to observe and provide feedback to their students. Preservice teachers can personalize goals and practices skills over time without risking harm to “real” students. In addition, mixed-reality simulators allow preservice teachers to pause, reflect on, and redo teaching scenarios, which cannot be done when working with real students (Dieker et al., 2014).

TeachLive™ is one such mixed-reality simulator developed to support the professional learning of preservice and in-service teachers (Dieker, Hynes, Hughes, & Smith, 2008). When using this technology, preservice teachers enter a virtual classroom where they see a group of five avatar students; these images are projected onto a typical TV or LCD screen connected to a computer with a live Internet connection. Participants in the simulator interact with and teach lessons to the virtual students as they would perform these activities with actual students. By participating in TeachLive™, participants can be coached on specific strategies aimed to improve their practice in a safe, controlled, and interactive environment (Dieker et al., 2014; Vince Garland et al., 2012).

A few recent studies have demonstrated promising, yet preliminary effects of these technologies for preservice and in-service training (e.g., Dawson & Lignugaus-Kraft, 2016; Pas et al., 2016; Vince Garland et al., 2012). In one study, TeachLive™ was utilized as part of a professional development program to support in-service teachers’ skill development related to working with students with autism spectrum disorder. A combination of coaching and guided practice in the mixed-reality simulator increased participants’ use of research-based classroom management strategies and reduced behavior problems among students with autism spectrum disorder (Pas et al., 2016). In a smaller study, four preservice teachers were given repeated, structured opportunities to practice targeted classroom management skills in the simulator. Participants improved their use of specific praise, praise around, and error correction in the simulator, though participants were variable in how they generalized these skills to the real classroom over time (Dawson & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2016). Six participants in a similar study completed four simulator sessions with a focus on implementing a system of least-to-most prompting, an evidence-based practice used in applied behavioral analysis and other special education contexts to teach specific knowledge and skills. The researchers found that individualized clinical coaching in the TeachLive™ simulator was associated with increased fidelity of least-to-most prompting across all participants (Garland, Holdren, & Garland, 2016).

As preservice training programs aim to incorporate digital tools such as TeachLive™ into their curriculum, it is important to consider the social validity or social significance of the goals, procedures, and effects of each tool (Wolf, 1978). Prior research suggests high social validity using TeachLive™ technology. Specifically, simulator participants have characterized the technology as a realistic representation of authentic classroom settings and have found the intervention valuable (Dawson & Lignugaus-Kraft, 2016; Vince Garland, Holden, & Garland, 2016). Studies evaluating the social validity of TeachLive, however, have generally used small sample sizes (Dawson & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2016; Garland et al., 2016; Vince Garland et al., 2012). Feasibility and acceptability are also important considerations when implementing a new tool. The available studies also suggest that teachers do not consider using TeachLive™ to be a large time commitment (Pas et al., 2016) and that teachers’ comfort with simulated experiences increased after multiple opportunities to practice in the simulator.

However, some teachers may be anxious about using mixed-reality simulators and experience elevated anxiety while in the simulator. For example, in a study on the influence of TeachLive™ on anxiety levels of preservice and in-service mathematics teachers, Eisenreich and Harshman (2014) measured anxiety using the Zung Anxiety Self-Assessment Scale (Zung, 1971) and a Shimmer Galvanic Skin Response device. Results indicated decreased anxiety levels over time in the simulator among participating preservice and in-service teachers. Although these findings are of interest to teacher educators, that study did not address classroom management. This issue of teacher stress and anxiety is however particularly relevant to managing disruptive behaviors, as prior research suggests that managing disruption is stressful for teachers, and if not adequately addressed, it can lead to reduced teacher performance, burnout, and turnover (Fisher, 2011; Harris, Jennings, Katz, Abenavoli, & Greenberg, 2016; Jennings, 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).

Moreover, when teachers are stressed, they also tend to manage behavior problems in largely reactive and often punitive manners, thereby negatively impacting the classroom climate (Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003). While there is the potential for practice in a simulator to increase efficacy to manage behavior problems (Pas et al., 2016; Pas, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, in press), if the technology is perceived as stressful, preservice teachers may be less open to engaging with the simulator. When TeachLive™ was created, the developers considered classroom management to be a focus area for the use of mixed-reality simulation (Dieker et al., 2008). However, subsequent research has focused on the use of TeachLive™ for teaching math and science (e.g., Bautista & Boone, 2015; Chini, Straub, & Thomas, 2016; Straub, Dieker, Hynes, & Hughes, 2014). Researchers examining the use of TeachLive™ with novice special education teachers focused on the implementation of discrete skills for working with students with disabilities: discrete trials teaching (Vince Garland et al., 2012) and system-of-least prompts (Vince Garland et al., 2016).

Because classroom management is associated with teacher stress, it is important to consider the degree to which preservices teachers are willing to engage with a new technology intended to give them targeted practice managing disruptive behaviors. Turnover rates among early-career teachers reaching alarmingly high rates (i.e., 10% of all teachers leave before the end of their first year; Ingersoll & Perda, 2010), particularly for special education teachers (Emery & Vandenberg, 2010) and in urban areas (Guin, 2004; NCES, 2008), where the levels of behavior and discipline challenges are elevated. As such, it is critical to consider the issue of teacher stress and anticipatory anxiety to ensure new technologies used to prepare teachers do not exacerbate teacher stress but rather help them make a successful transition to the classroom (Podolsky, Kini, Bishop, & Darling-Hammond, 2016).

Overview of the Current Study

The current study sought to describe the implementation of TeachLive™ in a university-based traditional teacher preparation program and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of mixed-reality simulation for use within teacher preparation as supplement for students enrolled in either a classroom management or special education methods class. Specifically, we addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: To what degree were participants’ beliefs (e.g., excitement, benefits, anxiety, worries, and relevance) different before and after the simulation?

Research Question 2: What were participants’ goals for the simulation session?

Research Question 3: What were the main sources of anxiety regarding the simulator?

Research Question 4: What did participants suggest to improve the simulation experience?

Method

Participants

The university institutional review board reviewed and approved all study procedures, and all participating preservice teachers provided written consent for their participation. Participants were eligible to enter a lottery to win one of two US$25 gift cards at the completion of the project. The sample included 62 preservice teachers enrolled in two education courses at a large mid-Atlantic public university. Seventy-four percent of participants were enrolled in an elementary education course in classroom management, while 26% were enrolled in an instructional methods course in special education. Participants in the special education course had taken a classroom management course during the previous year. All participants were enrolled in a graduate-level teacher education program leading toward licensure in elementary or special education. Most participants self-identified as White (77%, n = 48) and female (90%, n = 56). See Table 1 for more details regarding the participants.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Demographic	% (n)
Gender
Female	90.3 (56)
Male	9.7 (6)
Race/ethnicity^a
White	77.4 (48)
Asian	16.1 (10)
Black/African American	8.1 (5)
Native American/Alaska Native	1.6 (1)
Age
18–22	71.0 (44)
23–30	25.8 (16)
31–40	1.6 (1)
41–50	1.6 (1)
Course
Classroom management	74.2 (46)
Special education methods	25.8 (16)
Prior years of teaching
0 Years	95.2 (59)
1–2 Years	3.2 (2)
3–5 Years	1.6 (1)

Note. N = 62.

^aParticipants were able to select multiple options. Numbers reflect the percentage of teacher in each category.

Procedure

Simulation setting

A large office in an academic building was designed for the TeachLive™ simulator. The simulator station included a large monitor in the center of the room with a webcam and tripod positioned in front. A computer cart with speakers was set up to the right of the monitor. Preservice teachers stood in front of the monitor and webcam to engage with the avatars. Interactors—simulation specialists controlling the avatars—were located off-site and communicated with participants through this technology setup. A session facilitator managed the logistics of the session (e.g., scheduled sessions, powered on all equipment, communicated with the interactors, and completed connection tests) and sat at the back of the room. The room contained a desk, several chairs, and an additional computer; two file cabinets, a bookshelf, and a small table were along the sidewall of the room.

Simulation session

The Action Review Cycle (Parry, Pires, & Sparkes-Guber, 2007) framework was used for the simulation sessions. This cycle includes opportunities for participants to plan for the event, participate in a short behavior action review conversation to prepare for action, and have a focused after action review conversation to debrief the event. As part of planning and the before action review, all preservice teacher participants received background information, including (a) an overview of the schedule, (b) pictures of the simulator, (c) background information about students (avatars), and (d) a scripted history lesson plan. Participants completed the online presurvey prior to entering the simulator, which included a question about their expectations for learning during the simulation. Participants were also given the opportunity to ask questions during their course meetings and prior to entering the simulation. Each simulator session lasted 8–10 min. During the simulation session, one preservice teacher, one coach, and one session facilitator were present.

Coaching

Immediately following the simulation, each student engaged in an after action review meeting in which they received coaching related to classroom management. Four doctoral-level students and a university faculty member served as coaches. The coaches attended each preservice teachers’ simulator session and individually debriefed with the student after the sessions. The goal of these coaching sessions was to help students examine the gap between their intended and actual results. The coaching sessions lasted approximately 10 min and included eight questions to prompt students’ reflections on avatar behaviors, their teacher responses, and feelings of stress when the avatars misbehaved. The first two questions broadly addressed the lesson implementation (e.g., How do you think the lesson went? What are some things that you think went well?). As candidates responded, coaches noted any answers related to classroom management to address later. The remaining six questions focused on classroom management (e.g., How would you describe the student behavior at the beginning of the lesson? How did student behavior change throughout the lesson? How did you feel when the students’ behavior began to change? How did you respond to the misbehavior? Do you feel your response was effective, and how did you know? If you could reteach this lesson, how might you handle things differently?). During these conversations, coaches prompted students to name specific management strategies (e.g., establishing expectations, positively reinforcing avatar behavior) taught in the classroom management courses. After the session concluded, participants completed the online postsurvey.

Overview of data collection

All recruitment, consent processes, and data collection were coordinated by the lead investigator and two research assistants, none of whom served as course instructors or coaches in this project. Participants completed an online survey prior to entering the simulator (pretest) and then again approximately 10 min after completing the postsimulator coaching (posttest). After all participants completed their simulations, the lead investigator and research assistants conducted focus groups, the purpose of which was to collect feedback on participants’ experiences in the simulator.

Measures

Participant feelings felt the pre- and postsurveys included standard demographic information (e.g., gender, age, and prior teaching experience) and items regarding their general level of work-related stress from the Stress at Work Scale (NIOSH/CDC, 1999), burnout from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996), and positive/negative affect from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). These measures were abbreviated to just a few items in this study given its exploratory focus (see Table 2). Additional questions assessed initial impressions of the simulator and anxiety related to participation in the simulator. Participants were asked to report (a) their level of anxiety/nervousness about being in the simulator, (b) how beneficial they thought the simulator would be to them and about their excitement about being in the simulator, and (c) their perceived relevance and utility of the simulator, all on a 4-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. Open-ended questions on the presurvey asked participants about their goals for the simulation session, while open-ended questions on the postsurvey prompted participants to provide suggestions for future use of the simulator.

Table 2.

Pre- and Postsurvey Questions.

Presurvey Questions	Postsurvey Questions
1. I feel nervous or anxious about going into the simulator.	1. I felt nervous or anxious when I was in the simulator.
2. I think that the simulator will be beneficial for me.	2. I think that the simulator was beneficial for me.
3. I feel excited about going into the simulator.	3. I feel excited when I was in the simulator.
4. I am worried about how I will perform in the simulator.	4. I am worried about how I performed in the simulator.
5. The simulator is a useful tool for learning about behavior management.	5. The simulator is a useful tool for learning about behavior management.
6. The simulator is relevant to my future professional practice.	6. The simulator is relevant to my future professional practice.
7. The simulator is relevant to my program of study.	7. The simulator is relevant to my program of study.
	8. I would look forward to going through the simulator again.
	9. I would recommend the simulator to a classmate.
	10. I learned a lot from practicing in the simulator.
	11. The feedback I got from the coaching following the simulation was helpful.
	12. Being in the simulator was stressful
	13. I felt more comfortable with the simulator as I got more experience with it.

Three focus groups were held approximately 1 month after the participants completed the simulator session. Each focus group lasted between 45 and 50 min and included approximately 45 of the participants across all three sessions. The lead investigator facilitated the session using a focus group guide and a research assistant serving as the notetaker. No personal identifiers were recorded, only notes, select direct quotes, and themes regarding the feedback.

Analyses

Frequencies and descriptive analyses of the survey data were conducted using SPSS Statistics 24. We used a paired samples t test, given the use of the instrument at 2 time points. The open-ended qualitative survey questions were summarized and themes were extracted. Similarly, the focus group notes were entered in Excel by the trained notetaker; themes were extracted, coded, and summarized using Excel by the two research assistants who served as notetakers during the focus groups and were reviewed by the focus group facilitator/lead investigator. Taken together, conclusions were drawn regarding the feasibility and acceptability of the simulator within a preservice teacher preparation program.

Results

All participants (N = 62) completed the presurvey and participated in the mixed-reality simulator. Five participants did not complete the postsurvey. Pre- and postcomparisons were based on 57 participants. In the following section, we present the results of the descriptive study. First, we summarize the pre- and postsimulator survey data. Next, we summarized the focus group findings.

Pre- and Postsimulator Surveys

Excitement/positivity before and after simulator

From pre- to postsimulation, the average score for benefits to being in the simulator decreased from 3.09 (SD = .576) to 2.81 (SD = .693; see Table 3). The decrease was significant, t(56) = 4.140, p < .0005, d = .42. In terms of excitement, average scores decreased from 2.60 (SD = .704) to 2.14 (SD = .833). The decrease was significant, t(56) = 4.173, p < .0005, d = .55.

Table 3.

Participant Feelings Prior to and After Simulator Experience.

	Presimulator, M (SD)	Postsimulator, M (SD)	t Test	p Value^a
Positive
Excitement about being in the simulator	2.60 (.704)	2.14 (.833)	4.173	<.001
Benefits about participating in simulator	3.09 (.576)	2.81 (6.93)	3.140	.003
Anxiety
Nervousness about being in simulator	3.05 (.692)	3.16 (.649)	−1.137	.260
Worried about performance in simulator	3.12 (.683)	2.67 (.809)	4.287	<.001
Relevance
Useful tool for learning about behavior management	3.05 (.548)	2.86 (.743)	1.902	.062
Relevance of the simulator for program of study	3.21 (.526)	2.95 (.718)	2.586	.012
Relevance of the simulator for future professional practice	3.11 (.524)	2.91 (.763)	1.846	.070

^a p Value for one-sample t test (two-tailed).

Anxiety before and after simulator

From pre- to postsimulation, the average score for anxiety/nervousness to being in the simulator increased from 3.05 (SD = .692) to 3.16 (SD = 6.49; see Table 3). However, the increase was not significant, t(56) = −1.137, p = .260. In terms of being worried about performance in the simulator, average scores decreased from 3.12 (SD = .683) to 2.67 (SD = .809). A statistically significant decrease in whether participants were worried about their performance was noted, t(56) = .456, p < .0005, d = .57.

Relevance and utility before and after simulator

In terms of being useful for learning about behavior management, participant scores decreased from a mean of 3.05 (SD = .548) to 2.86 (SD = .743; see Table 3). However, the decrease was not statistically significant, t(56) = 1.90, p = .062. Similar participants’ perceptions about the simulator being relevant to their program of study decreased from a mean of 3.21 (SD = .526) to 2.95 (SD = .718). However, the decrease was not significant, t(56) = 2.586, p = .012. Participants scores also slightly decreased regarding relevance to their future professional practice from a mean of 3.11 (SD = .524) to 2.91 (SD = .763). The decrease was not significant, t(56) = 1.846, p = .070.

Open-Ended Responses on Survey

Session goals prior to simulation

Figure 1 provides a summary of the participants’ responses. Most goals were positive (84.5%, n = 60), whereas a small number of goals were avoidant (14.5%, n = 11). It is important to note that participants were able to report one or more goals. Fifty percent (n = 31) of participants reported wanting to practice behavior management strategies, whereas growing as an educator (n = 11, 17.7%) and getting teaching experience (n = 11, 17.7%) were the second most common session goals reported. Some participants had no goals (n = 8: 12.9%), while 11.3% (n = 7) of participants wanted constructive feedback. In terms of avoidance goals, 9.7% (n = 6) wanted to remain calm, 6.5% (n = 4) wanted to “get it over with,” and 1.6% (n = 1) wanted to avoid making mistakes.

Figure 1.

Session goals.

Sources of anxiety prior to entering simulation

Of the 62 participants, 27.4% (n = 17) reported the source as managing unpredictable avatar behavior, 19.4% reported unrealistic simulator experience (n = 12), 16.1% (n = 10) reported fear of judgment or spotlight, 9.7% (n = 6) reported performance anxiety, and 8.1% (n = 5) reported being unclear of what to expect (see Figure 2). One participant reported, “I am concerned about performing well.…I hope that I can successfully manage the behaviors that are thrown at me during the session.” Another reported, “I feel pretty anxious about the whole experience, but I know it will make me a better teacher in the long run.”

Figure 2.

Sources of anxiety prior to experience in simulator.

Feelings of entering the simulator

The results from the open-ended responses to the prompt “Please describe how you feel when you think about entering the simulator this semester” found 64.5% (n = 40) expressing anxiety and stress, 30.0% (n = 13) reported anticipating a positive experience, and 11.2% (n = 7) felt excited. Of the 62 participants, 8.1% (n = 5) felt neutral, and 8.1% (n = 5) felt unsure and uneasy (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Participant feelings prior to entering simulator.

Most looking forward to

Participants reported looking forward to the opportunity for instruction and practice (30.6%, n = 19), interacting with cutting edge technology (19.1%, n =12), constructive coach feedback (19.3%, n = 12), behavior management experience (17.7%, n = 11), and the safety to make mistakes (12.9%, n = 8). Some participants reported having no positive expectations (8.1%, n = 5). One participant replied, “I hope to effectively manage the classroom, such as using redirection techniques properly. I hope to treat the simulation as if it were a real classroom.” Another reported, “I am looking forward to being able to practice the teaching skills and behavior management skills that I have learned in class.”

Most beneficial

Of the 57 participants who completed the postsurvey, 35.1% reported coach feedback as the most beneficial aspect of going through the simulator (n = 20), while 28.1% said practicing managing difficult behavior was most beneficial (n = 16). One participant said,

I feel good about it. I was nervous while I was doing it but I think I did fairly well, and I thought the debriefing session afterwards was the most helpful part…it’s always nice to get good feedback. I think also it was good to think about things that maybe I hadn’t experienced before-like slightly inappropriate comments from a male student and how [sic] would handle that situation.

The other responses focused on dealing with unpredictable students (n = 8, 14.0%), practicing teaching skills without consequences (n = 7, 12.3%), identifying areas of improvement (n = 5, 8.8%), and gaining additional teaching experience (n = 5, 8.8%).

Postsimulator satisfaction and recommendations

When asked if they would look forward to going through the simulator again, 40.3% (n = 23) responded they would. When asked if they would recommend the simulator to a classmate, 68.4% (n = 39) agreed they would do so. Additionally, 56.2% (n = 32) of participants reported learning a lot from practicing in the simulator and 86.0% (n = 49) of the 57 participants at postsimulator said the feedback they got from the coaching was helpful. After the simulator, 79% (n = 45) of participants agreed with the statement that being in the simulator was stressful. Lastly, 63.1% (n =36) of participants reported feeling more comfortable with the simulator as they got more experience.

Focus Group Responses

Benefits of the simulator

Most students identified constructive coach feedback as beneficial because coaches (e.g., course instructors, doctoral supervisors) were not always present in the field. Moreover, the technology enabled them to identify areas for professional growth and to personalize their goals. Lastly, the simulator was described as an opportunity for students to practice behavior management techniques with difficult students while in a low-risk, consequence-free environment.

Identified areas for improvement

Results from the focus groups suggest more preparatory information about the avatars (e.g., their age and technological limitations) and set up of the simulated classroom is needed prior to simulation sessions. Moreover, participants wanted shorter, simpler lesson plans and more frequent simulation sessions to provide practice opportunities and to track their growth. Additionally, integrating several simulation sessions into semester-long course to track growth was suggested as an opportunity for focused practice on specific skills. Regarding logistics, students reported that the TeachLive™ mixed-reality simulator was a bit “clunky.” Avatars had limited mobility because they could not move out of their chairs, and the use of proximity—a frequently used classroom management technique—was difficult to demonstrate. Other students found sound and technical difficulties distracting, in turn reducing acceptability of the simulator as a preservice training tool.

Discussion

The current study sought to examine the feasibility and acceptability of using the TeachLive™ mixed-reality simulator with preservice teachers in the area of classroom management. We selected this focus to address the lack of opportunity many preservice teachers have to practice responding to specific student behaviors, situations, and reflection (Dieker et al., 2014). A distal goal of this study was to provide preservice teachers with structured experiences to practice classroom management skills in an authentic context.

Research Question 1: To What Degree Were Participants’ Beliefs (e.g., Excitement, Benefits, Anxiety, Worries, and Relevance) Different Before and After the Simulation?

Although prior research has suggested this technology is a feasible and acceptable tool, results from this study highlight opportunities for implementers to offset the anticipatory anxiety expressed by most participants. Interestingly, participants reported relatively high expectations for the usefulness of the experience prior to participating, though their scores regarding the perceived usefulness and utility of the simulator also decreased after they went into the simulator. It could be, however, that the anticipatory presurvey may have inadvertently led to the diminished perceived value of the technology in that participants may have had heightened preconceived notions of this “state-of-the-art” technology.

Research Question 2: What Were Participants’ Goals for the Simulation Session?

The open-ended responses on the presurvey (Figure 1) noted most participants identified positive goals for the simulator. Specifically, the participants wanted to practice behavior management strategies, grow as an educator, and receive teaching practice. However, a few participants reported avoidance goals such as staying calm, “getting it over with,” and avoiding mistakes. The analysis of the focus group feedback showed that most participants viewed the simulator as an opportunity for students to practice behavior management techniques in a consequence-free environment.

Research Question 3: What Were the Main Sources of Anxiety Regarding the Simulator?

Overall, participants felt anxious prior to the simulation (see Figures 2 and 3). These findings suggest that anxiety may be attributed to unpredictable avatar behavior as well as being observed during the simulation (i.e., the novelty of and lack of familiarity with simulators, fear, or judgment). Focus group feedback indicated that preservice teachers wanted more information prior to the simulation session. It was noted that additional information regarding the avatars and simulation would be helpful. Together, this is important for preservice educators as they will want to address the sources of student anxiety prior to in-class simulations.

Research Question 4: What Did Participants Suggest to Improve the Simulation Experience?

At the same time, much of the feedback suggested there is potential for greater acceptability among preservice teachers if modifications are implemented. Although many of the students reported they would not look forward to going through the simulator again, they would recommend it to a classmate. Additionally, although slightly more preservice teachers reported learning a lot from practicing in the simulator, the largest increase was regarding the coaching feedback. More than half of participants reported feeling more comfortable after going through the simulator, which suggests repeated opportunities for practice may alleviate preservice teachers’ feelings of anxiety. Below, we consider specific implications of these findings for future use with preservice teachers. Although we focused largely on the utility within the context of behavior management, these implications may also be relevant for use with instruction across content areas.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although we have noted several strengths, a few limitations of the study should be considered. First, the research design (i.e., one-group pretest–posttest nonexperimental design), minor attrition (five participants did not complete the postsurvey), and the homogeneity of the participants limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. Research on simulation should include diverse participants working toward licensure in a range of areas, including K–12 and secondary education.

This study is limited to preservice teachers’ attitudes and perceptions as a means for determining the feasibility and acceptability of simulator use in teacher preparation. To better understand effective strategies for implementing simulator technology, future research should employ a randomized controlled trial design to allow for comparisons across conditions. These conditions could include the content and structure of coaching, the materials provided as preparation for simulations, and the length and type of simulation scenario. For example, a recent experimental study used the simulator to train in-service middle school teachers to detect and respond to the specific behavior of bullying (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Pas, Larson, & Johnson, 2018; Pas et al., in press); the findings from this randomized controlled trial provided promising evidence of the impact of coaching in conjunction with guided practice in the simulator for increasing teachers’ ability to detect and intervene in bullying situations, as well as other improvements in behavior management (see Pas et al., in press). Additional experimental research is needed at the preservice level to determine the impact of guided practice in a simulator on teacher outcomes and the extent to which improvements in their classroom management skills generalize to the classroom.

Another limitation of the current study is associated with the relatively limited measurement of the participants’ experience in the simulator and the focus on the participants’ initial experience in the simulator. Nevertheless, initial impressions of and experiences with a technology or innovation are an important indicator of their acceptance and predictor of their willingness to further engaging with the technology (Domitrovich et al., 2015; Wolf, 1978). Therefore, it is promising to see that the pre–postcomparison data indicated that participants felt more comfortable with the technology after engaging in it just a single time. Given that participants suggested it would be beneficial to have multiple practice opportunities, there exists a potential for participants’ experiences and impressions to shift as they gain more experience with the technology.

Similarly, participants were asked to teach a history lesson on perspective, which may have contributed to their comfort level and how they approached problems with behavior. Future studies conducted in this area may want to consider allowing participants to choose their own lesson or even comparing the role that choice in lesson plans plays in mixed-reality simulators. Participants also interacted with the simulator independently rather than in small groups or within a class session. As teacher preparation programs consider mixed-reality simulators, it may be helpful to allow teachers to host simulator sessions with small groups of preservices teachers, which would provide opportunities for them to learn from each other and their instructors.

Although coaches were provided guidelines for debriefing students, we were unable to observe the coaching sessions. Variations in the content and structure of coaching sessions can impact the effectiveness of those sessions in eliciting preservice teachers’ thinking (e.g., Vásquez, 2004; Waring, 2013). It is important to investigate the structure and content of debriefing sessions to better understand what types of postsimulator reflection are most important for student growth. For example, recording and analyzing the coaching sessions would provide more information about which coaching prompts elicit particular responses from preservice teachers. As such, there is a need for enhanced tracking of the fidelity of implementation of the coaching.

Conclusions and Implications for Preservice Training Providers

To bridge the gap between theory and practice, teacher preparation programs must continue to explore innovative ways to foster the development of preservice teachers’ skills across settings. This is particularly important for classroom management training because it is difficult to replicate the behaviors of students with significant behavioral challenges, yet preservice teachers often identify classroom management as one of their greatest concerns (McNally, I’anson, Whewell, & Wilson, 2005). Mixed-reality simulation has shown to be a promising tool to improve upon traditional microteaching and role-play activities. By providing a low-risk setting for skill development under the guidance of a knowledgeable coach, simulation can create safe learning opportunities, thereby helping preservice teachers develop transferable skills. Noninstructional activities, such as managing student behavior and building relationships with students, have been linked to teacher stress and burnout (Friedman, 2000). Opportunities to practice these skills with avatars may help preservice teachers develop confidence and skill with these social–psychological aspects of the profession. Moreover, simulation has the potential for use in measuring preservice teachers’ performance and gathering meaningful assessment data, which can be difficult to capture in the field.

Nevertheless, the results from this study highlight several suggestions for improving the use of simulator technology in teacher preparation. Based on this feedback, the faculty in the teacher preparation program in which this study took place has since implemented a variety of modifications. We describe the modifications in the sections below.

Introductory demonstrations

To ease students’ anxiety about the technology and expectations of participation in the simulation, it would be beneficial to provide introductory simulation sessions for students. These sessions can include group demonstrations in which instructors model the same practices students will be employing during the simulations. Demonstrations can also include opportunities for students to engage with the avatars. Because the avatars maintain consistent personalities across sessions, getting to know them may make students feel more prepared to work with them in future scenarios. For example, all students could view an interactive demonstration prior to entering the simulator. These demonstrations could create more opportunities for students to ask questions and become comfortable with the technology.

Explicit connections to course goals

Teacher educators should design brief scenarios with explicit links to course content to help students understand the relevance of simulation scenarios to their learning and professional work. To aid in this process, teacher educators should narrow the focus of scenarios to just one or two discrete teaching practices (e.g., opportunities to respond, praise). These practices should be taught in methods courses through a range of activities, allowing preservice teachers to “decompose” complex teaching practices into smaller parts that can be observed and practiced (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009). As part of the preparation for the simulation, instructors should work with students to establish specific goals for the simulations, and coaching protocols should be aligned with these established goals. At this institution, all scenarios are centered on specific, discrete skills taught in methods and field courses. Instructors provide explicit opportunities to learn these skills to ensure preservice teachers have opportunities to learn about, enact, and reflect on their teaching practices in a structured way.

Simplified materials

In conjunction with identifying specific, observable practices, teacher educators should develop simpler session materials that are well aligned to the behaviors students are expected to demonstrate. It must be explicit how the provided materials are in service of the measurable goals of the simulation scenario. Shorter lesson plans will reduce the amount of preparation needed, which may also reduce students’ anxiety. During introductory demonstrations, instructors should model how to use a similar set of materials to prepare for and enact the teaching scenarios. Instructors and facilitators at this institution have modified materials to ensure they are simpler for students, which has allowed students to focus on the discrete skills they have to enact in the simulator.

Additional opportunities for practice

Research suggests expert thinking is developed when learners receive consistent ideas across experiences and have frequent opportunities to practice-related skills (Bruner, 1960/1977; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). Teacher education programs implementing this technology should ensure students have multiple opportunities for practice across each semester. While feedback provided after a simulation can be applied in future situations, preservice teachers would benefit from opportunities to immediately apply feedback and try each scenario again. Systematic opportunities for practice also allow teacher educators to design scenarios increasing in complexity, which will promote preservice teachers’ development over time. To the extent that time and funding allow, instructors could provide multiple opportunities for students to practice the same skills within and across sessions. The repetition could also improve structures for coaching and student reflection and enable the coaching/mentoring faculty to track students’ skill development over time. As teacher education programs continue to utilized mixed-reality simulation technology, researchers should also continue to explore the structures that make this a meaningful tool for student learning and performance monitoring. Future research should evaluate implementation fidelity in coaching sessions to provide greater insight into the role of coaching. Moreover, researchers should consider using experimental designs to vary conditions across groups to strengthen the rigor of the research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Elizabeth Bistrong, Samantha Ludin, and Jessika Bottiani for their assistance with the data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for the current study came in part from the Curry School of Education and the National Institute of Justice to the last author.

ORCID iD

Shanna E. Hirsch

References

Aloe

A. M.

Shisler

S. M.

Norris

B. D.

Nickerson

A. B.

Rinker

T. W.

(2014). A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30–44. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.003

Allensworth

Ponisciak

Mazzeo

(2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago.

Baker

P. H.

(2005). Managing student behavior: How ready are teachers to meet the challenges? American Secondary Education, 33, 51–64.

Bautista

N. U.

Boone

W. J.

(2015). Exploring the impact of TeachMe™ lab virtual classroom teaching simulation on early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 237–262.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Pas

E. T.

Larson

K. E.

Johnson

S. R.

(2018). Coaching teachers in bullying detection and intervention. In Gordon

(Ed.), Bullying prevention and intervention at school: Integrating theory and research into best practices (pp. 53–72). New York, NY: Springer.

Briere

D. E.

Simonsen

Sugai

Myers

(2015). Increasing new teachers’ specific praise rates using a within-school consultation intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 50–60. doi:10.1177/1098300713497098

Brouwer

Korthagen

(2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42, 153–223.

Bruner

(1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1960)

Chini

J. J.

Straub

C. L.

Thomas

K. H.

(2016). Learning from avatars: Learning assistants practice physics pedagogy in a classroom simulator. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010117.

10.

Chesley

G. M.

Jordan

(2012). What’s missing from teacher prep. Educational Leadership, 69, 41–45.

11.

Clift

R. T.

Brady

(2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

K. M.

(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report on the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

12.

Daniel

L. G.

King

D. A.

(1997). Impact of inclusion education on academic achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 67–80.

13.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 35–47. doi:10.1177/0022487109348024

14.

Dawson

M. R.

Lignugaris-Kraft

(2016). Meaningful practice: Generalizing foundation teaching skills from TLE TeachLivE™ to the classroom. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 26–50.

15.

Dicke

Elling

Schmeck

Leutner

(2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.013

16.

Dieker

L. A.

Hynes

Hughes

Smith

(2008). Implications of mixed reality and simulation technologies on special education and teacher preparation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40, 1–20.

17.

Dieker

L. A.

Rodriguez

J. A.

Lignugaris-Kraft

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, 12–33.

18.

Domitrovich

Pas

Bradshaw

C.P.

Becker

Keperling

J. P.

Embry

Ialongo

(2015). Individual and school organizational factors that influence implementation of the Pax Good Behavior Game intervention. Prevention Science, 6, 1064–1074.

19.

Eisenreich

Harshman

(2014, May). The influence of TeachLivE on anxiety levels in pre-service and inservice mathematics teachers. In Straub

Dieker

Hynes

Hughes

. (Eds.), Proceedings from the 2nd Annual TLE TeachLivE™ Conference 2014: Ludic Convergence (pp. 15–19). Orlando: University of Central Florida.

20.

Emery

D. W.

Vandenberg

(2010). Special education teacher burnout and ACT. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 119–131.

21.

Ericsson

K. A.

Krampe

R. T.

Tesch-Romer

(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

22.

Fisher

M. H.

(2011). Factors influencing stress, burnout, and retention of secondary teachers. Current Issues in Education, 14. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/

23.

Freeman

Simonsen

Briere

D. E.

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

(2014). Preservice teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 106–120.

24.

Friedman

I. A.

(2000). Burnout: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 595–606.

25.

Gable

R. A.

Tonelson

S. W.

Sheth

Wilson

Park

K. L.

(2012). Importance, usage, and preparedness to implement evidence-based practices for students with emotional disabilities: A comparison of knowledge and skills of special education and general education teachers. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 499–520.

26.

Garland

K. M.

Holdren

Garland

D. P.

(2016). Individualized clinical coaching in the TLE TeachLivE Lab: Enhancing fidelity of implementation of system of least prompts among novice teachers of students with autism. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 47–59. doi:10.1177/0888406415600769

27.

Goodlad

J. L.

(1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Gottfried

M. A.

(2014). Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 20–43.

29.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

(2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273–289.

30.

Guin

(2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 1–30.

31.

Harris

A. R.

Jennings

P. A.

Katz

D. A.

Abenavoli

R. M.

Greenberg

M. T.

(2016). Promoting stress management and wellbeing in educators: Feasibility and efficacy of a school-based yoga and mindfulness intervention. Mindfulness, 7, 143–154.

32.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.

33.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Perda

(2010). Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers sufficient? American Educational Research Journal, 47, 563–594.

34.

Jennings

P. A.

(2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6, 732–743.

35.

Jennings

P. A.

Greenberg

M. T.

(2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693

36.

Kapadia

Coca

Easton

J. Q.

(2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the influences of induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago.

37.

Kennedy

M. J.

Thomas

C. N.

(2012). Effects of content acquisition podcasts to develop preservice teachers’ knowledge of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Exceptionality, 20, 1–19. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.611088

38.

LaBoskey

V. K.

Richert

A. E.

(2002). Identifying good student teaching placements: A programmatic perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29, 7–34.

39.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Kiely

M. T.

(2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25–43.

40.

Levine

. (2006). Educating school teachers. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdfMarzano

41.

Marzano

R. J.

Marzano

J. S.

Pickering

(2003). Classroom management that works. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.

42.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

(1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

43.

McLeskey

Barringer

M. D.

Billingsley

Brownell

Jackson

Kennedy

… Ziegler

(2017). High-Leverage Practices in Special Education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

44.

McNally

I’anson

Whewell

Wilson

. (2005). “They think that swearing is okay”: First lessons in behaviour management. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31, 169–185.

45.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2009/tables/table_07_1.asp?refer=urban

46.

Oliver

R. M.

Reschly

D. J.

(2007, December). Effective classroom management: Teacher preparation and professional development. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543769.pdf

47.

Oliver

R. M.

Wehby

Reschly

D. J

. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices: Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews. doi:10.4073/csr.2011.4

48.

O’Neill

Stephenson

(2012). Does classroom management coursework influence pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1131–1143. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008

49.

Parry

Pires

Sparkes-Guber

(2007). Action review cycle (ARC) and the action after review (AAR) meeting. In Holman

Devane

Cady

(Eds.), The change handbook. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

50.

Pas

E. T.

Johnson

S. R.

Larson

K. E.

Brandenberg

Church

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2016). Reducing behavior problems among students with autism spectrum disorder: Coaching teachers in a mixed-reality setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 3640–3652.

51.

Pas

Waasdorp

Bradshaw

C. P.

(in press). Coaching teachers to detect, prevent, and respond to bullying using mixed-reality simulation: An efficacy study in middle schools. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-018-0003-0

52.

Podolsky

Kini

Bishop

Darling-Hammond

(2016). Solving the teacher shortage: How to attract and retain excellent educators. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

53.

Rock

M. L.

Gregg

Thead

B. K.

Acker

S. E.

Gable

R. A.

Zigmond

N. P.

(2009). Can you hear me now? Evaluation of an online wireless technology to provide real-time feedback to special education teachers-in-training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 64–82.

54.

Rock

M. L.

Spooner

Nagro

S. A.

Vasquez

Dunn

Leko

… Jones

J. L

. (2016). 21st century change drivers: Considerations for constructing transformative models of special education teacher development. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 98–120. doi:10.1177/0888406416640634

55.

Sauter

Murphy

Colligan

Swanson

Joseph Hurrell

Frederick Scharf

Tisdale

(1999). Stress at Work: US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/pdfs/99-101.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB99101

56.

Scott

T. M.

Hirn

R. G.

Cooper

J. T.

(2017). Teacher and student behaviors: Keys to success in classroom instruction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

57.

Smagorinsky

Cook

L. S.

Moore

Jackson

A. Y.

Fry

P. G.

(2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identify. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8–24. doi:10.1177/0022487103260067

58.

Straub

Dieker

Hynes

Hughes

(2014). Using virtual rehearsal in TLE TeachLive™ mixed reality classroom simulator to determine the effects on the performance of mathematics teachers. TeachLive™ National Research Project: Year 1 findings. Retrieved from http://teachlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014_GR_Technical_Report_10_20_FINAL.pdf

59.

Sutcher

Darling-Hammond

Carver-Thomas

(2016). A coming crisis in teaching. Teacher Supply, Demand, and Shortages in the US.

60.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation: Policy brief. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2016/12/Ed-Tech-in-Teacher-Preparation-Brief.pdf

61.

Vásquez

. (2004). “Very carefully managed”: Advice and suggestions in post-observation meetings. Linguistics and Education, 15, 33–58.

62.

Veenman

(1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143–178.

63.

Vince Garland

K. M.

Holden

Garland

D. P.

(2016). Individualized clinical coaching in the TLE TeachLivE™ lab: Enhancing fidelity of implementation of system of least prompts among novice teachers of students with autism. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 47–59.

64.

Vince Garland

Vasquez

E., III

Pearl

(2012). Efficacy of individualized clinical coaching in a virtual reality classroom for increasing teachers’ fidelity of implementation of discrete trial teaching. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 502–515.

65.

Waring

H. Z.

(2013). Two mentor practices that generate teacher reflection without explicit solicitations: Some preliminary considerations. RELC Journal, 44, 103–119.

66.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

67.

Wei

R. C.

Darling-Hammond

Adamson

. (2009). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/docs/default-source/pdf/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2010.pdf?sfvrsn=0

68.

Wolf

M. M.

(1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.

69.

Zung

W. W.

(1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry, 12, 371–379.