Abstract
Teacher educators of pre-service teachers of students with special needs face challenges in providing the unique knowledge and skills required of highly qualified special education teachers. The emerging use of various forms of virtual technology, however, offers realistic solutions to these problems. This systematic review of literature examines 14 studies that utilized these virtual technologies to increase learning outcomes for pre-service special education teachers during field experiences or courses that prepared them for such experiences. Included studies examined the efficacy of learning from digital case studies, supervision via videoconferencing, audio-cued coaching, and participation in virtual reality activities. Results confirmed that these types of technologies can greatly enhance field-based learning opportunities for pre-service special education teachers.
Keywords
Pre-service teachers require extensive practice in developing and delivering quality instruction to all students, as well as managing classroom behavior. According to Phillion, Miller, and Lehman (2005), field experience is the best vehicle to prepare future teachers for the complexity and diversity of the classroom. Teacher educators, however, face challenges in placing pre-service teachers in field experiences where their students will receive the necessary learning experiences. These challenges are compounded when teacher educators must locate settings that address the distinctive needs of pre-service special education teachers, particularly for field experiences with populations of students with low-incidence disabilities, or to provide experiences in multiple types of educational settings. The purpose of this review of literature is to provide teacher educators with a synthesis and analysis of studies that used virtualization to meet the challenges of providing effective field experiences for pre-service special education teachers. Comprehensive teacher education programs typically provide a variety of experiences to allow future teachers to practice teaching and behavior management skills. These experiences may be in the form of teaching observations, field experience, practicum-based learning, and student teaching, as these are all critical components of comprehensive teacher education programs (Griffen, Fang, Bishop, & Halsall, 2005; Jaquith, 1995). According to Mamlin (2012), a “seamless connection from coursework to field work to actual practice” (p. 43) is the best scenario that offers pre-service teachers the opportunity to integrate a repertoire of pedagogy and teaching skills toward becoming a quality teacher.
Supervised field-based experiences allow future teachers to practice their teaching with guidance and oversight from individuals who work in the teacher training program. The sum of these experiences arguably may be the most important part of a teacher candidate’s education. Mamlin (2012), however, pointed out that when preparing those who will become special education teachers, the one or two practicum experiences followed by student teaching that are typical of general education teacher preparation may not be enough.
Many of the skills that are targeted for practice during the experiential phases of educator programs are the same for all teachers and include skills such as lesson planning and delivery and basic classroom management. Mamlin (2012) identified five additional broad areas of knowledge and skills requisite for special educators: (a) knowledge about student characteristics that includes a broad understanding about various disabilities and accommodations; (b) leadership skills for guiding others on issues related to students with disabilities; (c) collaborative and communication skills including skills needed for collaboration with colleagues and skills needed to communicate effectively with administrators, service providers, and parents; (d) deep understanding of practices that reflect special education law and policies, such as Individualized Education Program (IEP) processes, paperwork, and documentation; and (e) instructional skills for delivering curriculum in an accessible manner in accordance with legal mandates.
In addition to the generic teaching competencies that all pre-service teachers must master, future educators who are preparing to concentrate on a particular disability area within special education must acquire an even greater body of knowledge and more specialized skill set. For example, future teachers of students with autism need a deep understanding of the unique behavioral excesses and deficits characteristic of this disorder, and the corresponding curriculum needs and technical teaching techniques required (Scheuermann, Webber, Boutot, & Goodwin, 2003). Likewise, future teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) require extensive knowledge of a variety of mental and behavioral health issues and how those issues affect students in the classroom. These educators need to know best practices in instructional strategies and creating, monitoring, and implementing complex behavior intervention plans. It is unlikely that generic field-based experiences, designed to accommodate most teacher education students, will be sufficient for teaching or providing opportunities to practice specialized knowledge and skill sets needed by specialists.
High Quality Field Experiences for Special Educators
Providing such quality clinical experiences requires consideration of types of experience that are most beneficial to pre-service teachers, the order and sequence in which experiences should be offered, the manner in which pre-service teachers need to be evaluated, state of readiness of the pre-service teacher, and the location and length of placements for clinical experience (Cruickshank & Armaline, 1986). Placing future teachers of students with special needs creates additional challenges due to the additional skills that pre-service teachers need to practice and the fact that fewer placement options are available.
There exist at least five identifiable obstacles to finding appropriate field placements for any pre-service teacher. These obstacles are discussed in the remainder of this section. The first obstacle is locating appropriate field-based placements, particularly for distance-learning teacher preparation programs or programs located in rural areas where there are few schools and relatively few special education teachers and students receiving special education services (Mamlin, 2012). This is especially true for low-incidence disabilities.
A second obstacle is that there are fewer teachers who are willing to host teacher education students in their classrooms due to the increased demands on teachers’ time and accountability (Jiyoon, 2008; Mahon, Bryant, Brown, & Kim, 2010). In an environment of increased pressure due to high-stakes testing and multiple mandates, both general and special education teachers may feel unable to devote the time required to serve as cooperative teachers.
Beyond the logistics of finding applicable settings and willing cooperating teachers, a third obstacle is that there is no assurance that cooperating teachers actually use best practices in academic instruction and classroom management. According to Griffen et al. (2005), students are sometimes placed in settings that do not “exemplify the kind of pedagogical practices that course instructors would like their students to observe and emulate” (p. 93). This problem may be exacerbated for special education placements because these positions often are staffed by uncertified teachers, untrained paraprofessionals, or the most novice teachers (Mamlin, 2012; Scheuermann et al., 2003). Thus, practices in a particular classroom may not align with the goals, objectives, and values of the training program, and may not reflect the best practices that the teacher education students have learned.
Additional obstacles exist for special education pre-service teachers. Special education teachers are often required to teach multiple grade levels in multiple settings, or multiple disabilities. There may not be time or opportunities, however, for pre-service teachers to obtain experience in multiple field placements (Mamlin, 2012).
Some students with disabilities also exhibit challenging behaviors that differ in nature, intensity, and/or frequency from typical minor misbehaviors. It is critical that pre-service teachers have opportunities to practice the complex set of skills required to effectively teach students who exhibit significant challenging behaviors, a goal that requires an even broader array of field experiences. According to Kauffman and Landrum (2013), teachers of such students need skills for managing externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, defiance, non-compliance) or internalizing behaviors (e.g., anxiety, depression, somatization). In addition, future teachers of students with behavior challenges should be exposed to a full continuum of placement options and multidisciplinary services. Furthermore, pre-service teachers require repeated practice of skills that promote positive behavioral changes in a controlled setting (Colvin, 2004).
Virtual Technologies for Experiential Learning in Teacher Education
The use of virtual technologies in preparing future educators offers promise in ameliorating issues described previously. Traditional models of practicum experiences limit experiences to only those settings that are close in proximity to the pre-service teacher or to those schools that have networks or affiliations with the university. Technology could provide pre-service teachers with a broader exposure to a variety of teaching and learning environments. Another benefit of using technology for teacher preparation is that pre-service teachers can be better prepared because they can practice specific, planned skills to mastery in a fully controlled environment (Hannah, 1995). Through virtual technology, pre-service teachers can practice many different scenarios, with varied outcomes, and repeat scenarios as often as needed under the supervision of teacher educators. This would not be possible in a real classroom where many aspects of instruction and classroom management are beyond the control of teacher educators.
A number of different virtual technology formats exist for enhancing teacher preparation. Hixon and So (2009) conducted a broad review of how technology has been used in field experiences in pre-service teacher education programs. They divided technology-enhanced field experiences into three categories of concreteness, arranged in a graduated sequence from reality to virtuality: Type I field experiences include concrete, direct experiences in reality typical of traditional approaches where teacher education students are placed in real classrooms. Technology is then used to facilitate supervision, reflection, or communication. In Type II experiences, teacher education students remotely observe teachers and students through the use of videoconferencing or through pre-recorded video cases. Type III field experiences are fully virtual (e.g., technology-based for all aspects of the experience). Such experiences include virtual reality and computer-enhanced simulations. A significant research base exists for the first two categories of technology-enhanced field experiences; however, research on the virtual and simulated environments of the third type is limited.
Furthermore, there have been no systematic reviews of the research related to virtual field experiences for pre-service special education teachers. The purpose of this investigation was to identify quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the use of virtual technologies as a vehicle for providing experiential learning for pre-service special education teachers.
Method
Selection Criteria
In general, articles selected for inclusion were empirical studies where Type II or Type III virtual experiences, as defined by Hixon and So (2009), were used by teacher educators in practicum settings or classes to prepare special education pre-service teachers or graduate students seeking special education certification for such settings. Three specific criteria were used to identify studies for inclusion in this review. In addition, three exclusionary criteria were used to ensure that the final sample focused exclusively on empirical studies of virtual field experiences for pre-service special education teachers. Studies included in this review met the following criteria:
They were published in English in peer-reviewed journals.
They were published between January, 2003 and June, 2013. These dates were selected because this decade is defined by the domination of technologies that are markedly different from previous time periods (Milroy, 2013), including social media, online streaming, Web 2.0 tools, 3G and 4G technologies, digitized music and video, and mobile computing that have had tremendous implications for educators. In addition, by focusing on this time period, outdated technologies that are no longer available would not be included.
They used vicarious, indirect, abstract, or virtual technologies (e.g., video case studies, remote supervision, epistemic gaming, or virtual reality simulations) to provide field-based experiences or prepared teacher education students for such experiences by using those technologies to teach one or more specialized skills (e.g., classroom management skills).
They described an empirical study to evaluate virtual technologies for field experiences. Both group design and single-subject design studies were included.
Participants were either graduate or undergraduate students enrolled in special education teacher preparation courses.
Articles were excluded if they met any of the following characteristics:
If they were conceptual in nature (e.g., discussed future plans for, or the potential for, the use of technology in teacher education).
If they described or evaluated the efficacy of teaching traditional educator preparation courses in an online format.
If they described or measured learning experiences where technology was used in supplementary ways, such as presentation formats, learning modules, podcasts, blogs, course wikis, online portfolios, and forum discussions.
Search Procedures
The comprehensive review of the literature consisted of a systematic search of the following electronic databases: Education Full Text, Education Research Complete, Educational Resources Information Clearing House (ERIC), Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Psych INFO. In addition to the date restriction, limiters narrowed the search to peer reviewed, academic journals, periodicals, or articles. The following terms were entered into the keyword fields in pairs utilizing Boolean operators and truncation: “field experience,” “teacher education,” “pre-service teachers,” and “practicum” paired with “technology” and “virtual” paired also with “special education” (e.g., “field experience*” AND “technology” AND “special education”). The titles and abstracts of the resulting articles were reviewed to identify empirical studies that seemingly matched the criteria for inclusion in this review. These search parameters produced 457 articles. Next, we omitted articles that were duplicates resulting from the use of multiple databases and more thoroughly reviewed abstracts of the remaining articles. Although the search yielded articles that did include the key words on our search, the majority dealt with topics related to online courses, using technology with special education students, or using specific tools such as wikis, blogs, and forum discussions. A resulting pool of 13 articles matched all inclusion criteria. The reference sections of these 13 articles were then searched for additional articles that might be appropriate for inclusion. This ancestral search located a research synthesis by Thomas and Rieth (2011) that, although not specific to special education, did include one study focused on special education pre-service teachers; that study met our search criteria and, therefore, was included.
Two additional articles were found during the search but were not qualitative or quantitative studies and are therefore not included in the “Results” section of this review. These articles described prototypes or explained existing models of virtual platforms that can be used to educate pre-service, special educators. Jung, Galyon-Keramidas, Collins, and Ludlow (2006) described three Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) -funded, online, interactive video models for providing supervision to practicing special educators in remote areas. Dieker, Hynes, Hughes, and Smith (2008) discussed the potential that emerging technologies offer teacher educators and pre-service classroom teachers, as well as the challenges inherent in developing an effective virtual classroom.
Study Review Procedures
A systematic review process was applied for evaluating articles. First, we created a table that included each article cited alphabetically on separate rows. Next, we developed vertical columns that included information for participants (number and age of participants, rank in school, type of course, and students’ major), purpose for which technology was used (instruction, supervision, coaching, or simulation), type of technology used (multi-media case studies, virtual reality, audio-cuing, or videoconferencing), outcomes (increase understanding/knowledge/performance, promote inclusive attitudes, or facilitate communication), type of methodology used (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), and dependent variables (student reflection, survey, checklist, rubric, pre-/post-tests, or other measures). Check marks were placed in the appropriate cells as each article was reviewed. Next, a more detailed analysis of the independent and dependent variables was conducted using quality indicators for assessing special education research. Studies that used quantitative methods were scrutinized using the essential quality indicators proposed by Gersten et al. (2005). In addition, the quantitative component of mixed methods studies was evaluated with these indicators. Articles were reviewed according to the following indicators:
Sufficient information about participants is provided. For this study, descriptors including number, age, undergraduate or graduate status, and major of participants, as well as course type needed to be included.
Appropriate procedures used to increase the likelihood that relevant characteristics of participants are comparable. Study conditions (e.g., random sample, convenience) are considered because statistical power is increased by randomization. Because this is not always feasible in applied settings, efforts must be made to strengthen comparability.
The intervention/program/system and methods for ensuring fidelity of implementation are clearly described with sufficient detail to assure that the intervention was used correctly and consistently.
Multiple measures used to provide an appropriate balance between measures are aligned with the intervention and measures of generalized performance. Conclusions highly depend on carefully selected dependent measures.
Data analysis techniques are rationalized and appropriately linked to key research questions and hypotheses and include inferential statistics, as well as effect size calculations.
Qualitative studies were evaluated using quality indicators recommended by Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, and Richardson (2005). None of the studies used observational research, so articles were reviewed according to indicators relevant to interview studies and document analysis only:
Appropriate participants or documents are selected in terms of representativeness and relevancy.
Interview questions (e.g., surveys, checklists) are reasonable and meaningful.
Interpreting qualitative data necessitates honest and fair representation of participants’ statements/activities or description of documents.
Sound measures are used to ensure confidentiality.
Results are sorted and coded in a systematic and meaningful way.
Reflection about researchers’ personal perspectives is provided.
Conclusions are substantiated by sufficient quotations from participants and evidence of documentation inspection.
Results
The 14 articles identified for review were summarized according to the following variables: (a) participant description, (b) purpose and independent variables, (c) study method and dependent variables, and (d) outcomes of the study. A descriptive summary of included studies is provided in Table 1.
Summary of Included Articles.
Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program; EBD = Emotional and Behavioral Disorders; DTT = Discrete Trial Training; ABA = Applied Behavior Analysis; WVU = West Virginia University; MUSE = Multi-cultural Special Education; FBA = Functional Behavior Assessment; BIE = Bug-in-Ear.
Participant Descriptions
Studies included more than 839 undergraduate, pre-service teachers or graduate-level students who were currently teaching; two studies did not describe the number of participants. Seven of these studies (50%) were conducted with undergraduate students; five (36%) were conducted with graduate-level participants; two studies (14%) included both undergraduate and graduate students. Only four studies (28%) included an age range for participants, which ranged from 18 to 54.
There were an equal number of studies (36% each) that included university students concentrating their studies at the elementary and secondary level. Four studies (28%) did not include grade level information. Ten studies (71%) included participants specifically majoring in special education, whereas participants in two studies (14%) included both general education and special education majors. One study (7%) focused on general education majors taking an introductory course on students with disabilities that would prepare them for teaching students with exceptionalities during their practicum and beyond. Thus, the participants in the included studies were highly representative of the spectrum of teacher preparation students in terms of students’ majors and course level.
Study Method
Researchers used a variety of research designs for evaluating the efficacy of technology for preparing teachers to use best practices in educating students with special needs. Three studies (21%) used qualitative methods of inquiry. Burden, Tinnerman, Lunce, and Runshe (2010) evaluated participants’ reflections on the interactions of actors in video role-plays of the IEP process. Ochoa, Kelly, Stuart, and Rogers-Adkinson (2004) used the constant comparative method and qualitative interviews to code participants’ responses to a problem-based learning module about the complexities of the special education referral process when it must be determined whether academic difficulties are related to second-language acquisition or cognitive disabilities. Dymond and Bentz (2006) utilized a reflective survey for participants to rate the quality of the videos they watched, as well as the degree to which their understanding of concepts increased.
Seven studies (50%) utilized quantitative research methods to evaluate results. McPherson, Tyler-Wood, McEnturff, and Peak (2011) used a quasi-experimental design of non-equivalent comparison groups. Pindiprolu, Peterson, Rule, and Lignugaris/Kraft (2003) used a pre–post test method in which students answered questions related to conducting a functional behavior assessment before and after interacting with web-based case studies. Dymond, Renzaglia, Halle, Chadsey, and Bentz (2008) evaluated items on an instrument used to conduct structured observations of student teachers; researchers calculated interobserver agreement between on-site and off-site supervisors. Three of these six studies, 21% of the included studies, used single-subject design methods to evaluate independent variables. All three of these studies (Garland, Vasquez, & Pearl, 2012; Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, & Lee, 2006; Scheeler, McKinnon, & Stout, 2012) incorporated a multiple baseline across participant research design. Ludlow, Keramidas, and Landers (2007) used quantitative program and student evaluation data.
Four studies (28%) used a mixed methods design. Fitzgerald et al. (2009) used a pre–post quantitative and qualitative assessment of concept maps related to knowledge of characteristics of children and youth with EBD to measure conceptual learning from technology-enhanced case-based instruction. Lowdermilk, Martinez, Pecina, Beccera, and Lowdermilk (2012) also used a pre–post assessment and qualitative survey to assess participants’ responses to a simulation that required them to interact with an avatar with autism. The Rock et al. (2009) and its follow-up study (Rock et al., 2012) used sequential explanatory design, whereby quantitative data were used to measure changes in teaching behavior, classroom climate, and level of classroom disruption when coached via wireless technology, followed by qualitative analyses of participants’ reflections on the Bug-in-Ear™ experience. Overall, none of the quantitative studies met the standard to be considered of at least “acceptable quality,” as defined by Gersten et al. (2005). Fitzgerald et al. utilized a factorial analysis of variance to examine conceptual change for dependent variables. This was, however, a naturalistic study, not a controlled research design. All other quantitative or mixed methods studies relied solely on descriptive data. Studies that were identified as qualitative studies, including qualitative components of mixed methods studies, lacked most of the quality indicators identified by Brantlinger et al. (2005) for qualitative studies in special education. Most of the missing indicators involved analytic procedures. Instead, descriptions of participants’ reflections were summarized and presented without systematic explanation or rationale.
Purpose and Independent Variables
The studies included in this review used different technologies to create learning experiences for students enrolled in a special education practicum or field-based setting, or students in courses to prepare them for such experiences. Only four studies (28%) evaluated technology for a field experience or practicum study. Four studies (28%) involved the use of technology to teach concepts specific to autism or emotional disturbance. The majority of studies (43%) evaluated the effectiveness of various technologies in teaching introductory information or best instructional practices in broad areas of special education.
Multi-media case studies
The majority of studies (36%) involved participants watching and reflecting on digitally recorded videos of case studies or participating in web-mediated problem-solving learning modules. Previously recorded role-plays using actors simulating an IEP meeting were utilized in the Burden et al. (2010) study, and the Ochoa et al. (2004) study similarly used multi-media, web-based software containing problem-based modules to provide a simulation of the special education referral process. The Multicultural Special Education unit, developed by Leafstedt, Ochoa, and Gerber (2000), included video of featured students, audio from teachers, embedded lesson plans, and work samples. Using digital video cameras, external microphones, and videotape, actual footage of typical classroom interactions was created and digitally edited and saved on CD, DVD, computer hard drive, or removable, external drive in the Dymond and Bentz (2006) study. Pre-service teacher participants viewed and discussed the content of these videos as a way to learn about instructional issues and increase confidence in working with students with disabilities. Pindiprolu et al. (2003) implemented Acropolis (Rowland, 1998), an Internet-based curriculum template with stored databases of classroom simulations, videos stored on CD-ROM, and a chat program that allowed students to practice skills involved in conducting a functional behavior assessment. The multi-media case studies used in Fitzgerald et al. (2009) were a combination of these features. The Teacher Problem Solving Skills, a series of interactive case studies of students with EBD, which is stored on videodisc and computer software, includes classroom videos of children, interviews with teachers, principals, parents, and other service providers, as well as computerized case records and informational databases used by participants to engage in problem-solving activities to increase understanding of characteristics of students with EBD.
Videoconferencing technology
Videocon-ferencing technology offers opportunities for instructors to observe student teachers and provide supervision from remote locations. Dymond et al. (2008) accomplished this using commercially available Videocon-ferencing equipment, ViewStation SP™, by Polycom®, whereby a camera and computer permit a video and audio signal to be transmitted and received between Videocon-ferencing units. Ludlow et al. (2007) also used online desktop conferencing via Wimba Live Classroom™ (Wimba, Inc.) and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to supervise practicum experiences.
Audio-cuing technology
Technology that allows an expert to coach student teachers by remotely cuing responses provides immediate, on-the-spot feedback while the teacher-in-training actually engages in teaching. This type of technology has been successfully used with trainees in various disciplines for many years (Gallant & Thyer, 1989). Scheeler et al. (2006) used older technologies using a personal FM system consisting of a transmitter and portable receiver to provide corrective feedback to pre-service teachers in a practicum setting. These older FM system technologies, however, limited range between the coach and the teacher to approximately 300 feet. Scheeler et al. (2012) used an online, wireless technology to replicate and extend this study using enhancements including a camera-ready laptop computer and a Bluetooth™ earpiece so that the researcher could see the teacher and provide feedback on the teacher’s instructional practices. Furthermore, Rock et al. (2009) and Rock et al. (2012) utilized a wide-angle web camera, a Bluetooth™ headset, and Skype™ to provide real-time coaching to teachers-in-training.
Virtual reality technology
Three articles (21%) described the use of virtual reality technology in which participants’ play a role in a simulation experience. Garland et al. (2012) utilized the TLE TeachLivE™ Lab, a virtual classroom laboratory developed by the University of Central Florida that allowed participants to practice discrete trial teaching with an avatar on a projection screen. Similarly, participants used Behavior Breakthroughs™ (Southwest Research Institute®), a virtual simulation game that allowed users to learn to implement Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) techniques by manipulating a programmed avatar replicating a child with autism in the Lowdermilk et al. (2012) study. McPherson et al. (2011) used the simulation program simSchool™ (Gibson, 2007) to improve participants’ preparation to accommodate students in an inclusion setting.
Dependent Variables
Overall, the studies included in this review assessed knowledge, skills, and attitudes as dependent variables. The methods used range from pre–post or post-intervention only assessments, evaluations of participant reflections, frequency counts of use of specific instructional practices, surveys of program assessment, and student evaluations. The majority of studies (43%) relied on a post-assessment as a measure of learning; four of these six studies also included a pre-intervention assessment of knowledge or skills. McPherson et al. (2011) measured the effectiveness of using a virtual practicum to improve participants’ knowledge and attitudes toward inclusion by using validated instruments, The Teacher Preparation Survey (Knezek & Christensen, 2006), and The Effective Inclusion Instrument, adapted by the authors from instruments by Borg and Gall (1989) and Smith, Polloway, Patton, and Dowdy (1995) as a pre- and post-test intervention measure. Scheeler et al. (2006) and its replication study (Scheeler et al., 2012) measured learning by determining the percentage of completed three-term contingency trials (e.g., antecedent-student response-teacher feedback) completed by the teacher during intervention sessions. Participants in Fitzgerald et al. (2009) study completed a concept map with only the center node provided; the researchers developed a standardized scoring rubric with which to evaluate participants’ conceptual understanding of students with EBD.
Four studies (28%) utilized participants’ reflections with which to measure efficacy of the intervention. Burden et al. (2010) used participants’ electronic journal reflections to measure their increasing understanding of the communications, interactions, and concepts of the IEP process by evaluating the themes that emerged in the reflections. Ochoa et al. (2004) similarly evaluated structured surveys and recorded interviews with participants regarding the resolutions of the case studies. Rock et al. (2009) and Rock et al. (2012) measured changes in teaching behaviors as defined by instructional practices (e.g., posing questions to students, providing a wait signal before accepting choral responses), changes in classroom climate measured by numbers of reprimands, and praise.
Three studies (21%) evaluated participant learning through the use of surveys, checklists, or rubrics. A 12-item survey evaluated the quality, appropriateness, and learning outcomes in the Dymond and Bentz (2006) study. Garland et al. (2012) evaluated fidelity of participants in implementing discrete trial teaching utilizing an evaluation rubric called the Discrete Trials Teaching Evaluation Rubric (Bogin, Sullivan, Rogers, & Stabel, 2008). Dymond et al. (2008) used a checklist of teaching skills on which supervisors rated student teachers. An additional study utilized a combination of methods by which to evaluate outcomes. Lowdermilk et al. (2012) used a survey to measure participants’ level of confidence and knowledge related to ABA techniques before and after implementation. Furthermore, following the intervention of interacting in the simulation, participants were evaluated on their completion of a case study implementing the skills learned in the intervention.
Finally, one study (7%) assessed course evaluations by students and evaluated the productivity of their practicum program that utilized videoconferencing to provide supervision by tracking the numbers of students enrolled in the course and ultimately certified as autism specialists (Ludlow et al., 2007).
Study Outcomes
The majority of studies (86%) found that using particular technologies increased knowledge or understanding of a particular disability, increased the skill level or performance of a particular technique or strategy, or positively influenced attitudes of educating students with special needs. Only two studies (14%) did not demonstrate increased performance for all learners with the use of technology-enhanced curricula, or the learning was not significantly different than outcomes obtained using traditional techniques.
Multi-media case studies
In studies that utilized case studies, participants successfully increased their understanding or knowledge of special education problems or processes in three of the five (60%) studies. Watching videos or using web-based audio and video files of actual or role-played scenarios and engaging in learning activities related to them enriched pre-service teachers’ understanding of special education practices and issues. Pre-service teachers in the Burden et al. (2010) and Dymond and Bentz (2006) study felt that watching and discussing videotaped simulations or actual footage about the inner workings of special education practices intensified their learning. Pre-service teachers in the first study witnessed a simulated role-play about the IEP process, an element that would have otherwise been eliminated from the practicum experience due to constraints of student confidentiality. Participants in the Ochoa et al. (2004) found that reviewing case studies created realistic scenarios that were easier to relate to than traditional teaching. Yet, they agreed that these case studies should not be used as “a stand-alone instructional strategy” (p. 39). Background information and theoretical grounding must be taught prior to interacting with the case studies.
Although results of most studies utilizing multi-media case studies to prepare future or in-service teachers to educate students with special needs were supportive, two studies highlighted some considerations. Results of the Fitzgerald et al. (2009) study were generally favorable toward using multi-media case studies to learn about students with emotional disturbance. They, however, found that special education majors and graduate students with prior teaching experience showed the most benefit compared with undergraduate students and those education majors in areas outside of special education. Furthermore, participants in the Pindiprolu et al. (2003) study scored similarly whether they used case-based tactics that were technology-enhanced or not, illustrating the notion that using technology should not be used just to make lessons more creative but to extend, enhance, and facilitate learning on its own.
Videoconferencing supervision
Videocon-ferencing technology showed potential for successful supervision of field-based experiences at a distance as evidenced by the successful results in both studies that considered remote supervision. Dymond et al. (2008) noted highly similar evaluative scores on an objective measure when comparing on-site and remote practicum supervision. Likewise, Ludlow et al. (2007) showed evidence of the efficiency of training graduate special education majors as autism specialists in remote areas of West Virginia. Improved technical tools allow teacher educators to observe practicum students over a long distance offering cost-effective supervision of pre-service teachers, thus removing the constraint of location for field experiences.
Audio-cued coaching
Four included studies examined the efficacy of providing real-time coaching to pre-service teachers and graduate students who were in-service teachers via audio-cueing technology. All studies found that utilizing technology that delivered immediate, corrective feedback increased teaching behaviors in an efficient and nonintrusive manner. Scheeler et al. (2006) further determined that learning that occurred in this format was maintained over time. In a follow-up study, Scheeler et al. (2012) found the immediacy of the specific feedback to be more effective than delayed feedback and that participants found the intervention to be an acceptable, nonintrusive way for teacher educators to provide feedback from remote locations. Rock et al. (2009) noted a statistically significant increase in participants’ use of preferred instructional practices (i.e., choral responses, partner strategies, and cloze reading) and a decrease in the use of those less engaging practices (i.e., hand raising and round-robin). Last, Rock et al. (2012) experienced successful results similar to findings in previous Bug-in-Ear coaching studies. However, they noted high levels of anxiety experienced by the participants at the onset of the audio-cueing experience, but they eventually felt that the positive learning experience compensated for the initial angst.
Virtual reality
The most virtual of the technologies used in included studies were those that used virtual reality labs or simulations of classrooms to coach pre-service teachers. Participants in the Garland et al. (2012) study felt that the most important outcome of using virtual reality technology was increased level of confidence in delivering evidence-based practices. Teacher educators found that using an avatar allowed them to target specific skills that needed repeated practice without “tiring, confusing, or frustrating an actual student” (p. 512). Participants in the Lowdermilk et al. (2012) study not only gained increased confidence about implementing intervention techniques but also demonstrated more active learning than traditional education experiences provide. They were able to increase breadth and depth of learning without harming an actual child. Last, undergraduate participants in the McPherson et al. (2011) showed not only gains in teaching skills where graduate students also showed improvement but also significant gains in areas of instructional self-efficacy. Teaching simulations and virtual modes of instructional delivery seem to offer promise to pre-service teachers in developing confidence and competency prior to student teaching and in-service teaching experiences.
Discussion
There is a dearth of research describing virtual technologies used to augment field experiences for pre-service special education teachers. Only half of the studies included in this literature review were conducted in an actual or virtual field-based setting. The others utilized technology to prepare students for practicum experiences. The studies identified for inclusion relied on descriptive designs rather than controlled empirical research methods. Furthermore, with the exception of the Garland et al. (2012) study, all used indirect measures of pre-service teachers’ knowledge and skills as dependent variables, such as pre–post tests, written reflections, and surveys. Thus, we can draw only limited conclusions about the efficacy of using virtual technology for pre-service special education teachers.
Despite these limitations, results of the included studies in this review show tremendous potential for incorporating various forms of technology to enhance critical field experiences or to prepare pre-service teachers for these experiences. The different types of technologies used in the studies illustrate the continuum of virtuality that has potential for meeting the challenges of providing quality field experiences for future special education teachers.
Using videoconferencing for supervision can broaden the locations where future teachers can practice in actual classrooms and still be overseen by experts. This effectively solves the problem of locating a sufficient number of appropriate field placements for pre-service teachers and serves a need for placing quality teachers in rural or distant locations. Similarly, to reduce the demands on cooperating teachers’ time and responsibility for preparing students during a field experience, the use of audio-cuing technology permits experts to successfully coach pre-service teachers from distant sites. The use of multi-media case studies and video delivery of practicum experiences permits pre-service teachers to observe and reflect on important processes outside of an actual educational setting. By doing so, future teachers would be able to learn the basics of special education processes in a virtual, controlled dimension.
Using video role-plays, cyber simulations, and virtual reality technologies allow pre-service teachers the benefit of learning best practices in delivering quality instruction and classroom management in a controlled environment. In addition to creatively reducing the demand for actual placements, these different forms of technology-enhanced experiences also meet the challenges specific to pre-service teachers in special education. The technologies allow future teachers the ability to virtually experience and interact in multiple types of instructional settings. In addition, these technologies can expose learners to the many dimensions of behavior and to a range of possible student responses to teachers’ use of different types of behavior management techniques. These virtual experiences provide pre-service teachers the rich opportunity to repeatedly practice instructional skills and behavior techniques in a carefully governed approach.
Virtual reality technology offers a computer-generated environment that simulates reality. Immersion in this reality and the ability to manipulate objects or perform tasks allow pre-service teachers to experience important, but less common, situations that they may not get to encounter during a traditional field experience. By experiencing a broader variety of experiences in a laboratory setting, receiving corrective feedback under controlled conditions, pre-service teachers will be more prepared to take on the challenges of today’s classrooms.
Although few of the studies used rigorous research designs and none of the studies reflected all, or even a majority, of the indicators proposed by Gersten et al. (2005) or Brantlinger et al. (2005) for quality special education research, all contributed to the knowledge base for ways that technology can be used to overcome the obstacles inherent in providing meaningful field-based learning experiences for pre-service teachers.
Implications for Teacher Educators
Virtual reality simulations are not yet readily available to many teacher education programs, limiting the usefulness of this emerging technology for teacher educators. Other virtual technologies, however, have demonstrated efficacy for improving teacher preparation. Based on the results of the current review, our recommendations for teacher educators are as follows:
Rely as much as possible on direct measurement of skill changes in pre-service teachers, such as self-monitoring data completed by the pre-service teachers.
Use validated instruments for indirect measures of knowledge, attitudes, or practices.
Use different forms of technology for specifically defined purposes. For example, multi-media case studies might be used to expose pre-service teachers to specific forms of challenging behavior, or specific types of interventions for those behaviors. Audio-cued coaching might be used to increase pre-service teachers; skills in specific instructional practices (e.g., cueing opportunities to respond) or behavior management practices (e.g., cueing behavior-specific praise or redirection).
Our review did not specifically address legal or ethical issues related to the use of virtual technologies. In the absence of technology-specific guidelines, however, our recommendations are that use of technologies would be subject to the same ethical and legal considerations and restraints as in-person and live experiences, including obtaining relevant student, teacher, and administrator permissions for the use of technology, protecting privacy of anyone affected by the use of the technology.
Limitations
This review of literature has obvious limitations. First, only 14 studies were found to conform to all of the parameters of this article. Although five major databases were searched, it is likely that important studies were missed. Selection and coding of articles to be included were completed solely by one author. Fidelity of findings could have been established had interrater reliability procedures been established. In addition, several of the studies that were included relied on qualitative, reflective data from which to draw conclusions. Although it is important for teacher educators to collect such data, the results are less generalizable. More studies with similar participants, as well as with similar methodologies, would have made comparisons of studies more reliable.
Implications for Future Research
It would appear that these more abstract, alternative reality experiences (e.g., virtual reality and cyber simulation) have the most to offer the pre-service special education teacher. Using these, teacher educators can create limitless situations where students can interactively experience the many dimensions of special education processes, classroom management, and interventions in student behavior. Only three studies, however, actually utilized these types of technologies. Furthermore, only two included studies specifically evaluated the efficacy of using such technologies with pre-service teachers of students with challenging behavior. Thus, there is much room for additional creation of virtual learning environments and research to be conducted in this area.
The challenges of adequately preparing teacher candidates and locating quality field experiences are not likely to subside soon. Technology exists, or can be created, that will ameliorate the situation. Furthermore, not only must teacher educators search for which technologies should be incorporated to produce solutions, but also, the best ways to implement such tools to maximize learning outcomes for pre-service special education teachers must be determined. Thus, guiding research in this area must be of the highest caliber, as judged by quality indicators of special education research. In this way, teacher educators can absolutely know which proposed technological interventions qualify as a best practice for preparing future special educators.
Footnotes
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.