Do Simulated Teaching Experiences Impact Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Facilitate Argumentation-Focused Discussions in Mathematics and Science?

Abstract

Recently scholars have advocated for using teachers’ practice as a site for teacher learning. The recent proliferation of online, digital spaces, including simulated classrooms, has paved the way for novel approaches within practice-based teacher education. Yet, limited research has investigated the extent to which and how the use of online, simulated teaching experiences promote teacher learning of core teaching practices. The purpose of this study was to examine whether and how integrating simulated teaching experiences into teacher education coursework impacts preservice teacher (PST) learning. Findings showed that the use of simulated teaching experiences within elementary teacher education methods courses resulted in evidence of statistically significant growth in PSTs’ ability to engage in one core teaching practice: facilitating argumentation-focused discussions.

Keywords

simulations approximations of practice practice-based teacher education mathematics science discussions argumentation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2020). Teaching in the time of COVID-19: State recommendations for educator preparation programs and new teachers. https://higherlogicdownload.s3-external-1.amazonaws.com/AACTE/3c00f6f6-80c9-4464-9acf-a10efffd93ae_file.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVRDO7IEREB57R7MT&Expires=1670340313&Signature=r8WYzNQz%2FJtSXXqdbRzzGblgldc%3D

Applebee

A. N.

Langer

J. A.

Nystrand

Gamoran

(2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.

Ball

D. L.

Forzani

F. M.

(2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.

Banilower

E. R.

Smith

P. S.

Malzahn

K. A.

Plumley

C. L.

Gordon

E. M.

Hayes

M. L.

(2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc.

Beck

J. S.

Lunsmann

Garza

(2020). “We need to be in the classroom more”: Veteran teachers’ views on teacher preparation and retention. Professional Educator, 43(1), 91–99.

Benedict

Holdheide

Brownell

Marshall Foley

(2016). Learning to teach: Practice-based preparation in teacher education. American Institutes for Research; University of Florida.

Benedict-Chambers

Fick

S. J.

Arias

A. M.

(2020). Preservice teachers’ noticing of instances for revision during rehearsals: A comparison across three university contexts. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(4), 435–459.

Berland

L. K.

McNeill

K. L.

(2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

Boyd

Grossman

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

Urban

(2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

10.

Bray

W. S.

(2011). A collective case study of the influence of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge on error-handling practices during class discussion of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(1), 2–38.

11.

Brown

Pressley

Van Meter

Schuder

(1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18–37.

12.

Brownell

M. T.

Benedict

A. E.

Leko

M. M.

Peyton

Pua

Richards-Tutor

(2019). A continuum of pedagogies for preparing teachers to use high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 338–355.

13.

Calabrese Barton

Tan

Birmingham

D. J

. (2020). Rethinking high-leverage practices in justice-oriented ways. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 477–494.

14.

Campbell

M. P.

Elliott

(2015). Designing approximations of practice and conceptualising responsive and practice-focused secondary mathematics teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17(2), 146–164.

15.

Cartier

J. L.

Smith

M. S.

Stein

M. K.

Ross

(2013). Five practices for orchestrating productive task-based discussion in science. Corwin Press.

16.

Cazden

C. B.

(1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann.

17.

Cazden

C. B.

Beck

S. W.

(2003). Classroom discourse. In Graesser

A. C.

Gernsbacher

M. A.

Goldman

S. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–197). Routledge.

18.

Cengiz

Kline

Grant

T. J.

(2011). Extending students’ mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 355–374.

19.

Chapin

S. H.

O’Connor

(2007). Academically productive talk: Supporting students’ learning in mathematics. The Learning of Mathematics, 69, 113–128.

20.

Chapin

S. H.

O’Connor

Anderson

N. C.

(2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades 1-6. Math Solutions.

21.

Chetty

Friedman

J. N.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679.

22.

Chinn

(2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.

23.

Christensen

Knezek

Tyler-Wood

Gibson

(2011). SimSchool: An online dynamic simulator for enhancing teacher preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 201–220.

24.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. Auflage). Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Cohen

Wong

Krishnamachari

Berlin

(2020). Teacher coaching in a simulated environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 208–231.

26.

Dalinger

Thomas

K. B.

Stansberry

Xiu

(2020). A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 144, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103696

27.

Darling-Hammond

Chung

Frelow

(2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.

28.

Davis

E. A.

Boerst

(2014). Designing elementary teacher education to prepare well-started beginners. TeachingWorks, University of Michigan School of Education.

29.

Davis

E. A.

Kloser

Wells

Windschitl

Carlson

Marino

J.-C.

(2017). Teaching the practice of leading sense-making discussions in science: Science teacher educators using rehearsals. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 275–293.

30.

Davis

E. A.

Petish

Smithey

(2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.

31.

Deale

Pastore

(2014). Evaluation of simSchool: An instructional simulation for pre- service teachers. Computers in the Schools, 31(3), 197–219.

32.

Dieker

L. A.

Hughes

C. E.

Hynes

M. C.

Straub

(2017). Using simulated virtual environments to improve teacher performance. School-university Partnerships, 10(3), 62–81.

33.

Dotger

Masingila

Bearkland

Dotger

(2015). Exploring iconic interpretation and mathematics teacher development through clinical simulations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 577–601.

34.

Driver

Newton

Osborne

(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

35.

Duschl

Osborne

(2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

36.

Forman

E. A.

Larreamendy-Joerns

Stein

M. K.

Brown

C. A.

(1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.

37.

Forzani

F. M.

(2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800

38.

Garet

M. S.

Heppen

J. B.

Walters

Smith

T. M.

Yang

(2016). Does content-focused teacher professional development work? Findings from three institute of education sciences studies. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

39.

Ghousseini

(2015). Core practices and problems of practice in learning to lead classroom discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 115(3), 334–357.

40.

Ghousseini

(2017). Rehearsals of teaching and opportunities to learn mathematical knowledge for teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 35(3), 188–211.

41.

Grossman

Compton

Igra

Ronfeldt

Shahan

Williamson

P. W.

(2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.

42.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

(2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.

43.

Hadjioannou

(2007). Bringing the background to the foreground: What do classroom environments that support authentic discussions look like? American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 370–399.

44.

Harris

D. E.

(2002). Classroom assessment of civic discourse. In Parker

W. C.

(Ed.), Education for democracy: Contexts, curricula, assessments (pp. 211–233). Information Age Publishing.

45.

Howell

Mikeska

J. N.

(2021a). Approximations of practice as a framework for understanding the role of authenticity in simulations of teaching. The Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1809033

46.

Howell

Mikeska

J. N.

(2021b). Developing preservice teachers’ ability to facilitate goal-oriented discussions in science and mathematics via the use of simulated classroom interactions [Poster presentation]. DRK-12 PI Meeting, Online.

47.

Howell

Mikeska

J. N.

(2021c). Unnatural teaching: Simulated teaching in teacher education [Poster presentation]. International Congress on Mathematics Education Annual Meeting, Shanghai, China.

48.

Jansen

(2006). Seventh graders’ motivations for participating in two discussion-oriented mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 409–428.

49.

Jacob

McGovern

(2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. TNTP. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558206

50.

Kademian

S. M.

Davis

E. A.

(2018). Supporting beginning teacher planning of investigation-based science discussions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(8), 712–740.

51.

Kavanagh

S. S.

Metz

Hauser

Fogo

Taylor

M. W.

Carlson

(2020). Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers’ responsiveness to students’ ideas. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 94–107.

52.

Kazemi

Ghousseini

Cunard

Turrou

A. C.

(2016). Getting inside rehearsals: Insights from teacher educators to support work on complex practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 18–31.

53.

Keese

Waxman

Asadi

Graham

(2022). Retention intention: Modeling the relationships between structures of preparation and support and novice teacher decisions to stay. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103594.

54.

Kloser

(2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1185–1217.

55.

Kosko

K. W.

Rougee

Herbst

(2014). What actions do teachers envision when asked to facilitate mathematical argumentation in the classroom? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 459–476.

56.

Lampert

(2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34.

57.

Lampert

Franke

Kazemi

Ghousseini

Turrou

A. C.

Beasley

Cunard

Crowe

(2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243.

58.

Lee

Quinn

Valdes

(2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 20(10), 1–11.

59.

Leinhardt

Steele

(2005). Seeing the complexity in standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87–163.

60.

Lemke

J. L.

(1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing.

61.

Martel

(2021). Implementing “enhanced rehearsals” in a practice-based TESOL methods course. TESOL Journal, 12(2), Article e540.

62.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.

63.

McDonald

Kazemi

Kavanagh

S. S.

(2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386.

64.

McDonald

Kazemi

Kelley-Petersen

Mikolasy

Thompson

Valencia

S. W.

Windschitl

(2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 500–515.

65.

McLeskey

, Council for Exceptional Children, & Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children.

66.

Michaels

O’Connor

(2012). Talk science primer. TERC.

67.

Michaels

O’Connor

Resnick

L. B.

(2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.

68.

Mikeska

J. N.

Anderson

C. W.

Schwarz

C. V.

(2009). Principled reasoning about problems of practice. Science Education, 93(4), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20312

69.

Mikeska

J. N.

Howell

(2020). Simulations as practice-based spaces to support elementary science teachers in learning how to facilitate argumentation-focused science discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1356–1399. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21659

70.

Mikeska

J. N.

Howell

(2021a). Authenticity perceptions in virtual environments. Information and Learning Sciences, 122(7/8), 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-10-2020-0234

71.

Mikeska

J. N.

Howell

(2021b). Pushing the boundaries of practice-based teacher education: How can online simulated classrooms be used productively to support STEM teacher learning? Advancing Research & Innovation in the STEM Education of Preservice Teachers in High-need School Districts. https://aaas-arise.org/2021/03/30/pushing-the-boundaries-of-practice-based-teacher-education-how-can-online-simulated-classrooms-be-used-productively-to-support-stem-teacher-learning/

72.

Mikeska

J. N.

Howell

Dieker

Hynes

(2021). Understanding the role of simulations in K-12 mathematics and science teacher education: Outcomes from a teacher education simulation conference. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3). https://citejournal.org/volume-21/issue-3-21/general/understanding-the-role-of-simulations-in-k-12-mathematics-and-science-teacher-education-outcomes-from-a-teacher-education-simulation-conference/

73.

Mikeska

J. N.

Howell

Kinsey

(2022). Examining the usability and viability of using a simulated classroom environment to prepare preservice science teachers during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-022-00054-1

74.

Mikeska

J. N.

Howell

Straub

(2019). Using performance tasks within simulated environments to assess teachers’ ability to engage in coordinated, accumulated, and dynamic (CAD) competencies. International Journal of Testing, 19(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1551223

75.

Mikeska

J. N.

Webb

Bondurant

Kwon

Imasiku

Domjan

Howell

(2021). Using and adapting simulated teaching experiences to support preservice teacher learning. In Bull

P. H.

Patterson

G. C.

(Eds.), Redefining teacher education and teacher preparation programs in the post-COVID-19 era (pp. 46–78). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8298-5

76.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.

77.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards (mathematics).

78.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

79.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

80.

Nystrand

(2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392–412.

81.

Nystrand

Gamoran

Zeiser

Long

(2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–196.

82.

O’Flaherty

Beal

E. M.

(2018). Core competencies and high leverage practices of the beginning teacher: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(4), 461–478.

83.

Osborne

(2010). Arguing to learning in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.

84.

Philip

T. M.

Souto-Manning

Anderson

Horn

I. J.

Carter Andrews

Stillman

Varghese

(2019). Making justice peripheral by constructing practice as “core”: How the increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 251–264.

85.

Resnick

L. B.

Michaels

O’Connor

(2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In Preiss

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). Springer.

86.

Rivkin

S. G.

Hanushek

E. A.

Kain

J. F.

(2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.

87.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94, 247–252.

88.

Ronfeldt

Brockman

S. L.

Campbell

S. L.

(2018). Does cooperating teachers’ instructional effectiveness improve preservice teachers’ future performance? Educational Researcher, 47(7), 405–418.

89.

Saldaña

Omasta

(2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. SAGE.

90.

Shaughnessy

Boerst

T. A.

(2018). Uncovering the skills that preservice teachers bring to teacher education: The practice of eliciting a student’s thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 40–55.

91.

Simon

Erduran

Osborne

(2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

92.

Stein

M. K.

Engle

Smith

Hughes

(2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.

93.

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. In 2014 TeachLive National Research Project: Year 1 findings [Conference session]. University of Central Florida, TeachLivE.

94.

Straub

Dieker

Hynes

Hughes

(2015). Using virtual rehearsal in TLE TeachLivE™ mixed reality classroom simulator to determine the effects on the performance of science teachers: A follow-up study (Year 2). In Proceedings of 3rd National TLE TeachLivE™ Conference [Conference session]. University of Central Florida, TeachLivE.

95.

Thompson

Owho-Ovuakporie

Robinson

Kim

Y. J.

Slama

Reich

(2019). Teacher moments: A digital simulation for preservice teachers to approximate parent–teacher conversations. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(3), 144–164.

96.

Walshaw

Anthony

(2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.

97.

Wang

Thompson

Yang

Roy

Koedinger

K. R.

Rose

C. P.

Reich

(2021). Practice-based teacher questioning strategy training with ELK: A role-playing simulation for eliciting learner knowledge. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 1–27.

98.

Webb

N. M.

Franke

M. L.

Ing

Wong

Fernandez

C. H.

Shin

Turrou

A. C.

(2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.

99.

Windschitl

Thompson

Braaten

Stroupe

(2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.

100.

Yackel

Cobb

Wood

(1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 390–408.

101.

Zeichner

(2012). The turn once-again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376–382.