The effects of mixed-reality teaching experiences on participants’ perceptions of their classroom management ability are evaluated using a mixed-methods design. Mursion, a technology that enables virtual simulations, is used. Participants include 29 undergraduates pursuing a degree in special education for learners with mild or moderate/severe disabilities enrolled in a university-level course focused on developing skills in managing the learning environment. Participants teach three different scenarios in the Mursion lab over the semester and complete a 21-statement survey using a 5-point Likert-type scale (i.e., strongly agree–strongly disagree) and reflect about their experience into a video camera. Results indicate that some participant perceptions changed over time because of the Mursion experiences and that the academic program being pursued made no difference in the participants’ Mursion experience. Implications for practice with a focus on rural education and limitations of the study are also discussed.
AlvarezP. (2008). Students play the notables: Testing a simulation exercise. History Teacher, 41, 179–197.
2.
AndersonP. (2017). Group alerting scenario. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University.
3.
BautistaN. U.BooneW. 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. doi:10.1007/s10972-014-9418-8
4.
BerryA. B.PetrinR. A.GravelleM. L.FarmerT. W. (2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30, 3–11.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
DawsonM. R.Lignugaris/KraftB. (2017). Meaningful practice: Generalizing foundation teaching skills from TLE TeachLivE to the classroom. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 26–50.
7.
DiCamilloL.GradwellJ. M. (2012). Using simulations to teach middle grades U.S. History in an age of accountability. Research in Middle Level Education, 35, 1–16. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ974946.pdf
8.
DiekerL. A. (2016). TeachLiveE(TM) Session 5 Perceptions Questionnaire. Orlando: University of Central Florida.
9.
DiekerL. A.HynesM.HughesC.SmithE. (2008). Implications of mixed reality and simulation technologies on special education and teacher preparation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40, 1–20.
10.
DiekerL. A.HynesM. C.HughesC. E.HardinS.BechtK. (2015). TLE TeachLivETM: Using technology to provide quality professional development in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34, 11–16.
11.
GarlandK. M.HoldenK.GarlandD. 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
12.
GrossmanP.McDonaldM. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184–205. doi:10.3102/0002831207312906
13.
HudsonM. E.VoyteckiK. S.ZhangG. (2018). Mixed-reality teaching experiences improve preservice special education students’ perceptions of their ability to manage a classroom. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 11(2), 1–17.
14.
IngersollR. M.SmithT. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60, 30–33.
15.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
16.
JonesH. A.Chronis-TuscanoA. (2008). Efficacy of teacher in-service training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 918–929. doi:10.1002/pits.20342
17.
JudgeS.BobzienJ.MaydoszA.GearS.KatsioloudisP. (2013). The use of visual-based simulated environments in teacher preparation. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1, 88–97. doi:10.11114/jets.v1i1.41
LekoM. M.BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25–43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782
20.
LekoM. M.BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.MurphyK. (2012). Promoting special education preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44, 1–16.
21.
MenloveR.Lignugaris/KraftB. (2014). Preparing rural distance education preservice special educators to succeed. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 18–26.
22.
MyersD.SugaiG.SimonsenB.FreemanJ. (2017). Assessing teachers’ behavior support skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 128–139. doi:10.1177/0888406417700964
23.
RupparA.RobertsC.OlsonA. J. (2015). Faculty perceptions of expertise among teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 240–253. doi:10.1177/0888406414552331
24.
ScottT. M. (2017). Training classroom management with preservice special education teachers: Special education challenges in a general education world. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 97–101. doi:10.1177/0888406417699051
25.
SimonsenB.BrittonL.YoungD. (2010). School-wide positive behavior support in an alternative school setting. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 180–191. doi:10.1177/1098300708330495
26.
VoyteckiK. S. (2017). Introducing a new unit. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University. (Adapted from H. J. Rader’s TeachLive scenario at Asbury University)
27.
WestlingD. (2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 48–63. doi:10.1177/0741932508327466
28.
WilsonC. M.FalesH.FloresA. A.NicholsM. (2017). New student. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University.
29.
WolffC. E.van den BogertN.JarodzkaH.BoshuizenH. P. A. (2015). Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 68–85. doi:10.1177/0022487114549810
