Abstract
Background:
Mixed reality simulations (MRSs) offer a platform for novice teachers to practice teaching in the absence of real children. Though prior research suggests simulated practice can be beneficial for novice teachers, these studies describe widely varying designs and implementations across teacher education programs (TEPs). As such, we lack clarity about the relative benefits of different approaches to simulated practice for novices who are entering teaching via a growing array of pathways.
Purpose:
To better understand the influence of context on novice teachers’ experiences in simulations, we conducted a study of three teacher education programs that used simulations as a component of their teacher education curriculum. Specifically, we asked the following research questions: How do novices in three differently structured TEPs experience a series of parallel practice opportunities in MRSs? What contextual features into, through, and beyond the approximation contribute to variation, if any, in novices’ experiences of practice in MRSs?
Research Design:
This mixed methods study leverages postsimulation survey data from novices (n = 160) in three TEPs to understand how they experienced a parallel series of simulation tasks paired with support in the form of coaching or self-reflection. We elaborate on survey findings with qualitative analysis of each teacher education program and interviews with a purposive sample of participants from each program (n = 15).
Conclusions:
Findings highlight the influence of context and supports on novices’ simulation experiences. In particular, the sequencing of practice with other preparatory opportunities into and beyond the approximation, as well as the provision of feedback and level of challenge through the practice can promote more useful practice opportunities in teacher education.
Keywords
In Search of Deliberate Practice: Simulating Teaching in Three Teacher Education Programs
Opportunities for novice teachers to practice teaching before working with real students can improve their preparedness to support students as soon as they begin their careers (Grossman et al., 2009). Such opportunities, termed “approximations of practice,” are liminal spaces between coursework and real classrooms where novices can practice components of teaching in low-stakes, supportive environments. Novice teachers can especially benefit from practice opportunities, including simulations, rehearsals, or role plays, to refine their ideas about good teaching without incurring risks to students and with more feedback than they might receive in a clinical environment (Matsko et al., 2020).
Nearly 100 teacher education programs (TEPs) employ mixed reality simulations (MRSs) as platforms for their novice teachers to approximate components of teaching (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2020). Extant research suggests that novice teachers appreciate simulated practice opportunities—and can learn from them (e.g., Aguilar & Flores, 2022; Cohen et al., 2020; Larson et al., 2020; Pankowski & Walker, 2016). Indeed, simulations facilitate the theoretical conditions of deliberate practice (Ericsson & Pool, 2016), in that they can be individualized, scaffolded, and integrated with other preparatory experiences to meet the needs of novice teachers at various stages of preparation.
Though practicing in simulations is intuitively and demonstrably beneficial for novice teachers, we lack clarity about when, for whom, in what teacher education contexts, and with what supports simulations are most productive. Studies of practice opportunities in MRSs describe widely varying designs and implementations across TEPs; they also rely on samples of mostly white women enrolled in a single, degree-granting TEP (Wilson et al., 2024). These varietal designs and sample limitations obscure our understanding of the relative benefits of different approaches to simulated practice for novices who are entering teaching via a growing array of programs (Yin & Partelow, 2020). Based on existing literature, it is difficult to say whether TEPs are using simulations in ways that best meet their novice teachers’ needs. TEPs have limited time to prepare teachers. We aim to improve the efficiency of this oft-used pedagogy by identifying features into, through, and beyond simulated practice that might improve their utility (Kelley-Petersen et al., 2018).
Given the variety of approaches to teacher preparation (Yin & Partelow, 2020), we use a cross-institutional sample to highlight how contextual features of TEPs influence novices’ experiences of simulated practice. The three TEPs in this study vary widely in their preparation requirements, duration, certification routes, populations of novice teachers, and geographic context. As part of this study, each TEP incorporated a parallel series of simulated practice opportunities into their curriculum. Because practice opportunities were standardized, we contend that differences in novices’ experiences, if any, may relate to how the opportunity was situated within novices’ other learning-to-teach experiences. During these practice opportunities, each novice also received two different supports—directive coaching and guided self-reflection—and we also explore the degree to which context influences novices’ responses to differing supports.
In particular, we are interested in how supports and contextual differences between TEPs might facilitate or detract from the deliberateness of simulated practice (Ericsson & Pool, 2016). Our focus on experiences, rather than outcomes, is appropriate given that practice achieves deliberateness when novices experience it as appropriately situated in their arc of development, or zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Theory suggests that simulations are unlikely to be beneficial as standalone opportunities (Ericsson & Pool, 2016; Grossman et al., 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). Rather, simulated practice will likely be most useful when novices are prepared into, supported and challenged through, and/or aided in extending their learning beyond the practice opportunity. As such, we use an into, through, and beyond framework (Kelley-Petersen et al., 2018) to analyze quantitative and qualitative data from each TEP, exploring the degree to which and ways in which novices experience deliberate practice in simulations (Ericsson & Pool, 2016). We conclude with recommendations for how TEPs might integrate practice opportunities into their curricula in ways that promote the deliberateness of practice.
Background
Learning to Teach Through Practice
Over 100 years ago, Dewey (1904) argued for the synthesis of theory and practice in teacher preparation, asserting that experience alone does not guarantee novices’ expertise development. Rather, in a “laboratory” approach to preparation, novices might refine their learning in supervised, artificial environments before they enter real classrooms. Dewey presented this in opposition to an “apprenticeship” model of practice, where novices learn by simply doing the work of the profession (p. 9). Many TEPs are making practice a larger part of teacher education (Ball & Forzani, 2009). Practice-based approaches to teacher education often incorporate pedagogies of practice (Grossman et al., 2009): representations, which make aspects of practice visible; decompositions, which break teaching into components; and approximations, which are opportunities for novices to practice enacting these components. These overlapping pedagogies together support novices’ understanding and enactment of the specifics of quality teaching.
Although novice teachers’ opportunities for practice traditionally occur during K–12 clinical experiences, there is little consensus about how to support novice development in these complex environments (Anderson & Stillman, 2011; Grossman et al., 2012). In clinical environments, teachers’ focus is appropriately on their students rather than their novice mentees, so it can be difficult to ensure novices are adequately supported and challenged. Approximations, including rehearsals, role plays, and simulations of authentic teaching tasks, are promising complementary opportunities for learning to teach. These practice opportunities meet the conditions of Dewey’s (1904) “laboratory” for novice learning in that they occur in the absence of real children. Approximations complement, rather than replace, clinical experiences that expose novices to the rich complexity of real classrooms. In an approximation, novices can practice aspects of teaching with more support than they might receive in a clinical environment, allowing them to develop ideas and skills around equitable and deft instruction before they become independently responsible for working with students (Lampert et al., 2013). Ultimately, we hope novices will come to see approximated skills, dispositions, and knowledge cultivated during approximations as flexibly transferrable—capable of being modified to meet the needs and assets of their students.
However, practice opportunities in isolation are unlikely to support novice teachers’ development (Grossman et al., 2009). If approximations are to meet their potential as a pedagogy of teacher preparation, they must be implemented in ways that propel novices forward in their understanding and enactment of strong teaching. Theories of learning suggest practice likely does not make perfect; rather, growth depends on particular conditions, as described in the literature on expertise development (Ericsson & Pool, 2016) and sociocultural approaches to development (Vygotsky, 1978). According to these theories, progress is predicated on carefully designed practice opportunities that challenge and support novices in particular ways. The features of Ericsson and Pool’s deliberate practice can be mapped to Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of sociocultural development: (1) entering practice with existing mental representations, what Vygotsky refers to as “background knowledge”; (2) completing tasks just beyond one’s comfort zone, analogous to Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development”; (3) receiving feedback, or Vygotsky’s “scaffolding”; and (4) anticipating increasing autonomy in the future, or Vygotsky’s progress toward internalization. We use these intertwining frameworks as lenses for understanding simulation experiences, looking for evidence of these features in novices’ simulation experiences. No practice opportunity is innately deliberate. Rather, the deliberateness of practice depends on the degree to which it is appropriate for the needs and trajectory of a specific learner.
We apply these theories to build evidence about how and when practice-based opportunities fit into larger programs of teacher development. These theories have been successfully applied to professional learning in prior research, including novice teacher development (e.g., Bronkhorst et al., 2011). Although Vygotsky’s (1978) theories were originally conceived in the context of child development, psychology and education scholars have taken up his concepts to understand human learning in a variety of contexts, including adult and professional learning (e.g., DiPardo & Potter, 2003; Jones et al., 1998; Warford, 2011). In his primary analysis of Vygotsky’s writings, Chaiklin (2003) asserts that the zone of proximal development has been misinterpreted as being located within a school-age child and applying specifically to the development of academic content through interaction with adults. Chaiklin suggests the zone describes the broader relationship between a learner’s present developmental stage and the changes that will lead to the next stage. As such, this zone might be thought of as recurring and iterative across a variety of content and “age periods.” We might logically think of novice teachers as learners who must continually accommodate, reshape, and internalize new ideas about good teaching. These theories provide a frame for understanding and enhancing novices’ experiences in simulations.
Mixed Reality Simulations as Platforms for Approximating Teaching
We focus on MRSs because of their usefulness as platforms for novice teachers’ practice. Reality-based platforms such as MRSs are virtual spaces that synthesize simulated and “real” elements, yielding the descriptor “mixed reality” (Dieker et al., 2014). Mixed reality platforms such as Mursion, the platform used in this study, present a standardized, virtual interface and digital avatars controlled by live actors in real-time, allowing for stable, naturalistic, and/or adaptable interactions. (See Figure 1 for an image of the user interface.) The actors, termed “interactors,” may have backgrounds in theater or improvisation rather than educational theory or practice. As such, interactors are often extensively trained in simulation scenarios beforehand to respond to novices instructively and realistically. Many simulations in teacher education proceed according to an if-then logic that can help novices see the potential implications of their instructional approaches (Bondie & Dede, 2021; Wilson et al., 2024). For example, if a teacher ignores off-task behavior during a simulation, then the student avatar’s behavior will continue or escalate. Conversely, if the teacher redirects the avatar using a responsive strategy, then the student avatar will reengage with instruction (e.g., Bosch & Ellis, 2021; Cohen et al., 2020; for a more thorough explanation of the research on interactor training, see Bondie et al., 2021).
Mursion User Interface.
MRSs are particularly compatible with the features of deliberate practice. Simulations offer flexible, low-stakes settings in which novices can experiment with teaching tasks, receive feedback, and refine their approach during “re-dos.” For these reasons, simulations are widely used in professional preparation as spaces for novice development, including in fields such as medicine, aviation, and policing, where the costs of mistake-making are too high to practice in situ (Kaufman & Ireland, 2016). In these fields, simulated practice offers substantial benefits, supporting shifts to novices’ beliefs, skills, and knowledge (e.g., Andersen et al., 2016; McGaghie et al., 2014; Schreiber et al., 2011).
In teacher education, a growing body of research supports the utility of MRSs as spaces for preparing novice teachers for the classroom (Cohen et al., 2020; Driver et al., 2018; Grant & Ferguson, 2021; Gundel et al., 2019; Pankowski & Walker, 2016). Novices seem to prefer simulations to other practice formats, such as role plays with peers (Aguilar & Flores, 2022; Larson et al., 2020; Mikeska et al., 2023), perhaps because of their enhanced realism. Evidence suggests novice teachers can refine their approaches to a wide variety of tasks related to good teaching during simulated practice. For example, prior research leveraging MRSs suggests novices can enhance their behavioral redirection skills (Cohen et al., 2020, 2024), dispositions for equitable classroom management (Cohen et al., 2020; Pankowski & Walker, 2016), use of productive mathematical talk moves (Aguilar & Flores, 2022), communication skills and attitudes regarding collaboration in inclusive classroom settings (Driver et al., 2018), skills for leading student discussions after problem-solving (Grant & Ferguson, 2021), knowledge of a reading strategy (Ely et al., 2018), and perceived preparedness and skills for communicating with families (Henry et al., 2022; Sebastian et al., 2023).
Although many fields have coalesced around the benefits of simulated practice, researchers also acknowledge the time and resources required to integrate simulations in programs of preparation, as well as the importance of tailoring professional learning to particular contexts (Alston et al., 2018; McGaghie et al., 2014). As such, researchers recommend that programs closely evaluate and responsively adjust how simulations are implemented, while also calling for further research on features that enhance their utility and cost-effectiveness. In this study, we meet this need by exploring the experiences of novice teachers who completed MRSs in varying TEP contexts and with different supports.
Much existing simulation research relies on samples of “typical” novice teachers (i.e., undergraduates enrolled in traditional certification programs at institutions with high research activity; Wilson et al., 2024), but novices enter teaching via a growing array of preparatory pathways (Yin & Partelow, 2020). Our multisite approach allows us to identify useful implementations of this pedagogy across a range of contexts. We also highlight the utility of simulations as “laboratories” for building empirical evidence about novice teacher development that may extend beyond simulations to other practice opportunities. Simulations allow researchers and teacher educators to observe and explore novices’ practice-based learning in ways that would be difficult in less standardized contexts, such as role plays or clinical teaching opportunities. We hope findings from this study might be applied to practice opportunities beyond individual simulations. This might include role plays with peers or simulations in group formats—pedagogies of practice that are also common in teacher preparation (Wilson et al., 2024) and potentially more cost-effective than the approach used in this study.
We also explore how feedback might contribute to the novices’ positive and productive experiences in simulations. Although a major affordance of simulations is their customizability, the field may not currently be leveraging the potential of these platforms because many TEPs do not equip novices with specific supports during simulated practice (Ireland, 2021). Without supportive feedback, novices may simply be practicing for the sake of practice. The supports cited in studies of simulations range widely, from directive feedback from teacher educators (e.g., Bosch & Ellis, 2021) to more self-guided approaches (e.g., Driver et al., 2018). These approaches to feedback seem promising, because they are straightforward to implement in simulations and theoretically aligned with features of deliberate practice. However, Ericsson and Pool (2016) caution that novices at differing stages of development may require different forms of feedback to progress, and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development also highlights the importance of expert others in learning (1978). Whereas more advanced learners may be able to self-monitor and self-correct during practice, novices likely require feedback to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Few studies of novice teachers’ practice systematically parse the relative advantages of different types of feedback (for some exceptions, see Cohen et al., 2020, 2024; Ely et al., 2018) or consider how different supports might benefit novices at different stages of preparation (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Ippolito, 2010). Therefore, we know very little about how varying forms of feedback might facilitate or detract from novices’ simulation experiences. Using a multisite sample, we explore two types of feedback—coaching and self-reflection—to build evidence about the utility of different feedback types for novices at different stages of preparation.
Into, Through, and Beyond
The theory of deliberate practice (Ericsson & Pool, 2016) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) call as much attention to learners’ experiences before and after a practice opportunity as to the features of the opportunity itself. Looking at the context in which practice occurs can help us understand for whom, when, and at what stage of preparation simulations might be most useful in teacher education. By “context,” we mean when, with what preparation and support, and with what corresponding learning experiences our sample completed simulations. Simulations are one component of the myriad experiences TEPs offer to prepare novices for the classroom. As such, we aim to clarify how TEPs might best situate simulations within larger programs of preparation.
To this end, we draw on work by Kelley-Petersen and colleagues (2018) to analyze novices’ experiences into, through, and beyond simulations. This framework attends to the contextual features of practice opportunities, as well as learners’ experiences of those features (Ericsson & Pool, 2017; Vygotsky, 1978). We analyze if and how our sample was prepared into simulations, appropriately challenged and supported through simulations, and encouraged to extend their learning beyond simulations. Preparation into simulations refers to opportunities to build background knowledge, including via representations, decompositions, or other instruction that equips novices with approaches to practice (Grossman et al., 2009). We describe appropriate challenges through simulations as the complexity of the practice relative to novices’ zone of proximal development. Features of support through simulations include the availability, frequency, and constructs for feedback. Extension of learning beyond entails anticipating and experiencing connections between simulated practice and subsequent teaching opportunities down the road. Our analysis is situated within an experimental replication of the effects of coaching versus self-reflection on simulated practice. Therefore, novices’ experiences through simulations were standardized; their experiences into and beyond practice varied contextually. We hypothesized that the features of deliberate practice into, through, and beyond simulations might improve novices’ experiences. In other words, novices might experience simulated practice more positively when it sharpens their understanding of what good teaching looks like and how they might achieve it (Ericsson & Pool, 2016; Kelley-Petersen et al., 2018).
Relationship Between Context and Practice Opportunities
For practice to be deliberate, it must be differentiated to meet novices where they are and propel them toward expertise. No standardized practice opportunity is likely to meet the needs of all novice teachers or, more distally, their future students (Alston et al., 2018). Novice teachers are themselves diverse learners, preparing via TEP diverse approaches for careers in diverse settings. Considering context is, therefore, essential to designing the sorts of practice opportunities that prepare novices to honor the assets and needs of their future students. Rather than expecting the same experiences to work across contexts, practice-based opportunities should be implemented with attention to context, including coherence with novices’ prior learning experiences and in complement to their clinical experiences (Buchmann & Floden, 1992).
Unfortunately, few studies explore the use of approximations across multiple preparatory contexts, certification routes, or stages of teacher education, making it difficult to discern when, for whom, and in what contexts approximations of teaching are useful. In one of a few studies exploring these contextual questions, Alston and colleagues (2018) argue for the value of “alignment amid variation” in their analysis of a collaboratively designed practice opportunity implemented by three TEPs (p. 2). They find both grounding commonalities and local variations in how teacher educators across contexts implemented a practice opportunity, suggesting context does and should influence practice opportunities in teacher education. However, Alston and colleagues’ (2018) study is focused on the actions of teacher educators rather than the experiences of novice teachers. Additional research focused on novice teachers can support TEPs in implementing practice opportunities that are useful for their specific novices. Currently, the limited research that explores practice opportunities across multiple TEPs is inconclusive about the relationship between practice and novices’ preparation stage, certification route, or other concurrent preparatory experiences (Bosch & Ellis, 2021; Hudson et al., 2019; Pankowski & Walker, 2016). We aim to clarify the degree to which and ways in which novices’ other learning-to-teach opportunities may influence their experiences of simulated practice. We hope our analysis of teacher education students at different stages of preparation and in differently structured TEPs will contribute a nuanced theory of when, for whom, and in what contexts approximations are most helpful during teacher education.
Methods
To better understand the influence of context on novice teachers’ experiences in simulations, we conducted a mixed methods study of three teacher education programs (TEPs) that integrated simulations as a component of their teacher education curriculum (Clark & Creswell, 2008). Specifically, we ask the following research questions:
How do novices in three differently structured TEPs experience a series of parallel practice opportunities in MRSs?
What contextual features into, through, and beyond the approximation contribute to variation, if any, in novices’ experiences of practice in MRSs?
We began our analysis by examining quantitative postsimulation survey data to identify differences and/or similarities within and between TEPs in novices’ (n = 160) experiences of simulations. Based on these results, we conducted additional qualitative data collection at each site to better understand novices’ experiences and the context in which they practiced (Clark & Creswell, 2008). In particular, we identified a purposive sample of novices (n = 15) who reported either representative or outlying simulation experiences within their TEP for in-depth interviews. This approach added rich detail about sources of variation between sites that would not be accessible through survey research alone. A mixed methods approach is especially suitable for our sample, which contains greater diversity than “typical” samples of novice teachers (Suárez-Orozco, 2019). Relying on survey measures alone risks obscuring the experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse novice teachers who are often underrepresented in teacher education research (Levine, 2006).
Teacher Education Program Context
During the 2021–2022 school year, three TEPs (pseudonyms Lambeth, Thomson, and Wesley Universities) required their teacher education students to complete parallel practice opportunities in MRSs as part of their teacher education curriculum. These TEPs were purposively selected because they offer a range of approaches to teacher education, facilitating the generalizability of our findings. Lambeth University is a public research-intensive university in a town in the Southeast; Lambeth participants were enrolled in a 10-month master’s program in elementary education. Thomson University is a public minority-serving institution in a town near the United States–Mexico border; Thomson participants were in their third year of an undergraduate degree program with a focus on bilingual and second-language elementary teaching. Wesley University is a small, private university in a city in the South; Wesley participants were part of a one-year postbaccalaureate alternative licensure program for secondary and elementary teachers. As shown in Table 1, the program requirements of the TEPs varied greatly, as did each TEP’s sequencing of simulations with other preparatory experiences.
Description of Teacher Education Program and Integration of Simulations.
Simulation Procedures
This study is situated within a larger experimental replication of the effects of coaching versus self-reflection on novices’ skill development for three simulated teaching tasks. As such, participants completed standardized simulation procedures, though the TEPs ordered and sequenced the practice opportunities differently (see Table 2). All participants completed three tasks during two sessions in the simulator. After each session, they completed a self-analytic post-survey about their experience in the simulator. One session consisted of two iterations, or “rounds,” of a five-minute classroom management task and two rounds of a seven-minute family engagement task; the other session consisted of two rounds of a five-minute text-focused instruction task. During each session, an “interactor” (a professionally trained voice actor who controlled the digital avatars) used standardized protocols to interact with participants. Before beginning data collection, we pilot-tested all tasks and scripts with several practicing teachers to ensure realism. Interactors were intensively trained and monitored by a member of the research team for consistency and fidelity to the protocols throughout data collection. This ensured simulation sessions were “parallel”: although the particulars of avatar responses could differ between sessions, they remained consistent in terms of number, type, and intensity. To determine their specific responses to participants, interactors used if-then logic, facilitating the responsiveness and instructiveness of the simulations.
Description of Simulation Procedures.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two supports between rounds of each session: each novice received coaching during one session and completed a self-reflection survey during the other. During coached sessions, an experienced instructional coach observed the first round of practice before providing the participant with five minutes of feedback, which usually included a debrief, provision of directive coaching based on participants’ strengths or weaknesses, and a brief roleplay before participants completed their second round. Coaches were experienced teachers who had worked as instructional coaches prior to the study. They underwent intensive training with a member of the research team on task-specific coaching protocols before data collection. For each task, training involved completing a three- to five-hour asynchronous module that reviewed coaching processes and models; coaches also practiced and received feedback implementing the coaching protocols using sample simulation videos. During data collection, coaches were monitored for fidelity on a semiweekly basis by a member of the research team, who provided feedback on implementation. Because data collection took place over many months, coaches also completed periodic “refreshers” to ensure they provided coaching in similar ways; refreshers involved reviewing the coaching protocol and completing role plays with a member of the research team. During self-reflection sessions, participants spent five minutes completing a guided self-reflection survey before completing the second round of the session.
In addition to the sessions described above, Lambeth participants completed additional baseline and exit simulation sessions. These sessions consisted of one round of each task without coaching or self-reflection. This procedural difference arose because Lambeth’s TEP used simulation outcomes as a measure of novice growth during the program. We do not include data from these baseline or exit sessions in our analyses.
Participants
Two-hundred forty-three novice teachers from Lambeth (n = 81), Thomson (n = 73), and Wesley (n = 89) universities consented to participate in this study and completed at least one simulation session and corresponding post-survey. Given our interest in participants’ holistic experiences across both simulation sessions, we narrowed our analysis to those participants who completed both of their assigned simulation sessions and surveys. This resulted in an analytic sample of 160 novices, including 62 participants from Lambeth, 48 participants from Thomson, and 50 participants from Wesley.
We used the survey results for this analytic sample to identify our purposive sample of interview participants. First, we averaged each participant’s survey responses across both sessions and then averaged all items together to create a composite measure of each participant’s cross-session simulation experience. This approach is supported by the moderate-to-high correlation of participants’ responses to items in the two surveys (r > 0.33) and our research questions, which ask about novices’ experiences across a series of simulations. We then calculated a site-based mean. Using these cross-session measures, we identified each participant’s quintile-based ranking in relation to their TEP’s mean. Based on these rankings, we recruited five participants from each TEP for follow-up analysis (n = 15; see Table 3). For each site, this included three novices who reported a simulation experience representative of their site’s average (randomly selected from the third quintile), one high outlier (randomly selected from the fifth quintile), and one low outlier (randomly selected from the first quintile). If a randomly identified participant did not initially agree to be interviewed, we randomly selected another participant from the same quintile. Using this process, we were able to assemble the desired sample at each site. The sampling procedure is represented visually in Figure 2, where we use Thomson as an example, though the process was repeated for each TEP site. As shown in Table 3, the distribution of age, gender, and ethnicity for each group of five is relatively consistent with the larger population of each TEP.
Participant and Teacher Education Program Demographic Characteristics.
Purposive Procedure for Selecting Interview Participants, Repeated at Each Site.
Our purposive sampling method allows us to analyze and compare “average” reported simulation experiences at each TEP while also seeking possible disconfirming evidence as reported by outlying participants. Exploring the experiences of outliers—those participants who reported either a highly positive or highly negative simulation experience—can also build our understanding of the conditions that may facilitate or inhibit the usefulness of simulations. Much research on practice opportunities in teacher education reflects the experiences of novices who are learning to teach in programs like Lambeth’s: traditional programs at institutions with high research activity (Levine, 2006; Wilson et al., 2024). We expand the empirical research base with a sample of novices who are learning to teach at three TEPs that vary tremendously, including a program at a minority-serving institution and an alternative licensure program.
Data Sources
We used multiple quantitative and qualitative data sources to understand participants’ experiences in MRSs, as well as their TEP context. Participants completed a standardized survey about their overall simulation experience after each simulation session. The survey consisted of six Likert-style questions that asked them to share their perceptions of the simulation’s usefulness, relevance, and enjoyability on a scale of one (low) to five (high) (see Tables 4 and 5). A similar survey has been used in past research to evaluate novice teachers’ experiences of simulated practice (Larson et al., 2020; McKown et al., 2022; Sebastian & Krishnamachari, 2023; Walters et al., 2021).
Overall Simulation Experience (Composite) Post-Survey Results.
Simulation Experience Post-Survey Results by Session.
We add nuance to the experiences reported in post-survey responses with several qualitative data sources. To better understand variation in novices’ contextual experiences, we gathered information about each TEP. We began by interviewing TEP coordinators using a semistructured protocol with questions about their TEP’s curriculum and context (see Appendix A). We corroborated and complemented these interviews with official program documents, including degree roadmaps, mission statements, course descriptions, and course syllabi. These documents indicate how MRSs were sequenced with other preparatory experiences at each site. We used insights from these data to create a participant interview protocol that asked participants about their specific preparatory experiences outside of simulations.
We then conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with our purposive sample of novice teachers from each TEP (see Appendix B). These interviews occurred shortly after participants’ final session in MRSs. Interviews lasted about 60 minutes and consisted of questions about their experiences with each task and support, their other preparatory experiences, and the presence of connections between simulated practice and other elements of their TEP curriculum. Interviewers wrote reflective memos after each interview, capturing interviewers’ thoughts, key ideas, and insights (Miles et al., 2014).
Analytic Plan
The post-survey responses from simulation sessions one and two were cleaned and organized in STATA. Though versions of this post-survey have been used in past research, we conducted item analyses to support the validity of using this survey to measure overall simulation experience with our sample (Bandalos, 2018). For these participants, the post-survey Cronbach’s alpha values for both sessions were above 0.8, which suggests very good internal consistency for measuring overall simulation experience. Average interitem correlations for both sessions were around 0.6, also in the acceptable range for establishing internal consistency. Analysis of the frequency distribution for each item suggests that respondents used the full scale of responses. Most items, except the question about repeating simulation practice, skew positive for both sessions.
For participants who completed both of their assigned simulation sessions (n = 160), we analyzed their post-survey responses after each simulation session, as well as their composite experience across both sessions. We conducted descriptive analyses of each item by site to begin to identify participants’ simulation experiences. Because participants completed the survey at two time points, we used paired sample t-tests to determine if and how their experiences differed between sessions at each TEP. To understand participants’ average experiences across sessions, we created a session score for each participant by averaging their response for each item. We then created a composite measure of overall simulation experience for each participant by averaging the two session scores.
To answer the second research question, we used multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether there were differences by site in participants’ post-survey responses. In the MANOVA, we included responses to all items after both sessions. Additional ANOVAs evaluated the presence of such differences at the session level within and between sites. Bonferroni adjustments corrected for the use of multiple comparisons; post-hoc tests clarified the source and nature of any statistically significant differences.
Using the results of the survey analysis, we purposively selected five students at each TEP for follow-up interviews. (See Figure 2 for sampling approach.) We also interviewed each TEP’s program coordinator. This approach allows us to add nuance to our second research question about the ways contextual features into, through, and beyond simulations may influence novices’ experiences. Interviewers recorded and transcribed each interview. Using reflective memos recorded after each interview, we developed our current framework and coding scheme, which categorizes participants’ experiences into, through, and beyond practice. Because survey responses indicated that participants within sites may have experienced the two simulation sessions differently, we piloted a coding scheme that identified participants’ experience with each task (e.g., into text-focused instruction; into classroom management and family engagement). However, during pilot coding, we found participants’ experiences varied more according to the sequencing of sessions with other learning experiences than by task. Therefore, we analyze participants’ holistic experience in MRSs rather than disaggregating the data by task.
We adjusted our codebook accordingly, independently double-coded three interview transcripts, and met to resolve discrepancies (Miles et al., 2014). We subsequently coded the remainder of the dataset, including double-coding an additional interview from each site; ultimately, we double-coded 40% of interview transcripts. We met twice during coding to peer debrief, review discrepancies, and arrive at consensus regarding final codes. We triangulated our participants’ recollections of their TEP experiences using program documents, including degree roadmaps, mission statements, course descriptions, and syllabi. This triangulation confirmed and elaborated participants’ descriptions of their experiences into, through, and beyond simulated practice. Double-coding and triangulation of findings across data sources support the credibility of our findings.
Limitations
We acknowledge some limitations to our work. First, we include only novices who completed both simulation sessions in our analysis, a decision justified by our research questions. Novices who had negative simulation experiences or negative impressions of simulated practice may have been more likely to miss one or both sessions, in which case our findings may underreport novices’ negative experiences. Thus, we do not suggest causality, and the degree to which our findings might hold for other novices’ experiences of simulated practice is not clear. However, our maximum variation approach to selecting TEP sites and participants improves the chances that our findings might generalize to other novices.
Second, we focus on the teacher education contexts in which novices completed simulations rather than the identities of those practicing or the tasks that were simulated. Though our full sample (n = 160) is racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse (see Table 3), we focus instead on the distinct approaches of the TEP programs (see Table 1). These programs vary in program requirements, duration, certification route, populations of novice teachers, and geographic context. There are important questions to be asked about the role of identity in learning to teach, and hypotheses around identity should be included in future research on approaches to approximations of practice. Nonetheless, the empirical research base about novice teacher learning should reflect the rich diversity of entering teachers and array of TEPs in which they are being prepared. We hope this work contributes to such a research base.
Our focus on institutional context justifies our choice to evaluate novices’ holistic experience across sessions and tasks, though differences between tasks and the varying order in which sites implemented tasks may influence novices’ experiences (see Table 2). We acknowledge this limitation; future research should more deeply explore the teaching tasks that are most useful to approximate.
Results
Overall Simulation Experience
Across sites, participants reported a range of experiences in simulations, as measured by their average response across sessions to questions about the simulation’s enjoyability, usefulness, and relevance (see Table 4). On average, participants ranked practice sessions as quite relevant to their program and professional future and at least somewhat useful; they tended to be more ambivalent or negative about their willingness to repeat the practice or recommend it to a friend.
Despite some similarities, deeper analysis of our quantitative and qualitative data reveals statistically significant differences in the novices’ simulation experiences within and between TEPs. Quantitatively, we find statistically significant differences in participants’ average overall simulation experience by TEP, as measured by a MANOVA examining all Likert-scale items from the post-surveys completed after each session. Results indicated an overall statistically significant multivariate influence of site on cross-session simulation experience (FPillai (4, 314) = 24.1, p < 0.001). Follow-up univariate analyses indicated participants also reported statistically different average experiences by session within sites (Fsession1 (2, 157) = 13.7, p < 0.001 and Fsession2 (2, 157) = 34.6, p < 0.001). In the first session, Thomson reported a significantly better experience, while Lambeth reported a significantly worse experience than other sites (p < 0.02). In the second session, Thomson again reported a significantly better experience than both other sites (p < 0.001). There were no group differences between Lambeth and Wesley’s experience in the second session: with an average item score of about 3.5, both sites reported declining experiences in their second session (see Table 5).
What can explain these differences in how participants experienced practice in parallel simulations? Because this study was part of a larger experimental replication, novices completed standardized simulation sessions. Therefore, novices across TEPs had similar experiences through simulations, including chances to receive support in the form of both coaching and self-reflection. However, qualitative analyses illuminate differences between TEPs that clarify novices’ varying experiences. Namely, each TEP’s sequencing of simulations with other learning experiences—especially novices’ opportunities to teach independently—seemed to influence simulation experiences.
In the following sections we share detailed qualitative and quantitative evidence of participants’ (n = 15) experiences into, through, and beyond simulations at each TEP. Included quotations are illustrative of larger patterns of sentiment for each site, except when noted. (See Table 3 for participant information.) In our analysis, we share aspects of similarity and difference in novices’ experiences of simulations by site. These TEPs offer varied approaches to teacher education (see Table 1), so their comparison is instructive in understanding when, why, and for whom simulated practice may be useful as a pedagogy of teacher eduation.
Into: The Role of Background Knowledge
Novices seemed to enjoy simulations and find them most meaningful when they entered into practice after gaining some background knowledge but before extensive chances to deliver instruction in classrooms. Participants’ different prior and concurrent experiences into simulations add some clarity to their shifting and statistically different experiences in simulations (see Table 5). Thomson novices entered the simulations with some background knowledge and enthusiasm to try their hands at “teaching.” This combination may have contributed to their highly positive experiences in the first session (Msesssion1 = 4.61). Wesley participants found the first practice session incredibly meaningful given their lack of other preparatory opportunities, but the experience seems to have been diminished by their feelings of extreme unpreparedness (Msession1 = 4.21). Lambeth novices reported similar background coursework as Thomson participants, but Lambeth novices were also concurrently gaining instructional experience in their part-time clinical placement. Their extra instructional experience into simulations may help explain Lambeth’s significantly more negative reported experience (Msession1 = 3.83). Lambeth novices had extra opportunities to practice teaching in clinical experiences, which seems to have made their first simulation session feel less useful.
Lambeth and Thomson: Some Background Knowledge and Enthusiasm
Novices at Thompson and Lambeth seemed to—at least initially—look forward to simulations as an opportunity that would be distinct from their conceptual coursework and highly structured early clinical experiences. As part of their traditional, degree-granting TEPs, these novices began supervised clinical experiences in elementary classrooms before completing simulations. Both groups’ clinical experiences began about two months before their first simulation session. Lambeth participants attended their assigned classrooms two-and-a-half days per week. They reported varying degrees of independence in these classrooms, with some working with individual students, small groups, or supporting instruction. Lambeth participants said they had observed scenarios that were similar to the simulations, implying some exposure to representations of the tasks. Thomson participants attended classrooms for one half-day per week. They said they mostly observed during these clinical experiences. These clinical experiences likely equipped Lambeth and Thomson novices with at least some background knowledge for how to approach the simulations.
Lambeth and Thomson novices also completed several foundational and methods courses before practicing in simulations. Participants at both sites said their courses conveyed concepts about teaching but few practical approaches. At Lambeth in particular, novices negatively compared their coursework to what they were learning in their clinical experiences. Bridget said her courses covered ideas related to teaching and how they matter “on a school and structural level and how that affects us as classroom teachers, but not necessarily as much about how to inject [those concepts] very specifically into our lessons and classrooms.” Her peer Catherine said Lambeth coursework “would have been more helpful if it was more explicit” about how to apply concepts to the classroom. None of the Lambeth participants could remember discussing strategies for approaching the simulation tasks in their coursework.
Thomson novices described their prior coursework in more positive terms, but like Lambeth novices, they said coursework mostly conveyed conceptual information rather than procedural approaches to teaching. In explaining their background knowledge, Thomson novices cited readings and discussions related to the simulation tasks, but they could not remember any specific instruction or strategies. Two novices said they had seen mentors facilitate similar interactions during clinical observations, but they could not explain the strategies their mentors employed. For example, Diana had observed her mentor enacting classroom management strategies but struggled to discern why or how her mentor chose these approaches: “The class—sometimes it was rowdy, sometimes it wasn’t. But [my mentor] wouldn’t really tell me, ‘This is how you do it.’ I couldn’t really pinpoint strategies.” Thus, Thomson participants seemed to have some background knowledge related to the tasks but were not sure of procedural approaches.
Given their emerging background knowledge and classroom experience, novices at Thomson and Lambeth saw simulations as an opportunity to try “real teaching.” Both groups expected teaching in simulations as more like “real teaching” than their other preparatory coursework and classroom observations. For most Lambeth and almost all Thomson participants, practicing in simulations was their first chance to try teaching alone. As Diana explained, “[My Thomson field experience] was really different from the MRS. In this MRS, I was the teacher. I was like, ‘Oh, I’m going to be on my own.’” Importantly, Lambeth participants spoke positively about their initial views of the simulator, but they were milder in their assessments of its affordances. This may be because they had spent substantially more time observing and participating in what they considered “real teaching.”
Wesley: Little Background Knowledge and Anxious Anticipation
Wesley’s novices, who were part of an alternative licensure TEP, felt less prepared for their first simulation than participants at Lambeth and Thomson. Whereas Lambeth and Thomson novices had completed months of coursework before simulations, Wesley participants completed their first session in the earliest weeks of their preparatory program. At the time of the first simulation session, four of five Wesley novices had no observational or instructional experience in classrooms. All Wesley novices had tutored small groups of summer school students via Zoom before completing their first simulation, but they did not feel this constituted “actual” teaching.
Like other participants, Wesley participants saw simulations as their first opportunity to teach independently and their first exposure to, as they described it, the “actual tactics” of teaching. However, Wesley novices described high anxiety before their first session, which they attributed to a lack of background knowledge. Alex was so nervous that she felt physically ill, perhaps because the practice was far beyond her zone of proximal development. However, this lack of background knowledge also motivated the inexperienced Wesley participants. Alex persisted because she felt she had a lot to learn about how to interact with students before she became a full-time teacher-of-record in a few short weeks: “It would be different if I was somebody who had classroom management skills, had gone through training, or had been talked to more thoroughly about it. Whereas at that moment, I was just like, ‘I need help.’”
Wesley and Lambeth: Changing Response with Additional Classroom Experience
Lambeth and Wesley participants expressed waning enthusiasm into simulations as they progressed through their TEP and gained classroom experience. These novices completed their simulation sessions a few months apart, and their experiences significantly declined between sessions one and two (p < 0.01; see Table 5). During the interval between sessions, Lambeth novices began full-time student teaching or became long-term substitutes in elementary classrooms. Wesley novices became teachers-of-record in PreK–12 classrooms. Both groups also continued coursework, though Lambeth novices took substantially more courses (see Table 1). In other words, between sessions one and two, these participants gained substantial background knowledge, experience, and independence in real classrooms. Conversely, Thomson participants completed their simulation sessions closer together, gaining little additional coursework and classroom experience during the interval. Their experience in simulations remained both stable (Msession1 = 4.61; Msession2 = 4.69; p = 0.68) and significantly more positive than other sites’ (p < 0.01).
The exception to these trends was Wesley’s Megan, who was sampled as a low outlier and had experience teaching overseas before she entered her TEP. Megan approached both simulation sessions with skepticism: When they said we had to do this, I thought, “I don’t want to do this. I have experience in the classroom.” It felt unnecessary. I went in with the mindset of, “This is not reality.” I didn’t go in thinking, “I can learn something.”
Whereas other participants expected their first simulation to be like “real teaching,” Megan saw MRS as distinct from and less useful than her experience in real classrooms. Megan’s prior teaching experience separates her from other Wesley participants in predictable ways: because she felt confident enacting the simulated tasks before the practice opportunity, she did not value the practice. Instead, her experience aligns more closely with Lambeth novices’ experience in their second session, described below. Participants who had what they saw as extensive “real” teaching experience no longer found simulated practice meaningfully challenging.
Through: Meaningful Challenges and Supportive Coaching
Regardless of their experiences into simulations, all novices said they appreciated the independence and challenges they experienced through simulations, as well as the opportunity for support via coaching. Across sites, participants found teaching in the simulator to be a uniquely authentic and illuminating component of their teacher preparation. Many also felt the productivity of simulations decreased as they took on more responsibilities in real classrooms. Notably, the simulation features that made the practice feel meaningful were not discernable in the quantitative data alone; our qualitative data provide insights about the features through simulations that made the practice feel more deliberate.
Across TEPs: Productive Struggle in Low Stakes
Novices across sites appreciated that simulations felt authentic to the demands of “real teaching” while still being low stakes. For instance, Thomson’s Karmen had previous substitute teaching experience and quickly saw connections between that prior experience and simulations: “Me subbing and then being in this simulation—I thought the simulation was similar to what you get to see in a real class.” Wesley participants, who quickly became teachers-of-record after their first simulation, especially appreciated practicing in simulations compared to the high-stakes experience of “learning by doing” in their classrooms. Jordan felt simulations offered “practice in areas of difficulty that first-year teachers see.” Megan, who was mostly critical of simulations, appreciated their iterative nature: “I liked being able to go back and try it again.”
All novices felt challenged by their first simulation tasks. Lambeth and Thomson novices enjoyed being challenged by tasks that were slightly outside of their zone of proximal development, especially in the absence of an onlooking mentor teacher. Thomson’s Diana said practicing in the MRS felt like gaining real experience without the stress of being with real students: “In the MRS, I was really the teacher.” Bridget, who became a long-term substitute teacher in the spring, felt that simulation practice “helped mimic” the experience she would later have while teaching independently. In her clinical placement, she saw her mentor as a “life raft,” but during her first simulation, “there was no life raft; there was no one else in the room.” She likened practicing in simulations to later becoming a substitute teacher: in both contexts, “there were so many moments where I had to go out of my comfort zone because there was not another option.”
Despite the low stakes, Wesley and Thomson novices felt overwhelmed by some challenges presented through simulations given their lack of background knowledge. Four Thomson participants were surprised by the level of difficulty of the task. Isaiah found the first task “overwhelming,” expecting more of a “beginner simulation.” The simulation felt beyond his level of preparation: “I was just shocked. I was like, ‘How do I respond to that?’” Angela said the simulations “really threw some things at you. I was like, ‘Did he really just say that?’” Wesley participants shared similar sentiments: Pearl said she was initially “not a fan” of the first session in the moment because she had no prior preparation for the task. Alex felt at a loss when confronted with classroom management challenges, wondering, “How do I respond to this [avatar] to make him stop?” For these novices, their lack of background knowledge made the tasks feel too challenging, or beyond their zone of proximal development.
Wesley and Lambeth: Diminishing Challenge with Additional Classroom Experience
As Lambeth novices gained more classroom experience, shifts to their zone of proximal development seem to have made practicing via simulations feel less useful. For instance, Catherine explained that she had initially easily “added [simulations] into my existing academic routine,” but, during her full-time student teaching in the spring, she felt frustrated “to stop prepping my actual lesson plans for tomorrow to be able to do a simulation.” These participants felt simulated practice was less useful as they gained classroom teaching experience. As Bridget asserted, “By spring, I had six months of classroom experience. And so, I’ve seen that. And I can do that. Whereas, my first simulation, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, I don’t know [what to do].’” Along those lines, Daisy explained, “I’m planning for real life; the more I was in the classroom, the less I cared about this other work.”
Wesley participants, who became full-time teachers-of-record after their first practice session, also felt less challenged by their second session and reported an even sharper decline in overall experience between sessions (Msession1 = 4.21; Msession2 = 3.63; p < 0.001). Jordan and Selena felt like their concurrent classroom experience made the practice less useful. Jordan explained, “Because I’d been teaching a while, . . . I had already grown a bit; I had less, I guess, to grow from there.” Interestingly, though, Wesley novices also said they enjoyed the confidence that came with their additional experience, reporting less nervousness before the second session. Though we see stronger quantitative evidence of their decline in overall experience, Wesley participants’ evaluations of the declining utility during interviews were milder than Lambeth participants’. Wesley participants arguably gained the most classroom experience between sessions, but they were certified through an alternative route and completed less coursework and supervised clinical teaching than other participants overall (see Table 1). This could explain why they were more amenable to opportunities for practice even at their more advanced stage of preparation.
Across TEPs: Coaching as a “Game Changer”
Regardless of their stage of preparation, participants across TEPs said coaching between rounds improved their experience and ability to respond to challenges in the simulator. The practice opportunity seemed to feel more worthwhile when participants were coached on how to improve their instruction. All novices described coaching sessions between rounds as both enjoyable and motivating. For example, Lambeth’s Emily said she was more focused when the simulation was accompanied by coaching: “I was more careful with my words, more engaged. I cared more about what I was doing than if someone wasn’t there.” Novices who lacked experience in real classrooms especially valued the opportunity to receive coaching. Wesley’s Pearl described coaching as “doable. . ., quick, and pinpointed.” Though she was initially nervous to practice in front of a coach, she realized she “would have loved to do coaching for all of the simulations.” Her peer Alex said coaching “completely changed the game for me. It made the pressure a lot less.” Diana, a participant at Thomson, valued the coach’s balanced feedback: “She was really helpful. She told me, ‘You did this right, you did this wrong.’” This feedback made Diana feel more confident and motivated for the next round: “‘I felt like, ‘I know that there’s some stuff that I can do better.’”
Moreover, participants across sites also suggested that coaching made a difference in how they approached their next round of practice. Lambeth’s Bridget described coaching as formative, saying her coach suggested an approach to redirection that she had never considered: “I would have never come to that conclusion on my own probably. . .. But it was really good advice.” Thomson’s Zoey saw tangible improvements after coaching, saying “I like receiving feedback because I want to know how I could be better at handling the situation.. . . The feedback really helped me. I was able to do better the second time around.”
Thomson novices were the only group to suggest they could have benefitted from more coaching. Isaiah said he “froze up” at one point and wished he could have paused the simulation for additional feedback. Zoey wanted additional rounds of practice to implement the coach’s advice: “The feedback that I received was really helpful, but it was hard to implement.. . . You know, from theory to practice: in theory, ‘Okay, got it,’ but in practice, ‘Oh, I don’t got it.’” Thomson participants’ request for more support may relate to their lack of other practice opportunities. Novices at other sites spent substantially more time in real classrooms with mentors and coaches and may have developed more schema for incorporating feedback to shift instruction.
Across TEPs: Self-Reflection as Dissatisfying
In contrast to their positive experiences of coaching, participants did not find self-reflection useful. All Lambeth and Thomson novices, as well as some Wesley novices, shared explicit dissatisfaction with sessions that did not include coaching. These novices found simulations less useful and even frustrating when they self-reflected between simulation rounds. Lambeth participants said it was difficult to know if they had enacted the task correctly or improved without explicit feedback. These participants did not claim that they did not learn anything through self-reflection; rather, they were uncertain if they had improved during practice. Daisy explained, “Without the coaching, I kind of just fumbled my way through it.” She “didn’t really think it was that helpful to do it twice” without coaching because she did not know what to do differently during her second round. Like Lambeth novices, Thomson novices did not know how to adjust their practice after self-reflecting, though it was clear they needed to try a different approach. Isaiah found the self-reflection survey limited in its ability to help him improve: “I was looking forward to the coach giving us feedback on how we did or what we can do better. But all I got was a survey.” Diana also struggled to evaluate her performance and make changes through self-reflection. Ultimately, she felt she “couldn’t end up solving the issue,” perhaps because she lacked background knowledge on which to draw to shift her approach.
Wesley novices had less to say overall about the experiences of self-reflection, but this was a stark contrast from their high praise of coaching sessions. Four Wesley novices struggled to recall self-reflecting between rounds; the fifth, Pearl, described her self-reflection experience negatively. Pearl shared Lambeth and Thomson participants’ sentiment that self-reflecting about tasks for which she lacked background knowledge felt futile. After self-reflecting, Pearl felt unable to “change the dynamic of the conversation with the avatar” because she “didn't necessarily know what the bullet points were” to improve.
Beyond: Connections to Real Teaching
Qualitatively, participants at all sites reflected positively about the ways simulations prepared them for future teaching beyond the simulations. Quantitatively, composite means above 3.5 indicate participants had positive experiences across sites and sessions on average (see Table 4). However, novices’ differing trajectories beyond simulations provide avenues for understanding why Wesley and Lambeth’s average experience significantly declined between sessions (p < 0.01) and became more statistically similar. In particular, we see a large drop-off at the item level in these novices’ willingness to repeat the practice between their first and second sessions (p < 0.001), perhaps because they were concurrently gaining what they saw as more meaningful practice opportunities in real classrooms. On the other hand, Thomson experiences remained stable across sessions (Msession1 = 4.61; Msession2 = 4.69; p = 0.68) and significantly more positive than other sites’ (p < 0.001; see Table 5). Simulations seemed to feel more meaningful when participants had or anticipated they would soon have chances to connect simulated practice to “real life” teaching.
Thomson: Anticipating the Classroom
At the time of interviews, Thomson participants were still completing field observations and had not yet gained additional instructional experience beyond the simulations. As such, they did not gain background knowledge or experience during the study in the ways Lambeth and Wesley novices reported. This may help explain their stable and positive assessments of simulations. During interviews, Thomson participants reflected positively on simulations as a unique and valuable opportunity in their preparation thus far. For Thomson novices, practice in MRSs felt like gaining real teaching experience at a stage of preparation when they had few such opportunities. They said simulations shifted their conceptions of “real” classrooms, even though they had not had any more “real” classroom experience. The four Thomson participants who had never taught before described simulations as a reality check. These novices said they previously lacked a realistic understanding of what teaching entails—which makes sense considering their lack of instructional experience. Simulated practice helped them anticipate the challenges they may confront as “real” teachers. According to Angela, “There are things that you don’t even think about that would ever happen, and then they happen to you in the simulation.”
Two Thomson novices suggested simulations made them better equipped to learn from their clinical observations. Diana realized her simulation coach’s advice matched what she saw her mentor doing in the classroom, though she could not discern the rationale behind her mentor’s actions until she completed the practice herself. Zoey similarly said she understood more about her mentor’s approaches after her simulations, alluding to “stuff that I hadn’t noticed, but now after this simulation, I notice.” Going a step further, Zoey even suggested the simulations might be more reflective of reality than some of her other preparatory experiences: “We don’t have a course that is specific to behavior. It’s always the perfect classroom and the perfect scenario. So those MRS were really helpful.”
Lambeth: Comparing Simulations to the Classroom
Conversely, by the time of interviews, Lambeth novices were fully responsible for instruction in their classroom placements. Some had even become long-term substitute teachers. Instead of anticipating how the simulations might prepare them for the future, Lambeth novices negatively compared simulations to what they saw as their more formative learning experiences in real classrooms. As such, Lambeth participants offered several critiques of the sequencing and content of simulations, though they reflected positively on aspects of simulations. These critiques may help us interpret Lambeth’s significantly lower composite simulation experience compared to Thomson’s (MLambeth = 3.68; MThomson = 4.63, p < 0.001; see Table 4), as well as Lambeth’s significant decline in experience between sessions one and two (Msession1 = 3.83; Msession2 = 3.53; p < 0.01; see Table 5).
Four Lambeth participants asserted that repeating simulations made them feel irrelevant or oversimplified in light of their increased teaching responsibilities. Compared to student teaching, Catherine said simulations felt “artificial” because of their decontextualization and brevity. She felt she faced challenges in her classroom that were far more nuanced. Bridget, Emily, and Catherine suggested simulations might be more valuable if they gradually increased in complexity over time. According to Bridget, “By the end, I just knew what to expect.” She contrasted this with her work as a long-term substitute teacher, where she was constantly “caught off guard.” She suggested that “curveballs” in the simulations might have made them feel more worthwhile. In other words, participants might have seen more value in the practice if the tasks were differentiated to remain beyond their comfort zones.
Nevertheless, their classroom experience helped Lambeth participants see useful connections between the simulations and “real teaching.” Emily and Yasmine said they see versions of the tasks they practiced in simulations “every day” in their student teaching roles. They especially valued the opportunity to practice tasks they had not encountered during student teaching. For instance, their mentors usually handled family interactions, so the family engagement task provided a useful opportunity to practice and build confidence. Several participants also alluded to their between-round coaching as learning that has extended beyond simulations, with Bridget reporting, “I’ve actually found myself using [the coach’s] advice in my classroom.”
Wesley: Connecting Simulations to the Classroom
Along the same lines, Wesley novices became teachers-of-record shortly beyond their first simulation session. In our interviews, these novices also reflected on simulated practice in the context of how it connected to their concurrent “real life” as teachers. Retrospectively, they also felt simulations presented tasks and challenges that were common in their classrooms, seeing more alignment between their first simulation session and classroom realities than they expected. Like Thomson participants, Wesley’s Jordan, Pearl, and Selena said they previously held misconceptions about teaching that simulated practice helped them adjust. For Jordan, this meant letting go of his image of an “ideal classroom.” Similarly, Pearl initially felt that the student avatars’ behaviors were “dramatic,” but once she began teaching, she realized, “Wow, that’s, that’s pretty accurate.. . . This is normal.” As with Lambeth participants, they qualitatively and quantitatively reported the second session as less useful, but Wesley participants did not voice the same strong critiques as Lambeth participants during interviews. This could be because they had relatively fewer preparatory experiences overall and/or because their strongly positive feelings in session one overshadowed their critiques. Quantitatively, Wesley’s average experience declined from highly positive to more moderate between sessions one and two (Msession1 = 4.21; Msession2 = 3.63; p < 0.001). In their second session, Wesley participants reported statistically similar experiences as Lambeth participants (p = 0.53), perhaps reflecting their similar levels of preparation by their second sessions.
Wesley novices’ quick transition to full-time teaching after their first simulation seems to have supported their sense that simulations were meaningful. The links between simulated practice and classroom realities helped less-experienced Wesley novices feel more prepared for the realities of teaching. Months after completing the simulations, all Wesley novices referred to avatars by name to explain the connections they saw between simulations and their work as teachers. All Wesley participants could also specifically cite a strategy provided by their coach, which we see as suggestive evidence that the progress they made in simulations may transfer to new contexts. For example, Alex credited one task with preparing her to manage student behavior: I have a kid who is exactly like [the avatar]—the noises, the beating, the attitude that “I can do this, I can do that.” Having that simulation with [the avatar] and thinking, “Oh wow,” and then seeing it in my classroom—now I’m like, “Oh, I know how to deal with this.”
Along the same lines, Megan reported, “I walked away with one key, practical thing that I can actually do in my classroom,” naming a particular approach she learned during coaching. Though they reported a declining overall experience on average in the post-surveys, Wesley novices’ qualitative reflections portrayed simulations as holistically useful and meaningful. As Selena put it, “Honestly, I didn’t know it then, but [the simulations] were exactly what I needed.”
Discussion
Efficiency is paramount in teacher education: Most of the novice teachers in this study had less than a year to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of successful teachers. Therefore, it is important to attend to novices’ experiences of their preparation, namely the deliberateness and engagement with which they approach the opportunities that are intended to support their development as teachers. Capitalizing on both survey and interview data, we investigated how and why novices in different TEPs experienced parallel practice opportunities variably positive, relevant, and useful. We found that novices had positive experiences of practice when the opportunity was appropriately situated in their broader arc of learning to teach—in particular, when it expanded upon prior learning and prepared them for upcoming independence in the classroom. In the discussion, we make recommendations about how TEPs might facilitate the features of deliberate practice when developing practice opportunities for their novice teachers.
Our mixed methods approach allows us to understand novices’ quantitative experience across multiple simulation sessions while also triangulating findings, building hypotheses about variation, and adding nuance through complementary qualitative data. Our post-survey data suggests that novices had generally positive but varying experiences by site. Additional quantitative analysis revealed that these differences were present in both their session-level and composite reports of simulation experience and that some novices’ experiences declined between sessions one and two. Drawing on interviews and program document analysis, we offer possible explanations for these findings.
Importantly, we explore these questions with a sample of novice teachers who are learning to teach in diverse programmatic contexts. Though postbaccalaureate programs such as Wesley’s and minority-serving institutions like Thomson prepare large shares of entering teachers, novices from such institutions are rarely featured in teacher preparation research (Levine, 2006). Rather, many studies carry samples that resemble Lambeth’s: white, undergraduate women learning to teach in institutions with high research activity (Wilson et al., 2024). This study makes clear the importance of considering context to understand teacher development through simulated practice, as well as the importance of building an empirical research base that acknowledges the diverse preparatory experiences of aspiring teachers. We hope this research makes headway in understanding how to make simulations maximally beneficial for novices who are learning to teach in a wide array of contexts.
In this study, novices reported better experiences in simulations when the opportunity had the features of deliberate practice, no matter the task. That is, they found simulations more useful when the simulation was within their zone of proximal development, included directive feedback through coaching, and was appropriately sequenced with other preparatory experiences to allow them to apply, build, and extend their background knowledge. These features, when present, supported novices in clarifying and refining their ideas about good teaching in service of increased confidence and independence. At all three TEPs, novices who were learning to teach in very different contexts reported moments of deliberateness during which simulated practice felt valuable. However, no TEP seems to have implemented simulations in ways that facilitated deliberate practice across all simulation sessions. In the following sections we discuss how the presence or absence of features of deliberate practice may have influenced novices’ experiences in simulations. Though we focus on MRSs in this study, we discuss our findings in the context of practice opportunities more broadly. We argue that the sequencing of practice with other preparatory opportunities into and beyond the approximation as well as the provision of directive feedback and level of challenge through the practice can promote more useful and deliberate practice in teacher education.
Sequencing and Novices’ Zone of Proximal Development
Novices experienced practice more positively and more deliberately when the tasks were within their zone of proximal development, or just beyond their comfort zones—an important feature of deliberate practice (Ericsson & Pool, 2016; Vygotsky, 1978). Novices who entered practice with even fledgling background knowledge from coursework or clinical placements were excited to challenge themselves and refine their ideas of what good teaching entails. This is reflected in the experiences of Thomson novices, who brought background knowledge from coursework to MRS and felt enthusiastic about opportunities to practice teaching during their early stages of preparation. Wesley novices were also pushed outside their zone of proximal development during their first session, though arguably too far given their reports of high anxiety before the first session.
On the other hand, when novices interpreted the opportunity as either too complex or too easy, they did not experience practice as deliberate. This may help us understand why Lambeth reported lower overall experiences in both sessions, as well as why Wesley and Lambeth’s experiences declined between their first and second sessions as they gained more experience. For the least-experienced novices at Wesley, the first simulation session felt well beyond their zones of proximal development, leading them to report feeling overwhelmed into and through practice, despite simultaneously seeing the opportunity as highly relevant and beneficial. At the other extreme, more experienced novices, such as Megan and Lambeth long-term substitutes, approached simulated practice with skepticism, given they already had experience enacting similar tasks in real classrooms. Both extremes seemed to diminish novices’ engagement and motivation, aligning the opportunity with “naïve” rather than deliberate practice (Ericsson & Pool, 2016).
These findings highlight the value of sequencing approximations of practice so that the practice opportunities build on novices’ prior learning and feel immediately applicable to their upcoming roles as classroom teachers—in other words, practice may be most deliberate when completed after or concurrent with coursework and before teaching experiences in real classrooms. Grossman and colleagues (2009) refer to such sequencing as “learning to kayak in calm waters” before entering the rapids of a real classroom (p. 2076). Given that deliberate practice both “produces and depends on effective mental representations” (Ericsson & Pool, 2016, p. 99), approximations should not be standalone opportunities. Rather, prior learning experiences—such as coursework and opportunities to see mentors enact the skills featured in the simulator—can equip novices with background knowledge into practice that motivates and prepares them.
Relatedly, novices can benefit from extending their learning beyond approximations—out of calm waters and into rapids. Wesley and Lambeth novices appreciated the connections they built between simulated practice and real classroom teaching. In fact, enacting the tasks in real classrooms afforded a retrospective sense of value to simulations. Their experiences also offer suggestive empirical evidence that skills developed during simulated practice may transfer beyond the approximation itself, as they self-reported classroom uptake of simulated skills. Little research has explored the relationship between approximations and novices’ future teaching (for exceptions, see Kavanagh & Rainey, 2017; Lee et al., 2021; Masters, 2020), and this is an important area for further study.
Our participants initiated and concluded simulated practice at varying stages of their teacher education, and some gained significant additional experience preparation between sessions. Additional classroom experience seemed to have detracted from novices’ experiences in simulations, as their experiences in real classrooms took primacy. Though some research has explored the differentiation of practice opportunities for novice teachers at various stages of preparation (i.e., Bosch & Ellis, 2021; Hudson et al., 2019; Pankowski & Walker, 2016; Wiseman, 2021), the results are inconclusive. Additional work should explore the stages of preparation at which approximations are most helpful, as well as how approximations are most effectively differentiated for novices in differently structured TEPs.
Directive Feedback Through Coaching
Ericsson and Pool (2016) suggest that both reflective self-evaluation and outside input from an expert can facilitate deliberate practice. Novices in this study had opportunities to engage in both sorts of feedback: during some simulations, they independently reflected before practicing again, and in others, they received directive coaching. Although both forms of feedback may produce powerful results under certain conditions, Ericsson and Pool warn that the former approach may be more useful for advanced learners. In fact, the ability to productively adjust one’s approach independently may be exactly the thing that sets experts and novices apart (Vygotsky, 1978).
This may explain why coaching through approximations seemed to powerfully improve novices’ simulation experiences across sites, above and beyond self-reflection (Cohen et al., 2020, 2024; Ericsson & Pool, 2016). In fact, coaching was the most uniformly positive aspect of novices’ experiences in this study. Novices saw sessions with coaching as more deliberate because actionable feedback made them feel more confident and skilled during subsequent rounds. Across sites, participants said coaching improved their second rounds of practice. Some Lambeth and Wesley participants even reported that they had employed strategies they learned from their coach in their real classrooms. Notably, the value novices ascribed to coaching was not clear from the quantitative results alone, underscoring the utility of our mixed methods approach.
Less-experienced novices (i.e., Thomson participants and Wesley participants in their first session) especially valued coaching. These participants lacked background knowledge or experience on which to draw when they encountered challenges in the simulator, making coaching feel crucial. Thomson participants said they learned new approaches from their coach and applied these more sophisticated approaches to both subsequent simulation practice and their future clinical observations. Prior to practice, Thomson novices said they had seen mentors enact instruction, but they had difficulty making sense of their actions in the absence of explicit debriefing and feedback—luxuries that can be time-constrained in clinical placements. Coaching helped them refine their mental representations by directing their attention to aspects of good teaching. We follow Zeichner (2012) in suggesting that approximations might support novices’ understanding of the strategies employed by expert teachers, as well as their ability to reflect on what happens in real classrooms.
Conversely, participants did not feel that self-reflecting was a sufficient support for simulated practice. This was especially true for Thomson participants who had spent little time in real classrooms before their simulations. When participants self-reflected between rounds, they felt like they were simply repeating the tasks rather than improving their skills. In other words, they experienced “naïve” rather than deliberate practice (Ericsson & Pool, 2016). Though a vast body of research focuses on self-reflection as a lever for improving teachers’ practice (e.g., Schön, 1987; Warford, 2011), we find that less advanced novices may lack the necessary schema to make progress without directive feedback. We do not suggest that self-reflection is an unproductive scaffold or that one-to-one coaching is the only worthwhile support for simulated practice. Wesley participants, who were teachers-of-record, tended to offer milder critiques of self-reflection than other participants by the time interviews took place, which could hint at its potentiality among more advanced novice teachers. Future research should explore the specific conditions under which self-reflection, as well as other feedback approaches, are useful for novices. For instance, offering MRS in a fishbowl with group coaching may be a way to achieve the benefits of coaching at scale (e.g., Ely et al., 2018). Future research might also explore how directive feedback can support reflective approaches by helping novices evaluate their own teaching—a clear area of difficulty for participants in this study (Ippolito, 2010).
Anticipating Future Independence
Despite leveling critiques about how TEPs sequenced simulated practice with other learning opportunities, almost all interview participants felt simulations supported their preparation for independence in their future classrooms. This leads us to a final feature of deliberate practice that may improve novices’ experiences of simulations: anticipation of autonomy. Novices need to feel that they will eventually be responsible for the types of tasks they are practicing. Across sites, most novices told us that practicing in the simulator was their first and sometimes only truly independent preparatory experience up to that point. Moreover, novices at each site reported feeling more independent and deliberate during practice in simulations than during early clinical experiences in real classrooms (Dalinger et al., 2020). Strikingly, we heard this from novices who spent substantial time in classroom clinical experiences (i.e., Lambeth student teachers and Thomson novices completing clinical observations). Their feelings of deliberateness in simulated environments related to both the absence of a mentor teacher and the availability of feedback—conditions that are not often feasible in clinical placements (Matsko et al., 2020). Approximations simulate “independent” instruction, and this sort of practice seems to prepare novices for autonomy, perhaps even above and beyond clinical experiences in which novices mostly observe or support a mentor’s instruction.
To this end, we show some limitations to relegating novice teachers’ practice opportunities entirely to clinical placements. Novices across TEPs felt that their preservice clinical experiences did not always constitute “real” teaching because they lacked the independence they associate with being a teacher. At each site, participants said their clinical experiences did not always push them beyond their comfort zones, either because they did not deliver instruction in ways they found meaningful (e.g., Wesley participants teaching summer school to small groups on Zoom) or because the presence of a mentor limited their autonomy (e.g., Lambeth mentors stepping in when they believed participants needed help).
Despite novices’ enthusiasm for the independence they experienced in simulations, we see diminishing returns for novices who complete simulated practice after spending substantial time leading instruction in real classrooms. This seems to explain Lambeth and Wesley participants’ more negative experiences in their second practice sessions. Ericsson and Pool (2016) suggest learners often stop improving from practice once they reach an acceptable level of performance. This calls to mind Wesley participant Megan’s expectation that she had nothing to learn from simulations, as well as some Lambeth participants’ “just get through it” approach during the latter half of their program. These more experienced novices may have reached a stage of autonomy or even automaticity for the simulation tasks, leading them to deprioritize or even dismiss the opportunity. There seems to be a “sweet spot” for integrating simulated practice in the process of learning to teach—a window in which novices are hungry for low-stakes practice. Identifying the precise conditions of this window is an important direction for research.
Conclusion
In this study, we offer several promising suggestions for implementing simulations across a range of TEPs, as well as directions for future research on the contexts and conditions in which approximations are a productive pedagogy of teacher education. As TEPs continue to incorporate practice-based pedagogies, we must improve our understanding of the types of practice opportunities that are most useful for novice development. We apply several theories to support TEPs’ implementation of practice opportunities that are differentiated to meet the needs of their novice teachers, avoiding the trap of practice for practice’s sake.
We offer further empirical evidence in favor of using simulations as practice platforms for novices at various routes and stages of preparation, while also emphasizing that not all practice makes perfect. A growing body of research establishes the utility of MRSs as spaces for novice teacher learning, but prior work has not attended to the ways local context and simulation features may influence the utility of practice. We add to this research and begin to build theory about how and when simulations are most useful in teacher education.
Some novices in this study experienced simulated practice opportunities far more positively and deliberately than others. Attention to the sequencing of practice and the ways it is supported can improve its utility, but more work is needed to understand the particular conditions that make practice opportunities worthwhile for novices who are learning to teach in different contexts. The deliberateness of practice is likely a function of many features—the novice, their prior preparatory experiences, their context, and their anticipation of their professional future. These features are worthy of systematic study as we aim to design practice opportunities that facilitate expert teaching down the road.
Based on our work, we draw attention to several remaining questions about the integration of approximations in teacher education. How might TEPs effectively differentiate approximations for novices at different stages of preparation and in different programs? Which supports are most useful for different novices? How might TEPs facilitate the transfer of learning during practice to new contexts? We contribute additional self-reported evidence that novices may draw on their simulated learning in real classrooms (Pankowski & Walker, 2016), but the field can benefit from more closely linking growth during practice to improved classroom teaching.
Finally, we emphasize an important, unaddressed feature of deliberate practice: Deliberate practice “develops skills that other people have figured out how to do and for which effective training techniques have been established” (Ericsson & Pool, 2016, p. 99). The field of teacher education does not yet enjoy such a level of consensus. Though this study and other current research make headway in identifying opportunities that may contribute to novices’ preparedness for their future classrooms, we need to develop more programmatic research in practice-based teacher education to achieve this feature of deliberate practice in our field.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Julie Cohen, whose counsel has strengthened this work, as well as the faculty and students of the institutions where this research was conducted.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the Robertson Foundation.