Teacher Training Using Interactive Technologies: Performance and Assessment in Second Life and Simschool

  • Julia Meritt
  • David Gibson
  • Rhonda Christensen
  • Gerald Knezek
Chapter

Abstract

Two alternative technologies forming the basis of computer-mediated teacher preparation systems are compared and contrasted regarding implementation, operation, and assessment considerations. The role playing system in Second Life is shown to have the unique characteristic of developing shared, constructed pedagogical knowledge, while the flight simulator metaphor of simSchool encourages rapid, stepwise refinement of pedagogical expertise. Each has cost and traveling distance advantages over face–to-face traditional meetings, as well as some shortcomings. Ultimately, the largest assessment issue for both is how to measure learning inside a simulator or a social media space. Further research is needed in this area.

Keywords

Virtual performance assessment Digital simulation Student teaching Virtual pedagogical practice 

References

  1. Ackermann, E. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. In M. Tokoro & L. Steels (Eds.), A learning zone of one's own: sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments (pp. 16–35). Lansdale: IOS.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning: An innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B., Mesia, B., & Krathwohl, D. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, K. W., Ragas, M. W., & Neely, J. C. (2009). Assessing the value of virtual worlds for post-secondary educators: A survey of innovators, early adopters and the early majority in second Life. International Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 40–50.Google Scholar
  5. Brave, S., & Hass, C. (2003). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In J. Jacko & Sears (Eds.), The human-computer Interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emergine applications (pp. 81–96). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Tyler-Wood, T., & Gibson, D. (2011). SimSchool: An online dynamic simulator for enhancing teacher preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, R., Gibson, D., & Knezek, G. (2012). SimSchool: Research outcomes from simulated classrooms. Poster presentation to the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, February 14, 2012, Austin.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke-Midura, J., Code, J., Dede, C., Mayrath, M., & Zap, N. (Eds.) (2012). Thinking outside the bubble: Virtual performance assessments for measuring complex learning. In Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp. 125–148). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  9. Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D., Clarke, J., & Bowman, C. (2004). Design-based research strategies for studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  11. Fikes, R., & Nilsson, N. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 189–203. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(71)90010-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foreman, J., Gee, J., Herz, J., Hinrichs, R., Prensky, M., & Sawyer, B. (2004). Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st century. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 50–66.Google Scholar
  14. Gehrke, R. S., & McCoy, K. (2007). Sustaining and retaining beginning special educators: It takes a village. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 490–500.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, D. (2007). SimSchool-A complex systems framework for modeling teaching & learning. Paper presented to the National Educational Computing Conference, Atlanta, June 2007.Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, D. (2008). Modeling classroom cognition and teaching behaviors with COVE. In D. Gibson & Y. Baek (Eds.), Digital simulations for improving education. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, D. (2009). Modeling classroom behaviors in software agents. In D. Gibson & Y. Baek (Ed.), Digital simulations for improving education: Learning through artificial teaching environments (pp. 119–156). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, D. (2011). Modeling emotions in simulated learning. Standards in emotion modeling. Lorentz Center International Center for workshops in the Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, D., & Knezek, G. (2011). Game changers for teacher education. In P. Mishra & M. Koehler (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2011 (pp. 929–942). Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  20. Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1980). Clarifying teachers’ beliefs about discipline. Educational Leadership, 37, 459–464.Google Scholar
  21. Grossman, P. (2010). Learning to practice: The design of clinical experience in teacher preparation (p. 8). Washington D.C.: Partnership for Teacher Quality (AACTE and NEA).Google Scholar
  22. Hoglund, B., & McClung, C. (2012). Teaching quality impacts student achievement. ASQ Primary and Secondary Education Brief, 5(3).Google Scholar
  23. Hopper, S. B. (2014). The relationship of personality traits to teacher candidate perceptions of teaching confidence and teaching experience in a simulated classroom environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
  24. Indiana’s Education Roundtable. (n. d.). Education roundtable: Eliminating achievement gaps. http://www.in.gov/edroundtable/2390.htm. Accessesd 23 July 2014.
  25. Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment in game-based learning (p. 461). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., Fisser, P., & Gibson, D. (Eds.) (2012). SimSchool: Research outcomes from simulated classrooms. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2012. Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  27. Mayrath, M., Clarke-Midura, J., & Robinson, D. (2011). Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (p. 386). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  28. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  31. Park, H. S., Baek, Y., & Gibson, D. (2008). Design of an adaptive mobile learning management system. In J. Lumsden (Ed.), Handbook of research on user interface design and evaluation for mobile technology (Vol. 1, pp. 285–300). New York: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  32. Parunak, H., Bisson, R., Brueckner, S., Matthews, R., & Sauter, J. (2006). A model of emotions for situated agents. Published in Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 993–995.). New York: ACM.need editor nameGoogle Scholar
  33. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Prince, C., Koppich, J., Morse Azar, T., & Witham, P. (n.d.). Does evidence suggest that some teachers are significantly more effective than others at improving student achievement? from http://cecr.ed.gov/researchSyntheses/Research Synthesis_Q A1.pdf
  35. Schaefer, L. (2012). Questioning the research on early career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 106–121.Google Scholar
  36. Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/cumulative-and-residual-effectsteachers-future-student-academic-achievement. Accessed 11 July 2014.
  37. Teacher Attrition Costs United States Up to $2.2 Billion Annually, Says New Alliance Report. (n.d.). from http://all4ed.org/press/teacher-attrition-costs-united-states-up-to-2-2-billion-annually-says-new-alliance-report/. Accessed 21 July 2014.
  38. Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2011). Computer games and instruction. Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Zibit, M., & Gibson, D. (2005). simSchool: The game of teaching. Innovate 1(6). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=173. Accessed 24 April 2008.
  41. Zibit, M., Gibson, D., & Halverson, B. (2006). SimSchool – Today’s preservice students prepare for tomorrow’s classrooms. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2006. (1 (2004)), 1044–1057. http://www.editlib.org. Accessed 23 July 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Meritt
    • 1
  • David Gibson
    • 2
  • Rhonda Christensen
    • 3
  • Gerald Knezek
    • 3
  1. 1.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations