The Effects of Coaching on Candidate Performance in the Simulator

• In Event: 45.050 - Virtual Reality Simulations as Approximations of Practice: New Ways to Support Teacher Learning

Abstract

Objective & Theoretical framework

Innovative technologies like VRS have the potential to create powerful learning opportunities, but technology alone will not support teacher development. As with any pedagogical tool, the supports that surround VRS may facilitate or impede the effectiveness of the sessions. The goal of this study was to analyze the effects of coaching on candidates’ teaching in the simulator. We focus on a single teaching practice, the quality of feedback candidates provide during a text-based discussion.

Our study was informed by scholarship in practice-based teacher education that suggests candidates need multiple opportunities to practice teaching skills and benefit from support and guidance from expert teacher educators (Ghousseini & Herbst, 2016; Lampert et al., 2013). The professional development literature is coalescing around the idea that coaching is the most effective way to improve teacher practice quickly, but there is comparatively little work on the effects of coaching in the pre-service space (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Kraft, Blazar, & Hogan, 2016).

Methods & Data Sources

Participants included all elementary and secondary candidates at a large, research-focused public university (n= 121), where VRS sessions are integrated throughout the two-year program. Candidates are largely white and female, which reflects the demographics of candidates in the state.

Candidates were randomly assigned in course section blocks to either 1) self-reflect on performance in simulation without coaching, or 2) receive coaching between simulations by a trained coach who followed a structured coaching protocol. The groups were balanced on 19 of 24 covariates. Any off-balance measures were controlled for in our analyses.

All simulation sessions were video-recorded and coded on measures assessing the quality and quantity of feedback candidates provided. Raters were blind to treatment condition and simulation session timing (e.g., before or after coaching intervention). Multiple raters scored 20% of videos with high levels of inter rater agreement (>85%). We examine treatment effects on the quantity and quality of feedback candidates provided in simulation session 2, after the coaching treatment.

Results

Candidates who received coaching between simulator sessions provided significantly less low-quality, perfunctory feedback in the second simulation than those in the self-reflection group (p<.05). Perfunctory feedback included comments such as “good work,” “nice job,” and “thanks.” Candidates who received coaching also provided significantly more high-quality, descriptive feedback in the second simulation session (p<0.01). Descriptive feedback included comments like “When we are working with texts, it’s also important to note places in the text that support your inference.”

Significance

VRS provide a space to approximate teaching practices, like providing feedback during text-based discussions, and they also afford a platform for assessing the effects of different kinds of supports on the improvement of teaching. Our data suggest multiple practice opportunities alone are unlikely to promote high-quality feedback. Candidates who received coaching demonstrated higher quality feedback than those who only self-reflected between simulation sessions. This suggests that if VRS are isolated activities without scaffolding from skilled coaches or teacher educators, they are unlikely to realize their potential as a pedagogy of teacher preparation (Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald, 2009).

Authors

• Julia Cohen, University of Virginia

• Rebekah Berlin, University of Virginia

• Emily Wiseman, University of Virginia