1. Advancing Teacher Preparation: Using a Simulated Environment and Coaching in Research and Development Krista Vince Garland, Ph.D., Kara Battin Holden, M.., & Dennis Garland, Ph. D.

2. Using Technology to Prepare Pre-service Teachers Technology Imitative at UNCG: “The project is about leveraging emerging technology to enhance teaching and learning,” says Dr. Christina O’Connor, project Director. “It’s not all about specific cutting-edge technology because that changes. It’s about how we can use technology to better prepare teachers so that students become more creative and more innovative, and learn by doing.”  Innovation Configuration (IC) designed by Dieker, Kennedy, Smith, Vasquez, Rock, & Thomas (2014) addresses six broad categories  Podcasts  Video case studies  Online delivery of content  Technology-based support  Supervision and feedback  Virtual learning or simulation experiences

3. TLE TeachLivE TM “The TLE TeachLivE TM Lab is a mixed reality teaching environment supporting teacher practice in classroom management, pedagogy, and content.” http://teachlive.org/ http://teachlive.org/

4. Independent Intermediate Controlling Most to Least Least to Most Evidence-based practices for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)  System of least-to-most prompting

5. Individualized Clinical Coaching  How can we ensure teachers learn these skills, and hold on to them?

6. Purpose of the study What we did:  In this study, the authors examined the efficacy of individualized clinical coaching of least-to-most prompting (also referred to as system-of-least prompts, SLP) in the TLE TeachLivE ™ mixed- reality teaching environment (TLE).

7. Research Questions  To what extent is the fidelity of implementation of System of Least Prompts (SLP) affected when participants are prepared using individualized clinical coaching in the TLE TeachLivE™ virtual classroom laboratory?  To what extent did participants value their preparation of System of Least Prompts (SLP) with individualized clinical coaching while in the TLE TeachLivE™ virtual classroom laboratory?

8. Methods  Teacher Participants (6)  Avatar Participant: Austin with Autism  urban, public middle school in a large, metropolitan school district  sixth grader  emergent reader  received the majority of his instruction in an inclusive classroom  a beginning level of decoding

9. ParticipantAgeGender Undergraduate Degree Occupation Russell26MaleHistory Behavior Management Aide Charlotte30Female Elementary Education Substitute teacher, Army Reserves Garth23Male Adolescent Social studies/Special Education Substitute teacher Brian28Male Early Childhood/Childho od Education Substitute Teacher Katie26Female Special Education/ ElementaryEducat ion Computer Lab teacher Kortney26Female Adolescent Mathematics Education Math and Technology Teacher.

10. Methods  Setting  Duration- Total training time in the simulation lab did not exceed one hour per participant.  Number of sessions differed in baseline and intervention (will get into detail later)

11. Procedure  Multiple baseline across participants  Baseline  Intervention  Maintenance  IOA  Fidelity Checklists: interactor and coach  Presence Survey  Social Validity (Focus Group)

12. Results  Mean participant performance improved from 22% during baseline to 88% after receiving coaching in TeachLivE TM.  Mean participant accuracy in the maintenance phase was 97%, an overall improvement in performance of 75%.  Five of the six participants attained nearly perfect scores on the SLPPER during maintenance.

13. Visual Results

14. ParticipantBaselineInterventionMaintenance Russell x= 31% R= 10 (26% -36%) 4 Sessions x= 97% R= 2 (95%-97%) 4 Sessions x= 95% R= 10 (90%- 100%) 4 Sessions Charlotte x= 33% R= 17 (24%-41%) 4 Sessions x= 93% R= 18 (82%-100%) 3 Sessions x= 96% R= 10 (90%-100%) 4 Sessions Garth x= 16% R= 7 (14%-21%) 4 Sessions x= 81% R= 37 (58%-95%) 5 Sessions x= 98% R=3 (97%-100%) 3 Sessions Brian x= 19% R= 7 (17%-24%) 4 Sessions x= 85% R= 30 (68%-98%) 4 Sessions x= 96% R= 13 (87%-100%) 3 Sessions Katie x= 17% R= 15 (9%- 24%) 4 Sessions x= 82% R= 31 (66%-97%) 5 Sessions x= 99% R= 3 (97%-100%) 2 Sessions Kortney x= 14% R= 12 (7%-19%) 4 Sessions x= 84% R= 15 (77%-92%) 4 Sessions x= 99% R= 3 (97%-100%) 2 Sessions Average Across Participants x= 22% R= 19 (14%-33%) 24 Total sessions x= 88% R= 16 (81%- 97%) 25 Total sessions x= 97% R= 4 (95%- 99%) 18 Total sessions

15. Social Validity  Benefited from modeling and 1:1 feedback.  Felt similar to working with a real student, avatar’s mannerisms as a student with ASD were “pretty natural” and discussed the ease by suspend disbelief  Firmly believed learning the SLP in the TeachLivE TM lab was a more valuable and intensified experience than using a textbook.  Prefer to pay for time in the lab in lieu of buying a traditional textbook.

16. Thank You!  Krista Vince Garland garlankm@buffalostate.edu  Kara Battin Holden k_battin@uncg.edu  Dennis Garland dgarland@niagara.edu