Title: Puckett Mixed Reality Simulation Chapter

Author Name: Earl Puckett

1. Introduction

Education, and life really, must move forward. As the years have gone on, we have left only being able to learn in the traditional classroom setting to online learning to learning modules (independent of an instructor and so on. With new academics come new ways of attacking the issue of true educational value and processes by which to achieve those means. Today we will discuss one of those innovations. It is called Mixed Reality Simulation. Mixed reality is a cousin to the virtual reality space and was first created by Lisa Dieker (out of Florida State University). It has similarities in that it requires the use of technology, it creates a world in which you may interact with other persons or items without affecting the real world, and it can be done or replayed several times for practice or experimentation. We have several definitions we can pull from:

Mixed reality is a spectrum of immersive experiences, connecting and blending physical and digital worlds together in augmented reality and virtual reality applications. {Microsoft}

Or

Pioneered by Lisa Dieker and colleagues, the mixed-reality, avatar-based simulation environment provides preservice teacher candidates with a classroom-like environment, including student avatars, furniture, and whiteboards. A trained actor or interactor utilizes the student avatars to speak, move, and engage in a simulation. The interactor integrates context-specific knowledge as well as current events (i.e., weather, pop-culture, news) into the simulation. (Waters et. al, 2021)

 

 In the case of this chapter, I will provide a definition- Mixed Reality Simulation combines the use of in person and digital attributes to create an interactive space for one to practice various skills and methodologies without harm to an actual subject or process. Ultimately no matter which definition is used, Mixed Reality Simulation has three key components:

1. A Simulated Environment: This is an environment prebuilt to replicate the circumstances attempting to be practiced. In the case of teacher preparation, this may be a classroom environment built to replicate a small circle read or traditional classroom desk setup. The environment can be designed in any format to facilitate the goals of the session.

 

2. Avatars (and Actors behind those avatars): This step may be the most crucial in differentiating this environment from others. The avatars in this case are adaptable and are designed to interact the person using the simulator in a realistic fashion. This means that there is often an actor behind the digital avatar reading a script, acting out different moments and creating authentic situations with the person using the simulator. For example, If I was wearing a blue shirt the avatar may comment on how they like my blue shirt and that it is their favorite color. Or maybe the avatar repeats a phrase I have said in real time as if to mock me (like a student possibly would). The goal is to have authentic and specific to the current situation or circumstance.

 

3. Physical Content: This could be items or persons the person interacting with the simulator may use. This could include flash cards or physical signals. Anything from the real world used to interact with the virtual one.

Mixed reality simulation is used in a myriad of fields. We will specifically focus our time on use in higher education settings. There are several areas in which the idea of mixed reality is being implemented: Nursing student practice, Teacher Preparation practice, Surgical student training, etc. The general use of Mixed Reality simulation comes into place in three ways:

1. To practice a specific scenario, technique, or method that has been demonstrated and studied in class. This can be useful in providing practical reinforcement for what the student already has a theoretical foundation for.
2. To be added in before placement into a real environment, such as a classroom, to determine the participants readiness to succeed. This can give students a chance to sure up their methodologies before interacting with a live population.
3. In the most extreme cases, as a replacement for a real environment. This was demonstrated in the case study below due to Covid-19. This version can be helpful when a pandemic shuts down the ability to proceed in a normal teacher preparation pipeline.

While all can be appropriate, it seems as though Mixed Reality would fit best in enhancing the areas already taught traditionally in Higher Education settings. Proposed by Dr. Day Patterson at Georgia State university, this is the idealized path by which it would be integrated:

1. First students would go through traditional Instructor led training (in the classroom)
2. Then students would demonstrate what they have learned through efforts in class (i.e., prepared lessons and roleplay).
3. After general competency in role play has been displayed, Mixed Reality simulation would be introduced for practice. (Demonstrate certain competencies)
4. After all steps have been achieved, the Teacher Candidate would move on to children.

(Patterson Interview, 2022)

In all Mixed reality can be a valuable tool in several types of environments and several types of missions related to preparation of student for success in a practical space. Below we will examine a case in which that is done. We will review the case in terms of its general goals, problems, limitations, Solutions, implications, and summation in relation to mixed reality.

 

2. Overview of the Case

A. Setting

The case we will be examining is a replication of a study done by Vince Garland (and others) in their “Individualized clinical coaching in the TLE TeachLivE Lab” (Vince Garland et. al, 2016). The replication was done by Sharon M. Walters (and others) in “Mixed-Reality Simulation With Preservice Teacher Candidates: A Conceptual Replication” (Walters et. al, 2021).

The setting of both studies was centered around the concept of systems-of-least-prompts with mixed reality integration as the component being studied to enhance students’ ability. The setting for our case study was a higher education setting. It’s a large university (not specifically stated) with 30 junior level Special Education students (in a cohort). All 30 of these students were taking the same course at the time of the study. The students were divided into two groups: Simulator and Classroom roleplay.

All interactions for the simulator were initially done at the universities Digital Media Learning Lab at the unnamed university. The classroom roleplay students initially had interactions at the school Media Center. Both groups finished their interactions in a modified setting (at home) because of Covid-19.

B. Problems

The problems to be solved in this study, and inherently in all student preparation settings, are time and access. All too often do we have programs where students studying in any environment, and in this case teacher preparation, don’t have enough time to transition from theory to practice while having effective, timely, and efficient feedback on how one is performing that practice. Furthermore, it is more complicated by the fact that when you deal with fields such as teacher preparation (or surgical student preparation, or etc.) that the intended populations we want to help may be harmed in the same way if the participants don’t have adequate knowledge and experience to pull from to provide successful service or intervention.

In the case of the Walters study, several specific areas were identified as problematic in relation to student preparation in their special education program. The main area of emphasis was the recognition of when to use the proper level of SLP or system-of-least prompts (Vince et. al, 2016). This is defined as an Evidence-based-practice (EBP) of providing various levels of prompts, from low support to high support, to support student acquisition of learning or academic skills in a special education (often autistic) setting (my definition).

We also pull from Vince Garland et. al for the formal definition they place on SLP:

“Also referred to as least intrusive prompts and increasing assistance, SLP is a prompting hierarchy whereby a teacher uses a sequence of prompts in a learning situation that facilitates a desired outcome.” (Vince Garland et. al, 2016, pg. 48)

 

Those SLP prompts had five levels that were used dependent upon the need for supports in response. Those five levels are provided here:

• establishing the learner’s attention,
• delivering the stimulus,
• providing a 5-second response interval,
• responding to the learner’s attempts, and
• collecting trial data.

(Provided by Walters et. al, 2021)

Using these prompts effectively requires practice in adjusting to responses given by students (or learners) correctly to meet the needs of them learning said skill. This problem was questioned and examined by using the research question- “What are the effects of simulation and live practice on candidates’ implementation of the SLP?” (Research question #1, Walters et. al 2021)

The second problem area was confidence and accuracy of delivery of said prompts. Did the students feel confident that with the student they were interacting, they were delivering the right measures? Did they do so consistently? When faced with a version or scenario they were unfamiliar with, how easily did they recall the steps necessary to complete their duties? Overall, the goal was to measure the Teacher candidate’s confidence from first implementation in the beginning to sustained practice and intervention.

This problem was questioned and examined by using the research question- “To what extent are there differences in candidates’ social validity responses regarding the use of simulation or live practice?” (Research question #2, Walters et. al 2021)

 

3. Solutions Implemented

In the Walters case, there was a three-step strategy in how they tackled the solution. Each group went through three phases: instruction, Intervention, and live practice. Before the administration of these steps, both groups were given a pre-test, baseline, and post-test.

1. Instruction: As a formal means to introduce the subject matter, the instruction step was meant to foster a basic understanding of the key concepts and methodologies present in properly performing SLP. This step is a prerequisite to any solutions that may happen in this space considering one must learn the concept in a theoretical sense before we can determine the different solutions as to how to create better implementation and confidence related to said implementation.
2. Intervention: The first part of the solution comes in the second step of intervention. Typically, most programs introduce a concept, read an article or two and go forward on to the next topic. Dependent on the topic there may be a few minutes of role play as well, but nothing significant. However, in this study the emphasis on retention through intervention is a key step in providing an active solution in the problems presented above. In Intervention the Teacher Candidates were given several handouts, demonstrations, and small group exercises to practice said skills. This was done over several periods to heavily reinforce the skills necessary to implement SLP correctly. The teacher candidates also recorded several components of their small group interactions to review later. These sessions ended with debriefs and thought questions. (Walters et. al, 2021)
3. Live Practice/Simulation: This is where the true bread and butter of the Mixed reality simulation comes into play. The first group was live action and had one professor walking around as an observer and occasional feedback device. In the MRS group, each group had preconceived scenarios built for them to use these methodologies in real time with a “student” (actor) demonstrating the behaviors of the student they will interact with. The situations were changed and became dynamic based off of the individual and roleplay situation presented. The simulation students also had the opportunity to develop deeper understanding of the program and student (actor) through an interview before the formal simulations began. In the MRS environment the students received individualized and direct feedback to their own strengths and weakness related to SLP and delivery. These were done with a structured coaching form. (Walters et. al, 2021)

In the end, the simulation students benefitted by having information provided to them about their individualized teaching and performance so that they could make more concreate and efficient corrections to their practice. It also allows for the Teacher candidates to practice in an environment of more unknowns. It’s different from a classmate roleplay and they have direct observers studying their perform in very targeted, and tangible ways. Those types of environments will breed higher levels of growth due the specific and consistent nature of the studies setup.

 

4. Outcomes

In the case of the study examined today, the results were positive. From the pre-test administered to the post test, the study saw higher increases in several areas from the simulation group (versus the live roleplay group):

1. Overall Growth in implementation (Problem #1)
2. Significance of Simulation on learning growth (Problem #1)
3. Impact of simulation versus roleplay (Problem #1)

The simulation group didn’t do as well in terms of:

1. Nervousness as the study went on (Problem #2)

Both groups were equal in

1. Confidence in doing better from Pre-Test to Post-Test. (Problem #2)
2. Relevance to Program of study. (Problem #1)

(All data pulled from Walters et. al, 2021)

Overall, there was significant cause and evidence to believe that the inclusion of Mixed Reality simulation into the learning environment allowed for growth in student learning and functional practice of key concepts related to SLP.

 

5. Limitations

Inherent in my interview with Dr. Patterson and prevalent in the article, there are some significant limitations to Mixed Reality. In the case of the article the main two being interaction methods with students and the influence of Covid 19 on the study.

In the case study (Walters et. al), they pointed to limitation of presenting multiple visual aids (as part of the steps of SLP). As stated in Waters et. al in real life a teacher could display several visual elements on a table or board. In the simulation environment the typical limit was to be able to hold two visuals up.

Dr. Patterson echoed the limitation of interactions with learner actors as well in our interview. She stayed that “one of the behavior management strategies teachers can’t use is physical proximity”. I, along with Dr. Patterson, felt this was a big disadvantage. Every teacher knows that being able to stand near a student or even place hand on their shoulder can be a useful stop-gate in the antics of an active child.

Additionally, Dr. Patterson brought up monetary concerns. She stated that it takes significant investment to do it properly. From purchasing the screens (and other technologies necessary), to room space, to paying the actors and facilitators to provide interaction and feedback. In practice this could be difficult for a school or district to implement effectively, considering their budgets are finite and accounted for. Considering most higher education institutions do apply for grant funding, it could be possible to create the necessary labs and equipment. It could be a hard sell dependent upon the institution though.

In the case study, another limitation provided in MRS is in respect to things like Covid-19. During the study Covid-19 impacted their ability to do the simulations. Considering everyone was in their respective homes, they had to continue the simulations over zoom. This could be considered a lesser limitation considering that outside of being in the specified space for the lab itself, it didn’t seem to impact the study to heavily.

 

6. Implications

While Mixed Reality simulation still has some ways to go before it can be implemented widely as an actionable preparation medium in higher education, the program certainly has strong potential to increase the efficacy and efficiency of future preparation of students.

In the end, Mixed Reality simulation is a powerful tool. It provides a real feel and pressure present in that of a classroom setting without the implications of poor performance negatively affecting a subject. It also allows for students to receive feedback in a way that is simply not possible in an actual classroom setting. While it is expensive and limiting in some ways, the Higher Education environment with grants and outside funding could definitely find ways to procure, implement, and effect change in their (that particular institutions) teacher preparation programs.

 

Citations

1. DaShaunda Patterson [Personal interview]. (2022, April 14).
2. Microsoft. (2022, April 14). What is mixed reality? – mixed reality. Retrieved April 21, 2022, from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/discover/mixed-reality
3. Vince Garland, K. M., Holden, K., & Garland, D. P. (2016). Individualized Clinical Coaching in the TLE TeachLivE Lab: Enhancing Fidelity of Implementation of System of Least Prompts Among Novice Teachers of Students With Autism. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415600769
4. Walters, S. M., Hirsch, S. E., McKown, G., Carlson, A., & Allen, A. A. (2021). Mixed-Reality Simulation With Preservice Teacher Candidates: A Conceptual Replication. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(4), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211001453

[Back to Home]