The Trifecta Model: Teacher Preparation with Technology
Elizabeth Whitten and Luchara Wallace
Western Michigan University
United States
whitten@wmich.edu
luchara.wallace@wmich.edu
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to increase the quality of pre-service special education
teachers through a year-long investigation utilizing a trifecta model of preparation: (1) a mixedreality environment with multiple methods of coaching, (2) on-line learning modules, and (3) field
experiences utilizing various technologies to provide multiple means of coaching. Use of this
trifecta model to personnel preparation can be generalized to other teaching programs.
Introduction
Currently, there is a body of research available that clearly specifies effective teaching behaviors and quality
indicators of a given behavior (Rosenshine, 2012; Danielson, 2007; Stronge, 2007; Rosenshine, 1983; Brophy,
1979). Research is lacking in defining practices that develop effective teaching behaviors in pre-service teachers.
Reform is happening in teacher preparation (Zeichner, 2010). Zeichner (2010) quotes Darling-Hammond, (2009,
p.11), “Often, the clinical side of teacher education has been fairly haphazard, depending on the idiosyncrasies of
loosely selected placements with little guidance about what happens in them and little connection to university
work.” Both Darling-Hammond and Zeichner state a need for more of a connection between on campus learning and
school-based or cite-based learning in teacher preparation.
The Study
This fifteen-week study addresses the issue of teacher preparation utilizing effective teacher practices,
specifically targeting pre-service special education teachers. The study attempts to show the degree of effectiveness
of: (1) TeachLivE, a mixed-reality teaching environment using a simulation and student avatars, (2) online
research-based learning modules, and (3) multiple field experiences as essential components of the teacher educator
program in a Midwestern University. Additionally, the effects of coaching, feedback, and reflection on pre-service
teachers’ effective behaviors in relation to their experience with each component of the program were investigated.
Multiple modes of instruction are often utilized to effectively prepare pre-service students
for careers as teachers (Andreasen, Haciomeroglu, Akyuz, Coskun, Cristwell, & Whitby, 2008; Mullen, Beilke, &
Brooks, 2007). TeachLivE™ is an innovative virtual teaching environment being used by universities across the
United States to support future educators in both content knowledge and effective teacher behaviors including
management. TeachLivEis one example of technology that supports teacher education programs instituting more
practice-centered approaches connecting pre-service teachers to direct practice enhancing their skill set (Gomez,
Sherin, Griesdorn, & Finn, 2008). Rather than attempting to teach and reinforce the learning of effective teaching
strategies through lecture or discussion for pre-service teachers, this technology allows learners to apply knowledge
learned and to participate in meaningful experiences in the TeachLivElab.
Smith and Tyler (2011, p. 331) describe another technology used to support effective content education and
teacher education, “The IRIS modules are case-based, interactive, technology-driven instructional units on discrete
topics”. They provide information on instructional and behavioral interventions and contain videos, interactive
activities, interviews with experts, demonstrations of interventions and suggested resources for further study. The
IRIS Center modules, developed through government funding through the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) to promote use of effective practices in inclusive settings are grounded in research and field tested for
satisfaction.
Research suggests immediate feedback supports an increase in observable specific teaching behaviors in preservice teacher educators. Findings show behaviors decline over time without programming for generalizing (Kane
et al, 2012; Scheeler, Bruno, Grubb, & Seavey, 2009; Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004). The following actions
support pre-service teacher educators’ generalization of effective teaching behaviors over time: 1) provide
immediate feedback; 2) train skill to mastery; 3) program for generalization; and 4) provide performance feedback
in a classroom setting.
The study participants consisted of 52 pre-service special education students enrolled in the same coursework
and field experiences for Fall Semester. The participants were required to complete four TeachLivEteaching
experiences, four IRIS Modules and participant in a twice weekly two-hour field experience at a local school
district.
Findings
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the difference between initial TeachLivEscores and
performance observation scores in the field based setting. There was a significant difference in the change in scores
between each of the first three TeachLivE sessions and each of the three field based observations (M=-2.94,
SD=5.49); t(25)=-2.68, p=.013. The greatest significance was between the first TeachLivE session and the final
practicum observation (M=-10.38, SD=6.81); t(25)=-7.62, p=.000. There was no significant difference found
between the fourth TeachLivE scores and the third field based observation (M=.04, SD=6.21); t=(25)=.032,
p=.975). Additional findings are still in progress including the significance of IRIS modules.
Conclusions
These results suggest that there was a pattern of observable growth across and within the TeachLivE and field
based observations. Students appear to have higher scores in the field-based experience than in TeachLivE.
However, by the final TeachLivE observation and the final field based observation, students performed at
approximately the same level, which is indicative of the growth observed across the semester. Additional
conclusions will be made based on the more findings.
References
Andreasen, J. B., Haciomeroglu, E. S., Akyuz, D., Coskun, S., Cristwell, P. & Whitby, P. S.(2008). Teacher training
in multiple environments: Microteach versus virtual. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(8), 1-20.
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6), 733-750.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009, February). Teacher education and the American future. Charles W. Hunt Lecture.
Presentated at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago.
Gomez, L. M., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L. (2008). Creating social relationships: The role of technology
in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 117-131.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 62(4), 395-407.
Kane, T. J. & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with
student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved March 16, 2012
from http://www.metproject.org
Mullen, L., Beilke, J. & Brooks, N. (2007). Redefining field experiences: virtual environments in teacher education.
International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 2(1), 22-28.
Rosenshine, B. (Spring, 2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-based strategies that all educators should know.
American Educator Journal, 12-39.
Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching Functions in Instructional Programs. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 335-351.
Scheeler, M. C., Bruno, K., Grubb, E., & Seavey, T. L. (2009). Generalizing teaching techniques from university to
K-12 classrooms: Teaching preservice teachers to use what they learn. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 189210.
Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(3).
Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. W. (2011). Introduction to Special Education: Making a difference. (7th ed.) Pearson.
Stronge, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers. (2nd ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and
university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(1-2), 89-99.