[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-590387-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-590387-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","teacher-candidates-perceptions-of-mixed-reality-simulations-variations-by-task-support-and-mode-of-delivery","Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Mixed Reality Simulations: Variations by Task, Support, and Mode of Delivery","","Teacher education programs use mixed reality simulations to offer prospective teachers low-stakes practice before classroom teaching. This study analyzes post-simulation survey responses from 192 teacher candidates across two simulation sessions, varying task, support, and mode of delivery. With within-candidate estimation and standardized procedures, the study reduces selection bias to test how specific simulation features shape perceptions. Results show task and support changes affect perceptions, while delivery mode influences perceptions for some tasks.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/teacher-candidates-perceptions-of-mixed-reality-simulations-variations-by-task-support-and-mode-of-delivery/590387/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/teacher-candidates-perceptions-of-mixed-reality-simulations-variations-by-task-support-and-mode-of-delivery/590387.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Pentious","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How did the study vary mixed reality simulations for teacher candidates?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Each candidate completed two simulation sessions with changing task types, support conditions, and modes of delivery.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What variables were found to influence candidates’ perceptions?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Changing the task and support was associated with changes in candidates’ perceptions, while delivery mode affected perceptions for some tasks but not all.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the study use within-candidate estimation and random assignment?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"These choices reduce selection bias and enable more precise claims about how shifting simulation features influence perceptions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},590387,1792165444,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1374404730887,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","AERA Open  \nJanuary-December 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1–17 DOI: 10. 1177/23328584251375064  \nArticle reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)© The Author(s) 2025. [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero)  \nTeacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Mixed Reality Simulations: Variations by Task, Support, and Mode of Delivery  \nKristyn Wilson  \nJulie Cohen  \nSteffen Erickson  \nUniversity of Virginia, School of Education and Human Development  \nThough scores of teacher education programs use mixed reality simulations as platforms for preservice teacher candidates’(“candidates”) low-stakes practice, we know little about how customizable features of these simulations shape candidates’perceptions. To build such evidence, we analyze post-simulation survey data from 192 candidates, each of whom completed two simulation sessions with varying tasks, supports, and modes of delivery. Using within-candidate estimation, random assignment, and standardized simulation procedures, we mitigate selection bias to make more precise empirical claims about how shifting simulation features might influence candidates’perceptions. We find changing the task and support is associated with changes to candidates’perceptions. The mode of delivery may also influence candidates’perceptions for some, but not all, tasks. We conclude with recommendations for implementing simulations in teacher education to more fully realize the potential of this pedagogical approach.  \nKeywords: Instructional technologies, mixed reality simulations, practice-based teacher education, survey research, teacher education/development, technology  \nTeacher education programs (TEPs) often use digitally mediated simulation platforms to provide prospective teachers with low-stakes practice opportunities (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2020) . These technologies theoretically provide low-risk spaces for preservice teacher candidates (“candidates”) to practice enacting instructional skills with digital student avatars before they enter classrooms, ideally preparing them to begin their work with real students with increased confidence and expertise (Grossman et al., 2009) . In simulations, candidates can hone skills for myriad instructional scenarios, while also cultivating productive dispositionsand knowledge for teaching (Cohen et al., in press; Ersozlu et al., 2021) .  \nCandidates’ practice opportunities often occur mostly during student teaching, where they are supported by mentor teachers as they take on increasing responsibility in K–12 classrooms. However, clinical environments are inherently high-stakes, unpredictable, and rightly focused on students rather than candidates (Ronfeldt, 2015) . Simulations as a pedagogy of teacher preparation can complement clinical experience by allowing novices to explore components of teaching with lower-risk and more support than is typical in real classrooms (Dieker et al., 2014; Grossman et al., 2009) .  \nSimulations are a broadly defined category of practice opportunities, including role-plays, standardized student interactions, and technology-based classroom experiences (Kaufman & Ireland, 2016). Here, we focus on mixed reality simulations (MRS), a type of digitally mediated simulation used in scores of TEPs (AACTE, 2020) . In mixed reality platforms such as Mursion—the platform used in this study—live actors (“simulation specialists”) control digital avatars in real time from a remote location. The presence of a human specialist allows MRS to feel responsive and naturalistic while also being highly standardizable.  \nUsing these platforms is time and resource-intensive for TEPs but potentially very useful in candidates’ arc ofdevelopment. Several studies—from our own research and others’—document candidates’ positive knowledge, skill, and belief shifts following simulated practice (e.g., Bondie et a","cbCaitowHGZ3P0gZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitowHGZ3P0gZ","pdf",635735,17,"English","# Background and rationale\n## Mixed reality simulations in teacher preparation\n# Study design\n## Participants and simulation variations\n# Results\n## Effects of task, support, and delivery mode\n# Conclusions and recommendations","[{\"question\":\"How did the study vary mixed reality simulations for teacher candidates?\",\"answer\":\"Each candidate completed two simulation sessions with changing task types, support conditions, and modes of delivery.\"},{\"question\":\"What variables were found to influence candidates’ perceptions?\",\"answer\":\"Changing the task and support was associated with changes in candidates’ perceptions, while delivery mode affected perceptions for some tasks but not all.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the study use within-candidate estimation and random assignment?\",\"answer\":\"These choices reduce selection bias and enable more precise claims about how shifting simulation features influence perceptions.\"}]","Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Mixed Reality Simulations: Variations by Task, Support, and Mode of Delivery | PDF",1792069532,43]