Design Evaluation of a Simulation for Teacher Education

Abstract

Recent calls to improve the quality of education in schools have
drawn attention to the importance of teachers? preparation for work in classroom
settings. Although the practicum has long been the traditional means for pre-service
teachers to learn and practice classroom teaching, it does not always offer student
teachers the time, safe practice experiences, repetition, or extensive feedback needed
for them to gain adequate knowledge, skills, and confidence. Well-designed simulations
can augment the practicum and address these gaps. This study evaluated the design of
simSchool (v.1), an online simulation for pre-service teachers, using student teachers?
ratings of selected factors, including realism, appropriateness of content and
curriculum, appropriateness for target users, and user interaction. Based on these
ratings, the study identified strengths and weaknesses, and suggested improvements for
the software. Participant ratings varied considerably but indicated that certain aspects
of the simulation, such as its educational value, classroom challenges, and simulated
student characteristics, were moderately well received. However, user interface
navigation and the range and realism of simulated teacher?student interactions should be
improved.

Full text

SAGE Open
April-June 2015: 1 –10
© The Author(s) 2015
DOI: 10.1177/2158244015592454
sgo.sagepub.com
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
Article
Teacher education programs must now train teachers to work
in environments that will demand increasingly complex
skills and knowledge, along with greater accountability and
demonstrated teaching effectiveness. Practice teaching is a
long-respected education component of this training, allow-
ing student teachers to build their classroom knowledge,
skills, and confidence before taking full responsibility for
classroom teaching (Arnett & Freeburg, 2008). However,
providing an effective practicum experience is often an
administrative and logistical challenge, demanding strong
university–school partnerships, the integration of theory and
practice, and, ideally, a broad range of teaching situations in
the face of limited time and resources (Allen & Wright, 2013;
Bradley & Kendall, 2014).
Simulation techniques have been used as training and
feedback tools for many years in occupations such as
medicine, aviation, military training, and large-scale
investment where real-world practice is dangerous, costly,
or difficult to organize (for example, see Drews &
Backdash, 2013). In pre-service teacher education, class-
room simulations can help pre-service teachers to trans-
late their theoretical knowledge into action through
repeated trials without harming vulnerable students, and
they can provide more practice time and diversity than
limited live practicum sessions (Carrington, Kervin, &
Ferry, 2011; Hixon & So, 2009).
One such simulation is simSchool (www.simschool.org),
designed to provide teaching skills practice in a simulated
classroom with a variety of students, each with an individual
personality and learning needs. simSchool has been shown in
several studies to have potential as a practice and learning
tool for pre-service teachers (Badiee & Kaufman, 2014;
Christensen, Knezek, Tyler-Wood, & Gibson, 2011; Gibson,
2007). Although simSchool has been under development for
more than 10 years (Gibson & Halverson, 2004), very little
published research has addressed its design as an instruc-
tional tool. To address this gap, the current study evaluated
the design of simSchool (v.1) from the perspective of its tar-
get users, pre-service teachers, providing both quantitative
and qualitative evidence of its strengths, weaknesses, and
areas for improvement.
Background
Research on student learning maintains that teachers are the
most important school-related factor influencing student
592454SGOXXX10.1177/2158244015592454SAGE OpenBadiee and Kaufman
research-article2015
1Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Corresponding Author:
David Kaufman, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A
1S6, Canada.
Email: dkaufman@sfu.ca
Design Evaluation of a Simulation for
Teacher Education
Farnaz Badiee1 and David Kaufman1
Abstract
Recent calls to improve the quality of education in schools have drawn attention to the importance of teachers’ preparation
for work in classroom settings. Although the practicum has long been the traditional means for pre-service teachers to learn
and practice classroom teaching, it does not always offer student teachers the time, safe practice experiences, repetition,
or extensive feedback needed for them to gain adequate knowledge, skills, and confidence. Well-designed simulations can
augment the practicum and address these gaps. This study evaluated the design of simSchool (v.1), an online simulation for
pre-service teachers, using student teachers’ ratings of selected factors, including realism, appropriateness of content and
curriculum, appropriateness for target users, and user interaction. Based on these ratings, the study identified strengths
and weaknesses, and suggested improvements for the software. Participant ratings varied considerably but indicated that
certain aspects of the simulation, such as its educational value, classroom challenges, and simulated student characteristics,
were moderately well received. However, user interface navigation and the range and realism of simulated teacher–student
interactions should be improved.
Keywords
simulation, simSchool, design evaluation, pre-service, teacher education

2 SAGE Open
achievement (Edutopia, 2008). Teacher education programs
train our teachers, providing initial and ongoing support,
resources, and hands-on experience, to prepare them for their
teaching careers.
These programs face at least two important challenges
that call for a more sophisticated education process. On one
hand, teachers need an ever-growing set of knowledge, skills,
and attitudes to meet their responsibilities; on the other hand,
faced with decreased funding, increased regulation, and
growing competition for available teaching jobs, they must
clearly demonstrate their competencies in enhancing stu-
dents’ learning (Girod & Girod, 2008).
Teaching Practice and the Practicum
Classroom teaching practice provides most student teachers
with their first experience in applying the knowledge and
exercising the skills that they study. The practicum is
intended to give pre-service teachers the opportunity to
develop practical skills and knowledge, receive feedback
from experts and professionals, and gain experience with
students and the school environment that can directly help
them to prepare for classroom teaching. Also, practicum
experiences allow teacher candidates to learn and grow in
protected settings (Girod & Girod, 2008). Therefore, field
experiences are often identified as the most important aspect
of teacher education programs (Arnett & Freeburg, 2008;
Phillion, Miller, & Lehman, 2005).
However, the practicum is fraught with difficulties,
including a lack of appropriate field placements, particularly
for rural, special-needs, and rarely found conditions; short-
ages of host teachers willing to provide their time and exper-
tise; host teachers’ poor teaching practices, particularly with
special-needs students; limited opportunity for repeated
practice; and poor integration with the university curriculum
(Billingsley & Scheuermann, 2014; Howey, 1996;
McPherson, Tyler-Wood, Mcenturff, & Peak, 2011; Wilson,
Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Young, 1998). It is, there-
fore, important to consider ways to augment the traditional
practicum to enhance both the quantity and quality of stu-
dents’ pre-service teaching experience.
Simulation-Based Practice
Classroom simulations are starting to offer the possibility of
enhancing the practicum by providing new opportunities for
pre-service teachers to practice their skills. A simulation is a
simplified but accurate, valid, and dynamic model of reality
implemented as a system (Sauvé, Renaud, Kaufman, &
Marquis, 2007). R. D. Duke (1980), the founder of simula-
tion and gaming as a scientific discipline, noted that the
meaning of “to simulate” stems from the Latin simulare, “to
imitate,” and defined it as “a conscious endeavor to repro-
duce the central characteristics of a system in order to under-
stand, experiment with, and/or predict the behavior of that
system” (cited in Duke & Geurts, 2004, Section 1.5.2).
Simulation involves play, exploration, and discovery, all ele-
ments of learning (Huizinga, 1938/1955). It has a long his-
tory in adult education, initially in the form of abstract
representations using physical components such as paper and
pencil or playing boards and, more recently, in many types of
computer-based virtual environments (Ramsey, 2000).
Simulations are distinguished from games in that they do
not involve explicit competition; instead of trying to “win,”
simulation participants take on roles, try out actions, see the
results, and try new actions without causing real-life harm.
Simulations, when paired with reflection, offer the possibil-
ity of experiential learning (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984;
Lyons, 2012; Ulrich, 1997). Dieker, Rodriguez, Lignugaris/
Kraft, Hynes, and Hughes (2014) pointed out that an effec-
tive simulation produces a sense of realism that leads the
user to regard the simulated world as real in some sense:
These environments must provide a personalized experience
that each teacher believes is real (i.e., the teacher “suspends his/
her disbelief”). At the same time, the teacher must feel a sense of
personal responsibility for improving his or her practice
grounded in a process of critical self-reflection. (p. 22)
Suspension of disbelief and this sense of personal respon-
sibility work together to engage the learner in the simulation
process so that it becomes a “live” experience; feedback and
reflection complete a cycle so that the learner can conceptu-
alize and ultimately apply the new learning (Kolb, 1984).
Simulations have many advantages for teacher education,
particularly now that new technologies support more realis-
tic modeling of classrooms and students. McKeachie (1994)
maintained that the main advantage of an effective educa-
tional simulation is that students are active participants rather
than passive observers, and such a shift in roles motivates
students. Simulations can provide a venue for practicing and
refining the transfer to the classroom of newly learned theory
and skills, based on experimentation, feedback from simu-
lated students, reflection/debriefing, and repetition
(Carrington et al., 2011; Crookall, 2010; Parente, 1995). In
this way, failure becomes part of an ongoing learning process
rather than a block to achievement (Carstens & Beck, 2005).
The role-play aspect of classroom simulations supports stu-
dents in taking on and practicing unfamiliar teaching roles,
developing new self-efficacy and professional identity over
time (Carrington et al., 2011; Gibson, Christensen, Tyler-
Wood, & Knezek, 2011). In simulations, scenarios can be
encountered that are ethically or logistically difficult to cre-
ate in the real world, such as high-stress urban environments
or mixed groups of special-needs students; pre-service teach-
ers can begin to prepare for these before they experience
them in real life (Dieker, Hynes, Stapleton, & Hughes, 2007;
Dieker et al., 2014). With simulations, learners can make
mistakes without harming actual students—an advantage
that is particularly pronounced when training for work with

Badiee and Kaufman 3
difficult or special-needs learners (Dieker et al., 2014; Ferry
et al., 2004). Finally, simulations using commonly available
technologies offer a low-cost alternative to extending teach-
ing practice time in the field.
The Importance of Simulation Design
Realizing a simulation’s potential in any learning situation
depends on a range of factors, including its fidelity, usability,
relationship to learning goals, and learning processes. As
simulations have developed in sophistication and have
become accepted teaching tools in business, medicine, and
other disciplines, researchers and practitioners have come to
agree on a broad set of design and implementation principles
for effective learning support.
Drawing on experience in disciplines other than teaching,
Dieker et al. (2014) identified three critical components in
teaching simulations that affect learning of new behaviors.
One is “a sense of real presence” so that the users in some
sense “suspend disbelief,” engage with the simulated envi-
ronment as real, and feel personal responsibility to improve
their practice (Dede, 2009). Related but distinct is the con-
cept of fidelity, the validity of the simulation model (the
degree to which the simulation represents reality); fidelity
ensures that learning from the simulation is valid and trans-
fers to practice in real life (Alessi & Trollip, 2001).
Dieker et al. (2014) also highlighted the importance for
simulation-based learning of a cyclical process of action,
feedback and debriefing, and modified action. This is known
in the military as ARC, or the Action Review Cycle (Holman,
Devene, & Cady, 2007). A meta-analysis by Gegenfurtner,
Quesada-Pallarès, and Knogler (2014) confirmed that feed-
back after simulation activity led to greater self-efficacy and
skills transfer.
The third component, only partly realized in today’s simu-
lations, is personalized learning through flexible environ-
ments that focus on assessing and teaching the specific new
skills needed by the learner (Dieker et al., 2014). One aspect
of personalized learning that is incorporated into some simu-
lations is user control over levels of difficulty, which increases
self-efficacy beliefs and skills transfer (Gegenfurtner et al.,
2014). Gibbons, Fairweather, Anderson, and Merrill (1997)
maintained that effective simulations should allow learners to
change simulation parameters, repeat the experiment, and
directly observe the consequences.
Perhaps the most comprehensive set of recommended simu-
lation design features comes from Issenberg, McGaghie,
Petrusa, Gordon, and Scalese’s (2005) comprehensive system-
atic review, covering 34 years and 109 studies of high-fidelity
medical simulations. This review identified 10 simulation fea-
tures that facilitate effective learning (Table 1); the features are
applicable outside the medical domain and have been recom-
mended by many simulation experts and education researchers,
including Aldrich (2004, 2005), Alessi and Trollip (2001),
Duffy and Cunningham (2001), Ferry et al. (2005), and others.
The above design criteria, focusing on learning processes,
are chiefly concerned with whether or not the simulation is
effective in terms of producing defined learning outcomes
for users. Usability, or the ease with which users are able
carry out tasks using the software, is not directly addressed
but is a fundamental determinant of the user’s experience
with the software. Usability is distinct from utility, or whether
the software is capable of carrying out its intended tasks
(Microsoft, 2000). Clearly, both are important, if implied,
design criteria for an effective simulation.
The simSchool Classroom Simulation
simSchool (www.simschool.org) is a web-based classroom
simulation designed to provide pre-service teachers with the
opportunity to practice different classroom teaching skills.
The player in simSchool has the role of a teacher responsible
for teaching and managing a classroom of students, choosing
a grade between 7 and 12. simSchool provides student teach-
ers with the opportunity of practicing classroom teaching
skills by analyzing student differences, adapting instructions
to learners’ needs and characteristics, and getting feedback
from the simulation as the results of their teaching actions
and choices (simSchool, 2011). Each simStudent (simulated
student) has a profile that includes information about person-
ality, academics, and teacher’s reflections; these profiles are
modeled on real student profiles in actual teachers’ records.
The profile include statements about the simStudent’s behav-
ior and learning preferences. Each has an individual person-
ality with settings on six dimensions: expected academic
performance, openness to learning, conscientiousness toward
tasks, extroversion or introversion, agreeableness, and emo-
tional stability; settings range from very negative to very
positive on each dimension, with about 20 different possible
points on each of the six dimensions (Badiee & Kaufman,
2014; Christensen et al., 2011; Deale & Pastore, 2014;
Gibson, 2007; Hettler, Gibson, Christensen, & Zibit, 2008).
Table 1. Simulation Conditions for Effective Learning.
Condition %a
Educational feedback 47
Repetitive practice 39
Integration into the curriculum 25
Range of difficulty levels 14
Multiple learning strategies 10
Ability to capture variations in clinical conditions 10
Experimentation without adverse consequences 9
Reproducible, standardized experiences,
students as active learners
9
Clearly stated goals and defined outcomes 6
Validity of the simulation model 3
Source. Summarized from Issenberg, McGaghie, Petrusa, Gordon, and
Scalese (2005, p. 10).
aPercentage of 109 reviewed articles reporting evidence of effectiveness.

4 SAGE Open
In the simSchool classroom, the player must select tasks
and conversational exchanges that best fit the students’ needs,
and simStudents respond with changes in their expressions
and responses. The teacher’s choices in interaction with sim-
Students affect their academic outcomes and behaviors, and
the player should make appropriate decisions to help students
on their given learning tasks (Zibit & Gibson, 2005).
As the simulation runs, the player is required to make
many choices about organizing the lesson, managing the
classroom, and interacting with individual students. These
issues have been identified as significant areas that underlie
the quality of instruction for teachers (Nelson, 2002). Based
on their simulation experience, student teachers can practice
decision making and refine their classroom teaching strate-
gies (Zibit & Gibson, 2005). simSchool is designed to sup-
port the user in developing expertise and thinking like a
teacher. Success in the simulation comes through helping
simStudents improve, both in their academic performance
and their behavior. simSchool is intended to be used on an
ongoing basis as part of the pre-service curriculum, with an
instructor’s guidance (Deale & Pastore, 2014).
Recent studies have evaluated simSchool’s effectiveness
for general teaching practice (Badiee & Kaufman, 2014;
Deale & Pastore, 2014), for the development of student
teachers’ self-efficacy (Christensen et al., 2011; Gibson et al.,
2011), and for learning to work with diverse and special-
needs student populations (McPherson et al., 2011; Rayner
& Fluck, 2014). These have indicated a range of positive
learning outcomes for pre-service teachers after simSchool
use. The Rayner and Fluck study also captured, in qualitative
comments, users’ general opinions about the simulation’s
realism and ease of use. These questioned the simulation’s
realism (particularly simulated student responses) and identi-
fied difficulties with the user interface (particularly the
mechanics of task and response selection). The article also
suggested that simSchool’s realism could be improved by
extending its virtual classroom to include inter-student inter-
actions and by improving the classroom’s visual realism.
Unlike the above studies, the research reported considers
the initial user experience with simSchool based on a series
of brief introductory sessions. Rather than introducing the
simulation as part of a formal teaching preparation program,
this experiment studies initial user perceptions of and experi-
ences with the software, identifying the key factors that sup-
port or inhibit its user acceptance, usability, and utility for
augmenting the practicum experience.
Method
This research was done as part of a pilot study of the overall
effectiveness of simSchool in a pre-service teacher education
program in a mid-sized Western Canadian university. Results
related to simSchool’s effectiveness for teacher preparation
are presented in Badiee and Kaufman (2014) and are not
addressed in this article.
Research Questions
The design evaluation, intended for a preliminary user-ori-
ented evaluation of simSchool’s usability and relevance, was
guided by two broad questions:
1. Research Question 1: What do student teachers see
as the strengths and weaknesses of simSchool?
2. Research Question 2: What design features of sim-
School need to be improved to meet student teachers’
perceived preparation needs?
The questions were addressed through a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods, as described below.
Participants
Twenty-two student teacher volunteers from a teacher educa-
tion program at a Western Canadian university took part in
the study. Their program is made up of a combination of pro-
fessional coursework and practicum experience. Because
they came from several class cohorts in the program, some
participants had participated in a practicum, whereas others
had not. For the purposes of this evaluation, the study did not
distinguish among cohorts.
Experiment and Instrument
Because the study relied on busy volunteer participants, the
experiment was conducted in a single session with breaks
between brief experimental tasks. The experiment was con-
ducted outside the education curriculum; in contrast, Rayner
and Fluck’s (2014) study embedded the simulation sessions
in the formal curriculum, was conducted over a longer
period, and included formal training for the simulation facili-
tator. In this study, the facilitator relied on the simSchool
manual and self-study to learn the software prior to the
experiment.
The experiment consisted of three sessions with sim-
School Version 1. The first session was used simply for prac-
tice with one simStudent, and the research assistant circulated
and assisted any student teachers who were unclear about
what to do. Then, student teachers worked through the simu-
lation “for real” with one simStudent and then with five sim-
Students. There was a debriefing step after each session.
During the debriefings, participants received and were able
to discuss their simSchool-generated performance results.
The experimental tasks and assigned times are shown in
Table 2.
Data related to simSchool’s design were collected from a
post-experiment questionnaire based on standards of effec-
tive simulation design. The questionnaire used five-point
scales to rate the simulation’s realism and other features, as
well as three open-ended questions about the simulation’s
design. SPSS Version 21 was used to produce descriptive

Badiee and Kaufman 5
statistics (frequencies and percentages). Due to the small
number of responses, thematic analysis for the open-ended
questions was done manually using Microsoft Word.
Results
Participant Backgrounds
Table 3 shows selected participant background characteris-
tics. The great majority of participants (86.4%) were female.
Two thirds rated their computer skills as intermediate. Less
than a third (31.8%) had used computer-based simulations
for education, but the majority (84.2%) had used computer-
based simulations in another context. Following their sim-
School use, less than one fifth (18.2%) of student teacher
participants indicated that they planned to use what they had
learned in the simulation in actual classrooms; however,
almost three quarters (72.7%) responded that they were not
sure whether they wanted to do so in the future.
Quantitative Ratings
Participant ratings of simSchool’s realism (fidelity) are sum-
marized in Table 4. Overall, ratings were moderate, with the
mean rating of the highest rated characteristic, “the chal-
lenges of a typical teacher in the classroom,” 3.73 out of 5. Of
the participants, 68.1% rated these challenges as “realistic” or
“very realistic.” The realism of simStudent profiles was rated
at a similar level, with a mean of 3.71; 71.4% rated the pro-
files as “realistic” or “very realistic.” “Characteristics of sim-
School students compared to those of real students” received
a mean rating of 3.27, with 50.0% of the participants rating
these as “realistic or “very realistic.” The lowest rated charac-
teristic was “conversations between you as a teacher and sim-
Students,” with a mean of 2.23; 72.8% of the participants
rated these simulated conversations as “unrealistic” or “very
unrealistic.” The remaining three items were rated toward the
midpoint of the rating range, with ratings spread across “unre-
alistic,” “unsure,” and “realistic.” “Options for assigning
classroom tasks to simStudents” was rated 2.77 out of 5, with
ratings somewhat evenly spread over the middle three rating
categories. The remaining three characteristics—classroom
design, simStudents’ behavior, and academic performance
outcomes—were rated close to the scale midpoint of 3, indi-
cating that participants were divided about these features and
on average were unsure about their realism.
Tables 5 through 7 show participant ratings for other
aspects of the simulation. Four items (clarity of purpose,
educational value, concept coverage, and generalizability)
were rated with respect to content and curriculum appropri-
ateness (Table 5); the highest mean rating was for the simula-
tion’s educational value (3.14 out of 5, with 3 = “good”). It is
worth noting that 86.3% of the respondents rated this charac-
teristic “good,” or higher. The lowest rating (2.77) was for its
generalizability. All four items were rated “good” (the mid-
point of the scale) by the largest percentage of participants.
Table 6 shows participant ratings for the appropriateness
of simSchool for its target users. All mean ratings in this
group were below the scale midpoint of 3, between “poor”
and “good,” reflecting users’ somewhat negative opinions.
The items “It is motivational to use” and “I find it fun”
received the highest mean ratings (2.77 and 2.73, respec-
tively). Lowest rated were “It effectively stimulates my cre-
ativity” (M = 2.41) and “It matches with my previous
experience” (M = 2.50). The item “It is flexible for different
users,” which refers to an important criterion for effective
simulations, received a “poor” or “very poor” rating by
50.0% of the participants.
When asked about simSchool’s user interaction (Table 7),
participants gave a rating over 3 to only one item—the
appropriate use of graphics, color, and sound (3.23 out of 5).
Other items were rated less than 3.0 (“good”). Participants
gave low to moderate ratings (Ms between 2 and 3, or “poor”
and “good”) to other items about ease of use and about effec-
tive use of feedback and user control.
Table 2. simSchool Experiment Tasks and Approximate Times.
Step Task Time (min)
1 Demo and introduction 10
2 Work with one simStudent (practice) 20
3 Debrief Step 2 10
4 Work with one simStudent (experiment) 20
5 Debrief Step 4 10
6 Work with five simStudents (experiment) 30
7 Debrief Step 6 10
Table 3. Selected Participant Background Characteristics.
Characteristic n (%)
Gender (n = 22)
Male 3 (13.6)
Female 19 (86.4)
Self-rated computer skill (n = 21)
Novice 2 (9.5)
Intermediate 14 (66.7)
Proficient 5 (23.8)
Have used computer-based simulation for education (n = 22)
No 15 (68.2)
Yes 7 (31.8)
Have used computer-based simulation in other context(s)
(n = 19)
No 3 (15.8)
Yes 16 (84.2)
Plan to use what you learned in the simulation in the classroom
(n = 22)
No 2 (9.1)
Yes 4 (18.2)
Not sure 16 (72.7)

6 SAGE Open
Table 6. Ratings of simSchool Appropriateness for Target Users (n = 22).
M (SD)aVery poor (%) Poor (%) Good (%) Very good (%) Excellent (%)
Please rate the following aspects of simSchool:
It effectively stimulates my creativity 2.41 (1.00) 22.7 27.3 36.4 13.6 0.0
It matches with my previous experiences 2.50 (1.10) 18.2 36.4 27.3 13.6 4.5
It is motivational to use 2.77 (0.92) 4.5 36.4 40.9 13.6 4.5
It is flexible for different users 2.64 (0.90) 4.5 45.5 36.4 9.1 4.5
I find it fun 2.73 (0.98) 9.1 31.8 40.9 13.6 4.5
aBased on a 5-point scale with 1 = very poor, 5 = excellent.
Table 7. Ratings of simSchool User Interaction (n = 22).
M (SD)aVery poor (%) Poor (%) Good (%) Very good (%) Excellent (%)
Please rate the following aspects of simSchool:
It is easy for me to use 2.50 (0.96) 9.1 50.0 27.3 9.1 4.5
I could use it without help 2.91 (1.15) 9.1 31.8 27.3 22.7 9.1
Feedback on student responses is effectively used 2.36 (0.90) 13.6 50.0 22.7 13.6 0.0
Graphics, color, and sound are used for
appropriate instructional reasons
3.23 (0.81) 0.0 18.2 45.5 31.8 4.5
It gives me control over the rate and the
sequence of the simulation
2.82 (1.00) 13.6 13.6 54.5 13.6 4.5
aBased on a 5-point scale: 1 = very poor, 5 = excellent
Table 4. Participant Ratings of simSchool Realism (n = 22).
How realistic did you find the following
features of simSchool? M (SD)aVery unrealistic (%) Unrealistic (%) Unsure (%) Realistic (%) Very realistic (%)
The characteristics of simStudents
compared with the characteristics of real
students
3.27 (1.03) 9.1 9.1 31.8 45.5 4.5
simStudent profiles 3.71 (0.78) 0.0 9.5 19.0 61.9 9.5
The design of the simSchool classroom
compared with a real classroom situation
2.91 (1.19) 18.2 18.2 18.2 45.5 0.0
simStudents’ behavior 3.05 (1.11) 4.8 38.1 9.5 42.9 4.8
The outcome of simStudents’ academic
performance
3.09 (0.75) 0.0 22.7 45.5 31.8 0.0
Conversations between you as a teacher
and simStudents
2.23 (1.15) 27.3 45.5 9.1 13.6 4.5
Options for assigning academic tasks to
simStudents
2.77 (1.02) 9.1 36.4 22.7 31.8 0.0
Teachers’ challenges represented in
simSchool
3.73 (0.82) 0.0 9.1 22.7 54.5 13.6
aBased on a 5-point scale, with 1 = very unrealistic, 5 = very realistic.
Table 5. Ratings of simSchool Content and Curriculum (n = 22).
M (SD)aVery poor (%) Poor (%) Good (%) Very good (%) Excellent (%)
Please rate the following aspects of simSchool:
It has a clear purpose 3.05 (0.78) 0.0 22.7 54.5 18.2 4.5
The content has educational value 3.14 (0.83) 4.5 9.2 59.1 22.7 4.5
It covers key concepts of classroom management 2.95 (0.80) 4.8 14.3 66.7 9.5 4.8
It is generalizable to an appropriate range of situations 2.77 (0.86) 13.6 9.1 63.6 13.6 0.0
aBased on a 5-point scale, with 1 = very poor, 5 = excellent.

Badiee and Kaufman 7
Finally, one additional item asking about the simulation’s
freedom from racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes received
a relatively high mean rating of 3.55 out of 5.
Open-Ended Questions
Three open-ended questions gathered qualitative data from
the 22 participants about their opinions and perceptions of
simSchool. The following themes in their comments were
relevant to the simulation design:
Question 1: What did you like most about simSchool?
Respondents identified the following:
 The variety of options for interaction and having con-
versation with simStudents (n = 5)
 The variety in responses and attitudes of simStudents
and the change and development of their academic
performance (n = 5)
 Simulation feedback in the form of interim and final
results, spreadsheets and graphs, and/or student per-
formance (n = 4)
Some participants appreciated the richness of certain aspects
of the simulation, including the interactions with simStudents,
the simStudents’ different attitudes, and the responsiveness of
their academic achievement to the teacher’s decisions in the
simulation. These are all key design features that contribute to
simSchool’s effectiveness for pre-service teacher classroom
practice. However, these features were only identified by small
numbers of participants (four or five for each theme).
Question 2. What did you like least about simSchool?
The following themes were reported:
 Inappropriate, limited, or unrealistic options for con-
versation and interaction with simStudents (n = 12)
 Difficulty with the interface in navigating through the
options for interaction and conversation with simStu-
dents (n = 9)
 simStudents’ responses to the chosen tasks/conversation
options did not always seem to suit or make sense (n = 5)
A larger number of participants noted difficulties with the
realism of the simulation’s conversation and interaction
options (n = 12); some also criticized the plausibility of stu-
dent responses (n = 5). Nine participants noted difficulties
with the user interface.
Question 3. Please provide any suggestions you have for
improving simSchool and/or its use with student teachers.
Respondents provided the following:
 Have a clearer, more user friendly, and ordered cate-
gorization of comments in the interface for navigation
and interaction with simStudents (n = 9)
 Allow more realistic options for a variety of interac-
tions, conversations, and teaching styles (n = 6)
 Allow users to create their original comments for
interaction with simStudents (n = 5)
These suggestions are consistent with the weaknesses
identified in response to Question 2 above.
Discussion
Research Question 1: What do student teachers see as
the strengths and weaknesses of simSchool?
In general, participant ratings of simSchool varied widely
and were moderate rather than highly positive. Regarding the
simulation’s fidelity, respondents regarded as most realistic
the classroom challenges experienced by the user as a simu-
lated teacher, the simStudent profiles and learning character-
istics, their simulated classroom behaviors, and their
academic performance outcomes (although the last two only
received ratings close to “good”). The realism of simulated
conversations between simStudents and the teacher received
a low rating, as did correspondence with users’ previous
experience. These ratings were consistent with participants’
written comments, which identified “most liked” features as
conversation and interaction options, variety in simStudent
responses and attitudes, and changes in their academic per-
formance in response to teacher actions.
Overall, ease of use and stimulation of user creativity
received low ratings, whereas comments identified the “least
liked” features as the user interface for conversation and
interaction with simStudents, general navigation in the user
interface, the realism of simStudents’ responses, and general
ease of use.
These results suggest that users were not quite able to sus-
pend their disbelief and enter fully into their roles as teach-
ers, and that they were not able, given their short exposure to
the simulation, to easily choose and carry out required tasks.
Results of other studies (e.g., Christensen et al., 2011) sug-
gest that using and believing the simulation might become
easier given time and support for new users to become more
familiar with the software and with how to respond to its
underlying student models. Also, simSchool’s flexibility for
different users, an important simulation design criterion, was
rated “poor” or “very poor” by 50% of users, indicating that
they were not aware of the software’s capabilities for defin-
ing multiple student learning needs and for changing the
class size and learning requirements; this was probably also
due to the short experimental time.
Ratings were above 3 (“good”) for the simulation’s clarity
of purpose; the educational value of simSchool content; the
appropriate use of graphics, color, and sound; and sim-
School’s freedom from racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes.
These, together with the high proportion (86.3%) of partici-
pants rating “educational value” as “good” or higher, and
positive comments on simSchool’s feedback, suggest that

8 SAGE Open
new users in the study recognized the simulation’s potential
as a learning tool despite their initial difficulties.
These findings are valuable because they come from the
reflection and feedback of student teachers—the main target
users of simSchool. However, given the short times available
for participants to practice and work with the simulation,
they reflect first impressions about the simulation as well as
frustrations that might have been mitigated with longer prac-
tice time and simulation sessions. For example, the effective-
ness of feedback through student responses received a low
rating, although the student teachers appreciated receiving
feedback and being able to see and compare their perfor-
mance results. It is worth noting here that in longer experi-
ments, instructors worked with users to help them fully
understand and learn from the system’s feedback, suggesting
that limited debriefing time might have negatively affected
user opinions about feedback.
Research Question 2: What design features of simSchool
need to be improved to meet student teachers’ perceived
preparation needs?
Through low ratings of some aspects of the program and
in written comments, participants argued for improvements
in the conversation and interaction options between simStu-
dents and teachers, as well as improvements in the user inter-
face. These comments suggest that improving these aspects
of the simulation could lessen initial user frustration and
improve its overall effectiveness.
Conclusion
This study looked at users’ initial responses to simSchool
based on limited training and brief simulation sessions.
Although these initial perceptions and opinions might well
change with increased exposure and instructor support, they
indicate issues that need to be addressed to use the simula-
tion effectively for pre-service teaching practice. These
results are consistent with Rayner and Fluck’s (2014) obser-
vations in that both reflect the effects of participants’ limited
time working with the simulation. Taken together, these two
studies confirm that for effective training, the version of sim-
School evaluated in this study requires longer periods of use
and stronger instructor support than in their experiments.
The results reported in this article do suggest that addressing
usability and fidelity issues could reduce these time and
resource requirements, encouraging its wider use. Despite
the moderate to low ratings, the student teacher participants
in this study found overall that simSchool is an instructional
program of educational value.
Study Limitations
This design evaluation was conducted within a short time
frame. Due to participants’ extremely full schedules, they
were only available for one simulation period, which limited
the time available for them to practice with the simulation.
This did not allow time for them to become comfortable with
the user interface, to acclimate to the simulated teacher’s role
and required behaviors, or to practice with a more realistic
18-student classroom. Finally, the sample of students
involved in the study might be considered biased, because it
involved willing volunteer student teachers (primarily
female) rather than a randomly selected sample. Therefore,
the generalizability of the results is limited.
Further Research
The results of this study suggest several areas for further
design evaluation work, beginning with addressing the limi-
tations identified above by providing a longer time frame and
a larger participant sample to test whether the negative rat-
ings in this study would lessen with more learning time.
Evaluation of specific design criteria could provide more tar-
geted feedback for simSchool developers. Some of these
issues have been addressed in Version 2 of the software, so
future studies will be conducted with this version.
Using a sample of participants at different stages in their
teacher education program could help to evaluate how partici-
pants’ prior knowledge and experience affect simSchool’s per-
ceived design strengths and weaknesses and whether practice
with the simulation might affect whether or not student teach-
ers plan to use simulations such as simSchool in the future. It
would also be useful to evaluate, with teacher educators, the
simulation’s content and curriculum appropriateness.
Authors’ Note
Farnaz Badiee is now at the Center for Teaching, Learning, and
Technology, University of British Columbia.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning. San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: The essential guide to simu-
lations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other
educational experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning:
Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Allen, J. M., & Wright, S. E. (2013). Integrating theory and practice
in the pre-service teacher education practicum. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20, 136-151. doi:10.1080/135
40602.2013.848568

Badiee and Kaufman 9
Arnett, S. E., & Freeburg, B. W. (2008). Family and consumer sci-
ences pre-service teachers: Impact of an early field experience.
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 26, 48-55.
Badiee, F., & Kaufman, D. (2014). Effectiveness of an online
simulation for teacher education. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 22, 167-186.
Billingsley, G. M., & Scheuermann, B. K. (2014). Using virtual
technology to enhance field experiences for pre-service special
education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,
37, 255-272. doi:10.1177/0888406414530413
Bradley, E. G., & Kendall, B. (2014). A review of computer simula-
tions in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 43, 3-12.
Carrington, L., Kervin, L., & Ferry, B. (2011). Enhancing the
development of pre-service teacher professional identity via
an online classroom simulation. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 19, 351-368.
Carstens, A., & Beck, J. (2005). Get ready for the gamer generation.
TechTrends, 49, 22-25.
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Tyler-Wood, T., & Gibson, D. (2011).
simSchool: An online dynamic simulator for enhancing teacher
preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6,
201-220. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2011.042649
Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/
gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 898-920.
Deale, D., & Pastore, R. (2014). Evaluation of simSchool, an
instructional simulation for pre-service teachers. Computers in
the Schools, 31, 197-219.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learn-
ing. Science, 323, 66-69.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY:
Collier and Kappa Delta Pi.
Dieker, L. A., Hynes, M., Stapleton, C., & Hughes, C. (2007).
Virtual classrooms: STAR simulator: Building virtual environ-
ments for teacher training in effective classroom management.
New Learning Technology SALT, 4, 1-22.
Dieker, L. A., Rodriguez, J. A., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Hynes, M.
C., & Hughes, C. E. (2014). The potential of simulated envi-
ronments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 21-33.
Drews, F. A., & Backdash, J. D. (2013). Simulation training in
health care. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 8,
191-234.
Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (2001). Constructivism: Implications
for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology. Bloomington, IN: The Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.
aect.org/edtech/ed1/
Duke, R. D. (1980). A paradigm for game design. Simulation &
Gaming, 11, 364-377.
Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. L. A. (2004). Policy games for strate-
gic management. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rozenberg
Publishers.
Edutopia. (2008). Why is teacher development important: Because
students deserve the best. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.
org/teacher-development-introduction
Ferry, B., Kervin, L., Cambourne, B., Turbill, J., Puglisi, S.,
Jonassen, D., & Hedberg, J. (2004). Online classroom simula-
tion: The “next wave” for pre-service teacher education? In R.
Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.),
Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE
Conference (pp. 294-302). Perth: Australian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/ferry.
html
Ferry, B., Kervin, L., Hedberg, J. G., Turbill, J., Cambourne, B., &
Jonassen, D. (2005). Operationalizing nine design elements of
authentic learning environments in a classroom-based on-line
simulation. Journal of Learning Design, 1, 22-31.
Gegenfurtner, A., Quesada-Pallarès, C., & Knogler, M. (2014).
Digital simulation-based training: A meta-analysis. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 1097-1114.
Gibbons, A. S., Fairweather, P. G., Anderson, T. A., & Merrill, M.
D. (1997). Simulation and computer-based instruction: A future
view. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional
development: State of the art (pp. 772-783). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Instructional Technology Publications.
Gibson, D. (2007). simSchool and the conceptual assessment frame-
work. In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich, & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games
and simulations in online learning: Research and development
frameworks (pp. 308-322). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Gibson, D., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Knezek, G. (2011).
simSchool: Enhancing teacher preparation through simulated
classrooms. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings
of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2011 (pp. 1504-1510). Chesapeake,
VA: AACE.
Gibson, D., & Halverson, B. (2004). simSchool: Preparing tomor-
row’s teachers to improve student results. In R. Ferdig, C.
Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D.
A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education Annual Conference 2004
(pp. 3318-3321). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Girod, M., & Girod, G. (2008). Simulation and the need for qual-
ity practice in teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 16, 307-337.
Hettler, L., Gibson, D., Christensen, R., & Zibit, M. (2008). sim-
Mentoring: Guiding development from virtual to real teaching!
Stowe, VT: CurveShift.
Hixon, E., & So, H.-J. (2009). Technology’s role in field experi-
ences for preservice teacher training. Educational Technology
& Society, 12, 294-304.
Holman, P., Devane, T., & Cady, S. (2007). Change handbook: The
definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole
systems (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education
programs. In J. Sikula, T. Buttert, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 143-170).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in
culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published
1938)
Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Gordon, D. L., &
Scalese, R. J. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medi-
cal simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME sys-
tematic review. Medical Teacher, 27, 10-28.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the
source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

10 SAGE Open
Lyons, J. (2012). Learning with technology: Theoretical foundations
underpinning simulations in higher education. In M. Brown,
M. Hartnett, & T. Stewart (Eds.), ascilite 2012 Proceedings.
Wellington, New Zealand: Massey University. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wellington12/2012/
images/custom/asclite2012_proceedings.pdf
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and
theory for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath.
McPherson, R., Tyler-Wood, T., Mcenturff, A., & Peak, P. (2011).
Using a computerized classroom simulation to prepare pre-
service teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 19, 93-110.
Microsoft. (2000). Usability in software design. Redmond, WA:
Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved from https://msdn.microsoft.
com/en-us/library/ms997577.aspx
Nelson, B. (2002). Quality teaching a national priority. Unicorn
(Carlton, Vic), 28(2), 23-29.
Parente, D. H. (1995). A large-scale simulation for teaching busi-
ness strategy. In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and
gaming across disciplines and cultures (pp. 75-82). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Phillion, J., Miller, P. C., & Lehman, J. D. (2005). Providing
field experiences with diverse populations for preservice
teachers: Using technology to bridge distances and cultures.
Multicultural Perspectives, 7, 3-9.
Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical
times, critical choices. Sydney, Australia: New South Wales
Department of Education and Training.
Rayner, C., & Fluck, A. (2014). Pre-service teacher’s percep-
tions of simSchool as preparation for inclusive education: A
pilot study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42,
212-227. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2014.927825
Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Marquis, J.-S. (2007).
Distinguishing between games and simulations: A systematic
review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10,
247-256.
simSchool. (2011). About simSchool. Retrieved from www.sim-
school.org/about
Ulrich, M. (1997). Links between experiential learning and simu-
lation and gaming. In J. Guerts, C. Joldersma, & E. Roelofs
(Eds.), Gaming/simulation for policy development and organi-
zational change: Proceedings of the 28th Annual International
Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming
Association (ISAGA) (pp. 269-275). Tilburg, The Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. F., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, recommendations,
and priorities for the future. Seattle: Center for the Study of
Teaching Policy, University of Washington.
Young, M. (1998). Rethinking teacher education for a global future:
Lessons from the English. Journal of Education for Teaching,
24, 51-62.
Zibit, M., & Gibson, D. (2005). simSchool: The game of teach-
ing. Innovate Online, 1(6). Retrieved from http://www.
innovateonline.info/pdf/vol1_issue6/simSchool___The_
Game_of_Teaching.pdf
Author Biographies
Farnaz Badiee, at the time of this study, was an M.A. candidate
in the Educational Technology and Learning Design Program at
the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University. She is now
an instructional designer/project manager at the Centre for
Teaching, Learning and Technology at the University of British
Columbia.
David Kaufman has served as director of Course Design, BC Open
Learning Agency, and professor and director of the Medical
Education Unit in Dalhousie University’s Faculty of Medicine.
From 2001 to 2008, he was director of the Teaching and Learning
Centre at Simon Fraser University (SFU). He is currently a profes-
sor in the Faculty of Education at SFU and conducts research on
digital games and simulations for learning, and as tools to to
enhance the social, emotional and cognitive lives of older adults.