On-entry teacher screening using simulation: capturing and measuring ITE candidates’ non-academic teaching dispositions

Figures & data

Figure 1. SimLab^TM virtual classroom.

Figure 2. Components of SimLab^TM HITL simulation at Murdoch University (Ledger 2017).

Table 1. Survey items derived from AITSL recommended non-academic dispositions and ratings for each item.

		Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree (%)
1	I was able to show my motivation to teach through the process of preparing for and undertaking the SimLab entry evaluation.	85.3	10.3	4.4
2	The SimLab entry evaluation was a good measure of my interpersonal and communication skills.	-	-	-
3	The SimLab entry evaluation was a good measure of my willingness to learn.	85.3	11.8	2.9
4	I was able to show my resilience to teach through the process of preparing for and undertaking the SimLab entry evaluation.	68.6	25.4	6.0
5	The SimLab entry evaluation was a good measure of my self-confidence.	82.1	11.9	6.0
6	I was able to show my conscientiousness through the process of preparing for and undertaking the SimLab entry evaluation.	76.2	20.8	3.0
7	The SimLab entry evaluation was a good measure of my organisational and planning skills.	88.1	11.9	0.0

Table 2. Survey items derived from the dispositions demonstrated in the on-entry evaluation experience.

		Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree (%)
1	The On-Entry SimLab evaluation was a good measure of my language and discourse skills	86.6	10.4	3.0
2	The On-Entry SimLab evaluation was a good measure of my improvisation skills	89.5	9.0	1.5
3	The On-Entry SimLab evaluation was a good measure of my confidence and skills to teach	-	-	-
4	The On-Entry SimLab evaluation was a good measure of my rapport-building skills	76.1	20.9	3.0

Table 3. Unstandardised (B) and standardised (β) regression coefficients, squared semi-partial correlations (sr²) for each predictor in a hierarchical regression model predicting candidates’ perceived self-confidence.

	Variable	B [95% CI]	β	sr^2
Model 1
	Language and Discourse	.21[−.0749]	.20	.02
	Improvisation skills	.05[−.2737]	.04	.00
	Rapport-building skills	.33 [.0066]*	.31	.05
Model 2
	Language and Discourse	.02[−.2630]	.02	.00
	Improvisation skills	−.08[−.3621]	−.06	.00
	Rapport-building skills	.53[.2185]*	.49	.09
	Motivation to teach	.04[−.1826]	.04	.00
	Willingness to learn	.12[−.1640]	.11	.01
	Resilience	−.36[−.68,-.04]*	−.38	.04
	Conscientiousness	.64[.3693]**	.64	.16
	Organisational and planning skills	−.07[−.4027]	−.05	.00

Note. n = 67, CI = Confidence interval. *p < .05, **p < .001.

Ledger, S. 2017. Learning to Teach with Avatars (Innovative Case Study). Murdoch, Australia: Murdoch University.

 Google Scholar