View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Capturing Competence: The Design, Evaluation, and Implementation of a Video-Based Instrument for Assessing Verbal Aggression Management Competence

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Capturing Competence: The Design, Evaluation, and Implementation of a Video-Based Instrument for Assessing Verbal Aggression Management Competence
Language: English
Authors: Delphine Franco (ORCID 0000-0002-7402-8204), Ruben Vanderlinde (ORCID 0000-0002-4912-3410), Martin Valcke (ORCID 0000-0001-9544-4197)
Source: European Journal of Education. 2025 60(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Preservice Teachers, Preservice Teacher Education, Student Behavior, Aggression, Simulation, Video Technology, Vignettes, Test Construction, Test Reliability, Evaluation Methods, Evaluation Criteria, Skill Development, Teacher Competency Testing
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12834
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Complex competences, such as managing students' aggressive behaviour, are challenging to develop during teacher training. Recently, video-based simulations have been considered promising, yet suitable assessment instruments are limitedly available. This paper reports on the design and evaluation of a video-based assessment tool tailored to measure preservice teachers' verbal aggression management competence (V-AMC) development. Design considerations for video-based activities served as a framework, resulting in an assessment instrument consisting of video vignettes mirroring classroom situations concerning verbal aggressive behaviour, questions prompting situation-specific skills development, and a coding scheme to analyse preservice teachers' answers. Furthermore, this paper discusses the results of the instrument's implementation on preservice teachers' (n = 182) V-AMC. Findings support the appropriateness of the instrument in assessing V-AMC levels and mapping the impact of a simulation-based intervention. The data partially confirm the intervention's contribution to V-AMC development. Implications for future interventions targeting competence development are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461246
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE4I-JTjCbNfyobGCtW08i6AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB3oVqrn44UgnHfPgQIBEICBm5cdNt_L0z4ffKOYSZTNPqZM4ks0NmieU0d1fPh-5zFpVW83CmFrcPnenJarQF3jIM6vcI7lFNIKLQU6qAsp1ViNupp-kkg1xNpz2IUYLDkBSIBxAOGVXa0p_ecyeDm4muznc9DhRqizrai1YVZGgEhJ41qcuv2Y4R6-2T2Iu4La5mrkrm1kO3rmIA1zW6QtNPPxKjjHoemVdlg3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183654326;eje01mar.25;2025Mar17.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183654326-1">Capturing Competence: The Design, Evaluation, and Implementation of a Video‐Based Instrument for Assessing Verbal Aggression Management Competence </title> <p>Complex competences, such as managing students' aggressive behaviour, are challenging to develop during teacher training. Recently, video‐based simulations have been considered promising, yet suitable assessment instruments are limitedly available. This paper reports on the design and evaluation of a video‐based assessment tool tailored to measure preservice teachers' verbal aggression management competence (V‐AMC) development. Design considerations for video‐based activities served as a framework, resulting in an assessment instrument consisting of video vignettes mirroring classroom situations concerning verbal aggressive behaviour, questions prompting situation‐specific skills development, and a coding scheme to analyse preservice teachers' answers. Furthermore, this paper discusses the results of the instrument's implementation on preservice teachers' (n = 182) V‐AMC. Findings support the appropriateness of the instrument in assessing V‐AMC levels and mapping the impact of a simulation‐based intervention. The data partially confirm the intervention's contribution to V‐AMC development. Implications for future interventions targeting competence development are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: aggression management; competence development; instrument development; simulation‐based learning; teacher education; video‐based assessment</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Developing complex teaching competences is challenging. One of these complex competences pertains to effectively managing maladaptive behaviour, which also encompasses instances of aggression (Oliver and Reschly [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref1">55</reflink>]). Its development requires a learning environment that is interactive, engaging, collaborative and experiential, which is often lacking in teacher training programs (TTPs; Bergsmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]). Frequently, novice teachers are sent into the field 'blind', that is, without prior practice‐based competence development opportunities. Consequently, their responses to aggressive behaviour tend to be driven by intuition and are based on personal experiences (Allen [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]) rather than intentionally planned (Elias and Schwab [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]). When turning into a negative experience, these responses influence the classroom climate and interpersonal dynamics between students and teachers (Jennings and Greenberg [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]). A recent meta‐analysis on the association between aggression and the student‐teacher relationship indicated that students engaged in aggression tend to have teacher relationships characterised by high levels of conflict (Krause and Smith [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref6">49</reflink>]). In addition, student aggression towards teachers can lead to distress (Berg and Cornell [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]), teacher burnout (Masluk et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>]), or even leaving the profession in cases of prolonged or frequent incidents (Moon, McCluskey, and Morash [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref9">53</reflink>]). However, the proposal to incorporate authentic learning and practice opportunities in TTPs in aggression management presents ethical (e.g., effects on students' well‐being) and logistic (e.g., time and cost‐related) dilemmas. Simulations have the potential to address these dilemmas by offering contexts that closely replicate real‐world scenarios in a controlled setting, enabling standardised and repetitive practice without far‐reaching consequences (Zoellner [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref10">76</reflink>]). A growing body of research on developing and implementing simulations in TTPs has emerged recently, including those focusing on classroom management (Theelen, van den Beemt, and den Brok [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref11">66</reflink>]). Classrooms are information‐rich environments (Brophy [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]), hindering the adoption of generic and standardised tools or research instruments for assessing competence development via simulations (Heitzmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref13">31</reflink>]). As a result, much remains unknown regarding the potential applications of simulation‐based interventions aimed at developing complex teacher competencies in general and focusing on aggression management competences in particular. Given the need to develop a fitting and evidence‐based measurement tool, the operational objective of the current study is to design, evaluate, and implement a measurement tool for capturing verbal aggression management competence (V‐AMC) in preservice teachers (PSTs).</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-3">Aggression Management</hd> <p>Teachers' CM decisions and students' aggressive behaviour reciprocally influence each other (Barnes, Smith, and Miller [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]). Verbal aggression, the most prevalent in secondary schools (Poling et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref15">58</reflink>]), yields adverse outcomes for students, teachers, and the classroom climate if left unaddressed (Barnes, Smith, and Miller [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]; Berg and Cornell [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]). Moreover, it often precedes more severe manifestations of aggression, such as physical aggression (Taylor and Smith [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref18">65</reflink>]). Intervening promptly is thus paramount. Nevertheless, novice teachers encounter difficulties in effectively managing student misbehaviour. Their limited behavioural repertoire and inadequate cognition related to CM (Brouwers and Tomic [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]) indicate a misalignment between the instructional content delivered in TTPs and classroom realities, commonly referred to as a 'theory‐practice gap' (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]; Korthagen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref21">46</reflink>]). When applied to managing students' aggressive behaviour, this gap can be attributed to a combination of two factors.</p> <p>First, literature on addressing problem behaviour primarily emphasises prevention strategies, typically implemented through school‐wide programs or models incorporating various unrelated techniques (Barnes, Smith, and Miller [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]; Korpershoek et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref23">45</reflink>]). TTPs also predominantly prioritise preventive measures concerning CM practices (Woodcock and Reupert [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref24">75</reflink>]). Additionally, Flower, McKenna, and Haring ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]) demonstrated that PSTs are typically instructed in general CM skills rather than specific strategies for, for example, handling student misbehaviour. Consequently, PSTs hardly develop a repertoire of reactive approaches to such behaviour. This forces them to depend exclusively on past experiences and personal beliefs, leading to instinctive responses (Allen [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]). To address this issue, a validated, evidence‐based model was developed, offering teachers operational guidance for addressing incidents of VA in a systematic way (see Authors [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, research has demonstrated a substantial difference in how novices and more experienced teachers engage with classroom events (Berliner [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]). In contrast to their more experienced counterparts, novices tend to prioritise discipline, make fewer predictions, and struggle to connect current events with past occurrences (Glock and Kleen [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref29">27</reflink>]; Wolff et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref30">74</reflink>]). Experience thus plays a crucial role in competence development and deployment. Similarly, experimentation with strategies for VA management is pivotal in enhancing practice‐relevant aggression competence development (Wolff et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref31">74</reflink>]). However, PSTs' authentic experiences often stem from short‐term internships, thus being location‐ and person‐specific (Kwok [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref32">50</reflink>]). The latter implies that PSTs usually do not experience VA and have limited opportunities to develop related competences. As previously mentioned, personal and authentic experiences are crucial in learning to manage student misbehaviour (Glock and Kleen [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]). These experiences manifest in a habitus that builds upon readily accessible cognitions and behaviours that foster expedited decision‐making (Aarts and Dijksterhuis [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]). Moreover, classrooms are information‐rich settings characterised by the concurrent occurrence of multiple activities. To effectively manage them, teachers must be skilled in attending to and making adequate interpretations of relevant events during instruction (Brophy [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]; Santagata and Yeh [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref36">59</reflink>]). This noticing and reasoning, commonly referred to as professional vision (Sherin and van Es [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref37">61</reflink>]), supports teachers in making appropriate management decisions (Wolff, Jarodzka, and Boshuizen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref38">73</reflink>]) and enhances when faced with real‐life situations (Gegenfurtner et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]). Therefore, these interconnected processes are frequently cited in the discourse of teacher competence development.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-4">Competence Development</hd> <p>The notion of competence is complex and multidimensional, posing challenges in conceptualisation (Mulder [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref40">54</reflink>]; Westera [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref41">70</reflink>]). 'Competence' encompasses knowledge, skills, and attitudes, grounding the ability to cope with complex situations. This implies an association with cognitive processes and observational behaviour (Hager [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]; Westera [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref43">70</reflink>]). Behaviour performance is directly observable, but the underlying capabilities necessary for this performance are not. The competence construct is therefore considered latent, as its mastery can only be inferred through observing performance. Indeed, competence refers to (indicators of) potential rather than manifested behaviour (Hager [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]). This also applies to teachers' V‐AMC.</p> <p>According to Jentsch and König et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref45">44</reflink>]), teacher competence can be viewed as a multidimensional construct comprising cognitive and affective‐motivational elements. Teacher competence as such is understood as the ability to perform tasks, resulting from the interplay between individual cognitive (i.e., knowledge and skills) and affective‐motivational (i.e., attitudes and beliefs) resources and the particular setting (i.e., the classroom or school) wherein decision‐making occurs (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]). This closely aligns with the view on competence development presented by Blömeke and colleagues (2015; Figure 1). According to the authors, competences evolve along a continuum, progressing from (a) cognitive and affective‐motivational dispositions via (b) situation‐specific skills to (c) observable behaviour. The dispositions encompass cognitive and affective‐motivational elements, that is, an individual's knowledge and beliefs shaped by prior experiences. Mastery of these dispositions is critical for behavioural performance. Situation‐specific skills are mediating skills, representing the critical connection to turn dispositions into context‐dependent behaviour. They bridge the gap between an individual's observable behaviour in a particular situation and their general (pedagogical) knowledge, skills, and beliefs (Blömeke et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>]; Jentsch and König [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref48">34</reflink>]). Teachers engage in reflection by examining their perceptions, interpreting them in light of their knowledge and beliefs, and considering potential decisions relevant to the situation (PID‐skills; Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref49">38</reflink>]). This reflection occurs before, during, and after specific classroom situations, allowing teachers to analyse their actions critically (Star and Strickland [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref50">62</reflink>]). Active deployment of the PID‐skills leads to novel insights into one's dispositions, thereby facilitating changes in an individual's competence (Santagata and Yeh [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref51">59</reflink>]). Previously, the concept of professional vision, encompassing noticing and reasoning processes, was briefly mentioned. Although a significant conceptual overlap exists between the perception, interpretation, and decision‐making processes discussed in the competence continuum and the noticing and reasoning processes associated with professional vision, subtle distinctions can be identified (Kramer et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]). These differences go back to differences in conceptualisation (König et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]), which will not be elaborated upon here.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01mar25/ejed12834-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12834-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Competence development curriculum based on Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson ([9])." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654326-6">Stimulating and Measuring Competence Development</hd> <p>Recent research underpins the importance of well‐developed PID skills for high‐quality classroom behaviour management (Blömeke et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]). Nevertheless, the development of PID skills is not a straightforward process. As described in teacher training literature, the development of CM competences, including V‐AMC, is mainly expected as an outcome of field experiences (Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie‐Richmond [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref55">37</reflink>]). Staged classroom videos can bring such real‐life practices into TTPs, supporting PSTs' learning and reflection processes (Brophy [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref56">11</reflink>]; Star and Strickland [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]). Those recordings are 'representations of practice' (Grossman et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref58">29</reflink>], 2065), of, for example, a lesson, that help capture and represent authentic happenings that mirror verbal and non‐verbal interactions (Kramer et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref59">47</reflink>]). Staged video recordings are considered beneficial for developing CM skills (Stürmer, Könings, and Seidel [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref60">63</reflink>]), given their capacity for slowing down, pausing, and rewatching classroom happenings, which allows for the decomposition of the portrayed situation (Estapa and Amador [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref61">22</reflink>]; Grossman et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]). This decomposition aids in decreasing classroom complexity by focusing on particular events and cues to activate specific dispositions (Kersting et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]). In addition, PSTs positively receive and perceive those recordings as authentic, especially regarding the situations portrayed (Codreanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>]; Piwowar et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref65">57</reflink>]). The affordances of staged video recordings render them valuable for enhancing PSTs' situation‐specific skills as they allow for observing others' teaching behaviour, reflecting on or discussing these observations and getting acquainted with alternative strategies (Kramer et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref66">48</reflink>]; Star and Strickland [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref67">62</reflink>]). Moreover, video‐based instruments are suggested as effective assessment tools for situation‐specific skills (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref68">9</reflink>]; Gold and Holodynski [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]). In recent years, several video‐based assessment instruments have been developed to measure PSTs' professional vision of general teaching knowledge (e.g., the Video Assessment of Teacher Knowledge (VATK) instrument; Wiens, Beck, and Lunsmann [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref70">71</reflink>]), teaching or classroom interactions (e.g., the Video Assessment of Interactions and Learning (VAIL) instrument; Jamil et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref71">32</reflink>] or the Observer instrument; Seidel and Stürmer [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref72">60</reflink>]), classroom management (Gold and Holodynski [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]), or related to specific topics such as mathematics (e.g., the Classroom Video Analysis (CVA) instrument; Kersting [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>] or the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics Follow Up (TEDS‐FU) instrument; König et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref75">42</reflink>]). The main focus of these instruments was video analysis: teachers were shown video recordings of actual classrooms and had to respond to several test items, prompting their perception and interpretation skills related to their general or subject‐specific teaching knowledge. However, noticing and interpreting based on (staged) video recordings might be too limited in terms of learning, considering these video recordings do not genuinely promote decision‐making. This hinders the transition from theoretical to practical knowledge mastery (Estapa and Amador [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref76">22</reflink>]). TTPs should actively engage PSTs, enabling them to apply their newly acquired knowledge and experience related consequences (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref77">17</reflink>]). This explains why authors push for using such videos in interactive and adaptable formats (Chernikova et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]). In this respect, Grossman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref79">29</reflink>]) posit the idea of 'approximations of practices', which are 'opportunities to engage in practices that are more or less proximal to the practices of a profession' (p. 2056). These approximations are usually simplified reconstructions of classroom situations designed to focus attention on specific element(s) in this situation. Video‐based simulation environments appear to be a suitable representation of such approximations (Chernikova et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]). Simulations accurately replicate real‐world phenomena, allowing users to interact with these phenomena and repeatedly practice alternative decisions and actions without causing harm (Codreanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]; Kaufman and Ireland [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref82">39</reflink>]). They facilitate learning, skill development (Cruz and Patterson [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref83">15</reflink>]), and decision‐making in realistic contexts (Kaufman and Ireland [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref84">39</reflink>]) by allowing engagement in authentic tasks in a secure and supervised setting without endangering others (Dieker et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref85">20</reflink>]). Combined with their inherent ability to provide contextualised learning opportunities, they seem (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) a fitting educational tool for tackling the theory‐practice gap (Kaufman and Ireland [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref87">39</reflink>]; Zoellner [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref88">76</reflink>]) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>) a valid way for assessing and mapping teacher competence development (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref90">9</reflink>]; König and Kramer [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>]). Research on video‐based simulations indicates their value in supporting PSTs' CM skill acquisition and related self‐efficacy (Dalinger et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref92">16</reflink>]; McGarr [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref93">52</reflink>]). Although there is an increasing focus on competence development through (video‐based) simulations, few suitable assessment instruments have been developed (except, e.g., De Coninck, Valcke, and Vanderlinde [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref94">18</reflink>]; Sung et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref95">64</reflink>]). To the best of our knowledge, such instruments measuring V‐AMC have not been created, implying that the extent to which the advantageous impact of simulations applies to VA management is also unexplored. Therefore, the current study's research objective is to design, evaluate, and implement a video‐based assessment tool for capturing the V‐AMC of PSTs.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-7">Materials & Methods</hd> <p>The preceding objective was subdivided into two components: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>) the development and evaluation of a measurement instrument and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>) the implementation of this instrument through a simulation‐based intervention. The two sections below will explain the methodological approach related to each component.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-8">Design & Evaluation</hd> <p>Designing a video‐based assessment instrument involves methodological challenges (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>]). These pertain to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>) the design of the instrument, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>) the development of test items, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>) defining correct and wrong answers, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>) ensuring psychometric quality. Regarding <emph>instrument design</emph>, deliberate choices were made. For transparency and readability purposes, these choices are arranged following design considerations for video‐based activities in teacher education as stipulated by van Es, Tekkumru‐Kisa, and Seago ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref103">69</reflink>]), that is, selecting the audience, articulating objectives, designing and recording video vignettes, designing the task, planning and facilitation, and assessment. The choices inherently addressed the remaining challenges. Where applicable, reference is made to them.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-9">Audience</hd> <p>The video‐based measurement instrument's target audience comprises PSTs with little to no experience managing VA in the secondary classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-10">Objectives</hd> <p>The primary objective of the instrument was to assess the competence level of PSTs in VA management. More specifically, the instrument was deemed proficient in measuring PSTs' perception, interpretation, and decision‐making skills regarding V‐AMC. As a secondary objective, the instrument was intended to map this competence's development.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-11">Video Vignettes</hd> <p>Design and production of the staged video recordings (hereafter referred to as video vignettes) adhered to the three‐phase video creation process outlined by Dieker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref104">19</reflink>]). The first phase, <emph>selecting evidence‐based practices</emph>, was carried out by operationalising the V‐AMC model (Figure 2) into specific indicators that should be reflected in the videos (Appendix A). Regarding the second phase, <emph>the development of the vignettes' scripts</emph>, various factors were considered. The vignettes had to address different components of the V‐AMC model as their combination reflects verbal aggression management competence. Hager's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref105">30</reflink>]) suggestion that competence‐based assessment activities should concentrate on deliberately selected aspects of actual practice aligns with this approach. Translated to vignette development, integrating several incidents reflecting the classroom's complexity was necessary. To enhance authenticity, the researchers relied on a combination of their personal and colleagues'—who completed a TTP—experiences to create initial drafts. Subsequently, the drafts were discussed with the actors cast to portray the scenarios. These actors were teachers, volunteers in youth work, or high school students, which ensured that the scenarios were authentic, relevant, and fitting for today's classroom reality (Piwowar et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref106">57</reflink>]). Based on their feedback, adjustments were made. Within each scenario, attention was paid to specific cues to elicit teacher responses. The actors portraying students were also provided explicit instructions concerning non‐verbal expressions that are potential warning signs of aggressive behaviour (see V‐AMC model).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01mar25/ejed12834-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12834-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The V‐AMC model was adopted in this study." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Besides focusing on content, the script development process also considered the number of scenes for filming purposes, leading us to the third phase, that is, <emph>video production</emph>. In terms of realism, several deliberate decisions were made. First, three different actor groups were established, facilitating ample diversity in the contextual circumstances enacted and exposing the PSTs to a wide array of heterogeneous contexts. In practical terms, this implies that nearly every scenario was performed by a distinct group. Second, every actor portraying a teacher had practical teaching experience or prior experience working with groups of young individuals. In addition, actors between 12 and 23 years old who, in terms of appearance, were able to portray students of grade 9 to grade 12 convincingly were cast. Third, the video vignettes were filmed in classrooms to enhance the recognisability of the setting (Gaudin and Chaliès [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref107">25</reflink>]). Regarding the technical standpoint, the recording process involved using two cameras, each capturing its distinct perspective to enhance the visibility of social interactions (Bliss and Reynolds [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref108">8</reflink>]; Gaudin and Chaliès [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref109">25</reflink>]). One camera was directed towards the entire class group, while the other was utilised to zoom in on specific actors and deliberately arranged behaviours. Both cameras were equipped with a microphone, effectively capturing verbal interactions. Afterwards, fragments from the cameras were edited in Camtasia and merged into one vignette per scenario.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-13">Task Design</hd> <p>First, a brief introduction was designed on the subject, the structure, and further progression of the simulation activity. Next, the development of test items (i.e., second methodological challenge) was tackled by creating two sets of questions. The first set aimed to map PSTs' experience level, inquiring about their understanding of aggression. These questions provided a first insight into PSTs' dispositions concerning VA management. A second set of questions explicitly targeted PSTs' situation‐specific skills, prompting PSTs to articulate their observations, interpretations, and decision‐making processes concerning each video clip. These questions were intentionally designed to direct PSTs' attention towards significant interactions, affecting the noticing process (Estapa and Amador [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref110">22</reflink>]), since solely providing a video clip is insufficient to foster the learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-14">Planning & Facilitation</hd> <p>During the assessment activities, assistance with technical issues was offered. Content‐related feedback was not provided to ensure that the instrument accurately maps the baseline level of PSTs' V‐AMC. No additional facilitator instructions were designed in conjunction with the assessment taking place in an online environment and the researcher coordinating the assessment. The scoring of students' responses took place after the completion of the video‐based activity and was carried out by trained coders.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-15">Assessment & Analysis Approach</hd> <p>Keeping the instrument's objectives in mind, a coding scheme for analysing PSTs' written responses was developed, tackling the third methodological challenge. Consistent with the inherent nature of competence as a latent construct (Hager [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref111">30</reflink>]), the coding scheme was derived from concrete indicators representing the diverse components of the V‐AMC. Given the proven inadequacy of traditional assessment instruments for mapping competences (e.g., König and Kramer [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref112">43</reflink>]). Jönsson and Panadero's ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref113">35</reflink>]) recommendation to develop rubrics for quantifying PSTs' performances in a consistent way was adhered to, enabling comparisons to be made. More specifically, two‐level analytic rubrics (i.e., the indicator(s) were mentioned versus unmentioned in the PSTs' written answer; Jönsson and Panadero [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref114">35</reflink>]) were established. The rubrics' design involved translating each V‐AMC model component into specific indicators. Subsequently, this translation allowed for the differentiation and allocation of an individual perception, interpretation, and decision‐making score linked to the model. Distinct coding procedures were employed for each situation‐specific skill to obtain clear scoring criteria and, consequently, higher coding consistency (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref115">38</reflink>]; see results section). Detailed descriptions of the coding procedures and relevant examples were specified in a coding manual distributed among coders trained to use the instrument.</p> <p>Throughout the design phase, efforts were made to ensure the measurement instrument complied with psychometric quality standards (i.e., fourth methodological challenge). The development of the instrument addressed factors pertaining to the instrument's external and internal validity. Ecological validity, for example, was pursued at various stages of the design of the staged video recordings: using real‐life experiences from colleagues and students, discussing scenario drafts with actors, and ensuring that the actors had real‐life experience in teaching, education, or youth work. The pursuit of content validity was undertaken by converting the V‐AMC model into specific indicators that formed the foundation of the coding scheme. Interrater reliability was also taken into account (see data analysis section).</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-16">Implementation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654326-17">Sample</hd> <p>Data were collected between February and May 2018. To test whether the instrument can measure PSTs' V‐AMC development, a convenience sample of 182 students with little or no teaching experience enrolled in a 'Classroom Management and Reflection' course as part of a one‐year university‐level TTP in Flanders[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>] was used. Hereafter, they will be referred to as preservice teachers (PSTs).</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-18">Procedure</hd> <p>Figure 3 depicts the intervention's specific configuration, consisting of four consecutive simulation activities. PSTs were involved in weekly steps in the procedure, spread over a more extended period. At the start, a questionnaire was provided to collect PSTs' understanding of the concept of 'aggression' and their prior knowledge about handling instances of aggression. Next, a first simulation activity took place. Central to this simulation was video vignette 1 (see Appendix B). Prior to the actual simulation, participants received a written description of the background and characteristics of the students and teacher playing a pivotal role in the scenario‐based vignette and contextual information. Next, they watched the video clips, focusing on how the situation evolved, how the teacher handled it, and the main consequences of the observed actions. After each clip, PSTs were presented with two questions urging them to describe what they had observed and how they made sense of these observations. Finally, PSTs were instructed to watch the entire vignette without interruptions and to formulate which decisions they would make as a teacher and why. After tackling the first simulation, PSTs were involved in a second simulation illustrating a distinct incident (see vignette 2). Once again, they had to watch video clips and answer PID‐related questions. A video demonstrating the V‐AMC model followed this second simulation activity. This helped PSTs get acquainted with the cognitive and social–emotional foundation of the V‐AMC. After a few weeks in the course schedule, PSTs were invited to rewatch this video to reactivate their prior knowledge. Immediately after this rehearsal, PSTs tackled a third online simulation identical to the first simulation experience. Answers to the questions embedded in the simulation served as a post‐test measure to evaluate PSTs' changes in their mastery of the V‐AMC. In the final step, a fourth simulation based on a novel scenario (vignette 3) offered additional practice opportunities.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01mar25/ejed12834-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12834-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Intervention set‐up." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654326-20">Data‐Analysis</hd> <p>Qualitative data was collected by analysing PSTs' written answers to PID‐related questions during the intervention. Responses to video clips from the first (pre‐test) and third (post‐test) online simulations were examined to map V‐AMC competence, with these simulations designated as pre‐ and post‐test measures for maximum comparability. These responses were coded based on a coding scheme encompassing critical indicators for each PID‐skill in relation to each element in the V‐AMC model (Appendix A). An index score was calculated by looking at the number of indicators for each PID skill with regard to the specific vignette. This score served as the mastery‐level measure of V‐AMC (see Tables 1 and 2). The first author trained an independent coder to code PSTs' answers and calculate a perception, interpretation, and decision‐making score concerning the aforementioned index scores. Interrater reliability was determined by double‐coding 20% of the answers and calculating Cohen's kappa. Considering this is a pilot study, two additional simulations were included in the intervention. These additional practice opportunities also help gather valuable insights into the PSTs' responses, which can shape the design of future interventions.</p> <p>1 TABLE Index scores for perception regarding simulation video 1.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Detection of warning signals</th><th align="center">Detection of key actors</th><th align="center">Perception total score<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Videoclip 1</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Videoclip 2</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Videoclip 3</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Videoclip 4</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a The perception score was linked to the detection step of the V‐AMC model and, therefore, consists of an index score for identifying warning signals and an index score for identifying key actors.</p> <p>2 TABLE Index scores for interpretation and decision‐making regarding simulation video 1.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Interpretation<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></th><th align="center">Decision‐making</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Detection</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Relaxation</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Whole‐class focus</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Situation evaluation</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rules of conduct</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Completion</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐teacher relationship</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Oneself as teacher</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The situation</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 a The index score for interpretation is identical for each aspect of the V‐AMC model. The maximum score of 2 reflects the PSTs' capability to explain their reactions based on theoretical backgrounds. Those who only provided an explanation without a theoretical connection were awarded a score of 1. Those who did not establish such links received a score of 0.</p> <p>Paired samples t‐tests were conducted in SPSS 28 to compare the mean scores of the PSTs on each situation‐specific skill of the pre‐and post‐test.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-21">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654326-22">Design & Evaluation</hd> <p>The final measurement instrument results from the culmination of the design considerations described in the methods section. In what follows, the two primary components of the instrument, namely the video vignettes and the coding schemes used to map PSTs' PID skills, are reported.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-23">Video Vignettes</hd> <p>A total of three video vignettes were developed (see Appendix B). The vignettes each depicted a different positioning of VA within the interactions between actors, ranging from aggressive behaviour among students to aggressive behaviour towards the teacher. In vignette 1, VA is unilaterally exhibited by one student and directed towards a fellow student. As the situation progresses, the aggression is also directed towards the teacher, eventually unfolding into several students expressing VA towards one student. Vignette 2 focused on the development of VA between two students, and vignette 3 pertained to VA by one student directed towards the teacher. Critical moments were included within the scenarios, prompting the deployment of the model. The vignettes were subdivided into fragments (i.e., video clips) corresponding to those critical moments. The average length of each video clip was approximately 15 s, whereas the vignettes had a cumulative duration varying between 1 min 45 s and 2 min 22 s.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-24">Coding Scheme</hd> <p>A second component of the instrument relates to the development and operationalisation of the coding scheme. Appendix B offers a detailed overview of the specific indicators for each element of the V‐AMC model. These indicators are considered critical observations, decisions, and interpretations that can be derived from the vignette presented in the simulation and form the basis for assigning a perception, interpretation, and decision‐making score.</p> <p>According to the literature, <emph>perception</emph> can be described as the ability to observe and distinguish relevant events (van Es and Sherin [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref117">68</reflink>]). In the context of VA management, this can be associated with PSTs' ability to recognise signals and students involved, which is equivalent to the detection step described in the V‐AMC model (see Figure 2). The rubric for assigning a perception score, therefore, consisted of two elements with the following scoring levels:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Detection of warning signals. A score of 0 was assigned to PSTs who failed to mention any warning signals displayed. PSTs who only referred to either verbal or non‐verbal signals were assigned a score of 1. Those who mentioned both verbal and non‐verbal signals received a score of 2.</item> <p></p> <item> Detection of students involved. The principle mentioned before also applies here: the absence of identification resulted in a score of 0. Only citing the behaviour of the primary student actor led to a score of 1. Mentioning the behaviour of other individual student(s) resulted in a score of 2. Focusing on students in the class group who were not directly involved led to a score of 3. In certain instances, a score of 4 was allocated if the video clip encompassed the manifestation of supplementary VA by individual pupils, apart from the collective behaviour of the class. These exceptions were also explicitly included in the coding manual.</item> </ulist> <p> <emph>Decision‐making</emph> scores were assigned in relation to the indicators of the categories as described in Appendix B. Mentioning none of the indicators of a specific category resulted in a score of 0 on this category. A score of 1 was assigned if PSTs mentioned one of the indicators belonging to a particular category. A score of 2 (or, in the case of the 'relaxation'‐category, a score of 3) was assigned to PSTs considering all indicators in their decision‐making processes.</p> <p>Next to a perception and decision‐making score, PSTs' answers were screened in view of the <emph>interpretation</emph> of events. This interpretation was operationalised as 'being able to establish relationships with the broader theoretical concepts of VA management'. Scoring was conducted as follows: PSTs received a score of 0 when they did not provide a rationale for their decisions. A score of 1 was given when those decisions were elucidated in relation to general predictions or anticipations, for instance, when the statement '<emph>By doing this, I hope that tranquillity will be restored in the classroom</emph>' was made. Finally, a score of 2 was assigned to explanations directly associated with the V‐AMC model, such as the statement, '<emph>I will escort the student outside to provide her with the time and space needed to regain composure</emph>'.</p> <p>Although the coding procedure remained consistent throughout all vignettes, each one was also provided with some indicators of decisions related to the particular situation addressed in the vignette, resulting in an index score for each element of the V‐AMC model. The sum of this index score represented the baseline level of competence concerning the particular vignette. When determining a competence level (i.e., calculating the PID‐score), these scores are compared to the index score and standardised on a score of 10 to enable comparability between the situation‐specific skills. An example of this procedure regarding vignette 1 is found in Tables 1 and 2.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-25">Implementation</hd> <p>The instrument was tested with a pilot group to assess its efficacy. The coding schemes were suitable for coding and subsequent scoring of the written PST responses to the questions prompting their PID skills. Interrater reliability analysis indicated good to very good agreement in the coding. Concerning the pre‐test, reliability scores of 0.90 (perception), 0.83 (decision‐making), and 0.77 (interpretation) were established. Concerning the post‐test, a kappa of 0.83 (perception), 0.93 (decision‐making), and 0.74 (interpretation) was achieved.</p> <p>Next to providing valuable insights into the instrument's quality, the pilot study delivered a first impression of PSTs' V‐AMC baseline level and subsequent competence development. Table 3 presents an overview of the scoring results before and after the intervention. The pre‐test scores showed a baseline of PSTs' V‐AMC before the intervention. The mean standardised perception (6.90), interpretation (0.22), and decision‐making (1.03) scores indicate that the overall V‐AMC of PSTs was very low. Looking at PSTs' decision‐making skills, results show that the deployment of relaxation strategies (2.49) was considered the most important. Staying focused on students' behaviours while handling the situation, that is, detection, was hardly coded based on PSTs' responses (0.06). Regarding attitudes, PSTs invested the most in the student‐teacher relationship (1.48), while the slightest consideration was given to attitudes towards the situation (0.05).</p> <p>3 TABLE PID scores on pre‐ and post‐test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Pre‐test</th><th align="center">Post‐test</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Perception</th><th align="center">Interpretation</th><th align="center">Decision‐making</th><th align="center">Perception</th><th align="center">Interpretation</th><th align="center">Decision‐making</th></tr><tr><th align="center">M (SD)</th><th align="center">M (SD)</th><th align="center">M (SD)</th><th align="center">M (SD)</th><th align="center">M (SD)</th><th align="center">M (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Detection</td><td align="center">6.90 (1.35)</td><td align="center">0 (0)</td><td align="center">0.06 (0.74)</td><td align="center">7.10 (1.14)</td><td align="center">0.33 (1.63)</td><td align="center">1.21 (3.27)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Relaxation</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.85 (2.16)</td><td align="center">2.49 (2.08)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">1.48 (2.97)</td><td align="center">4.63 (2.93)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Whole‐class focus</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.14 (0.82)</td><td align="center">1.43 (3.51)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.55 (1.89)</td><td align="center">3.74 (4.85)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Situation evaluation</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.17 (1.04)</td><td align="center">0.58 (1.77)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.14 (0.82)</td><td align="center">2.14 (3.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rules of conduct</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.17 (1.04)</td><td align="center">1.76 (2.87)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.25 (1.42)</td><td align="center">2.50 (3.40)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Completion</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.17 (0.90)</td><td align="center">0.44 (1.42)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.14 (1.11)</td><td align="center">0.63 (2.21)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐teacher relationship</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.36 (1.39)</td><td align="center">1.48 (3.56)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.41 (1.73)</td><td align="center">1.26 (3.33)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Oneself as teacher</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0 (0)</td><td align="center">0.99 (2.99)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.03 (0.37)</td><td align="center">1.43 (3.51)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The situation</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0 (0)</td><td align="center">0.05 (0.74)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.11 (0.90)</td><td align="center">0.33 (1.79)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total M (SD)</td><td align="center">6.90 (1.35)</td><td align="center">0.21 (0.40)</td><td align="center">1.03 (0.94)</td><td align="center">7.10 (1.14)</td><td align="center">0.38 (0.87)</td><td align="center">1.99 (1.66)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The paired samples <emph>t</emph>‐test analysis results suggest a positive impact of the intervention on each situation‐specific skill (significance level <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Regarding the perception skills, there was a significant difference in the perception scores between the pre‐test (M = 6.90, SD = 1.35) and the post‐test (M = 7.10, SD = 1.14); t(<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref118">181</reflink>) = 2.28, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05. Concerning the interpretation skills, a small yet significant difference could be discerned between the pre‐ (M = 0.21, SD = 0.40) and post‐test (M = 0.38, SD = 0.78); t(<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref119">181</reflink>) = 2.63, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05. Finally, a significant increase between the pre‐ (M = 1.03, SD = 0.94) and post‐test (M = 1.99, SD = 1.66; t(<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref120">181</reflink>) = 7.77, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) measure regarding PSTs' decision‐making skills was observed.</p> <p>Concerning decision‐making strategies and attitudes, the post‐test measure showed that the most frequently suggested strategies still pertained to relaxation strategies (4.63), closely followed by a whole‐class focus (3.74). Less attention was paid to strategies related to completing the situation (0.66). Attitudes related to oneself as a teacher were emphasised the most (1.43), while attitudes related to the situation remained the lowest scoring category (0.33). Surprisingly, attitudes associated with the student‐teacher relationship decreased after the intervention (1.26).</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-26">Discussion</hd> <p>The importance of integrating authentic classroom practices into TTPs to develop teacher competencies has been emphasised for some time (e.g., Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref121">17</reflink>]). Video‐based instruments, including simulations, are increasingly being explored to address this issue, yet there remains a shortage of suitable assessment tools. The present study aimed to expand the limited pool of such instruments by developing a video‐based instrument focused on one specific competence, that is, managing VA. A systematic design process was followed, adhering to methodological challenges (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref122">38</reflink>]) and design considerations related to video‐based activities in teacher education (van Es, Tekkumru‐Kisa, and Seago [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref123">69</reflink>]). The instrument was implemented with a pilot group to evaluate its effectiveness and determine whether it fulfilled its intended purpose.</p> <p>The resulting instrument builds on two key components: video vignettes and a coding scheme. Unlike most video‐based instruments that use a selection of clips from existing real‐life classroom videos (e.g., VAIL, Observer, CVA, TEDS‐FU), the present instrument contains unique scripted video vignettes. These scripted vignettes not only address the challenge of spontaneously capturing incidents of verbal aggression but also help emphasise significant moments and incorporate particular cues that can assist PSTs in activating their dispositions and PID‐skills (Codreanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref124">14</reflink>]; Estapa and Amador [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref125">22</reflink>]; Piwowar et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref126">57</reflink>]). Put differently, the vignettes in the instrument guide PSTs' attention towards key competence elements, enhancing their perception skill (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref127">38</reflink>]). Moreover, using custom‐designed scripted vignettes guarantees that critical aspects of the targeted competence are thoroughly addressed. The three vignettes, indeed, collectively cover all elements of the V‐AMC model. Given the specificity of this model, this would be unattainable with existing videos that, for instance, displayed disruptive behaviour. This specificity sets the current instrument apart from other video‐based instruments used in simulations, such as those focusing on parent‐teacher interactions in Flanders (De Coninck, Valcke, and Vanderlinde [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref128">18</reflink>]) or bullying in Taiwan (Sung et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref129">64</reflink>]). The vignettes are designed to enhance PSTs' V‐AMC in Flanders. They will require adaptation according to the level of the target audience and the cultural context in which the instrument will be implemented. Similar to the design approach used for the TEDS‐FU (König et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref130">42</reflink>]) and the instruments of Sung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref131">64</reflink>]) and De Coninck, Valcke, and Vanderlinde ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref132">18</reflink>]), the vignettes were discussed, involving relevant stakeholders to ensure their authenticity (Piwowar et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref133">57</reflink>]). Moreover, the vignettes sometimes display 'mistakes', that is, moments where the teacher reacts inappropriately to instances of VA. This enhances authenticity (Kramer et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref134">48</reflink>]) and helps determine whether PSTs master the interpretation skills to analyse what they observed critically, prompting them to respond appropriately. To the best of our knowledge, this feature has not been included systematically in video‐based assessment instruments. The pilot implementation of the instrument demonstrated how PSTs effectively responded to the embedded questions, which—after coding—allowed for the calculation of individual PID scores. Therefore, it can be inferred that the instrument succeeded in embedding the target group in authentic situations.</p> <p>In video‐based assessments, three approaches are often used for scoring, that is, multiple‐choice items, rating items, or indicators generated from open‐ended questions (Gold and Holodynski [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref135">28</reflink>]). The instrument developed in the present study solely comprises open‐ended questions. Answers to these questions assist in deducing behavioural indicators, that is, critical observations, decisions, and interpretations related to the V‐AMC model's components. Findings from the TEDS‐FU evaluation support this strategy, indicating that open‐ended questions are the most effective in capturing the multidimensionality and complexity of teacher competences (König and Kramer [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref136">43</reflink>]). Nevertheless, there is also a potential disadvantage. Instruments using multiple choice or rating items (e.g., Observer, CVA, or VATK) are more standardised, thus offering a more reliable scoring base (Jönsson and Svingby [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref137">36</reflink>]). This underscores a possible drawback of our instrument: the fluctuation and interpretative requirements of open‐ended responses can make it more demanding to identify indicators and score them accurately. Therefore, employing well‐formulated questions and providing clear coding instructions is crucial. Furthermore, the current coding scheme and analysis procedure developed in this study adhered to the recommendations of Jönsson and Svingby ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref138">36</reflink>]), who advise that reliable scoring can be improved by designing topic‐specific analytic rubrics that include examples. The interrater reliability scores from the pilot study are strong, indicating that the coding and analysis approach of the instrument appears to be clear and transparent.</p> <p>In reviewing the literature, very little was found on whether and how assessment instruments have procedures for comparing scores for individual situation‐specific skills. In the instrument of the current study, an additional step was included in the analysis procedure to calculate sum scores. The VAIL instrument also adopts this approach. However, its evaluation reveals that the vignettes do not uniformly encompass the same elements, and thus, not every vignette holds equal significance in determining teachers' situation‐specific skill scores (Wiens and Gromlich [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref139">72</reflink>]). The current instrument tackles this issue by calculating index scores, representing the number of indicators for each situation‐specific skill in relation to the vignette, and a subsequent sum score per vignette (see methods section for the detailed procedure). This sum score represents the baseline level of competence in perceiving, interpreting, and making decisions related to the vignette. PSTs' PID‐scores, calculated based on the critical indicators integrated into the coding scheme, are compared to this sum score to determine the extent to which they perceived, interpreted, and effectively made VA management decisions. These PID‐scores are subsequently standardised on a scale of 10, enabling comparisons of the situation‐specific skills in relation to each other. This technique allows for more detailed evaluations of, for example, whether and how these skills advance proportionately, which elements of the V‐AMC model are sufficiently addressed, or which situation‐specific skills require further attention (Bron). This offers opportunities to customise subsequent actions, for example, feedback sessions, subsequent simulation activities, etc., to meet the PSTs' specific needs.</p> <p>The coding results of the pilot study illustrate the latter. PSTs' perception scores appeared significantly higher than the other two situation‐specific scores. One plausible rationale for this difference can be attributed to the instrument's design. Following each video clip, PSTs were instructed to write down their observations and personal interpretations of the depicted incident. Nevertheless, they were prompted only once to elaborate on their decision‐making skills and the underlying rationale, that is, when the vignette was replayed in its entirety. As a lot happens simultaneously in a classroom (Brophy [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref140">11</reflink>]), PSTs likely have difficulties recalling and documenting their initial reactions to observed occurrences when asked for. Furthermore, the observed disparity in scores might be attributed to the varying amount of practice opportunities associated with perception versus interpretation and decision‐making skills, as the development of these skills exhibits a positive correlation with practice frequency (Jentsch and König [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref141">34</reflink>]; Santagata and Yeh [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref142">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>The pilot study demonstrated that the instrument effectively fulfilled its intended purpose, that is, mapping PSTs' V‐AMC level before and after the intervention. Substantively, the instrument helped detect a significant improvement in each PID‐skill, aligning with prior research on simulation‐based interventions targeting CM competence development (e.g., McGarr [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref143">52</reflink>]; Theelen, van den Beemt, and den Brok [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref144">67</reflink>]). However, this result must be cautiously approached due to the intervention setup. As described in the methods section, the simulations shown in the pre‐and post‐test were identical, providing a degree of predictability in perception and decision‐making skills. Therefore, it is impossible to unequivocally conclude that the increase in competence can be entirely attributed to the intervention. Nevertheless, due to the study's rigorous design and intervention, a strong assertion can be made regarding the positive impact of this simulation‐based intervention. While an increase in overall V‐AMC can be observed, it must also be acknowledged that the average scores following the intervention remain relatively low regarding interpretation (0.38) and decision‐making skills (1.99). The reason for this might be ascribed to the characteristics of the participants. Expert‐novice literature suggests that novice teachers often struggle to make accurate predictions or establish links between novel occurrences and previously encountered situations (Glock and Kleen [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref145">27</reflink>]; Wolff et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref146">74</reflink>]), influencing subsequent decision‐making. Furthermore, novices tend to prioritise disciplinary matters. Considering their V‐AMC, novices strongly emphasise discerning (i.e., perceiving) occurrences involving incidents of disruptive behaviour. This was also demonstrated by the average perception score, which was already high during the pre‐test measure and increased further after the intervention.</p> <p>The preceding discussion demonstrates that the research objective has been successfully achieved. However, there are also some limitations and potential directions for future research to be identified. Firstly, adhering to the theoretical challenges formulated by Kaiser et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref147">38</reflink>]), the instrument has a solid theoretical foundation. It combines the V‐AMC model (Authors [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref148">24</reflink>]), which guides handling incidents of aggression, with the competence continuum (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref149">9</reflink>]), which emphasises the importance of well‐developed PID skills. However, it can be questioned whether the primary focus of the instrument is too cognitive, considering the competence continuum encompasses both cognitive and affective‐motivational dispositions. Therefore, the instrument could benefit from including questions related to the affective‐motivational component of V‐AMC, such as PSTs' self‐efficacy concerning VA management. Given that research indicates that high self‐efficacy contributes to mitigating adverse effects of aggression, such as burnout (Aloe, Amo, and Shanahan [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref150">3</reflink>]), measuring teachers' self‐efficacy not only adds to a more comprehensive understanding of overall competence but also provides insights into how such interventions potentially help prevent the adverse effects of aggression on teacher‐related variables (Moon, McCluskey, and Morash [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref151">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Secondly, experimentation with different difficulty levels might be a future research angle regarding intervention design. For example, including a progressive increase in complexity in the simulations might enhance the learning process (Codreanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref152">14</reflink>]). To achieve this, a fourth vignette could be created where PSTs are instructed to complete the sequence of events without visualising the teacher's reaction in the video. Furthermore, how simulations are put into practice determines their success in terms of learning (Zoellner [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref153">76</reflink>]). For instance, reflection activities after simulation‐based experiences (called 'debriefing') are important to foster PSTs' learning and thinking processes (Palaganas, Fey, and Simon [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref154">56</reflink>]). This suggests including a debriefing session in the design of future interventions. A follow‐up study can investigate if these design modifications impact PSTs' PID skills and related V‐AMC development.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>The design of a video‐based assessment instrument and simulation‐based intervention to enhance PSTs' V‐AMC implied addressing various methodological challenges. This study merged theoretical models, resulting in the creation of video vignettes and a coding scheme. From a methodological point of view, deliberate instrument design choices, the creation of comprehensive test items, and a check of its psychometric quality underscored the value of the approach. The intervention results indicated a significant improvement in PSTs' situation‐specific skills. Nevertheless, the results also hint at a need for further instrument and intervention refinement when looking at the weaker impact on PSTs' interpretation and decision‐making skills.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-28">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of Ghent University.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-29">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-30">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data will be made available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-31">A Appendix Coding scheme</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Coding category</th><th align="center">Allocation of scores</th><th align="center">Category of the model</th><th align="center">Indicators</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Steps</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">In the written answers, the student‐teacher...</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Detection (perception)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0–1—2</td><td align="center">Detecting warning signals</td><td align="center">identifies the verbal and non‐verbal behaviour shown by the actors known to be possible precursors for aggressive behaviour (e.g., raising voice, making excessive gestures, screaming, agitated talking...)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">0–1—2—3</td><td align="center">Detecting key actors</td><td align="center">mentions the (behaviour) of various actors featured in the vignette.)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Detection (decision‐making)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0–1</td><td align="center">Detecting warning signals</td><td align="center">is attentive to the students' verbal/non‐verbal responses to the decisions made and considers these when contemplating subsequent steps</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Relaxation</td><td align="center">0–1—2—3</td><td align="center">Addressing the student(s)</td><td align="center">addresses the student displaying verbal aggressive behaviour by name and indicates that the exhibited behaviour is inappropriate</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Removing the student(s)</td><td align="center">sends the student who exhibits verbally aggressive behaviour out of the classroom. The destination to which the student is directed (e.g., the corridor, a separate room, another classroom, or the administrative office) may also be specified</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Providing time and space to cool down</td><td align="center">allows the student the time to calm down by postponing the individual conversation to a later moment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Whole class focus</td><td align="center">0–1</td><td align="center">Paying attention to the group</td><td align="center"><p>assigns an individual task to the class.</p><p>and/or</p><p>facilitate a classroom discussion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Situation evaluation</td><td align="center">0–1—2</td><td align="center">Allowing student(s) to tell what is on their mind</td><td align="center">attempts to discern the underlying cause of the behaviour through dialogue while allowing the student to articulate their thoughts</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Allowing student(s) to formulate solutions</td><td align="center">encourages the student to formulate a proposal for resolving the situation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rules of conduct</td><td align="center">0–1–2</td><td align="center">Establishing general rules of conduct</td><td align="center"><p>communicates consequences associated with the displayed verbal aggressive behaviour</p><p>and/or</p><p>administers disciplinary measures</p></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Communicating the rules to the class group</td><td align="center">translates the consequences into general behavioural guidelines and communicates them to the group</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Completion</td><td align="center">0–1–2</td><td align="center">Follow‐up on students</td><td align="center">pays attention to the follow‐up of the student by occasionally checking in after the incident to inquire if everything is still okay</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Debriefing & reflection</td><td align="center">engages in discussions with colleagues regarding the behaviour (to exchange experiences, vent, make joint agreements, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Attitudes</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">In the written answers, the student‐teacher...</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐teacher relationship</td><td align="center">0–1</td><td align="center">Promoting a positive learning environment</td><td align="center"><p>provides a receptive and attentive presence to the student(s)</p><p>and/or</p><p>displays empathy towards the student(s) or the situation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Oneself as a teacher</td><td align="center">0–1–2</td><td align="center">Being aware of language use</td><td align="center">explicitly states to be mindful of one's verbal and non‐verbal behaviour</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Maintaining composure</td><td align="center">mentions staying calm despite the emotions or astonishment the behaviour of students evokes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The situation</td><td align="center">0–1 – 2</td><td align="center">Acting non‐judgemental</td><td align="center">interacts with the student(s) in an unbiased manner</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Distinguishing between person(s) and action(s)</td><td align="center">ensures to condemn the behaviour, not the student engaging in it</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 In the coding scheme, a distinction was made between the detection scores pertaining to perception and the detection scores pertaining to decision‐making.</p> <hd id="AN0183654326-32">B Appendix Description of the video vignettes</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Video vignette 1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Context</td><td align="center"><italic>Situation</italic>: It is Tuesday, November 21st, and the day's final period. Wim Lievens has been teaching his English class for 40 min already. He notices that students' attention is waning, but he tries to counteract this by occasionally asking unexpected questions to some of the more 'absent‐minded' students. Earlier, he had already addressed Jan about his daydreaming behaviour, but Jan's thoughts have since drifted again. Consequently, Wim lets Jan conclude the lesson by reading a text from the creative writing section.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Actors</td><td align="center"><p><italic>Student</italic>: Emma Dhaenens, 17 years old, 12th grade, Economics—Modern Languages track.</p><p>Emma possesses a strong character, often leading to clashes with her classmates and some teachers at school. When convinced of her stance or disagrees with a specific course of action, she will go to great lengths to clarify her point to those around her. As a result, she does not always fit in well with her peer group. Emma enjoys going to school. She has an insatiable thirst for new knowledge and has decided to study language and literature next year. She believes she is proficient in English, although her grades sometimes fall short. She frequently watches English‐language series and takes pride in understanding an episode without subtitles.</p><p><italic>Teacher</italic>: Wim Lievens, 35 years old, English teacher with 12 years of teaching experience.</p><p>In his 12‐year career, Wim has encountered many challenging situations. He believes he has consistently responded well to them and can effectively handle the diversity of student personalities. He is not easily shaken, but he does take a firm stance when students fail to meet his expectations. At school, Wim is known as a strict but fair teacher. He is also frequently referred to as a mentor for new teachers, a role he gladly accepts because he enjoys it when people seek his opinion and appreciate it. At the beginning of the school year, Wim clarified that he would not tolerate misbehaviour and gradually taught the students the importance of respect. He believes he teaches his classes enthusiastically but is not particularly fond of the latest teaching methods involving constant student engagement. He prefers traditional classroom instruction and allows students to work independently on assignments afterwards. Especially in a subject like English, he believes that students should acquire a solid vocabulary and grammar foundation before engaging in 'games'.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scenario</td><td align="center">The teacher asks Jan to read aloud. When Jan pronounces the word 'Leicester' out loud, Emma starts protesting. Emma and Jan engage in a discussion with each other. The teacher indicates that Jan is correct and instructs Jan to continue reading. When Jan pronounces the word again, Emma becomes angry and argues with Jan. In response, the teacher addresses the word's pronunciation and provides similar examples while taking notes on the blackboard. Emma interrupts this explanation and says it is not relevant to the situation. Meanwhile, the other students begin to gather their belongings. The teacher responds by stating that everyone will stay until the text is finished. The class protests, urging Emma to be silent. When Jan pronounces the word in question for a third time, Emma stands up while shouting. The students in the class then start shouting back at Emma, calling her names. The teacher observes the situation without intervening. Eventually, Emma leaves the classroom. The teacher urges the students to be quiet and signals Jan to continue reading. He does not attempt to follow Emma. The video ends here.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Video vignette 2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Context</td><td align="center"><p>Two weeks ago, Wendy and Hans, a student from class 4A, had a constructive discussion about Hans's performance. Since this is Wendy's first year teaching Hans, she sought advice from her colleagues. They described Hans as a quiet but friendly boy. Wendy does not find him disruptive in class and notices that he is making an effort in her subject. During the conversation, it became evident that Hans seldom asks questions in class and is unwilling to elaborate on the cause. Eventually, they agreed that Wendy would make time outside of class to answer Hans's questions.</p><p><italic>Situation</italic>: It is a Friday afternoon, November 24th, after the break. The lesson focuses on the Pythagorean theorem, which students should remember from previous classes. Wendy does not expect any problems or difficult questions during this lesson, but she is concerned that the students' level of attention may not be as high. Therefore, she decided to be proactive in addressing any potential classroom disturbances during this lesson.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Actors</td><td align="center"><p><italic>Student</italic>: Hans Laleman, 16 years old, 9<sup>th</sup> grade, Humanities track.</p><p>Hans is a student in class 4A. He maintains average grades with some standout performances in French and English. However, his math scores could be higher. He struggles with particular materials but consistently puts in effort. Two weeks ago, he had a conversation with his math teacher, leaving him with a positive feeling. About two years ago, Hans changed schools. He has always been vague about the reason for his transfer. In class, Hans has a couple of good friends, Bram and Jannes, with whom he also spends time outside of school hours. They often play football together or have game nights at each other's homes. He has less contact with the other students in the class, but he feels comfortable in this group.</p><p><italic>Teacher</italic>: Wendy Callens, 28 years old, math teacher.</p><p>Wendy is a relatively young teacher with about five years of teaching experience. After her training, she immediately started working at her student‐teacher school, where she still teaches. The students at this school are generally well‐behaved and largely adhere to the school's vision and mission, emphasising respect for one another and others.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scenario</td><td align="center">The teacher stands at the front of the classroom, introduces the lesson topic, and assesses the students' prior knowledge. Most students raise their hands. However, two students are talking and laughing with each other about something they see on a mobile phone. The teacher addresses their use of mobile phones, causing the students to stop talking and put their phones away. The teacher continues with the lesson and writes something on the board. When she turns her back to the class, several students take out their phones and start laughing. The teacher notices this and instructs all students to put their phones away again. She approaches the student who had previously taken out his phone and addresses him personally. Then she takes the phone away from him and asks for more information about the photo she sees on the screen. The student in question responds with laughter and makes a derogatory remark about Hans. In response, Hans becomes furious and physically attacks the student.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Video vignette 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Context</td><td align="center"><p>Heleen teaches 4 h a week to class 3B. She considers it a relatively calm class that pays good attention during lessons. There are some high‐achievers in the class, like Evelyne, who get good grades and often take the lead in extracurricular activities. Evelyne herself is always respectful towards the teachers, which Heleen appreciates. Lately, Heleen has been concerned about Evelyne's behaviour. She has not addressed it yet because, as a substitute teacher, she still feels somewhat insecure. In recent weeks, Evelyne has been less cheerful. She often isolates herself and no longer attends Chiro (i.e., a youth organisation) as frequently. Last week, her best friend Hanna pointed out they were spending less time together. This made Evelyne angry, leading to an argument. Since then, the bond between the two friends has weakened.</p><p><italic>Situation</italic>: It is Thursday, November 23rd, the first period after lunch. Heleen Vandewalle plans to start her lesson in class 3B by handing out the homework the students completed over the weekend. While grading, she noticed many students struggled with spelling rules. Therefore, she has decided to review some of these rules during this lesson. Although Heleen is generally satisfied with how the students completed the assignment, she was surprised when grading Evelyne's work: the text did not seem like her own but rather copied, and the numerous spelling mistakes indicated that she had not even proofread it. She could not give a higher score than 1/10, but she would like to talk with Evelyne about this assignment. She knows Evelyne can do better and is curious about the underlying reason for the poor performance.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Actors</td><td align="center"><p><italic>Student</italic>: Evelyne Depickere, 15 years old, 9th grade, Social‐Technical Sciences track.</p><p>Evelyne is known as a cheerful and social girl. She is well liked at school by her fellow students and teachers. In her free time, she attends Chiro activities every weekend, where she takes on a responsible role during the activities. She is somewhat like the 'mom' to her peers; even the leaders have begun to entrust her with more responsibilities.</p><p><italic>Teacher</italic>: Heleen Vandewalle, 24 years old, Dutch teacher.</p><p>Heleen is a novice teacher who started a replacement position at an unfamiliar school seven weeks ago. Although she got off to a good start, she often feels somewhat insecure when dealing with adolescent students. She tries to hide this from students and colleagues as best as possible but regularly attends extra courses to gain self‐confidence and practice appropriate social skills.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scenario</td><td align="center">The teacher hands out the corrected assignments. When she reaches Evelyne, she tells her she wants to speak with her after the lesson. She continues distributing the assignments. Evelyne looks at her assignment and becomes angry. She agitatedly asks why she has such a low score. The teacher addresses her, asking her to remain calm and to discuss it after the lesson. Evelyne disagrees and starts blaming and name‐calling the teacher. Once again, the teacher urges Evelyne to be quiet and asks her to step outside momentarily. Evelyne continues to protest and refuses to leave the classroom. The teacher designates another student to escort Evelyne outside. While leaving, the teacher instructs the remaining students to review the assignment quietly and informs them that she will have a quick talk with Evelyne and return within 5 min. She then leaves the classroom. Once outside, she sends the other student back to the class and attempts to initiate a conversation to understand why Evelyne exhibited this behaviour. Evelyne does not respond to her questions. The teacher proposes a possible solution herself, and Evelyne agrees. They return to the classroom together, and the teacher immediately resumes the lesson.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0183654326-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Specific Teacher's Training (SLO; since September 2019 transformed into the Master's degree programme: 'Master of Science in Teaching').</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183654326-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aarts, H., and A. Dijksterhuis. 2000. " Habits as Knowledge Structures: Automaticity in Goal‐Directed Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, no. 1 : 53 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.78.1.53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Allen, J. M. 2009. " Valuing Practice Over Theory: How Beginning Teachers Re‐Orient Their Practice in the Transition From the University to the Workplace." Teaching and Teacher Education 25, no. 5 : 647 – 654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref101" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aloe, A. M., L. C. Amo, and M. E. Shanahan. 2014. " Classroom Management Self‐Efficacy and Burnout: A Multivariate Meta‐Analysis." Educational Psychology Review 26, no. 1 : 101 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐013‐9244‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes, T. N., S. W. Smith, and M. D. Miller. 2014. " School‐Based Cognitive‐Behavioral Interventions in the Treatment of Aggression in the United States: A Meta‐Analysis." Aggression and Violent Behavior 19, no. 4 : 311 – 321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berg, J. K., and D. Cornell. 2016. " Authoritative School Climate, Aggression Toward Teachers, and Teacher Distress in Middle School." School Psychology Quarterly 31, no. 1 : 122 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bergsmann, E., M.‐T. Schultes, P. Winter, B. Schober, and C. Spiel. 2015. " Evaluation of Competence‐Based Teaching in Higher Education: From Theory to Practice." Evaluation and Program Planning 52 : 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.03.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref28" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berliner, D. C. 2001. " Learning About and Learning From Expert Teachers." International Journal of Educational Research 35, no. 5 : 463 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883‐0355(02)00004‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref108" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bliss, T., and A. Reynolds. 2003. " Quality Visions and Focused Imagination." In Using Video in Teacher Education, edited by J. Brophy, vol. 10, 29 – 51. Leeds : Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479‐3687(03)10002‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref68" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blömeke, S., J.‐E. Gustafsson, and R. J. Shavelson. 2015. " Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Continuum." Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223, no. 1 : 3 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151‐2604/a000194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blömeke, S., A. Jentsch, N. Ross, G. Kaiser, and J. König. 2022. " Opening Up the Black Box: Teacher Competence, Instructional Quality, and Students' Learning Progress." Learning and Instruction 79 : 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101600.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brophy, J. 2006. " History of Research on Classroom Management." In Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues, edited by C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein, 17 – 43. New York : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brouwers, A., and W. Tomic. 2000. " A Longitudinal Study of Teacher Burnout and Perceived Self‐Efficacy in Classroom Management." Teaching and Teacher Education 16, no. 2 : 239 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742‐051X(99)00057‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chernikova, O., N. Heitzmann, M. Stadler, D. Holzberger, T. Seidel, and F. Fischer. 2020. " Simulation‐Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta‐Analysis." Review of Educational Research 90, no. 4 : 499 – 541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Codreanu, E., D. Sommerhoff, S. Huber, S. Ufer, and T. Seidel. 2020. " Between Authenticity and Cognitive Demand: Finding a Balance in Designing a Video‐Based Simulation in the Context of Mathematics Teacher Education." Teaching and Teacher Education 95 : 103146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cruz, B. C., and J. Patterson. 2005. " Cross‐Cultural Simulations in Teacher Education: Developing Empathy and Understanding." Multicultural Perspectives 7, no. 2 : 40 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327892mcp0702_7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalinger, T., K. B. Thomas, S. Stansberry, and Y. Xiu. 2020. " A Mixed Reality Simulation Offers Strategic Practice for Pre‐Service Teachers." Computers & Education 144 : 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103696.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L., K. Hammerness, P. Grossman, F. Rust, and L. Shulman. 2005. " The Design of Teacher Education Programs." In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, edited by L. Darling‐Hammond and J. Bransford, 390 – 441. Hoboken, NJ : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Coninck, K., M. Valcke, and R. Vanderlinde. 2018. " A Measurement of Student teachers' Parent–Teacher Communication Competences: The Design of a Video‐Based Instrument." Journal of Education for Teaching 44, no. 3 : 333 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465656.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dieker, L. A., H. B. Lane, D. H. Allsopp, et al. 2009. " Evaluating Video Models of Evidence‐Based Instructional Practices to Enhance Teacher Learning." Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 32, no. 2 : 180 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409334202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dieker, L. A., J. A. Rodriguez, B. Lignugaris Kraft, M. C. Hynes, and C. E. Hughes. 2014. " The Potential of Simulated Environments in Teacher Education: Current and Future Possibilities." Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 37, no. 1 : 21 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413512683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias, M. J., and Y. Schwab. 2006. " From Compliance to Responsibility." In Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues, edited by C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein. New York : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874783.ch12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estapa, A., and J. M. Amador. 2023. " A Qualitative Metasynthesis of Video‐Based Prompts and Noticing in Mathematics Education." Mathematics Education Research Journal 35, no. 1 : 105 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394‐021‐00378‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flower, A., J. W. McKenna, and C. D. Haring. 2017. " Behavior and Classroom Management: Are Teacher Preparation Programs Really Preparing Our Teachers? " Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 61, no. 2 : 163 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1231109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franco, D., R. Vanderlinde, and M. Valcke. 2023. " Empowering Novice Teachers: The Design and Validation of a Competence Model to Manage Verbal Aggressive Behaviour in the Classroom." Education Sciences 13, no. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100971.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaudin, C., and S. Chaliès. 2015. " Video Viewing in Teacher Education and Professional Development: A Literature Review." Educational Research Review 16 : 41 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gegenfurtner, A., D. Lewalter, E. Lehtinen, M. Schmidt, and H. Gruber. 2020. " Teacher Expertise and Professional Vision: Examining Knowledge‐Based Reasoning of Pre‐Service Teachers, in‐Service Teachers, and School Principals." Frontiers in Education 5 : 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00059.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glock, S., and H. Kleen. 2019. " Teachers' Responses to Student Misbehavior: The Role of Expertise." Teaching Education 30, no. 1 : 52 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1444023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gold, B., and M. Holodynski. 2017. " Using Digital Video to Measure the Professional Vision of Elementary Classroom Management: Test Validation and Methodological Challenges." Computers & Education 107 : 13 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, P., C. Compton, D. Igra, M. Ronfeldt, E. Shahan, and P. W. Williamson. 2009. " Teaching Practice: A Cross‐Professional Perspective." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 111, no. 9 : 2055 – 2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hager, P. 2017. " The Integrated View on Competence." In Competence‐Based Vocational and Professional Education, edited by M. Mulder, vol. 23, 203 – 228. Cham : Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐41713‐4_10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heitzmann, N., T. Seidel, A. Hetmanek, et al. 2019. " Facilitating Diagnostic Competences in Simulations in Higher Education A Framework and a Research Agenda." Frontline Learning Research 7 : 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i4.384.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamil, F. M., T. J. Sabol, B. K. Hamre, and R. C. Pianta. 2015. " Assessing Teachers' Skills in Detecting and Identifying Effective Interactions in the Classroom: Theory and Measurement." Elementary School Journal 115, no. 3 : 407 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1086/680353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, P. A., and M. T. Greenberg. 2009. " The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes." Review of Educational Research 79, no. 1 : 491 – 525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jentsch, A., and J. König. 2022. " Teacher Competence and Professional Development." In International Handbook of Comparative Large‐Scale Studies in Education: Perspectives, Methods and Findings, edited by T. Nilsen, A. Stancel‐Piątak, and J.‐E. Gustafsson, 1167 – 1183. Cham : Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐88178‐8_38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jönsson, A., and E. Panadero. 2017. " The Use and Design of Rubrics to Support Assessment for Learning." In Scaling Up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, edited by D. Carless, S. M. Bridges, C. K. Y. Chan, and R. Glofcheski, 99 – 111. Singapore : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐10‐3045‐1_7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jönsson, A., and G. Svingby. 2007. " The Use of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity and Educational Consequences." Educational Research Review 2, no. 2 : 130 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan, A., E. Schwartz, and D. McGhie‐Richmond. 2009. " Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Classrooms." Teaching and Teacher Education 25, no. 4 : 535 – 542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, G., A. Busse, J. Hoth, J. König, and S. Blömeke. 2015. " About the Complexities of Video‐Based Assessments: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Overcoming Shortcomings of Research on Teachers' Competence." International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13, no. 2 : 369 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763‐015‐9616‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, D., and A. Ireland. 2016. " Enhancing Teacher Education With Simulations." TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 60, no. 3 : 260 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kersting, N. 2008. " Using Video Clips of Mathematics Classroom Instruction as Item Prompts to Measure Teachers' Knowledge of Teaching Mathematics." Educational and Psychological Measurement 68, no. 5 : 845 – 861. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407313369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kersting, N. B., T. Sutton, C. Kalinec‐Craig, et al. 2016. " Further Exploration of the Classroom Video Analysis (CVA) Instrument as a Measure of Usable Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics: Taking a Knowledge System Perspective." ZDM 48, no. 1–2 : 97 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858‐015‐0733‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> König, J., S. Blömeke, P. Klein, U. Suhl, A. Busse, and G. Kaiser. 2014. " Is teachers' General Pedagogical Knowledge a Premise for Noticing and Interpreting Classroom Situations? A Video‐Based Assessment Approach." Teaching and Teacher Education 38 : 76 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> König, J., and C. Kramer. 2016. " Teacher Professional Knowledge and Classroom Management: On the Relation of General Pedagogical Knowledge (GPK) and Classroom Management Expertise (CME)." ZDM 48, no. 1–2 : 139 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858‐015‐0705‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> König, J., R. Santagata, T. Scheiner, A.‐K. Adleff, X. Yang, and G. Kaiser. 2022. " Teacher Noticing: A Systematic Literature Review of Conceptualizations, Research Designs, and Findings on Learning to Notice." Educational Research Review 36 : 100453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korpershoek, H., T. Harms, H. de Boer, M. van Kuijk, and S. Doolaard. 2016. " A Meta‐Analysis of the Effects of Classroom Management Strategies and Classroom Management Programs on Students' Academic, Behavioral, Emotional, and Motivational Outcomes." Review of Educational Research 86, no. 3 : 643 – 680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korthagen, F. A. J. 2010. " The Relationship Between Theory and Practice in Teacher Education." In International Encyclopedia of Education, edited by P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw, 3rd ed., 669 – 675. Oxford : Elsevier ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐08‐044894‐7.00638‐2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramer, C., J. König, S. Strauß, and K. Kaspar. 2020. " Classroom Videos or Transcripts? A Quasi‐Experimental Study to Assess the Effects of Media‐Based Learning on Pre‐Service Teachers' Situation‐Specific Skills of Classroom Management." International Journal of Educational Research 103 : 101624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101624.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramer, M., C. Förtsch, J. Stürmer, S. Förtsch, T. Seidel, and B. J. Neuhaus. 2020. " Measuring Biology teachers' Professional Vision: Development and Validation of a Video‐Based Assessment Tool." Cogent Education 7, no. 1 : 1823155. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1823155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krause, A., and J. D. Smith. 2022. " Peer Aggression and Conflictual Teacher‐Student Relationships: A Meta‐Analysis." School Mental Health 14, no. 2 : 306 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310‐021‐09483‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwok, A. 2021. " Managing Classroom Management Preparation in Teacher Education." Teachers and Teaching 27, no. 1–4 : 206 – 222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1933933.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masluk, B., S. Gascón‐Santos, B. Oliván‐Blázquez, et al. 2022. " The Role of Aggression and Maladjustment in the Teacher‐Student Relationship on Burnout in Secondary School Teachers." Frontiers in Psychology 13 : 1059899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059899.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGarr, O. 2021. " The Use of Virtual Simulations in Teacher Education to Develop Pre‐Service Teachers' Behaviour and Classroom Management Skills: Implications for Reflective Practice." Journal of Education for Teaching 47, no. 2 : 274 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1733398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moon, B., J. McCluskey, and M. Morash. 2019. " Aggression Against Middle and High School Teachers: Duration of Victimization and Its Negative Impacts." Aggressive Behavior 45, no. 5 : 517 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21840.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulder, M. 2014. " Conceptions of Professional Competence." In International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice‐Based Learning, edited by S. Billett, C. Harteis, and H. Gruber, 107 – 137. The Netherlands : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8902‐8_5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver, R. M., and D. J. Reschly. 2007. Effective Classroom Management: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality : TQ Connection Issue Paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palaganas, J. C., M. Fey, and R. Simon. 2016. " Structured Debriefing in Simulation‐Based Education." AACN Advanced Critical Care 27, no. 1 : 78 – 85. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2016328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piwowar, V., V. L. Barth, D. Ophardt, and F. Thiel. 2018. " Evidence‐Based Scripted Videos on Handling Student Misbehavior: The Development and Evaluation of Video Cases for Teacher Education." Professional Development in Education 44, no. 3 : 369 – 384. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1316299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poling, D. V., S. W. Smith, G. G. Taylor, and M. R. Worth. 2019. " Direct Verbal Aggression in School Settings: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior 46 : 127 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.01.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santagata, R., and C. Yeh. 2016. " The Role of Perception, Interpretation, and Decision Making in the Development of Beginning Teachers' Competence." ZDM 48, no. 1–2 : 153 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858‐015‐0737‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidel, T., and K. Stürmer. 2014. " Modeling and Measuring the Structure of Professional Vision in Preservice Teachers." American Educational Research Journal 51, no. 4 : 739 – 771. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531321.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherin, M. G., and E. A. van Es. 2009. " Effects of Video Club Participation on Teachers' Professional Vision." Journal of Teacher Education 60, no. 1 : 20 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Star, J. R., and S. K. Strickland. 2008. " Learning to Observe: Using Video to Improve Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Ability to Notice." Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 11, no. 2 : 107 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857‐007‐9063‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stürmer, K., K. D. Könings, and T. Seidel. 2013. " Declarative Knowledge and Professional Vision in Teacher Education: Effect of Courses in Teaching and Learning." British Journal of Educational Psychology 83, no. 3 : 467 – 483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8279.2012.02075.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung, Y.‐H., M. Valcke, L.‐M. Chen, and L.‐C. Wang. 2022. " The Development and Implementation of Online Video‐Based Simulation Training on Strengthening Pre‐Service Teachers' Competence in Bullying Intervention." Journal of Research in Education Sciences 67, no. 3 : 205 – 236. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202209_67(3).0007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, G. G., and S. W. Smith. 2019. " Teacher Reports of Verbal Aggression in School Settings Among Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders." Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 27, no. 1 : 52 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426617739638.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theelen, H., A. van den Beemt, and P. den Brok. 2019a. " Classroom Simulations in Teacher Education to Support Preservice Teachers' Interpersonal Competence: A Systematic Literature Review." Computers & Education 129 : 14 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theelen, H., A. van den Beemt, and P. den Brok. 2019b. " Using 360‐Degree Videos in Teacher Education to Improve Preservice Teachers' Professional Interpersonal Vision." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 35, no. 5 : 582 – 594. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Es, E. A., and M. G. Sherin. 2002. " Learning to Notice: Scaffolding New Teachers' Interpretations of Classroom Interactions." Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10, no. 4 : 571 – 596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Es, E. A., M. Tekkumru‐Kisa, and N. Seago. 2019. " Leveraging the Power of Video for Teacher Learning: A Design Framework for Teacher Educators." In International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education: Volume 2: Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education (Second Edition), edited by S. Llinares and O. Chapman, 23 – 54. Leiden, The Netherlands : Brill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westera, W. 2001. " Competences in Education: A Confusion of Tongues." Journal of Curriculum Studies 33, no. 1 : 75 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiens, P. D., J. S. Beck, and C. J. Lunsmann. 2022. " Assessing Teacher Pedagogical Knowledge: The Video Assessment of Teacher Knowledge (VATK)." Educational Studies 48, no. 2 : 273 – 289. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1750350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiens, P. D., and M. D. Gromlich. 2018. " Five Years of Video‐Based Assessment Data: Lessons From a Teacher Education Program." Research and Practice in Assessment 13 : 51 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolff, C. E., H. Jarodzka, and H. P. A. Boshuizen. 2021. " Classroom Management Scripts: A Theoretical Model Contrasting Expert and Novice Teachers' Knowledge and Awareness of Classroom Events." Educational Psychology Review 33, no. 1 : 131 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐020‐09542‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolff, C. E., N. van den Bogert, H. Jarodzka, and H. P. A. Boshuizen. 2015. " Keeping an Eye on Learning: Differences Between Expert and Novice Teachers' Representations of Classroom Management Events." Journal of Teacher Education 66, no. 1 : 68 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549810.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, S., and A. Reupert. 2013. " Does Training Matter? Comparing the Behaviour Management Strategies of Pre‐Service Teachers in a Four‐Year Program and Those in a One‐Year Program." Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41, no. 1 : 84 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.753991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoellner, B. P. 2020. Learning Simulations in Education. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Delphine Franco; Ruben Vanderlinde and Martin Valcke</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib181" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref154"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461246
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Capturing Competence: The Design, Evaluation, and Implementation of a Video-Based Instrument for Assessing Verbal Aggression Management Competence
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Delphine+Franco%22">Delphine Franco</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7402-8204">0000-0002-7402-8204</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruben+Vanderlinde%22">Ruben Vanderlinde</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4912-3410">0000-0002-4912-3410</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Valcke%22">Martin Valcke</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9544-4197">0000-0001-9544-4197</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aggression%22">Aggression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Simulation%22">Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vignettes%22">Vignettes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Criteria%22">Evaluation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competency+Testing%22">Teacher Competency Testing</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12834
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Complex competences, such as managing students' aggressive behaviour, are challenging to develop during teacher training. Recently, video-based simulations have been considered promising, yet suitable assessment instruments are limitedly available. This paper reports on the design and evaluation of a video-based assessment tool tailored to measure preservice teachers' verbal aggression management competence (V-AMC) development. Design considerations for video-based activities served as a framework, resulting in an assessment instrument consisting of video vignettes mirroring classroom situations concerning verbal aggressive behaviour, questions prompting situation-specific skills development, and a coding scheme to analyse preservice teachers' answers. Furthermore, this paper discusses the results of the instrument's implementation on preservice teachers' (n = 182) V-AMC. Findings support the appropriateness of the instrument in assessing V-AMC levels and mapping the impact of a simulation-based intervention. The data partially confirm the intervention's contribution to V-AMC development. Implications for future interventions targeting competence development are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461246
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461246
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12834
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aggression
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vignettes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competency Testing
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Capturing Competence: The Design, Evaluation, and Implementation of a Video-Based Instrument for Assessing Verbal Aggression Management Competence
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Delphine Franco
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruben Vanderlinde
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin Valcke
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1