Next Article in Journal
Construction Planning of China’s Computing Power Center from the Perspective of Electricity–Computing Synergy
Previous Article in Journal
Unraveling the Selection Phase of Business Incubators: Proposal for a Conceptual Model and Future Research Agenda
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/su17146257
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable Pre-Service Teacher Training

by
Suhyun Ki
1,
Sanghoon Park
2 and
Jeeheon Ryu
1,*
1
Center for Immersive Learning Technology, Institute of Educational Research, Department of Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(14), 6257; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146257
Submission received: 12 May 2025 / Revised: 26 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 8 July 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Classroom management is an essential yet frequently under-practiced competency in undergraduate teacher education, with important implications for sustainable teacher preparation. This study investigated whether pre-service teachers who feel more capable of managing classrooms also engage more deeply with simulation-based training. Fifty-seven Korean pre-service teachers (15 men, 42 women), all undergraduate students enrolled in a secondary teacher education program at a college of education, completed a five-item classroom-management-efficacy scale, then experienced a 15 min branching simulation that required choosing recognition, punishment, or aggression strategies in response to a disrespectful virtual student. Interest was assessed immediately afterwards with a 24-item instrument covering the four phases of the interest-development model (triggered situational, maintained situational, emerging individual, and well-developed individual). A post-test comparative design and MANOVA revealed that efficacy level had a significant multivariate effect on overall interest (Wilks Λ = 0.78, p = 0.029, partial η2 = 0.12). Scheffe contrasts showed that high-efficacy participants outscored their low-efficacy peers on maintained situational and emerging individual interest, p < 0.05, and surpassed the middle-efficacy group in three of the four phases. Repeated measures ANOVA confirmed a general decline from situational to individual interest across all groups (F (3, 52) = 9.23, p < 0.01), underscoring the difficulty of converting short-term curiosity into lasting commitment. These findings position classroom-management efficacy as a key moderator of engagement and support the use of adaptive simulations as sustainable tools for teacher education. By tailoring challenge levels and feedback to participants’ efficacy, guided simulations can foster deeper engagement and promote individualized growth—helping build resilient and well-prepared educators.

1. Introduction

Classroom management remains one of the most significant challenges for educators, particularly in secondary schools, often leading to frustration as they struggle to address students’ problematic behaviors. Many teachers report feeling unprepared to manage their classrooms effectively, despite acknowledging its importance as a core teaching competency [1]. According to a survey conducted during the 2019 School Superintendents Association meeting (formerly the American Association of School Administrators), most teachers and administrators observed a sharp increase in student misbehavior since 2016 [2]. Nearly one in four students was reported to engage in disruptive behaviors, including tantrums, emotional withdrawal, bullying, verbal abuse, or physical aggression toward peers.
Moreover, in South Korea, a recent nationwide survey of 21,310 in-service teachers revealed that 54.5% of respondents experienced student misbehavior almost daily, and 30.2% encountered such behaviors at least once a week [3]. The estimated instructional time lost to these disruptions amounts to nearly three weeks per academic year. These findings underscore the urgent need for practical classroom management skills, which are essential for maximizing instructional time, maintaining effective student engagement, and fostering a supportive learning environment [4,5]. However, most districts and schools continue to lack clear and consistent protocols for addressing behavioral issues [2,6]. Furthermore, despite the widespread nature of these challenges, recent studies indicate that both pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development programs offer insufficient training in student behavior management and classroom leadership [7].
Given its complexity, effective classroom management requires the integration of advanced pedagogical knowledge with hands-on experience—an expertise that develops over time. Although research-based guidelines and strategies are available, many teachers remain unfamiliar with these approaches and lack the support necessary to implement them effectively in real-world classrooms.
Despite the importance of classroom management, concerns persist about whether teachers receive adequate training in these skills at the appropriate time. The National Council on Teacher Quality [8] expressed concerns that many teacher training programs in higher education fail to adequately prepare pre-service teachers in classroom management. Pre-service teachers often view classroom management as a significant obstacle due to their lack of experience [9]. Rather than receiving training in specific skills to increase students’ engagement and positive behaviors or to reduce disruptive behaviors, pre-service teachers are often introduced to generalized strategies, such as basic punitive measures [10,11]. Furthermore, the development of classroom management competencies frequently depends on teachers’ individual experiences and self-devised approaches [12].

1.1. The Need for Teacher Simulation

Consequently, many teachers require additional training to address behavioral issues effectively. The efficacy of classroom management strategies varies widely, depending on teachers’ experiences and individual approaches [12]. While pre-service teachers may learn the theoretical foundations of pedagogical knowledge, applying these theories in real-world classroom settings often presents significant challenges due to the complexity, unpredictability, and emotional demands of actual teaching environments [13,14]. Many novice teachers report a disconnect between what is taught in university courses and the practical skills required to manage diverse classrooms, address student behavior, and make instructional decisions in real time. In this context, simulation-based training—such as virtual classrooms or teaching avatars—can provide safe, controlled environments where pre-service teachers can practice decision-making, receive feedback, and refine their instructional and classroom management skills before entering real classrooms [15,16].
Simulations offer several advantages over field-based training alone, including the ability to standardize experiences, repeat specific scenarios, and provide timely feedback without the ethical and logistical constraints of actual school settings. They also serve as a valuable complement to classroom coursework by allowing preservice teachers to apply educational theories in a risk-free yet authentic environment. This gap underscores the importance of hands-on field training, which provides pre-service teachers with practical experience and opportunities to apply educational theories in authentic classroom settings [17]. Field training offers essential feedback to improve classroom management skills.
Simulations incorporating role-playing elements have proven particularly effective in teacher education. Role-playing allows pre-service teachers to build confidence in applying teaching skills and provides opportunities for reflection and feedback [17,18]. Experienced teachers possess diverse and multidimensional classroom management skills, adapting various approaches as needed [19,20]. However, pre-service teachers often lack awareness of how different strategies impact student relationships and rely on narrow or dichotomous concepts of warmth and discipline [21]. Therefore, it is essential to guide pre-service teachers in understanding the impact of various management strategies and provide reflective activities, even within role-playing simulations [22,23].

1.2. Impact of Proficiency and Interest on Simulation Outcomes

The effectiveness of classroom management simulations may vary depending on the user’s proficiency in the content domain of the simulation. Research indicates that teachers with higher levels of classroom management efficacy are more likely to employ strategies that foster a positive classroom environment [24]. In contrast, teachers with lower classroom management efficacy may experience emotional exhaustion, making them more prone to leaving the profession [25]. As such, classroom management efficacy plays a critical role in regulating emotions and achieving success in instructional activities, particularly in simulated environments. Characteristics such as teaching efficacy, experience, and training objectives significantly influence simulation training outcomes [26].
Additionally, the level of interest in simulated scenarios significantly impacts user engagement. Interest in simulations is determined by the intrinsic value of the activity and its perceived manageability [27]. According to Hidi and Renninger’s [28] four-phase model of interest development, interest evolves from triggered situational interest to maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, and finally well-developed individual interest. These phases provide a valuable framework for understanding how learners engage with simulations over time, particularly in professional learning contexts. To maximize the efficacy of virtual simulations, various challenging scenarios that reflect real-life classroom situations should be included [29,30]. The effectiveness of simulation training outcomes is closely tied to individual engagement, influenced by varying levels of interest throughout the simulation [28,31]. Recent research has also highlighted the importance of pre-service teachers’ interest in simulations, showing that interest is linked to perceived authenticity, relevance, and control [32,33].

1.3. Research Questions

Guided by the above rationale, this study examines how pre-service teachers’ classroom-management efficacy levels influence their interest development while interacting with a guided role-playing simulation. Specifically, we ask the following:
  • Do different efficacy levels (high, middle, low) lead to distinct overall patterns of interest development during the simulation?
  • Do efficacy levels differentially affect interest scores at each of the four phases of interest development?
By analyzing these questions, we seek to clarify how individual differences in efficacy interact with simulation design to foster or hinder sustained professional engagement.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Simulating Classroom Management

Designing interactive classroom management simulations requires careful consideration of users’ efficacy levels in classroom management. Given the wide variation in teaching experience among users and the associated differences in classroom management self-efficacy [34], simulations should provide adjustable levels of complexity and include a variety of classroom scenarios that reflect users’ familiarity with student behavior and specific developmental needs [35]. These simulations are especially valuable in teacher education because they offer pre-service teachers realistic and supportive environments where they can develop essential classroom management skills before entering actual classrooms [36,37]. Features such as increasing levels of difficulty, scenario variation, and integrated coaching can help accelerate the development of these skills [38].
In addition, simulations that present realistic situations such as addressing disruptive behavior or student bullying enhance teachers’ ability to respond effectively to common classroom challenges [29,30]. These experiences not only support skill acquisition but also help reduce the stress and uncertainty that novice teachers often face when encountering difficult situations for the first time. By aligning the learning experience with each user’s current efficacy level and gradually increasing the challenge, simulations can promote both competence and confidence in managing classrooms successfully.

2.2. Role-Playing Simulation for Strategic Guidance

One effective approach in virtual simulations for pre-service teacher education is role-playing [17,18,39]. Role-playing allows pre-service teachers to engage in job-related scenarios, providing a form of situated learning [18,40]. Combining role-playing with mixed-reality simulations has been shown to enhance metacognitive awareness and improve simulation effectiveness, contributing to greater teacher proficiency [18].
There are several practical examples of role-playing simulations used for educational purposes. Kognito, for instance, trains educators and school staff to communicate with students and parents to support student mental health and well-being. This simulation has been shown to improve users’ knowledge, confidence, and preparedness in these areas [41,42,43,44]. Mursion, which blends artificial intelligence with live actors, simulates real-time interactions between teachers and students in a virtual classroom [17]. Unlike traditional tools, Mursion offers a dynamic environment that allows pre-service teachers to practice targeted skills, improving their confidence and preparedness in classroom management [45,46]. SimSchool provides teachers with the opportunity to interact with students exhibiting diverse characteristics, realistically modeling student behaviors and providing coaching to help pre-service teachers rapidly develop classroom management skills [38,47].
Behavior-based learning methods such as role-playing are most effective when linked to the theoretical knowledge pre-service teachers possess and when reflective discussions accompany the learning process. While role-playing simulations offer significant advantages for skill acquisition, incorporating reflective processes within these simulations is essential for pre-service teachers to understand when and how to apply these skills, explore alternatives, and adapt strategies to new situations [48]. These reflective processes may include feedback, debriefing, and guided reflection activities, grounded in theoretical frameworks or evidence-based concepts [49].
There is a need for a theoretical framework that supports the development of reflective processes in role-playing simulations aimed at improving classroom management skills. De Jong et al. [21] empirically examined the influence of teachers’ behavior management strategies on teacher–student relationships. They found that approaches involving recognition and reward positively affected students’ sense of belonging, while punitive or aggressive strategies had detrimental effects. While punitive strategies may temporarily suppress problem behaviors, they often fail to produce lasting change [50].
For pre-service teachers, understanding the consequences of various classroom management strategies on relationships with students is essential. Although warmth and influence are often viewed as mutually exclusive, research suggests that well-applied disciplinary strategies can promote a positive and structured classroom climate [51,52]. Thus, simulations designed to enhance classroom management should include processes for providing feedback or debriefing on the educational value and impact of strategies used, fostering deeper reflection and learning.

2.3. Engagement in Simulation

The primary advantage of classroom management simulations is their ability to engage users, fostering deeper learning through immersive, interactive experiences. Effective simulations recreate authentic classroom environments, allowing users to address real-world challenges in classroom management. To achieve meaningful engagement, simulations must be designed to mirror real-life classroom dynamics closely.
From a design perspective, maintaining user motivation is essential for long-term engagement in simulated environments. Interest and participation levels play a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of classroom management simulations. Arousing situational interest through novel and challenging scenarios can lead to sustained engagement and intrinsic motivation. Schiefele [53] distinguishes between situational and individual interest, the former triggered by external stimuli and often short-lived, and the latter stemming from inherent interest, which is more persistent and likely to develop into long-term engagement.
Hidi and Renninger [28] expanded on this by developing a four-phase model of interest development: triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest. Triggered situational interest results from short-term changes in emotions driven by educational contexts, while maintained situational interest requires ongoing engagement with the content. As learners engage more deeply with the material, emerging individual interest leads to self-directed exploration, ultimately resulting in well-developed individual interest characterized by sustained motivation and engagement [54]. In classroom management simulations, fostering this progression is essential for maximizing the educational benefits.
To sustain user engagement throughout the simulation, strategies must be employed to transition from external stimuli to intrinsic motivation. While simulations often trigger situational interest, successfully transitioning this interest to individual motivation is challenging [55,56]. Thus, classroom management simulations must be designed to support interest development step-by-step, ensuring sustained motivation and engagement through authentic, immersive experiences.

2.4. Design of Classroom Management Simulations

This study is conceptually grounded in the four-phase model of interest development [28], which serves as the primary framework guiding both the design of the classroom management simulation and the analysis of learner responses.
The four-phase model of interest development [57] is a valuable framework for designing classroom management simulations that foster long-term engagement. Learners who reach well-developed individual interest are more likely to set higher-level goals and invest time and effort in applying their learning [58]. Additionally, those with developed individual interest experience greater situational interest in related activities [59,60]. Classroom management simulations, due to their interactive nature, are ideally suited for facilitating this progression of interest, offering an immersive, authentic experience that mirrors real classroom settings.
Table 1 outlines the phases of interest development and corresponding strategies for designing classroom management simulations to support each phase. By aligning simulation design with the four-phase model, educators and instructional designers can enhance learners’ long-term engagement and motivation, resulting in deeper learning and improved classroom management skills.
  • Situational Interest I (triggered situational interest) focuses on the initial engagement caused by a new and appealing event. The simulation design for this phase leverages emotional and sensory experiences to capture immediate attention and foster a sense of presence and curiosity [55,61,62].
  • Situational Interest II (maintained situational interest) aims to sustain the interest generated in the first phase by encouraging continuous interaction with the event or topic, enhancing the learner’s focus and exploration through ongoing activities [63,64].
  • Individual Interest I (emerging individual interest) transitions from situational interest to a more personal connection with the topic. The simulation design strategically creates meaningful and relevant connections between the content and the learner, fostering a personal inclination to further engage with the subject matter [65].
  • Individual Interest II (well-developed individual interest) represents the culmination of this progression where the interest becomes a stable and enduring part of the individual’s preferences and drives consistent engagement over time. Simulation strategies in this phase involve sophisticated educational techniques, such as project-based learning and personalized tutoring, to deepen understanding and commitment to the topic [57,66,67].
This four-phase model also serves as a guiding framework for organizing and interpreting participants’ responses during the simulation, allowing us to examine how their interest developed across different phases.
Table 1. The phase of interest development and simulation design.
Table 1. The phase of interest development and simulation design.
Phase of Interest DevelopmentSituational Interest I (Triggered Situational Interest)Situational Interest II (Maintained Situational Interest)Individual Interest I (Emerging Individual Interest)Individual Interest II (Well-Developed Individual Interest)
DefinitionPsychological state resulting from short-term changes in cognitive and affective processing associated with a particular class of content.Psychological state that involves focused attention to a particular class of content that reoccurs and/or persists over time.Psychological state involving the beginning of a relatively enduring predisposition to seek re-engagement with a particular class of content over time.Psychological state involving a relatively enduring predisposition to reengage a particular class of content over time.
Simulation designEmotional appeal to users with vivid, visceral, and first-hand experience.
Afford users novelty and exploration intention resulting in senses of presence, motivation, interest, or engagement.
[55,61,62]		Require users to engage in learning activities continuously.
Enhance the positive effect, focused attention, and exploration intention to further fulfill triggered situational interest.
[63,64]		Organize the content to create meaningful connections between users and simulation.
Present the content/tasks that users find relevant and meaningful to them
Reinforce situational interest through new instructional events.
[54,65]		Create understanding-conducive environments such as project-based learning, cooperative group work, and one-on-one tutoring
[57,66,67].

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Fifty-eight pre-service teachers were recruited from a four-year public university located in the southwestern region of South Korea. Excluding one participant due to incomplete responses, a total of 57 participants (15 male and 42 female) were included in the data analysis, consisting of 6 freshmen, 34 sophomores, 10 juniors, and 7 seniors. The study proceeded with the agreement of all the participants and their voluntary participation with an Institutional Review Board approval, and written informed consent was collected. Participants confirmed that they had no prior formal teaching experience beyond school practicums. Pre-test classroom-management self-efficacy scores were later used to stratify participants into high, middle, and low efficacy groups for analysis; academic classification did not significantly differ across these groups (F = 0.72, p = 0.54), and its effect on outcomes is reported in the Results section.

3.2. Research Design

This study used a post-test comparative design to assess the impact of classroom management efficacy on interest development during guided role-playing simulations. The post-test-only design was selected to control for the potential confounding variables of pre-existing interest levels, allowing for a clearer understanding of how efficacy influences interest development during the simulation.
The level of classroom management efficacy (high, middle, or low) was the independent variable, and the four developmental phases of interest in simulations (triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, well-developed individual interest) was the dependent variable.

3.3. Guided Role-Playing Simulation

The simulation used in this study was designed to support pre-service teachers in practicing classroom management strategies in realistic virtual classroom situations. The simulation platform was developed by the authors as part of a broader instructional design-based research initiative focused on pre-service teacher training. It included interactive scenarios featuring disruptive student behavior and decision-making opportunities for the learner. To ensure the credibility and content validity of the simulation, it was reviewed by in-service teachers with a minimum of five years of teaching experience. These teachers evaluated the realism of the scenarios and confirmed that the simulation accurately reflected common classroom management challenges. They also agreed that the design was appropriate for pre-service teacher training and aligned with classroom management principles in practice.
The simulation was structured to guide users through realistic decision-making sequences, providing opportunities for feedback and reflection. Each scenario included embedded prompts and consequences based on user choices, allowing participants to consider the outcomes of their actions in managing student behavior.
Furthermore, this guided role-playing simulation was designed with several interface features to facilitate an effective classroom management experience for pre-service teachers. These features were applied to the simulation and detailed explanations of each feature are provided below:
  • Replay: Participants can observe the virtual student’s behavior and reactions using the replay menu (Figure 1A).
  • Sequence: The simulation progresses through six sequences, starting with S (Start) and ending with F (Finish). The entire conversation between the participant and the virtual student follows four steps (indicated by 1, 2, 3, and 4 between S and F). The current sequence is indicated with an orange circle, allowing participants to intuitively see which part of the conversation they are in. For example, the conversation sequence in Figure 1 shows sequence 1 (Figure 1B).
  • Virtual student: The virtual students verbally and physically respond to participants’ comments and questions. The virtual student avatar displays authentic student looks and gestures that provide contextual cues for the conversation (Figure 1C).
  • Respond: Participants can choose one of the three responses developed based on DeJong et al. [21] and Lewis [68]. In Figure 1, the text in the brown box on the left reflects reward strategies, “You will get a good score if you do the assignment well. Let’s try again.” The text in the blue box in the middle reflects punishment strategies, “You won’t get a good score if you disturb other friends’ studies.” The text in the golden box on the right represents aggressive responses toward the virtual student, “(Yelling) Be quiet and don’t disturb your friends!” (Figure 1D).
  • Further information to the response: When the participant selects one of the responses, additional information is provided, explaining the advantages and disadvantages of that response as a classroom management technique. For example, if the reward strategy is chosen, a pop-up message displays the advantages and disadvantages of the selected strategy (advantages: a positive relationship with the student can be maintained by demonstrating trust in the student and providing the student with a sense of purpose for the assignment; disadvantages: this may be ineffective if the student does not value scores since it focuses on student autonomy). This information helps participants reflect on whether their response is appropriate for the given simulated problem (Figure 1E).

3.4. Measures

Participants were grouped into high, middle, and low efficacy categories based on their pre-test classroom management efficacy scores. The categorization was conducted to examine the potential relationship between different levels of efficacy and interest development across the four phases of interest. Classroom management efficacy was measured using a scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy [69] (α = 0.93). The five items were selected for their relevance to the simulation while keeping the survey brief. Items were translated into Korean, backtranslated, and reviewed by two experts in teacher education to ensure accuracy. The internal consistency reliability of the scale in the current study was α = 0.91. Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all confident; 7 = very confident). The five items were: “How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?”, “How much can you do to get students to follow classroom rules?”, “How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?”, “How well can you keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson?”, and “How well can you respond to defiant students?” Based on the survey results, participants were classified into three groups: high (5.00–6.60, n = 19), middle (4.20–4.80, n = 19), and low efficacy (2.20–4.00, n = 19). To ensure validity, we confirmed that the groups were balanced in terms of demographic characteristics and pre-existing teaching experience.
After experiencing the teaching simulation, participants completed a survey on interest development [70]. The instrument was adapted from established measures based on the four-phase model of interest development [30] and has been previously applied in educational research contexts. The survey items were translated into Korean and modified to reflect the characteristics of the teaching simulation and experimental conditions. Two experts in educational technology reviewed the translated items to ensure semantic accuracy.
The final survey comprised 24 items using a 7-point Likert scale and included four sub-elements:
  • Triggered Situational Interest (TSI; 5 items): Focuses on spontaneous focused attention and affective reactions to the materials presented.
  • Maintained Situational Interest (MSI; 5 items): Represents how meaningful the materials are and to what extent the triggered interest persisted.
  • Individual Interest (EII; 7 items): Characterized by positive feelings, stored knowledge and stored value.
  • Well-Developed Individual Interest (WII; 7 items): Indicates long-term stored knowledge and value.
The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) of each subscale in the current study was as follows: TSI = 0.688, MSI = 0.688, EII = 0.805, and WII = 0.776. For reference, the original instruments reported reliability coefficients of TSI = 0.72, MSI = 0.83, EII = 0.81, and WII = 0.87.

3.5. Procedures

Participants first completed a pre-survey measuring their classroom management efficacy, based on which they were categorized into three groups: high, middle, and low efficacy. The experimental sessions were conducted through the ZOOM video conferencing platform, where participants were randomly assigned to breakout rooms consisting of six members each. Each session was moderated by a trained researcher affiliated with the authors’ research team, who guided participants through the experimental procedure and managed the simulation flow. In each session, participants engaged with a guided role-playing simulation involving a virtual student displaying problematic behavior. The moderator shared a simulation playback on screen and presented three response strategies for addressing the students’ behavior. Participants individually selected their preferred response option, and the moderator proceeded with the simulation based on the majority vote. The group format was selected to simulate a realistic decision-making context while maintaining experimental control. This process allowed participants to observe the consequences of their collective decisions in real time, reflecting authentic classroom decision-making dynamics. Each scenario lasted approximately 15 min. Following the simulation, participants individually completed a survey assessing the development of interest.

3.6. Reasarch Design and Data Analysis

To address Research Question 1, we used multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine whether classroom management efficacy levels (high, middle, low) influenced overall interest development scores. For Research Question 2, repeated measures ANOVA was employed to assess the interaction between efficacy group and the four phases of interest development. These methods were chosen to analyze the multivariate nature of interest development across the four phases, ensuring that both within-subject and between-subject factors were considered.

4. Results

4.1. Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development

The descriptive statistics for classroom management efficacy within the scenarios and their effect on interest development are shown in Table 2. MANOVA was conducted because the Pearson correlation coefficient between interest development scores was significant at the 0.01 level. The homogeneity of covariance matrices was confirmed through Box’s test (p > 0.05). There was a non-significant difference among the three groups depending on classroom management efficacy (high, middle, or low) on interest development scores (F (8, 102) = 1.72, p > 0.05, Wilk’s Λ = 0.78, partial η2 = 0.119).
Furthermore, one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine whether there was a difference among groups based on classroom management efficacy in each phase of interest development (TSI, MSI, EII, and WII). As a result of Leven’s test, the equality of error variance was satisfied at all stages of interest development (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference in TSI [F (2, 54) = 3.79, p = 0.029, partial η2 = 0.12], MSI [F (2, 54) = 4.067, p = 0.023, partial η2 = 0.13], EII [F (2, 54) = 5.23, p = 0.008, partial η2 = 0.16], and WII [F (2, 54) = 3.79, p = 0.011, partial η2 = 0.15].
As shown in Table 3, Scheffe’s post hoc test indicated significant differences between participants with low and high classroom management efficacy. Interest scores were significantly higher for the high efficacy group than the low efficacy group at MSI (p = 0.041) and EII (p = 0.031) phases. Significant differences were observed between participants with high and middle classroom management efficacy. Differences were noted at the TSI p = 0.046), EII (p = 0.022), and WII (p = 0.021) phases. Figure 2 illustrates that the high efficacy group had higher scores of interest development than the other two groups in all phases of interest development.
These findings underscore the influential role of classroom management efficacy on interest development in guided role-playing simulation. The high efficacy group showed significantly greater interest development scores in the MSI and EII phases compared with the low efficacy group and higher interest development scores in the TSI, EII, and WII phases compared with the middle efficacy group.

4.2. Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Among the Four-Phase of Interest Development

The second research question, addressed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), holds significant implications for the understanding of interest development. The four-phase model of interest development posits that learners’ interest evolves from situational to individual levels [57]. This model suggests that even when the same scenario simulation is presented to the same learner, variations in interest development may occur due to elapsed learning time or the progression of simulation sequences. Furthermore, two or more levels of interest development may simultaneously manifest in individual learners. Therefore, the four levels of interest development were set as within-subject factors, with classroom management self-efficacy as the between-subject factor, in the analysis.
The covariance matrix result from BOX’s test was consistent (p > 0.05). Multivariate test results indicated significance for interest development [F (3, 52) = 9.23, Wilk’s Λ = 0.65, p = 0.000], but not for the interaction between interest development and groups [F (6, 104) = 0.47, Wilk’s Λ = 0.95, p > 0.05]. The Greenhouse–Geisser epsilon was 0.612, indicating that the sphericity was met. Significant differences were found among groups (p = 0.003). For within-subject tests, interest development showed a significant difference (p = 0.006); however, there was no significant difference in the interaction between interest development and groups.
Contrast analysis was employed to test the differences in each interest level among the four phases of interest development. For the contrast type option, “simple” was chosen for groups, while “difference” was selected for the phases of interest development. Results revealed differences in TSI-EII (p = 0.014), TSI-WII (p = 0.007), MSI-EII (p = 0.000), and MSI-WII (p = 0.004). It shows that there was a difference between situational and individual interests. It demonstrated a significant decrease in interest scores as situational interest phases (TSI and MSI) transition into individual interest phases (EII and WII). In other words, while pre-service teachers’ teaching simulation experiences generated a high level of situational interest, they did not necessarily translate into corresponding levels of individual interest.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Classroom Management Efficacy and Interest Development in a Guided Role-Playing Simulation

The findings of this study indicated that pre-service teachers with high levels of classroom management efficacy exhibited significantly higher levels of interest development during the guided role-playing simulation. This result suggests that classroom management efficacy plays a critical role in shaping how pre-service teachers engage with complex scenarios. Notably, the simulation used in this study presented emotionally and cognitively demanding situations involving student misbehavior, which required participants to select and reflect on alternative management strategies in real time.
This study demonstrated that the participant group with high classroom management efficacy scored higher in interest development. This suggests that the classroom management efficacy of pre-service teachers is a significant determinant in the development of interest experienced during guided role-playing simulations featuring challenging student scenarios.
A substantial body of research has shown that classroom management efficacy increases interest and performance [71]. Interest can be cultivated with a significant contribution and increase in knowledge, positive emotion, and personal value [72]. Pre-service teachers acquire more profound insights into classroom management through guided feedback and strategy explanations in role-playing simulations. They enhance their proficiency and expertise, thereby fostering positive outcomes when they perceive themselves as more competent and skilled practitioners [73].
Teachers who believe they have high efficacy in classroom management are more likely to create classroom learning environments where students feel well-supported and enjoy learning [74]. The pre-service teachers in this study who reported high classroom management efficacy might have acquired the necessary knowledge and skills for classroom management along with positive emotions toward the activities of in-service teaching based on their confidence in their abilities and expertise.
On the other hand, pre-service teachers lack mastery experiences [75] and depend on contextual resources. Silvia [76] suggested that factors, such as uncertainty of task outcomes or task difficulty, could influence the relationship between efficacy and interest development. Interest is driven by uncertainty. Thus, people who can predict their success or failure might be less interested in their tasks [76]. When classroom management efficacy is incredibly low, the expected outcome becomes certain and uninteresting. Task difficulty level can influence interest development. If a task is overly difficult, interest decreases, and if the task is moderately difficult, interest increases significantly [76]. In this study, pre-service teachers with high classroom management efficacy showed the highest interest development scores, which suggests that they were uncertain in predicting the results of classroom management efforts while appropriately assessing the task’s difficulty level. Conversely, it is possible that pre-service teachers with low to middle classroom management efficacy perceived the difficulty of the classroom management simulation as high or felt that the expected results were certain. This tendency may appear more clearly in pre-service teachers whose level of interest development relies heavily on external resources, such as simulations.
Therefore, the design of guided role-playing simulations should vary the amount of information and difficulty level based on the classroom management efficacy of pre-service teachers to enhance their engagement.

5.2. Patterns of Interest Development Within a Guided Role-Playing Simulation

Pre-service teachers’ interest development scores were initially stimulated by high levels of situational interest during the simulation. This occurred because the scenarios presented in the guided role-playing simulations captured pre-service teachers’ attention and further sparked their positive affective reactions to the content [5]. Interest development scores then decreased until individual interest emerged, followed by a slight increase during the well-developed individual interest phase. This pattern remained consistent in this study regardless of efficacy levels. Situational interest is generated by attention-grabbing teaching simulations. This type of interest represents an affective reaction that may be short-lived [65]. Thus, situational interest is more closely related to external factors than to individual characteristics. Situational interest is triggered by interesting external events. However, the transition from stabilized situational interest to longer-lasting individual interest seldom occurs [77]. In this study, the decline of triggered situational interest proved how challenging it is to progress from situational interest to individual interest.
Nonetheless, groups with higher efficacy consistently demonstrated heightened levels of situational interest at all stages compared with those with moderate and low efficacy. High levels of situational interest can predict high levels of individual interest. This aligns with prior research suggesting that once situational interest is elicited, an individual’s long-term interest in a particular subject tends to increase [28]. The triggering of interest depends on the mastery experiences, which are key sources of self-efficacy beliefs [71]. Moreover, the pre-service teachers who developed high levels of individual interest may be more confident in their skills and abilities [5] because individual interest is associated with the development of perceived competence [28,78]. It is expected that pre-service teachers with high classroom management efficacy will further develop their competence based on their high levels of interest.

5.3. Limitation

This study has several limitations. First, interest development typically progresses from situational to individual interest over an extended period. However, the present study was conducted within a short time frame, making it difficult to determine whether the interest stimulated by the simulation had fully transitioned into well-developed individual interest.
Second, while the findings confirmed that classroom management efficacy significantly influences interest development in simulation-based training, the study did not explore the underlying mechanisms behind this relationship. Future research should incorporate qualitative methods—such as interviews with pre-service teachers or expert observations during the simulations—to better understand these causal factors.
Third, although the simulation scenarios addressed common behavioral issues, they did not fully capture the complexity and diversity of real classroom challenges [79]. Future studies should aim to design more dynamic and authentic scenarios that reflect the nuanced realities of classroom environments.
Fourth, the study collected only limited demographic data—specifically, participants’ gender and academic classification (i.e., year in program). Potentially relevant variables such as prior teaching experience, subject specialization, or socioeconomic background were not included. Future research should incorporate more comprehensive demographic information to allow for a deeper analysis of individual differences in simulation-based learning outcomes.
Finally, the simulation was conducted in small groups rather than individually, which may have influenced participants’ responses and limited the ability to assess personal decision-making patterns. Future studies should compare individual and group-based simulation formats to evaluate their differential effects on engagement and learning outcomes.

5.4. Conclusions

This study investigated how pre-service teachers’ classroom management efficacy influenced their interest development during guided role-playing simulations. The results showed that participants with high efficacy demonstrated not only stronger engagement but also more sustained interest throughout the simulation. These findings indicate that classroom management efficacy is a critical individual factor that shapes how pre-service teachers interact with and internalize complex instructional experiences.
Although this relationship may seem intuitive, it has rarely been examined through empirical models of interest development in teacher training contexts. This study provides a theoretically grounded framework—based on the four-phase interest model—that offers insight into how pre-service teachers transition from initial engagement to more enduring interest, depending on their perceived competence. This adds empirical clarity to how simulations can be optimized for differentiated learning support.
The study contributes to the field by highlighting the dual role of guided role-playing simulations as both instructional and diagnostic tools. By embedding emotionally charged scenarios—such as student disrespect—that required immediate decision-making and strategic responses, the simulation offered participants authentic and cognitively demanding tasks. Those with high efficacy engaged more deeply, reflecting higher situational interest that, in some cases, transitioned into more stable individual interest. This progression underscores the importance of perceived competence in driving sustained engagement.
Practically, the findings inform simulation-based training by identifying classroom management efficacy as a key parameter for adaptive instructional design. Designers of teaching simulations should tailor scenario difficulty, feedback, and reflective components to accommodate varying levels of classroom management efficacy. Doing so can optimize situational interest and enhance learning outcomes by supporting participants’ confidence and motivation. Moreover, integrating efficacy-sensitive mechanisms into teacher education may promote sustainable professional development by helping teachers build resilience and preparedness before entering real classrooms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.; methodology, J.R.; software, J.R.; validation, S.K., S.P., and J.R.; formal analysis, S.K. and J.R.; investigation, S.K., S.P., and J.R.; resources, S.K.; data curation, J.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.; writing—review and editing, S.P. and J.R.; visualization, S.K.; supervision, J.R.; project administration, J.R.; funding acquisition, J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021S1A5B8096558).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (protocol code: 1040198-200820-HR-090-04; approval date: 28 September 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Poznanski, B.; Hart, K.C.; Cramer, E. Are teachers ready? Preservice teacher knowledge of classroom management and ADHD. Sch. Ment. Health 2018, 10, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Association of Academic Surgical Administrators (Spaces4learning). 14 February 2019. Educators Report Growing Behavioral Issues Among Young Students. Available online: https://spaces4learning.com/Articles/2019/02/14/Student-Behavior.aspx (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  3. Hyun, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Kim, E.; Seo, C.; Lee, Y.; Choi, S. Development Research of a Step-by-Step Guidance Manual on Student Problem Behavior in Schools by Field Teachers. J. Res. Educ. 2024, 37, 173–210. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hickey, G.; McGilloway, S.; Hyland, L.; Leckey, Y.; Kelly, P.; Bywater, T.; O’Neill, D. Exploring the effects of a universal classroom management training programme on teacher and child behaviour: A group randomised controlled trial and cost analysis. J. Early Child. Res. 2017, 15, 174–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Roure, C.; Lentillon-Kaestner, V.; Pasco, D. Students’ individual interest in physical education: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Scand. J. Psychol. 2021, 62, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vidić, T. Student classroom misbehavior: Teachers’ perspective. Croat. J. Educ. 2022, 24, 599–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Choi, S.; Han, I. Teachers’ Professional Development Needs for Student Behavior and Classroom Management: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea and Four OECD Countries Using PISA 2022 Data. J. Korean Teach. Educ. 2024, 41, 433–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. National Council on Teacher Quality. NCTQ Teacher Prep Review 2014. Available online: https://www.nctq.org/publications/Teacher-Prep-Review-2014-Report (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  9. Cohen, E.; Hoz, R.; Kaplan, H. The practicum in pre-service teacher education: A review of empirical studies. Teach. Educ. 2013, 24, 345–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Babadjanova, N. Effective classroom management techniques for curriculum of 21st century. Sci. Educ. 2020, 1, 281–285. [Google Scholar]
  11. Flower, A.; McKenna, J.W.; Haring, C.D. Behavior and classroom management: Are teacher preparation programs really preparing our teachers? Prev. Sch. Fail. Altern. Educ. Child. Youth 2017, 61, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chung, Y.; Yoo, J.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, H.; Zeidler, D.L. Enhancing students’ communication skills in science classroom through socioscientific issues. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2016, 14, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grossman, P.; Hammerness, K.; McDonald, M. Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teach. Teach. Theory Pract. 2009, 15, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Korthagen, F.A. Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dieker, L.A.; Rodriguez, J.A.; Lignugaris/Kraft, B.; Hynes, M.C.; Hughes, C.E. The potential of simulated environments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 2014, 37, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ferdig, R.E.; Baumgartner, E.; Hartshorne, R.; Kaplan-Rakowski, R.; Mouza, C. (Eds.) Teaching, Technology, and Teacher Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education: Waynesville, NC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dalinger, T.; Thomas, K.B.; Stansberry, S.; Xiu, Y. A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Comput. Educ. 2020, 144, 103696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Luke, S.E.; Ford, D.; Vaughn, M.; Fulchini-Scruggs, A. Using Mixed Reality Simulation and Roleplay to Develop Preservice Teachers’ Metacognitive Awareness. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2021, 29, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stahnke, R.; Blömeke, S. Novice and expert teachers’ situation-specific skills regarding classroom management: What do they perceive, interpret and suggest? Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 98, 103243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Simonsen, B.; Fairbanks, S.; Briesch, A.; Myers, D.; Sugai, G. Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Educ. Treat. Child. 2008, 31, 351–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Jong, R.; Mainhard, T.; Van Tartwijk, J.; Veldman, I.; Verloop, N.; Wubbels, T. How pre-service teachers’ personality traits, self-efficacy, and discipline strategies contribute to the teacher–student relationship. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 84, 294–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ke, F.; Xu, X. Virtual reality simulation-based learning of teaching with alternative perspectives taking. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 2544–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Walsh, J.A.; Sethares, K.A. The use of guided reflection in simulation-based education with prelicensure nursing students: An integrative review. J. Nurs. Educ. 2022, 61, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Holzberger, D.; Philipp, A.; Kunter, M. Predicting teachers’ instructional behaviors: The interplay between self-efficacy and intrinsic needs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 39, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dicke, T.; Parker, P.D.; Marsh, H.W.; Kunter, M.; Schmeck, A.; Leutner, D. Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 106, 569–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dousay, T.A.; Trujillo, N.P. An examination of gender and situational interest in multimedia learning environments. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 876–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pekrun, R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 18, 315–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hidi, S.; Renninger, K.A. The four-phase model of interest development. Educ. Psychol. 2006, 41, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Larson, K.E.; Hirsch, S.E.; McGraw, J.P.; Bradshaw, C.P. Preparing pre-service teachers to manage behavior problems in the classroom: The feasibility and acceptability of using a mixed-reality simulator. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2020, 35, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pas, E.T.; Waasdorp, T.E.; Bradshaw, C.P. Coaching teachers to detect, prevent, and respond to bullying using mixed reality simulation: An efficacy study in middle schools. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2019, 1, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Renninger, K.A.; Hidi, S. Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 46, 168–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lin, X.F.; Luo, G.; Luo, S.; Liu, J.; Chan, K.K.; Chen, H.; Zhou, W.; Li, Z. Promoting pre-service teachers’ learning performance and perceptions of inclusive education: An augmented reality-based training through learning by design approach. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2024, 148, 104661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martindale, S.; Hook, J.; Carter, R. A collective interdisciplinary agenda for immersive storytelling: Editorial analysis. Convergence 2025, 31, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lazarides, R.; Watt, H.M.; Richardson, P.W. Teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy, perceived classroom management and teaching contexts from beginning until mid-career. Learn. Instr. 2020, 69, 101346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kustandi, C.; Ibrahim, N.; Muchtar, H. Virtual reality based on media simulation for preparing prospective teacher education students. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. (IJRTE) 2019, 8, 399–402. [Google Scholar]
  36. Shaughnessy, M.; Boerst, T. Designing Simulations to Learn About Pre-service Teachers’ Capabilities with Eliciting and Interpreting Student Thinking. In Research Advances in the Mathematical Education of Pre-service Elementary Teachers; Stylianides, G.J., Hino, K., Eds.; ICME-13 Monographs; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Collum, D.; Christensen, R.; Delicath, T.; Johnston, V. SimSchool: SPARCing New Grounds in Research on Simulated Classrooms. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 18 March 2019; Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207723/ (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  38. Cohen, J.; Wong, V.; Krishnamachari, A.; Berlin, R. Teacher coaching in a simulated environment. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2020, 42, 208–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schussler, D.; Frank, J.; Lee, T.K.; Mahfouz, J. Using Virtual Role-Play to Enhance Teacher Candidates’ Skills in Responding to Bullying. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2017, 25, 91–120. [Google Scholar]
  40. Whitney, T.; Cooper, J.T.; Snider, K. A Comparison of Role-play v. Mixed-Reality Simulation on Pre-Service Teachers’ Behavior Management Practices. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2024, 40, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bryant, R.; Vogt, M.; Miller, C. Effects of an Avatar-Based Simulation on Family Nurse Practitioner Students’ Self-Evaluated Suicide Prevention Knowledge and Confidence. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2024, 10, 1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Greif Green, J.; Levine, R.S.; Oblath, R.; Corriveau, K.H.; Holt, M.K.; Albright, G. Pilot evaluation of preservice teacher training to improve preparedness and confidence to address student mental health. Evid.-Based Pract. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2020, 5, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Smith-Millman, M.; Bernstein, L.; Link, N.; Hoover, S.; Lever, N. Effectiveness of an online suicide prevention program for college faculty and students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2022, 70, 1457–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Soneson, E.; Howarth, E.; Weir, A.; Jones, P.B.; Fazel, M. Empowering School Staff to Support Pupil Mental Health Through a Brief, Interactive Web-Based Training Program: Mixed Methods Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e46764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Grant, M.; Ferguson, S. Virtual Microteaching, Simulation Technology & Curricula: A Recipe for Improving Prospective Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Confidence and Preparedness. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2021, 29, 137–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Johnson-Leslie, N.; Leslie, H.S. A Whole New World Since COVID-19: Integrating Mursion Virtual Reality Simulation in Teacher Preparation and Practice. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 11 April 2022; Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220973/ (accessed on 29 August 2024).
  47. Hopper, S. The heuristic sandbox: Developing teacher know-how through play in simSchool. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 2018, 29, 77–112. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/174847/ (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  48. Hersted, L. Reflective role-playing in the development of dialogic skill. J. Transform. Educ. 2017, 15, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Decker, S.; Alinier, G.; Crawford, S.B.; Gordon, R.M.; Jenkins, D.; Wilson, C. Healthcare simulation standards of best practiceTM The debriefing process. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021, 58, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mitchell, M.M.; Bradshaw, C.P. Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. J. Sch. Psychol. 2013, 51, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Weinstein, C.S. “I want to be nice, but I have to be mean”: Exploring prospective teachers’ conceptions of caring and order. Teach. Teach. Educ. 1998, 14, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Woolfolk Hoy, A.W.; Weinstein, C.S. Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management. In International Handbook of Classroom Management, Research, Practice and Contemporary Issues; CEvertson, M., Weinstein, C.S., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 181–223. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schiefele, U. Interest, learning, and motivation. Educ. Psychol. 1991, 26, 299–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rotgans, J.I.; Schmidt, H.G. Interest development: Arousing situational interest affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 49, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Parong, J.; Mayer, R.E. Learning science in immersive virtual reality. J. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 110, 785–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schutte, N.S. The impact of virtual reality on curiosity and other positive characteristics. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2020, 36, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Renninger, K.A.; Hidi, S. Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In Development of Achievement Motivation; Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 173–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lipstein, R.L.; Renninger, K.A. Putting things into words: The development of 12-15 year-old students’ interest for writing. In Writing and Motivation; Hidi, S., Boscolo, P., Lipstein, R.L., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 113–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Knogler, M.; Harackiewicz, J.M.; Gegenfurtner, A.; Lewalter, D. How situational is situational interest? Investigating the longitudinal structure of situational interest. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rodríguez-Aflecht, G.; Jaakkola, T.; Pongsakdi, N.; Hannula-Sormunen, M.; Brezovszky, B.; Lehtinen, E. The development of situational interest during a digital mathematics game. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2018, 34, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huang, Y.; Richter, E.; Kleickmann, T.; Wiepke, A.; Richter, D. Classroom complexity affects student teachers’ behavior in a VR classroom. Comput. Educ. 2021, 163, 104100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Makransky, G.; Borre-Gude, S.; Mayer, R.E. Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2019, 35, 691–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cheng, K.; Lee, S.; Hsu, Y. The Roles of Epistemic Curiosity and Situational Interest in Students’ Attitudinal Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality Environments. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2023, 61, 494–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Roure, C.; Lentillon-Kaestner, V.; Méard, J.; Pasco, D. Universality and uniqueness of students’ situational interest in physical education: Acomparative study. Psychol. Belg. 2019, 59, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hidi, S. An interest researcher’s perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation; Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 309–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Volet, S.; Jones, C.; Vauras, M. Attitude-, group-and activity-related differences in the quality of pre-service teacher students’ engagement in collaborative science learning. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2019, 73, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wolters, C.A. Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. J. Educ. Psychol. 1998, 90, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lewis, R. Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2001, 17, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A.W. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2001, 17, 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, Z.; Adesope, O. Exploring the effects of seductive details with the 4-phase model of interest. Learn. Motiv. 2016, 55, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D.; Hackett, G. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 1994, 45, 79–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Renninger, K.A.; Hidi, S. Interest development, self-related information processing, and practice. Theory Pract. 2022, 61, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Harackiewicz, J.M.; Smith, J.L.; Priniski, S.J. Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2016, 3, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hettinger, K.; Lazarides, R.; Rubach, C.; Schiefele, U. Teacher classroom management self-efficacy: Longitudinal relations to perceived teaching behaviors and student enjoyment. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 103, 103349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A.W. The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2007, 23, 944–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Silvia, P.J. Self-efficacy and interest: Experimental studies of optimal incompetence. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 62, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Krapp, A. Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learn. Instr. 2002, 12, 383–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.; Patall, E.A.; Messersmith, E.E. Antecedents and consequences of situational interest. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 83, 591–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Piro, J.S.; O’Callaghan, C. Journeying towards the profession: Exploring liminal learning within mixed reality simulations. Action Teach. Educ. 2019, 41, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06257 g001
Figure 1. User interface of guided role-playing simulation.
Figure 1. User interface of guided role-playing simulation.
Sustainability 17 06257 g001
Sustainability 17 06257 g002
Figure 2. Interest development by classroom management efficacy (* p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Interest development by classroom management efficacy (* p < 0.05).
Sustainability 17 06257 g002
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of interest development depending on classroom management efficacy.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of interest development depending on classroom management efficacy.
Classroom Management
Efficacy		Low
(n = 19)		Middle
(n = 19)		High
(n = 19)		Total
(N = 57)
Interest Development M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
TSI5.87 (0.75)5.78 (0.72)6.39 (0.74)6.01 (0.77)
MSI5.80 (0.53)5.85 (0.48)6.25 (0.59)5.97 (0.56)
EII5.56 (0.62)5.53 (0.67)6.11 (0.58)5.74 (0.67)
WII5.66 (0.65)5.59 (0.34)16.14 (0.68)5.80 (0.62)
Notes: TSI: triggered situational interest; MSI: maintained situational interest; EII: emerging individual interest; WII: well-developed individual interest.
Table 3. The results of the Scheffe post hoc test.
Table 3. The results of the Scheffe post hoc test.
Interest Development(I) Group(J) GroupMean Difference
(I-J)		Sig.
TSILowMiddle
High		0.095
−0.516		0.924
0.107
MiddleLow
High		−0.095
−0.611 *		0.924
0.046
HighLow
Middle		0.516
0.611 *		0.107
0.046
MSILowMiddle
High		−0.053
−0.453 *		0.955
0.041
MiddleLow
High		0.053
−0.400		0.955
0.080
HighLow
Middle		0.453 *
0.400		0.041
0.080
EIILowMiddle
High		0.030
−0.579 *		0.989
0.022
MiddleLow
High		0.549 *
0.579 *		0.031
0.022
HighLow
Middle		0.549 *
0.579 *		0.031
0.022
WIILowMiddle
High		0.069
−0.472		0.935
0.051
MiddleLow
High		0.069
−0.541 *		0.935
0.021
HighLow
Middle		0.472 *
0.541 *		0.051
0.021
Notes: TSI: triggered situational interest; MSI: maintained situational interest; EII: emerging individual interest; WII: well-developed individual interest; * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ki, S.; Park, S.; Ryu, J. The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable Pre-Service Teacher Training. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146257

AMA Style

Ki S, Park S, Ryu J. The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable Pre-Service Teacher Training. Sustainability. 2025; 17(14):6257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146257

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ki, Suhyun, Sanghoon Park, and Jeeheon Ryu. 2025. "The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable Pre-Service Teacher Training" Sustainability 17, no. 14: 6257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146257

APA Style

Ki, S., Park, S., & Ryu, J. (2025). The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable Pre-Service Teacher Training. Sustainability, 17(14), 6257. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146257

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop