

































Educational Renaissance Vol. 9  (2020)

The TCSEFP Hybr id eMent or ing Model: 

A Dist ance Educat ion Ment or ing Model
Mar jor ie Bock , EdD. Emporia State University

     email: mbock1@emporia.edu

Mar i Caballero, PhD.  Emporia State University

     email: mflake@emporia.edu

Kelly O'Neal-Hixson,  PhD. Emporia State University

     email: koneal@emporia.edu

Feature Article

The history of public education in America is a 
story of transformation (Schneider, 2018). Our 
schools have evolved from crude one-room 
schoolhouses to multi-graded consolidated 
schools (Cordier, 1992). Teachers have played a 
critical role in facilitating these profound changes 
in our educational system. Initially, those who 
taught our children were women, many of whom 
had limited education and no formal teacher 
preparation (Cordier, 1992; Schneider, 2018). As 
our educational system evolved, states adopted 
specific content area curricula, set graduation 
standards, and established professional teacher 
licensing procedures (Schneider, 2018). The 
development of professional teacher licensing 
procedures highlighted the pivotal roles teachers 

have played in our educational system. It also led 
to the creation of post-secondary preservice and, 
more recently, inservice teacher preparation 
programs (Mitchell & King, 2016; Schneider, 2018) 
as well as a professional literature replete with 
studies investigating teacher preparation practices 
(Mitchell & King, 2016).

Our professional literature highlights the 
importance of field experiences in teacher 
preparation programs (Mitchell & King, 2016). 
Numerous studies have noted that ?strong 
[teacher preparation] programs? require students 
to spend extensive time in the field throughout 
their programs (Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2006, 
2009, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; 
Darling-Hammond, et al., 2002). These programs 

Abst ract  

This article describes a hybrid eMentoring model used to support fellows during an 11-month 
fellowship program, the Teachers College Special Education Fellowship Program (TCSEFP). The TCSEFP 
is a residency in teaching (RIT) induction program that leads to the completion of a high incidence 
special education endorsement and a master?s degree in special education. During the fellowship, 
each participant receives extensive, explicit mentoring from onsite and off-site mentors. This hybrid 
eMentoring model, developed as a part of the TCSEFP, is facilitated in part via distance technologies. 
This article extends the residency in teaching professional literature to special education teacher 
preparation programs delivered via distance education. The TCSEFP hybrid eMentoring model 
extends residency in teaching university-school partnerships to K-12 schools in remote rural regions. 

mailto:mbock1@emporia.edu
http://mflake@emporia.edu
mailto:koneal@emporia.edu


BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

are increasingly rejecting traditional teacher 
training models that provide preservice teachers 
with pedagogical foundations followed by 
supervised student teaching in favor of alternate 
pathways to teacher licensure (Sandoval-Lucero et 
al., 2011). 

Two common alternate pathway models to 
teacher licensure in university teacher training 
programs are the Professional Development 
School Model and the Residence in Teaching 
Model (Sandoval-Lucero et al., 2011). The 
Professional Development School (PDS) Model is a 
collaborative partnership model between 
university teacher training programs and P-12 
schools. It focuses on ??preparing [preservice 
teachers], providing current educators with 
ongoing professional development, encouraging 
joint school-university faculty investigation of 
education-related issues, and promoting the 
learning of P-12 students?? (National Association of 
Professional Development Schools, 2008, p. 1).  
The Residence in Teaching (RIT) Model is an 
induction model that includes planning and 
collaboration between teachers in residence and 
other teachers throughout their schools as well as 
P-12 schools and university teacher training 
programs (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Fulton, et al., 
2005; Guha, et al., 2016; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). 
Induction models, like RIT, support teachers 
throughout their first year of teaching; from their 
first teaching experience through their adjustment 
to all the roles and responsibilit ies associated with 
teaching (Guha, et al., 2016). Wong, Britton, and 
Ganser (2005) note that induction programs, 
including RIT programs, share several attributes in 
common: High structure, focus on professional 
learning, and extensive collaboration between 
university teacher preparation programs and P-12 
schools. In addition, RIT models combine a 
one-year, coteaching clinical component with the 
completion of a master?s degree (Guha, et al., 
2016; Han & Doyle, 2013). 

While these alternate pathway models (i.e., PDS 
and RIT) vary in design, scope, and requirements, 
they typically reduce requirements in pedagogical 

preparation and put preservice and inservice 
teachers in charge of classrooms during their field 
experiences (Rosenberg et al., 2007). In addition, 
they incorporate collaboration between P-12 
schools and university teacher training programs. 
Moreover, mentoring for preservice and inservice 
teachers is a critical component of both models 
(Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2010; 
Fulton et al., 2005; Guha et al., 2016; Han & Doyle, 
2013; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). In both PDS and 
RIT, mentors provide invaluable modeling and 
coaching for preservice and inservice teachers. 
With guidance from mentors, preservice and 
inservice teachers learn to connect theory to 
practice. They engage in the ?practice of practice? 
ultimately developing into accomplished teachers 
(Babes, 2016; Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2006, 
2010). Thus, our professional literature clearly 
indicates that experiences in classrooms, under 
the mentorship of expert teachers, greatly 
enhances preservice and inservice teachers? 
growth and development (National Council for 
Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010).  These 
partnerships help preservice and inservice 
teachers develop professional dispositions, which 
positively impacts all students (Council for the 
Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2018). 
Consequently, quality clinical experiences that 
include effective mentoring are integral to effective 
teacher preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, 
2006; Guha et al., 2016; Mercer & Meyers, 2014). 

The purpose of this article is to describe an 
effective hybrid, i.e., face-to-face and virtual, 
eMentoring model for special education teachers 
participating in an RIT program, the Teachers 
College Special Education Fellowship Program 
(TCSEFP).

The TCSEFP: A Dist ance Educat ion RIT Model

The Teacher?s College Special Education Fellowship 
Program (TCSEFP) is a distance education 
residency in teaching induction program for high 
incidence special education teachers (Bock, 2019; 
Bock & O'Neal-Hixson, 2016). The TCSEFP serves 
the state of Kansas. Participants in this fellowship 
program must have either a K-6 or a 6-12 general 

24



BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

education teaching license, a GPA of 3.25 or higher 
on the final 60 credit hours of undergraduate 
coursework, and a recommendation from their 
employer. Each fellow is hired as a first-year 
special education teacher with a provisional 
special education license from the Kansas State 
Department of Education. During the 11-month 
fellowship, each fellow completes a 24-credit hour 
graduate high incidence endorsement. The 
endorsement coursework maximizes professional 
learning for the fellows. It includes two on-the-job 
practicums that have been revised in collaboration 
with our K-12 partners. The fellows finish their 
special education master?s degree during their 
second year of teaching. 

All university coursework is taught via distance 
technologies (e.g., course websites, lecture 
captures, video conference programs, email, and 
phone). Similarly, all K-12 and university 
partnership activities occur via the same distance 
technologies. This includes extensive, highly 
structured eMentor training and provision of 
eMentor support for fellows throughout the 
fellowship from both onsite mentors as well as 
university faculty. K-12 school administrators also 
serve as mentors for each fellow throughout the 
11-month fellowship program. The K-12 
administrators and university faculty also select a 
special education teacher with a minimum of 
5-years special education teaching experience to 
serve as an eMentor for each fellow. University 
faculty work with K-12 school administrators 
throughout the 11-month fellowship to facilitate 
continuity of mentoring activities across the K-12 
schools and the university. In addition, university 
faculty train the eMentors and coach them 
throughout the 11-month fellowship program.

Figure 1
The TCSEFP Hybrid eMentor Model.

As Figure 1 shows, our hybrid eMentor model 
surrounds each fellow with a tiered mentor 
system. This tiered system includes both on-site 
mentors (i.e., the SPED mentor and the building 
administrator) and eMentors (i.e., university 
faculty). Table 1 highlights the mentoring activity 
provided by each mentor.

Table 1 
Hybrid eMentor roles and responsibilities.

25

SPED Mentors University Faculty Building 
Administrators

Meet weekly with 
fellow 

Schedule all fellow 
activities 

Communicate with 
University faculty 

Communicate with 
Building 
Administration 

Complete Online 
Mentor Training 

Coach fellows 

Complete fellow 
evaluations

Meet monthly with 
fellows 

Work with mentor to 
schedule fellow 
activities 

Meet monthly with 
mentors

Communicate with 
Building 
Administrators

 Teach & observe 
fellows 

Complete fellow 
evaluations

Collaborate with 
University Faculty on 
TCSEFP 

Meet quarterly with 
University Faculty

Recruit fellows

Recruit mentors

Observe fellows 
twice a semester

Work with mentors 
to schedule 
observations

Complete fellow 
evaluations



BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

eMent or  Handbook

The TCSEFP eMentor Handbook provides the 
structure for the eMentoring component of our 
RIT fellowship program. We developed this 
handbook in collaboration with our K-12 
administrators. They include our partner special 
education directors and university faculty 
members. Figure 2 is the TCSEFP Mentor 
Handbook Table of Contents. As is clear from the 
Table of Contents, the handbook provides a 
description of the TCSEFP, clarifies roles for all 
partner members, provides monthly checklists of 
activities each SPED eMentor completes with their 
fellow, and provides requisite forms the SPED 
eMentors? use as they complete these activities.  
The monthly SPED eMentor checklists are aligned 
with K-12 annual academic calendars as well as 
university Practicums I and II course assignments. 
In short, these monthly checklists ensure a tight 
alignment between K-12 academic calendars and 
university Practicums I and II course assignments.

Figure 2. 
Table of Content for the Teachers College Special 
Education Fellowship Program Mentor Handbook.

SPED eMent or  Training

University faculty created a Canvas course shell for 
the SPED eMentors. This Canvas site structures 
SPED eMentor activities throughout the fellowship. 

SPED eMentors log in to the Canvas site at the 
beginning of each month. They complete an online 
SPED eMentor training session. The session 
contains a lecture capture and related quiz. The 
lecture capture provides explicit instructions 
regarding the activities SPED eMentors are to 
complete during the month, deadlines for the 
activities, and directions SPED eMentors will follow 
when completing required forms and assessments 
during the month. The training modules may also 
include YouTube videos, journal articles, and 
resources related to successful first year teacher 
mentoring programs. These modules are arranged 
by months. Each module includes a ?to do list? as 
well as copies of all required forms and 
assessments needed to complete the monthly 
activities. Figure 3 is a screenshot of a portion of 
the August 2019 module in the SPED eMentor 
Canvas course shell.

Figure 3. 
August 2019 Module activities on the eMentor Canvas 
course shell

SPED eMent or  Coaching

University faculty provide explicit SPED eMentor 
coaching throughout the fellowship. The faculty 
host monthly SPED eMentor meetings via a video 
conferencing program. These 45-minute meetings 
facilitate ongoing communication among SPED 
eMentors and university faculty. A portion of each 
meeting is spent answering questions posed by 
SPED eMentors regarding monthly activities. 
University faculty provide instruction specific to 
various practicum assignments, e.g., creating 

26



BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

direct instruction/universal design lesson plans 
using the university lesson plan template. This 
lesson plan integrates direct instruction (DI) and 
evidence based instructional strategies for 
students with disabilit ies with Universal Design for 
Learning (UDL), a framework to differentiate 
instruction to meet the unique needs of each 
learner. Both DI and UDL are cornerstone 
instructional techniques used to work with 
students with disabilit ies. This lesson plan 
template incorporates the use of both. As is typical 
for teachers in residency positions, the TCSEFP 
fellows present challenges creating and 
implementing effective lesson plans 
(Sandoval-Lucero et al., 2011). The SPED eMentors? 
role in helping the fellows learn how to create and 
implement effective lesson plans for students with 
disabilit ies utilizing direct instruction and universal 
design for learning cannot be overstated. 
However, without ongoing coaching from 
university faculty, it is unlikely the SPED eMentors 
would be able to help the fellows with this 
challenging task as successfully. During an 
eMentor Zoom session, University faculty 
presented the DI/UDL lesson plan template. 
Faculty discussed the template and shared a 
sample, completed lesson plan using the template 
with the eMentors. This resulted in the eMentors 
successfully guiding the fellows through the 
development of effective DI/UDL lesson plans for 
students with disabilit ies. Consequently, the 
monthly SPED eMentor meetings are a critical 
component of our SPED eMentoring coaching. 

In addition to the monthly SPED eMentor 
meetings, university faculty provide regular 
individualized support to SPED eMentors via the 
video conferencing program, email, and phone 
calls. Through these ongoing interactions with 
SPED eMentors, university faculty help each SPED 
eMentor customize the eMentoring component of 
the TCSEFP for each fellow, each fellow?s specific 
special education teaching assignment, and the 
many and varied unexpected events that happen 
throughout the fellowship. Through this 
multi-faceted coaching model, i.e., the SPED 
eMentor handbook and website, the SPED 

eMentor monthly meetings, and the SPED eMentor 
individual communication, university faculty 
facilitate dynamic, explicit, and highly structured 
eMentoring for each fellow in the TCSEFP 
residency in teaching program.

TCSEFP Hybr id eMent or ing Pit fal ls

The TCSEFP began in June of 2016 (Bock & 
O'Neal-Hixson, 2016). Over the past three years we 
have experienced two pitfalls related to the hybrid 
eMentoring component of the TCSEFP:

- Distance technology phobia
- SPED eMentor/fellow overload

Distance technology phobia 
The university faculty teach solely in an online 
graduate special education program. 
Consequently, they are quite familiar with and 
accustomed to using a variety of distance 
technologies. However, within the first few months 
of this grant-funded project, they quickly realized 
that they would need to help some of the fellows 
and nearly all of the SPED eMentors and building 
administrators learn how to use various distance 
technologies. A portion of the fellows were 
noticeably uncomfortable using the course 
websites, participating in video conferencing class 
sessions, and creating videos of their 
micro-teaching lessons. University faculty and 
instructional technology staff supported the 
fellows as they learned to use these distance 
technologies. By the end of their summer 
coursework, the fellows had mastered the distance 
technologies associated with our program and 
used these technologies with ease.

As the faculty began working with the SPED 
eMentors they found that many of these mentors 
used few distance technologies regularly either at 
work or in their lives outside of work. Faculty 
encouraged the fellows to help their SPED 
eMentors learn how to use the SPED eMentor 
Canvas site as well as the video conferencing 
program. University instructional technology staff 
jumped in to help as needed. This pitfall improved 
notably following the first year in part because we 
had experienced SPED eMentors return to the 

27



BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

program for a second year. The returning SPED 
eMentors helped the new SPED eMentors. Also, 
university faculty and instructional technology 
personnel provided explicit technical support for 
SPED eMentors via email and over the phone at 
the beginning of both years two and three. Once 
the SPED eMentors mastered the distance 
technologies associated with this program, they 
helped the building principals master these 
distance technologies.

SPED eMentor/fellow overload
This issue occurs with our rural partners fairly 
regularly. Our SPED eMentors who work with rural 
school districts often mentor more than one fellow 
at a time. This is necessary as there is often only 
one qualified person to serve as the SPED eMentor 
in our partner schools located throughout the 
remote, rural regions of the state. Not only are 
these SPED eMentors working with more than one 
fellow, their fellows are often located in different 
school districts within a special education 
cooperative. These school districts can be 30-45 
miles apart. Thus, these SPED eMentors can 
experience some pretty extreme challenges 
completing the weekly meetings with their fellows. 
In addition, they can find it difficult to schedule the 
teaching observations for their fellows. The 
university faculty have encouraged the SPED 
eMentors experiencing these scheduling 
challenges to ?think outside the box? and consider 
using the video conferencing program for a 
portion of their weekly meetings with their fellows. 
At this point, most of the SPED eMentors in this 
situation remain less then comfortable with this 
possible solution; however, those who have tried 
this solution report that it is working. These SPED 
eMentors are encouraging the others to try this 
approach to solving this problem. No other 
solutions have been proposed.

TCSEFP Hybr id eMent or ing Prom ises

In spite of the pitfalls we have experienced with 
the TCSEFP Hybrid eMentoring model, we see 
great promise with this model. Our hybrid 
eMentoring model is integral in helping our fellows 
achieve target level performance on all Kansas 

State Department of Education program 
assessment activities (Bock, 2018). It also plays a 
critical role in the fellows? PRAXIS performance. To 
date, all fellows have achieved a passing score on 
the PRAXIS Special Education: Core Knowledge and 
Mild to Moderate Applications 5543 test without 
the need to retake the test (Bock, 2019). 

Our school partners note that the Hybrid 
eMentoring component along with the graduate 
tuition support affiliated with the TCSEFP help 
them recruit and retain K-6 and 6-12 special 
education teachers for students with high 
incidence disabilit ies. They also say that, in 
general, the fellows are better prepared to teach 
special education then most of their other 
entry-level special education teachers (Bock, 2019). 
They attribute this to the explicit, structured virtual 
mentoring the fellows receive throughout the 
11-month fellowship. Moreover, the collaboration 
supporting the TCSEFP creates transformative 
practice for the university teacher training 
program; the university program is now closely 
tied to the realities of teaching high incidence 
special education throughout the state of Kansas. 
All of our graduate courses leading to the high 
incidence endorsement now contain field-based 
assignments derived from typical on-the-job 
activities performed regularly by high incidence 
special education teachers throughout Kansas. 
And finally, we have found this virtual mentoring 
component to be so beneficial for the fellows that 
we are now transitioning to a virtual mentoring 
model for all of our students, i.e., all of our other 
students in our traditional graduate program. 

However, by far the greatest promise of the 
TCSEFP virtual mentoring component is its impact 
on special education services throughout Kansas. 
The fellows who participate in this project evolve 
into effective special education teachers during 
their fellowship. They learn to manage the 
paperwork associated with special education. They 
learn to work effectively with parents of students 
with disabilit ies as well as professionals both 
within and outside schools who work with these 
same children and their families. They learn to 

28



BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

implement individualized, evidence-based 
interventions and best practice assessments to 
evaluate the overall efficacy of these interventions. 
University faculty watch fellows progress from 
overwhelmed, novice special education teachers to 
confident teachers who develop individualized 
learning activities aligned with IEP goals and state 
educational standards. The fellows finish their 
fellowship with confidence knowing that they can 
effectively teach children with disabilit ies. What is 
the key factor in this transformation? As one of the 
fellows recently said, ?The university faculty are 
great, but my eMentor was AMAZING!!! I can?t 
imagine getting through this year without her.?

Footnote
Since this article was written, we along with the 
rest of the world are currently experiencing 
COVID-19. Little did we know at the time we 
developed this eMentoring model how critical it 
would be as our state and the country battle 
COVID-19. The Hybrid eMentoring model 
described in this article helped our program adjust 
quickly to the many and varied virtual teaching 
models our school partners implemented to work 
with students with high incidence disabilit ies in 
their homes. University faculty hosted additional 
zoom sessions to help the fellows develop 
effective virtual learning and assessment activities 
for their K-12 students with high incidence 
disabilit ies. University faculty continued to observe 
the fellows and evaluate their teaching using 
distance technologies. The K-12 mentors also 
continued to mentor their fellow throughout the 
stay-at-home orders. They simply mentored their 
fellows virtually rather than face to face. COVID-19 
highlighted the strengths of the hybrid eMentoring 
model described in this article.

References

Bock, M. (October, 2018). 2018 the high incidence 
special education report for the Kansas State 
Department of Education. Emporia State 
University

Bock, M. (February, 2019). February 2019 high 
incidence special education report for the Kansas 
State Department of Education. Emporia State 
University

Bock, M., & O'Neal-Hixon, K. (February, 2016). The 
teacher?s college special education fellows 
program ($332,125 4-year Kansas Teacher 
Education Competitive Grant Program funded 
grant). Kansas Board of Regents, Emporia State 
University.

Cordier, M. H. (1992). Schoolwomen of the Prairies 
and Plains: Personal Narratives from Iowa, 
Kansas, and Nebraska, 1860s-1920s. University 
of New Mexico Press.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator 
Preparation. (2018). CAEP Handbook Initial-Level 
Programs 2018. CAEP. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and 
student achievement: A review of state policy 
evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 
8(1), 1-44. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good 
teachers: Why it matters, what leaders do. 
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful Teacher 
Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. 
John Wiley & Sons.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). The flat world and 
education: How America?s commitment to equity 
will determine our future. Teachers College 
Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher Education 
and the American Future. Journal of Teacher 
Education, 61(1-2), 35?47.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). 
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What 
teachers should learn and be able to do. 

29



BOCK, CABALLERO & O'NEAL-HIXON|  THE TCSEFP HYBRID EMENTORING MODEL

Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. 
(2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How 
well do different pathways prepare teachers to 
teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 
286-302. 

Fulton, K., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Induction into 
learning communities. Retrieved from 
http://www.ncaf.org/documents/nctaf/NCTAF_
Induction_Paper_2005.pdf  

Guha, R., Hyler, M. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. 
(2017). The power and potential of teacher 
residencies. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(8), 31?37. 

Guha, R., Hyler, M. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. 
(2017). The teacher residency: A practical path 
to recruitment and retention. American 
Educator, 41(1), 31?34.

Han, G., & Doyle, D. (2013). Teachers-in-Residence: 
New Pathways into the Profession. Ask the Team. 
Center on Great Teachers and Leaders.  
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555664

Mercer, D., & Myers, S. (2014). History and Future 
of Professional Development Schools in 
Kansas. Educational Considerations, 42(1), 55-60.

Mitchel, A. L., & King, M. S. (2016). A New Agenda: 
Research to Build a Better Teacher Preparation 
Program. Bellwether Education Partners.  
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577709

National Association for Professional Development 
Schools. (2008). What it means to be a 
professional development school.  NAPDS.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 
Education. (2010). Transforming teacher 
education through clinical practice: A national 
strategy for preparing effective teachers. Report of 
the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and 
partnerships for improved student learning.  
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512807

Rosenberg, M. S., Boyer, K. L., Sindelar, P. T., & 
Misra, S. (2007). Alternative route programs 
for certification in special education: Program 
infrastructure, instructional delivery, and 

participant characteristics. Exceptional Children, 
73(2), 224-241.

Sandoval-Lucero, E., Shanklin, N. L., Sobel, D. M., 
Townsend, S. S., Davis, A., & Kalisher, S. (2011). 
Voices of beginning teachers: Do paths to 
preparation make a difference? Education, 
132(2), 336?350.

Schneider, J. (2018). Marching forward, marching in 
circles: A history of problems and dilemmas in 
teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher 
Education, 69(4), 330?340.  
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1188459

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the 
effects of induction and mentoring on 
beginning teacher turnover? American 
Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.

Wong, H. K., Britton, T., & Ganser, T. (2005). What 
the world can teach us about new teacher 
induction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 379-384. 

30

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555664
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512807

	Bock, Caballero, & O'Neal-Hixon (2020) Proof  Print
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8


