6533b7d4fe1ef96bd12634f3

RESEARCH PRODUCT

High-fidelity simulation among bachelor students in simulation groups and use of different roles.

Olle SöderhamnInger-johanne Thidemann

subject

Cooperative learningMaleMedical educationNorwayTeaching methodmedia_common.quotation_subjectEducation Nursing BaccalaureateBachelorManikinsExperiential learningEducationGroup ProcessesYoung AdultCritical thinkingActive learningPedagogyComputingMilieux_COMPUTERSANDEDUCATIONObservational learningHumansFemaleNurse educationEducational MeasurementPsychologyGeneral Nursingmedia_common

description

Cost limitations might challenge the use of high-fidelity simulation as a teaching-learning method. This article presents the results of a Norwegian project including two simulation studies in which simulation teaching and learning were studied among students in the second year of a three-year bachelor nursing programme. The students were organised into small simulation groups with different roles; nurse, physician, family member and observer. Based on experiences in different roles, the students evaluated the simulation design characteristics and educational practices used in the simulation. In addition, three simulation outcomes were measured; knowledge (learning), Student Satisfaction and Self-confidence in Learning. The simulation was evaluated to be a valuable teaching-learning method to develop professional understanding and insight independent of roles. Overall, the students rated the Student Satisfaction and Self-confidence in Learning as high. Knowledge about the specific patient focus increased after the simulation activity. Students can develop practical, communication and collaboration skills, through experiencing the nurse's role. Assuming the observer role, students have the potential for vicarious learning, which could increase the learning value. Both methods of learning (practical experience or vicarious learning) may bridge the gap between theory and practice and contribute to the development of skills in reflective and critical thinking.

10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.004https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23302256