Simulation as a learning method in nursing education – A case study of students’ learning¬ experiences during use of computer-driven patient simulators in preclinical studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Increasing complexity and quality requirements in the health care system require that nursing students posses good practical skills. Internationally and domestically, this has lead to an increased use of simulation in preclinical studies in nursing education. In Norway, preclinical and clinical studies constitute 50% of nursing education. Nursing students can, through simulation with a computer-driven patient manikin, train connecting theory and practice together. In this way, students can become better prepared to meet the demands of clinical studies. The aim of the study was to evaluate the nursing students’ experiences connected to learning during use of a simulation manikin in preclinical studies during first-year undergraduate studies. Methods: The study had a descriptive case study design. The evaluation included information, preparation, completion and implementation of learning goals during simulation in preclinical studies. The study encompassed two first-year classes. The data collection occurred post simulation through the means of a questionnaire given to 100 nursing students from the class of 2009 and 116 nursing students from the class of 2010. Predictive Analytics SoftWare for Vista was used for statistical analysis and the inductive content analysis of the replies to the open questions. Results: Student evaluations show that use of simulation in preclinical studies was a positive experience and that the students have realized the day’s learning goals, despite criticism of the technical equipment, for example camera angle and lighting. In total, 88% of the nursing students answered that the observation of peers was beneficial to a great or very great extent, and 89.4% experienced that reflection during debriefing was beneficial to a great or very great extent. A correlation existed between students who responded that the observation of peers was beneficial and that reflection during debriefing was beneficial. About 77.8% of nursing students were well prepared for simulation. Qualitative analysis showed that a small number of students experienced discomfort when being observed during a simulation. Feedback from peers and instructors during debriefing was experienced as being very instructive. Being able to communicate with the simulation manikin was experienced as being positive. Conclusions: Nursing students experienced simulation as being a beneficial learning method and requested more simulation during their education. They expressed that simulation provided good practical and theoretical learning.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».