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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".