Simulation is more than working with a mannequin: Student’s perceptions of their learning experience in a clinical simulation environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper describes undergraduate nursing students’ assessment of learning in a clinical teaching model that replaces 50% of the traditional clinical hours with high-fidelity simulation. We assessed students’ perceptions of the use of best practices in simulation teaching, and the importance assigned to each teaching practice to support learning.Methods: Longitudinal program evaluation design. We surveyed undergraduate nursing students with the Educational Practices Questionnaire (EPQ) at the mid-point (semester 2) and end of the program (semester 4). We used paired t-tests to assess changes in student EPQ scores between mid- and end-program.Results: Results showed that students’ reported greater exposure over time to clinical simulation activities that fostered active learning and high expectations; the degree to which they rated collaborative learning as important also increased.Conclusions: Students’ perceptions of the use of educational best practices and the importance of simulation in nursing education from program mid-point to end-point lends support for a clinical teaching model that uses a simulation to substitute for traditional clinical hours.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".