MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011093259 · doi:10.1111/medu.14153

The nature of learning from simulation: Now I know it, now I'll do it, I'll work on that

2020· article· en· W3011093259 on OpenAlexaff
Farhana Shariff, Rose Hatala, Glenn Regehr

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingContext (archaeology)Grounded theoryPsychologyMedical educationQualitative researchMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Ongoing learning in complex clinical environments requires health professionals to assess their own performance, manage their learning, and modify their practices based on self-monitored progress. Self-regulated learning (SRL) theory suggests that although learners may be capable of such learning, they often need guidance to enact it effectively. Debriefings following simulation may be an ideal time to support learners' use of SRL in targeted areas, but the extent to which they are optimally fostering these practices has not been examined. METHODS: A qualitative study informed by grounded theory methodology was conducted in the context of three interprofessional in situ trauma simulations at our level 1 trauma centre. A total of 18 participants were interviewed both immediately and 5-6 weeks after the simulation experience. Transcripts were analysed using an iterative constant comparative approach to explore concepts and themes regarding the nature of learning from and after simulation. RESULTS: During initial interviews, there were many examples of acquired content knowledge and straightforward practice changes that might not require ongoing SRL to enact well in practice. However, even for skills identified as needing to be 'worked on,' SRL strategies were lacking. At follow-up interviews, some participants had evolved more specific learning goals and rudimentary plans for implementation and improvement, but suggested this was prompted by the study interview questions rather than the simulation debriefing itself. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants did not engage in fulsome development of SRL plans based on the simulation and debriefing; however, there were elements of SRL present, particularly after participants were given time to reflect on the interview questions and their own goals. This suggests that simulation training can support the use of SRL. However, debriefing approaches might be better optimised to take full advantage of the opportunity to encourage and foster SRL in practice after the simulation is over.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207