‘How can we help the students learn?’ A grounded theory study of simulated participants as educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the demonstrated value of simulated participant (SP) feedback, we are only beginning to understand how to optimize SPs' feedback practices for communication skills and strengthen their role as educators. SPs portray roles and engage in feedback practices to support simulated-based learning for communication skills training. SPs come to their role with diverse experiences, knowledge, and training, such as (a) professional actors, (b) lay people, and (c) health professions educators. This study explored what factors influenced SPs' role as educators, including their preparation, training, and approach to role portrayal and feedback practices and how these aspects were influenced by SPs' backgrounds. METHODS: Using grounded theory methodology, we collected and analysed data iteratively from 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews. We identified key concepts, using constant comparison and by exploring how concepts were related , to develop a conceptual model of SPs as educators. RESULTS: The SP role as educator was shaped by several interrelated dualities which spanned both the SP and learner roles and contributed to the identity formation of both SP and learner: (a) building competence (SP competence as educator and learner competence as healthcare professional), (b) engaging in reflective practice (SPs prompting learner reflection and SPs reflecting on their own role), and (c) establishing a safe space (SP needing to feel safe in their role to create safety to support learner engagement). SPs' backgrounds influenced how they learned to portray roles and how they engaged in feedback practices, both in-action, through in-role prompts and cues, and on-action, through post-scenario feedback discussions. CONCLUSION: Our conceptual model about SPs as educators informs SP selection and training. Further, this model enables practical suggestions for SP educators and faculty who involve SPs in teaching. Enhanced feedback practices have the potential to improve learning from simulated encounters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".