Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Supporting self-regulation in simulation-based education: a randomized experiment of practice schedules and goals

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Self-regulated learning is optimized when instructional supports are provided. We evaluated three supports for self-regulated simulation-based training: practice schedules, normative comparisons, and learning goals. Participants practiced 5 endoscopy tasks on a physical simulator, then completed 4 repetitions on a virtual reality simulator. Study A compared two practice schedules: sequential (master each task in assigned order) versus unstructured (trainee-defined). Study B compared normative comparisons framed as success (10% of trainees were successful) versus failure (90% of trainees were unsuccessful). Study C compared a time-only goal (go 1 min faster) versus time + quality goal (go 1 min faster with better visualization and scope manipulation). Participants (18 surgery interns, 17 research fellows, 5 medical/college students) were randomly assigned to groups. In Study A, the sequential group had higher task completion (10/19 vs. 1/21; P < .001), longer persistence attempting an ultimately incomplete task (20.0 vs. 15.9 min; P = .03), and higher efficiency (43% vs. 27%; P = .02), but task time was similar between groups (20.0 vs. 22.6 min; P = .23). In Study B, the success orientation group had higher task completion (10/16 vs. 1/24; P < .001) and longer persistence (21.2 vs. 14.6 min; P = .001), but efficiency was similar (33% vs. 35%; P = .84). In Study C, the time-only group had greater efficiency than time + quality (56% vs. 41%; P = .03), but task time did not differ significantly (172 vs. 208 s; P = .07). In this complex motor task, a sequential (vs. unstructured) schedule, success (vs. failure) orientation, and time-only (vs. time + quality) goal improved some (but not all) performance outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brydges, R., & Butler, D. (2012). A reflective analysis of medical education research on self-regulation in learning and practice. Medical Education, 46, 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brydges, R., Carnahan, H., Backstein, D., & Dubrowski, A. (2007). Application of motor learning principles to complex surgical tasks: Searching for the optimal practice schedule. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39(1), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brydges, R., Carnahan, H., Rose, D., & Dubrowski, A. (2010). Comparing self-guided learning and educator-guided learning formats for simulation-based clinical training. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 1832–1844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brydges, R., Manzone, J., Shanks, D., Hatala, R., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S., et al. (2015). Self-regulated learning in simulation-based training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 49, 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 682–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta, V., Mandalia, M., Mackay, S., & Darzi, A. (2002). The PreOp flexible sigmoidoscopy trainer. Validation and early evaluation of a virtual reality based system. Surgical Endoscopy, 16, 1459–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasz, K. L. (2016). The effects of social-comparative feedback during motor skill acquisition in highly-motivated learners: Applications to medical education. Doctoral thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

  • Fayez, R., Feldman, L. S., Kaneva, P., & Fried, G. M. (2010). Testing the construct validity of the Simbionix GI Mentor II virtual reality colonoscopy simulator metrics: Module matters. Surgical Endoscopy, 24, 1060–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsher, J. J., Olesevich, M., Farres, H., Rosen, M., Fanning, A., Dunkin, B. J., et al. (2005). Validation of a flexible endoscopy simulator. American Journal of Surgery, 189, 497–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gas, B. L., Buckarma, E. H., Cook, D. A., Farley, D. R., & Pusic, M. V. (2018). Is speed a desirable difficulty for learning procedures? An initial exploration of the effects of chronometric pressure. Academic Medicine, 93, 920–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guadagnoli, M., Morin, M. P., & Dubrowski, A. (2012). The application of the challenge point framework in medical education. Medical Education, 46, 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Front Neurosci, 8, 150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: The motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1383–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2017). Optimizing motivation and attention for motor performance and learning. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mylopoulos, M., Brydges, R., Woods, N. N., Manzone, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2016). Preparation for future learning: A missing competency in health professions education? Medical Education, 50, 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, N. T., & Hodges, N. J. (2017). Balancing our perceptions of the efficacy of success-based feedback manipulations on motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2017.1383227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascua, L. A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2015). Additive benefits of external focus and enhanced performance expectancy for motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(1), 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pusic, M. V., Brydges, R., Kessler, D., Szyld, D., Nachbar, M., & Kalet, A. (2014). What’s your best time? Chronometry in the learning of medical procedures. Medical Education, 48, 479–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedlack, R. E., & Kolars, J. C. (2002). Colonoscopy curriculum development and performance-based assessment criteria on a computer-based endoscopy simulator. Academic Medicine, 77, 750–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Houten-Schat, M. A., Berkhout, J. J., van Dijk, N., Endedijk, M. D., Jaarsma, A. D. C., & Diemers, A. D. (2018). Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: A systematic review. Medical Education, 52, 1008–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2015). External focus and autonomy support: Two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Human Movement Science, 40, 176–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Altering mindset can enhance motor learning in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., Cardozo, P., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2018). Triple play: Additive contributions of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove), 71, 824–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44, 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the Farley Innovative Research Surgical Team for their support of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA

    David A. Cook & Yazan Aljamal

  2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Mayo 17-W, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    David A. Cook

  3. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Yazan Aljamal & David R. Farley

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    V. Shane Pankratz

  5. Division of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Robert E. Sedlack

  6. Allan Waters Family Simulation Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ryan Brydges

  7. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ryan Brydges

Authors
  1. David A. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yazan Aljamal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Shane Pankratz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert E. Sedlack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David R. Farley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ryan Brydges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors DAC, YA, RES, and DRF conceived the study; YA acquired data; DAC and RB articulated the conceptual framework; DAC and VSP planned the statistical analyses; and DAC drafted the initial manuscript. All authors were involved in interpreting results and revising the manuscript, and all approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Cook.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was judged Exempt by the Mayo Institutional Review Board. All participants provided consent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cook, D.A., Aljamal, Y., Pankratz, V.S. et al. Supporting self-regulation in simulation-based education: a randomized experiment of practice schedules and goals. Adv in Health Sci Educ 24, 199–213 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9860-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9860-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation