Engagement: what is it good for? The role of learner engagement in healthcare simulation contexts

Abstract

Learner engagement matters, particularly in simulation-based education. Indeed, it has been argued that instructional design only matters in the service of engaging learners in a simulation encounter. Yet despite its purported importance, our understanding of what engagement is, how to define it, how to measure it, and how to assess it is limited. The current study presents the results of a critical narrative review of literature outside of health sciences education, with the aim of summarizing existing knowledge in these areas and providing a research agenda to guide future scholarship on learner engagement in healthcare simulation. Building on this existing knowledge base, we provide a working definition for engagement and provide an outline for future research programs that will help us better understand how health professions’ learners experience engagement in the simulated setting. With this in hand, additional research questions can be addressed including: how do simulation instructional design features (fidelity, range of task difficulty, feedback, etc.) affect engagement? What is the relationship between engagement and simulation learning outcomes? And how is engagement related to or distinct from related variables like cognitive load, motivation, and self-regulated learning?

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    While fidelity is widely believed to be essential to simulation instructional design, the empirical data supporting the relationship between high fidelity and the subsequent transfer of learning is tenuous at best (Hamstra et al. 2014). As a result, some authors have advocated abandoning the concept of fidelity entirely while others have suggested a complete conceptual overhaul of what we consider it to be (Dieckmann et al. 2007; Cook et al. 2011; Norman et al. 2012; Grierson 2014). It may be, however, that part of the controversy surrounding fidelity stems from our incomplete understanding of the variables theoretically postulated to mediate its effect—variables such as engagement. If we believe that fidelity matters for learning insofar as it increases engagement, but we do not understand what it means for a student to be engaged, do not have a consistent way to measure engagement, and lack clarity in how we approach engagement, then it should not be surprising that we have failed to demonstrate a consistent relationship between fidelity and learning.

References

  1. Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Artino, A. R., & Durning, S. J. (2012). ‘Media will never influence learning’: But will simulation? Medical Education, 46(7), 630–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barnett, S. G., Gallimore, C. E., Pitterle, M., & Morrill, J. (2016). Impact of a paper vs virtual simulated patient case on student-perceived confidence and engagement. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bergin, Rolf, Youngblood, Patricia, Ayers, Mary K., Boberg, Jonas, Bolander, Klara, Courteille, Olivier, et al. (2003). Interactive simulated patient: Experiences with collaborative e-learning in medicine. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.2190/UT9B-F3E7-3P75-HPK5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boekaerts, M. (2016). Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and Instruction, 43, 76–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, 8(13), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education, 50(10), 997–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Hamstra, S. J., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., et al. (2012). Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Simulation in Healthcare, 7(5), 308–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., et al. (2011). Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 306(9), 978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Courteille, O., Anna, J., & Lars-Olof, L. (2014). Interpersonal behaviors and socioemotional interaction of medical students in a virtual clinical encounter. BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–623). New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  20. DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, H. M. (2006). Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). The Oldenburg Burnout inventory: A good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. In J. R. Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp. 65–78). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Ebbinghaus, M. (2002). From mental strain to burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(4), 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dieckmann, P., Gaba, D., & Rall, M. (2007). Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(3), 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D., Miller, T., Sutton, A., et al. (2006a). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., et al. (2006b). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fulmer, S. M., D’Mello, S. K., Strain, A., & Graesser, A. C. (2015). Interest-based text preference moderates the effect of text difficulty on engagement and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 98–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gardner, Aimee K., Jabbour, Ibrahim J., Williams, Brian H., & Huerta, Sergio. (2016). Different goals, different pathways: The role of metacognition and task engagement in surgical skill acquisition. Journal of Surgical Education, 73(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gresalfi, M., & Barab, S. (2011). Learning for a reason: Supporting forms of engagement by designing tasks and orchestrating environments. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 300–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grierson, L. E. (2014). Information processing, specificity of practice, and the transfer of learning: Considerations for reconsidering fidelity. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(2), 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Haji, F. A., Cheung, J. J., Woods, N., Regehr, G., Ribaupierre, S., & Dubrowski, A. (2016). Thrive or overload? The effect of task complexity on novices’ simulation-based learning. Medical Education, 50(9), 955–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Hatala, R., Zendejas, B., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Academic Medicine, 89(3), 387–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Issenberg, S. B., & Scalese, R. J. (2008). Simulation in health care education. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 51(1), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jesson, J., & Lacey, F. (2006). How to do (or not to do) a critical literature review. Pharmacy, education, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jorm, C., Roberts, C., Lim, R., Roper, J., Skinner, C., Robertson, J., et al. (2016). A large-scale mass casualty simulation to develop the non-technical skills medical students require for collaborative teamwork. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kneebone, R. (2005). Evaluating clinical simulations for learning procedural skills: A theory-based approach. Academic Medicine, 80(6), 549–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Koens, F., Mann, K. V., Custers, E. J., & Ten Cate, O. T. (2005). Analysing the concept of context in medical education. Medical Education, 39(12), 1243–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. La Rochelle, J. S., Durning, S. J., Pangaro, L. N., Artino, A. R., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Schuwirth, L. (2011). Authenticity of instruction and student performance: A prospective randomised trial. Medical Education, 45(8), 807–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(01), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). MBI: Maslach burnout inventory. Sunnyvale (CA): CPP, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  48. McCoy, Lise, Pettit, Robin K., Lewis, Joy H., Aaron Allgood, J., Bay, Curt, & Schwartz, Frederic N. (2016). Evaluating medical student engagement during virtual patient simulations: A sequential, mixed methods study. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0530-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ng, S. L., Kinsella, E. A., Friesen, F., & Hodges, B. (2015). Reclaiming a theoretical orientation to reflection in medical education research: A critical narrative review. Medical Education, 49(5), 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Norman, G., Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical Education, 46(7), 636–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & McCormick, A. C. (2011). An investigation of the contingent relationships between learning community participation and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 300–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pizzimenti, M. A., & Axelson, R. D. (2015). Assessing student engagement and self-regulated learning in a medical gross anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(2), 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Power, Tamara, Virdun, Claudia, White, Haidee, Hayes, Carolyn, Parker, Nicola, Kelly, Michelle, et al. (2015). Plastic with personality: Increasing student engagement with manikins. Nurse Education Today, 38, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., & Raemer, D. B. (2007). Which reality matters? Questions on the path to high engagement in healthcare simulation. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(3), 161–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadaya, K. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2014). Attention, working memory, and long-term memory in multimedia learning: An integrated perspective based on process models of working memory. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., et al. (2009). The construct validity of the utrecht work engagement scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., et al. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zepke, N. (2015). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1311–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Padgett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Padgett, J., Cristancho, S., Lingard, L. et al. Engagement: what is it good for? The role of learner engagement in healthcare simulation contexts. Adv in Health Sci Educ 24, 811–825 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9865-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Education
  • Engagement
  • Healthcare Learners
  • Instructional Design
  • Simulation