Advertisement

Advancing Simulation Pedagogy and Research

  • Hans RystedtEmail author
  • Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren
  • Li Felländer-Tsai
  • Sofia Nyström
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 26)

Abstract

The final chapter of the book reflects on the challenges and benefits of interprofessional research collaboration, sharing data, and the application of different theoretical lenses when focusing on different aspects of practices, located in different national and international contexts. The chapter also outlines some challenges for the development of future simulation pedagogy, based on the findings of the collated research, and discusses areas in need for further research and development.

References

  1. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 32, 347.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780335242757.Google Scholar
  3. Eikeland Husebø, S., O’Regan, S., & Nestel, D. (2015). Reflective practice and its role in simulation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(8), 368–375.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Escher, C., Rystedt, H., Creutzfeldt, J., Meurling, L., Nyström, S., Dahlberg, J., et al. (2017). Method matters: Impact of in-scenario instruction on simulation-based team training. Advances in Simulation, 2, 25.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-017-0059-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2002). The tacit order of teamwork: Collaboration and embodied conduct in anesthesia. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 139–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00044.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hopwood, N., Rooney, D., Boud, D., & Kelly, M. (2016). Simulation in higher education: A sociomaterial view. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(2), 167–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.971403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Issenberg, B. S., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee, G. D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that leads to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kihlgren, P., Spanager, L., & Dieckmann, P. (2015). Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios. Medical Teacher, 37(5), 437–443.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.956054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller, R. D., Eriksson, L. I., Fleisher, L. A., Wiener-Kronish, J. P., Cohen, N. H., & Young, W. L. (2014). Miller’s anesthesia E-Book. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. Oxelmark, L., Nordahl Amorøe, T., Carlzon, L., & Rystedt, H. (2017). Students’ understanding of teamwork and professional roles after interprofessional simulation—A qualitative analysis. Advances in Simulation, 2, 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-017-0041-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rooney, D., Hopwood, N., Boud, D., & Kelly, M. (2015). The role of simulation in pedagogies of higher education for the health professions: Through a practice-based lens. Vocations and Learning, 8(3), 269–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9138-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2006). There’s no such thing as «nonjudgmental» debriefing: A theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simulation in Healthcare, 1(1), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schoenherr, J. R., & Hamstra, S. J. (2017). Beyond fidelity: Deconstructing the seductive simplicity of fidelity in simulator-based education in the health care professions. Simulation in Healthcare, 12(2), 117–123.  https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Steinwachs, B. (1992). How to facilitate a debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 186–195.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13: 978–0521331371.Google Scholar
  19. Tanner, C. (2006). Thinking like a nurse: A researched-based model of clinical judgment in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(6), 204–211.Google Scholar
  20. Tun, J. K., Alinier, G., Tang, J., & Kneebone, R. L. (2015). Redefining simulation fidelity for healthcare education. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115576103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Rystedt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren
    • 2
  • Li Felländer-Tsai
    • 3
  • Sofia Nyström
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations