Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Brain-Based Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: ECMO Simulation

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

Abstract

A strong knowledge of learning theory can assist the simulation educator in designing simulation-based courses with some prediction of success. There are several learning theories utilized in healthcare simulation. The five most referenced theories in the simulation literature are experiential learning theory, constructivism, adult learning theory, self-efficacy theory, and social learning theory. As brain research has progressed, there are new ideas about the biological basis for learning that have spawned a new field of educational theory study – brain-based learning (BBL). Also called neuroeducation or educational neuroscience, brain-based learning creates a learning environment that is compatible with the way the human brain learns. With overlap among the various theories, this chapter examines how BBL can be made the foundation upon which other learning can be applied in simulation-based education.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Transprofessional education includes non-healthcare providers including patient, family, and community who join with the interprofessional and interdisciplinary health team members to extend the learning group.

References

  1. Brookfield SD. The power of critical theory: liberating adult learning and teaching. San Fransicso: Jossey-Bass; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory, and practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 16–36.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Alinier G, Hunt WB, Gordon R. Determining the value of simulation in nurse education: study design and initial results. Nurse Educ Pract. 2004;4(3):200–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson JM, Warren JB. Using simulation to enhance the acquisition and retention of clinical skills in neonatology. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35(2):59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Auerbach M, Kessler D, Foltin JC. Repetitive pediatric simulation resuscitation training. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27(1):29–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buykx P, Kinsman L, Cooper S, McConnell-Henry T, Cant R, Endacott R, et al. FIRST2ACT: educating nurses to identify patient deterioration – a theory-based model for best practice simulation education. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(7):687–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chauvin SW. Applying educational theory to simulation-based training and assessment in surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95(4):695–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dreifuerst KT. The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: a concept analysis. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009;30(2):109–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Edward K, Hercelinskyj J, Warelow P, Munro I. Simulation to practice: developing nursing skills in mental health – an Australian perspective. Int Electron J Health Educ. 2007;10:60–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fey MK, Jenkins LS. Debriefing practices in nursing education programs: results from a national study. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(6):361–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gardner R. Introduction to debriefing. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(3):166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoadley TA. Learning advanced cardiac life support: a comparison study of the effects of low-and high-fidelity simulation. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009;30(2):91–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaakinen J, Arwood E. Systematic review of nursing simulation literature for use of learning theory. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2009;6(1):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lasater K. High-fidelity simulation and the development of clinical judgment: Students’ experiences. J Nurs Educ. 2007;46(6):269–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lavoie P, Pepin J, Cossette S. Development of a post-simulation debriefing intervention to prepare nurses and nursing students to care for deteriorating patients. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015;15(3):181–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lederman L. Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul Gaming. 1992;23:145–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lederman LC. Debriefing: a critical reexamination of the postexperience analytic process with implications for its effective use. Simul Gaming. 1984;15(4):415–31.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mayville ML. Debriefing: the essential step in simulation. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2011;11(1):35–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rourke L, Schmidt M, Garga N. Theory-based research of high fidelity simulation use in nursing education: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2010;7(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zigmont JJ, Kappus LJ, Sudikoff SN. Theoretical foundations of learning through simulation. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35(2):47–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rothgeb MK. Creating a nursing simulation laboratory: a literature review. J Nurs Educ. 2008;47(11):489–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. French HM, Hales RL. Neonatology faculty development using simulation. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(7):455–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dreifuerst K. Using debriefing for meaningful learning to foster development of clinical reasoning in simulation. J Nurs Educ. 2012;51(6):326–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hallmark BF. Faculty development in simulation education. Nurs Clin North Am. 2015;50(2):389–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kolbe M, Grande B, Spahn DR. Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: content, structure, attitude and setting. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2015;29(1):87–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kriz WC. A systemic-constructivist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of simulations and games. Simul Gaming. 2010;41(5):663–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuiper R, Heinrich C, Matthias A, Graham MJ, Bell-Kotwall L. Debriefing with the OPT model of clinical reasoning during high fidelity patient simulation. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2008;5(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Neill MA, Wotton K. High-fidelity simulation debriefing in nursing education: a literature review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2011;7(5):e161–e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Palmer MH, Kowlowitz V, Campbell J, Carr C, Dillon R, Durham CF, et al. Using clinical simulations in geriatric nursing continuing education. Nurs Outlook. 2008;56(4):159–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Parker BC, Myrick F. A critical examination of high-fidelity human patient simulation within the context of nursing pedagogy. Nurse Educ Today. 2009;29(3):322–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reilly A, Spratt C. The perceptions of undergraduate student nurses of high-fidelity simulation-based learning: a case report from the University of Tasmania. Nurse Educ Today. 2007;27(6):542–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Campbell M, Themessl-Huber M, Mole L, Scarlett V. Using simulation to prepare students for interprofessional work in the community. J Nurs Educ. 2007;46(7):340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Feingold CE, Calaluce M, Kallen MA. Computerized patient model and simulated clinical experiences: evaluation with baccalaureate nursing students. J Nurs Educ. 2004;43(4):156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rutherford-Hemming T. Simulation methodology in nursing education and adult learning theory. Adult Learn. 2012;23(3):129–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fewster-Thuente L, Batteson TJ. Kolb’s experiential learning theory as a theoretical underpinning for interprofessional education. J Allied Health. 2018;47(1):3–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Clapper TC. Beyond Knowles: what those conducting simulation need to know about adult learning theory. Clin Simul Nurs. 2010;6(1):e7–e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goldenberg D, Andrusyszyn MA, Iwasiw C. The effect of classroom simulation on nursing students’ self-efficacy related to health teaching. J Nurs Educ. 2005;44(7):310–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. LeFlore JL, Anderson M. Effectiveness of 2 methods to teach and evaluate new content to neonatal transport personnel using high-fidelity simulation. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2008;22(4):319–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rhodes ML, Curran C. Use of the human patient simulator to teach clinical judgment skills in a baccalaureate nursing program. Comput Inform Nurs. 2005;23(5):256–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schoening AM, Sittner BJ, Todd MJ. Simulated clinical experience: nursing students’ perceptions and the educators’ role. Nurse Educ. 2006;31(6):253–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wayman KI, Yaeger KA, Sharek PJ, Trotter S, Wise L, Flora JA, et al. Simulation-based medical error disclosure training for pediatric healthcare professionals. J Healthc Qual. 2007;29(4):12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Berragan L. Simulation: an effective pedagogical approach for nursing? Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(7):660–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Clapper TC. Cooperative-based learning and the zone of proximal development. Simul Gaming. 2015;46(2):148–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dewey J. Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lewin K. Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. 1st ed. New York: Harper; 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10):S70–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Paiget J. The construction of reality in the child. Abingdon: Routledge; 1954.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Bruner J. Toward a theory of instruction. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ausubel DP. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Med Educ. 2004;38(10):1095–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lindeman E. The meaning of adult education. New York: New Republic; 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 5th ed. Woburn: Butterworth-Heineman; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bandura A. Self efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bandura A. Self efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1995.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Bandura A. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wenger E. A social theory of learning. In: Illeris K, editor. Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists – in their own words. London: Routledge; 2009. p. 209–18.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Morrison JB, Deckers C. Common theories in healthcare simulation. In: Palaganas JC, Maxworthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini ME, editors. Defining excellence in simulation porgrams. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015. p. 496–508.

    Google Scholar 

  61. MacLean PD. A triune concept of the brain and behavior. In: Boag TJ, Campbell D, editors. The Hincks memorial lectures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1973. p. 6–66.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Edelman GM. Bright air, brilliant fire: on the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hart LA. How the brain works: a new understanding of human learning, emotion, and thinking. New York: Basic Books; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zull JE. The art of changing the brain: enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Jensen E. Brain-based learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sousa DA. Is the fuss about brain research justified? Educ Week. 1998;18(16):35.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rodgers DL. The biological basis of learning: Neuroeducation through simulation. Simul Gaming. 2015;46(2):175–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Hart LA. Human brain and human learning. London: Longman; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Caine R, Caine G. Making connections: teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dick W, Carey L, Carey JO. The systematic design of instruction. 8th ed. Bostom: Pearson; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Chen BY, editors. Curriclum development for medical education: a six-step approach. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tyerman J, Luctkar-Flude M, Graham L, Coffey S, Olsen-Lynch E. Pre-simulation preparation and briefing practices for healthcare professionals and students: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(8):80–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1010–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(1):49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The consultation: an approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):115–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Bloom B, Engelhart M, Furst EJ, Hill W, Krathwohl D. Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: the cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc.; 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Goode JS Jr. Action, practice and reflection: Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy and the current healthcare simulation movement. In: Bluhm R, editor. Knowing and acting in medicine. London: Rowan and Littlefield; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Phrampus PE, O’Donnell JM. Debriefing: using a structured and supported approach. In: Levine AL, Bryson EO, DeMaria S, Schwartz AD, editors. The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. New York: Springer; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Simulation Center, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    David L. Rodgers

  2. Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Roberta L. Hales

Authors
  1. David L. Rodgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberta L. Hales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Rodgers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Lindsay C. Johnston

  2. School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Lillian Su

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rodgers, D.L., Hales, R.L. (2021). Brain-Based Learning. In: Johnston, L.C., Su, L. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: ECMO Simulation. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53844-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53844-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53843-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53844-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation