IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v51y2020i2p243-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration of Two Different Structures for Debriefing in Simulation: The Influence of the Structure on the Facilitator Role

Author

Listed:
  • Randi Tosterud
  • Kristin Kjølberg
  • Arnhild Vestnes Kongshaug
  • Jon Viktor Haugom

Abstract

Background. In the use of simulation as a learning approach, a structured debriefing is important for students to achieve learning. The facilitator’s feedback style and abilities in facilitating are crucial, and have a great impact on the learning environment. The facilitators should facilitate for student active learning , and provide helpful feedback to empower students as self-regulated learners. The aim of the study was to explore the Steinwachs structure and the Critical Response Process structure when used in debriefing in medical simulation, and how each of them affected the facilitator’s role. Method. A multi-method, comparative quasi-experimental design was used. Results. Structuring debriefing in accordance with the Critical Response Process facilitated a facilitator role that coincided with factors highlighted in theory on how to facilitate student active learning and the development self-regulating learners. Structuring debriefing in accordance with the Steinwachs structure revealed that debriefing seemed to be based more on the facilitator’s frames and dominance than the students’ frames and involvement. Conclusion. The results of this study showed that Critical Response Process (CRP) can be an appropriate structure to use in debriefing in medical simulation. It reduced the facilitator’s dominance and frames, coincident with what is empathized in collaborative, active and learner-centered learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Randi Tosterud & Kristin Kjølberg & Arnhild Vestnes Kongshaug & Jon Viktor Haugom, 2020. "Exploration of Two Different Structures for Debriefing in Simulation: The Influence of the Structure on the Facilitator Role," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 243-257, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:51:y:2020:i:2:p:243-257
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878120903467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878120903467
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878120903467?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Junwei Su & Le Wang & Zhaolin Gu & Yunwei Zhang & Chungang Chen, 2018. "Advances in Pore-Scale Simulation of Oil Reservoirs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Young Sook Roh & Kie In Jang, 2017. "Survey of factors influencing learner engagement with simulation debriefing among nursing students," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 485-491, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jon Viktor Haugom & Solveig Struksnes, 2024. "Can Facilitators’ Need for Control Influence Students’ Learning Experience through Simulation? - A Qualitative Study on Simulation in Nursing Education," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 55(1), pages 109-127, February.
    2. Hege Kristin Aslaksen Kaldheim & Mariann Fossum & Judy Munday & Kjersti Marie Frivoll Johnsen & Åshild Slettebø, 2021. "A qualitative study of perioperative nursing students' experiences of interprofessional simulation‐based learning," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 174-187, January.
    3. J. Tuomas Harviainen, 2020. "Real, Half-Real, Irreal, Unreal," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 111-113, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janusz Badur & Michel Feidt & Paweł Ziółkowski, 2020. "Neoclassical Navier–Stokes Equations Considering the Gyftopoulos–Beretta Exposition of Thermodynamics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-34, April.
    2. Masoud Mohammadi & Masoud Riazi, 2022. "Applicable Investigation of SPH in Characterization of Fluid Flow in Uniform and Non-Uniform Periodic Porous Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Marcin Kremieniewski, 2022. "Improving the Efficiency of Oil Recovery in Research and Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-7, June.
    4. Myung‐Nam Lee & Shin‐Jeong Kim & Kyung‐Ah Kang & Sunghee Kim, 2020. "Comparing the learning effects of debriefing modalities for the care of premature infants," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 243-253, June.
    5. Angelo Dante & Carmen La Cerra & Valeria Caponnetto & Vittorio Masotta & Alessia Marcotullio & Luca Bertocchi & Fabio Ferraiuolo & Cristina Petrucci & Loreto Lancia, 2022. "Dose–Response Relationship between High-Fidelity Simulation and Intensive Care Nursing Students’ Learning Outcomes: An Italian Multimethod Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Jon Viktor Haugom & Solveig Struksnes, 2024. "Can Facilitators’ Need for Control Influence Students’ Learning Experience through Simulation? - A Qualitative Study on Simulation in Nursing Education," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 55(1), pages 109-127, February.
    7. Tao Ning & Meng Xi & Bingtao Hu & Le Wang & Chuanqing Huang & Junwei Su, 2021. "Effect of Viscosity Action and Capillarity on Pore-Scale Oil–Water Flowing Behaviors in a Low-Permeability Sandstone Waterflood," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-30, December.
    8. Saraf, Shubham & Bera, Achinta, 2021. "A review on pore-scale modeling and CT scan technique to characterize the trapped carbon dioxide in impermeable reservoir rocks during sequestration," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Xiangbin Liu & Le Wang & Jun Wang & Junwei Su, 2021. "Pore-Scale Simulation of Particle Flooding for Enhancing Oil Recovery," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-23, April.
    10. Guillaume Lamé & Sonya Crowe & Matthew Barclay, 2022. "‘What’s the evidence?’—Towards more empirical evaluations of the impact of OR interventions in healthcare," Post-Print hal-03035075, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:51:y:2020:i:2:p:243-257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.