4.3 Article

Evidentiary and theoretical foundations for virtual simulation in nursing education

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL NURSING
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 810-815

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.06.001

Keywords

Virtual simulation; Nursing education; Andragogy; Learning theory; Learning styles; Bloom's taxonomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Virtual simulation is extensively used in nursing education due to the pandemic, but there are knowledge gaps and limitations. This paper describes the theoretical foundations for virtual simulation and offers recommendations for maximizing its use in the current clinical learning environment. Debriefing is a vital component to support students' learning needs and mitigate virtual simulation shortcomings.
Virtual simulation has been used extensively in nursing education since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the unavailability of clinical sites. Extant research supports substitution of up to 50% of nursing clinical hours with simulation. However, in many nursing programs virtual simulation is currently substituting more than half of traditional clinical hours, and the knowledge gaps and limitations surrounding virtual simulation exist. The purpose of this paper is to describe the evidentiary and theoretical foundations for virtual simulation. Through examination of adult learning theories, learning styles and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, recommendations for maximizing the use of virtual simulation in the current clinical learning environment are outlined. Debriefing is a vital component of virtual simulation. Synchronous debriefing with nursing students, faculty, preceptors, and peers provides the opportunity for scaffolding to support students' learning needs and foster reflection and evaluation to mitigate shortcomings of virtual simulation in the current clinical learning environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available