Advertisement

A Comparative Study of Debriefer Versus Debriefee Distance Simulation Engagement

Published:November 24, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2022.08.008

      Highlights

      • Debriefers care much more than debriefees about nonverbals and become cognitively burdened by attempting to interpret in the moment.
      • Debriefers judge engagement by social climate, but social climate drives debriefee engagement.
      • Debriefees remember how they feel, while debriefers remember what they did.

      Abstract

      Background

      As distanced simulation continues to be widely utilized, the need for faculty development in distanced debriefing increases. In this study, we sought to explore similarities and differences in educator and learner perspectives of factors that influence engagement in healthcare simulation virtual debriefings.

      Methods

      Eight learners and six educators were interviewed. Three cycles of analysis were conducted including initial qualitative thematic analysis (QTA), framework analysis (FA), and a second, focused QTA to explore FA findings.

      Results

      Notable coding frequency comparisons emerged and helped inform the qualitative research. The final QTA uncovered three themes: (a) Educators care much more about nonverbals and become cognitively burdened by attempting to interpret in the moment; (b) Educators judge engagement by social climate, but social tone drives learner engagement; (c) Learners remember how they feel, while educators remember what they did.

      Conclusion

      Apparent differences in the loci of importance for educators and learners in distanced debriefings and potential consequences of designing education without uncovering these differences are discussed. Educator strategies for navigating these differences are offered and indications for further research needs are discussed.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Simulation In Nursing
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ambrose S.A.
        • Bridges M.W.
        • DiPietro M.
        • Lovett M.C.
        • Norman M.K.
        How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching.
        Jossey-Bass, 2010
      1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012).Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, editor. APA handbook of research 617 methods in psychology. Vol. 2, Research designs. Washington (DC): American 618 Psychological Association.

      2. Dedoose (8.3.47). Los Angeles: Sociocultural Research Consultants, LLC. 2021.

      3. Dropbox (122.4.4867). 2021. San Francisco: Dropbox, Inc. 202119.

      4. Garrison, D. R.:(2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning, Encyclopedia of distance learning, (2nd ed.). Edited by Rogers PL, Berg GA, Boettcher JV, Howard C, Justice L, Schenk KD. Hershey, IGI Global,, pp 352–355.

        • Hannah D.R.
        • Lautsch B.A.
        Counting in qualitative research: Why to conduct it, when to avoid it, and when to closet it.
        Journal of Management Inquiry. 2011; 20: 14-22https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610375988
        • Immordino-Yang M.H.
        • Faeth M.
        The role of emotion and skilled intuition in learning.
        Mind, brain, and education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom. 2010; 69: 83
        • Miller E.T.
        • Farra S.
        • Simon A.
        Asynchronous online debriefing with health care workers: Lessons learned.
        Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2018; 20 (treadwell.idm.oclc.org): 38-45https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.007
        • Mosher C.J.
        • Morton A.
        • Palaganas J.C.
        Perspectives of engagement in distance debriefings.
        Adv Simul (Lond). 2021; 6 (2021 Nov 8PMID: 34749833; PMCID: PMC8575148): 40https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00192-y
        • Mosher C.J.
        • Morton A.
        • Tarbet A.
        • Palaganas J.C.
        Factors of engagement in synchronous online learning conversations and distance debriefing: A realist synthesis review.
        Simulation in Healthcare: Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2022; (10.1097/SIH.0000000000000650Advance online publication)https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000650
        • Padgett J.
        • Cristancho S.
        • Lingard L.
        • Cherry R.
        • Haji F.
        Engagement: What is it good for? The role of learner engagement in healthcare simulation contexts.
        Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2019; 24: 811-825https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9865-7
        • Sandelowski M.
        Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research.
        Research in Nursing & Health. 2001; 24: 230-240https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1025
        • Srivastava A.
        • Thomson S.B.
        Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied research note policy research.
        JOAAG. 2009; 4
        • Wigfield A.
        • Eccles J.
        Expectancy value theory of achievement.
        Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25: 68-81
      5. Zoom (5.4.7.). San Jose: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. 2021.