| Title |
Confident but not theoretically grounded – experienced simulation educators’ perceptions of their own professional development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s123517 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renée Allvin, Magnus Berndtzon, Liisa Carlzon, Samuel Edelbring, Håkan Hult, Magnus Hultin, Klas Karlgren, Italo Masiello, Marie-Louise Södersved Källestedt, Éva Tamás |
| Abstract |
Medical simulation enables the design of learning activities for competency areas (eg, communication and leadership) identified as crucial for future health care professionals. Simulation educators and medical teachers follow different career paths, and their education backgrounds and teaching contexts may be very different in a simulation setting. Although they have a key role in facilitating learning, information on the continuing professional development (pedagogical development) of simulation educators is not available in the literature. To explore changes in experienced simulation educators' perceptions of their own teaching skills, practices, and understanding of teaching over time. A qualitative exploratory study. Fourteen experienced simulation educators participated in individual open-ended interviews focusing on their development as simulation educators. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. Marked educator development was discerned over time, expressed mainly in an altered way of thinking and acting. Five themes were identified: shifting focus, from following to utilizing a structure, setting goals, application of technology, and alignment with profession. Being confident in the role as an instructor seemed to constitute a foundation for the instructor's pedagogical development. Experienced simulation educators' pedagogical development was based on self-confidence in the educator role, and not on a deeper theoretical understanding of teaching and learning. This is the first clue to gain increased understanding regarding educational level and possible education needs among simulation educators, and it might generate several lines of research for further studies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#23,100,963
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#365,152
of 423,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them