Abstract

Background: Simulation-based educations’ prevalence within clinical neuroscience is on the rise, however investigation into what environment is most conducive to optimizing learning performance is limited. We aimed to determine whether training a simple-to-complex (progressive) sequence would result in superior learning compared to complex-to-simple (mixed) or complex-only sequences. Methods: A three-arm, prospective, randomised experiment was conducted to determine the effects on novice learner LP performance and cognitive load during learning and a very complex simulated reality assessment test 9-11 days later. Results: During learning, sterility breaches decreased linearly over time (p<.01) with no group differences, and accuracy was higher in the progressive group compared to complex-only (p<.01) and trended in the mixed group (p<.09). Across the learning phase cognitive load increased in the progressive group (p<.01) and decreased across the mixed group (p<.01). At assessment, there were no group differences in number of sterility breaches (p=.66), needle passes (p=.68) or cognitive load (p=.25). Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, equivocal assessment performance was found across groups. Our results suggest that successive progression in complexity of simulation does not increase novice learner outcomes. Further, a “one-size fits all” approach to simulated environment complexity in clinical neurosciences education may be warranted given equivocal learning and less resources necessary.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call