Vicarious learning during simulations: Is it more effective than hands-on training?

Medical Education

Volumn 46, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1001-1008

  Stegmann, Karsten ^a,b   Pilz, Florian ^a,c   Siebeck, Matthias ^c   Fischer, Frank ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b University of Koblenz   (Germany)

^c LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; TEACHING;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT SIMULATION; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; TEACHING;

EID: 84866465121     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04344.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Nara N, Beppu M, Tohda S, Suzuki T. The introduction and effectiveness of simulation-based learning in medical education. Intern Med 2009;48:1515-9.
2. Lane JL, Slavin S, Ziv A. Simulation in medical education: a review. Simul Gam 2001;32 (3):297-314.
3. Zottmann J, Dieckmann P, Rall M, Fischer F, Taraszow T. Fostering simulation-based learning in medical education with collaboration scripts. Simul Healthc 2006;1 (3):193.
4. Siebeck M, Schwald B, Frey C, Röding S, Stegmann K, Fischer F. Teaching the rectal examination with simulations: effects on knowledge acquisition and inhibition. Med Educ 2011;45:1025-31.
5. Schank RC. Dynamic Memory Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999.
6. Kolodner JL. The roles of scripts in promoting collaborative discourse in learning by design. In: Fischer F, Kollar I, Mandl H, Haake J, eds. Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - Cognitive, Computational, and Educational Perspectives. New York, NY: Springer 2007;237-62.
7. Bandura A. Principles of Behavior Modification. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1969.
8. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1986.
9. Craig SD, Gholson B, Ventura M, Graesser AC, Tutoring Research Group. Overhearing dialogues and monologues in virtual tutoring sessions: effects on questioning and vicarious learning. Int J Artif Intell Educ 2000;11:242-53.
10. Rummel N, Spada H. Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. J Learn Sci 2005;14 (2):201-41.
11. Chi MTH, Roy M, Hausmann RGM. Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Sci 2008;32:301-41.
12. Grierson LEM, Barry M, Kapralos B, Carnahan H, Dubrowski A. The role of collaborative interactivity in the observational practice of clinical skills. Med Educ 2012;46:409-16.
13. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007;77 (1):81-112.
14. Hattie J. Visible Learning: a Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge 2009.
15. Stegmann K, Wecker C, Weinberger A, Fischer F. Collaborative argumentation and cognitive processing - an empirical study in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instr Sci 2012;40 (2):297-323.
16. Weinberger A, Stegmann K, Fischer F. Learning to argue online: scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Comput Hum Behav 2010;26 (4):506-15.
17. Gielen S, Peeters E, Dochy F, Onghena P, Struyven K. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn Instr 2010;20:304-15.
18. Ausubel DP. The use of advance organisers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. J Behav Educ Psychol 1960;51 (5):267-72.
19. Gillies RM. The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learn Instr 2004;14:197-213.
20. Renkl A, Mandl H, Gruber H. Inert knowledge: analyses and remedies. Educ Res 1996;31:115-21.