|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simulation is a teaching method that has been insistently promoted in France over the recent period, in particular for the training of health students. Simulation training assigns the students an active role which is intended to strengthen their motivation. Thus, the more motivated students would be during the lessons, the more they would engage in their training, take up challenges, persevere, raise their performance level, and pass exams. Motivation therefore represents a powerful driver of learning that training systems cannot afford to ignore. Taking this into account, and reworking training engineering accordingly, is a challenge for training institutions and trainers. This article examines the links between the use of simulation training and student motivation in health studies in France. Scrutinising relevant education literature and health literature databases led to identify 24 relevant research articles. After analysis, the results suggest that indeed, simulation training does increase motivation in health students. Literature in this field mainly covers two complementary aspects, namely the determinants at work in the simulation-motivation process, and the conditions for implementing simulation training. However, the literature is silent on trainers' perspective. The results of this literature review are of particular interest to institutions regarding the place to be given to simulation in training engineering, and to trainers as to how to conduct a simulation session.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a team of diverse researchers, we sought a method to write a substantive literature review that could influence policy on integrated/interdisciplinary curriculum (IC). Simultaneously we engaged in action research during this process to improve as researchers. In two attempts to conduct a rigorous systematic literature review, we encountered numerous obstacles: multiple and amorphous definitions; dependency on authors’ keyword choices; the challenge of consistent application of inclusion criteria; our reluctance to include overlapping studies and to exclude respected qualitative studies; determining if the studies reflected true curriculum integration; and finally, measurement and validity issues. We concluded that systematic reviews may not be as surgical as we had hoped, but instead, can be messy and limiting. Our struggles serve as cautions for researchers investigating interdisciplinary topics such as IC. We offer our process and lessons learned for consideration: loosening inclusion criteria boundaries, ‘slow thinking’, and a prismatic approach to reviewing literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
