Category: Nurse Educator

Educational Challenges of Interprofessional Practice Education

Paul Ross

What Is Interprofessional Learning?

Interprofessional practice education (IPE) has been defined by the Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) as two or more professions “learning with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and quality of care” (Barr, 2002).

In order to improve outcomes across healthcare through collaboration there is the need to “learn with, from, and about each other” (World Health Organization, 2010).

WHO (2010) framework for interprofessional education and collaborative practice key messages are:

  • “Interprofessional education occurs when students from two or more professions learn about, from and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes.
  • Interprofessional education is a necessary step in preparing a collaborative practice-ready health workforce that is better prepared to respond to local health needs.
  • Collaborative practice happens when multiple health workers from different professional backgrounds work together with patients, families, carers and communities to deliver the highest quality of care” (pg 7).

 

The Players

Nursing, medical, allied health (physical therapist, pharmacy, social work, speech and language) and this is within the hospital environment, the next level is how to then collaborate between the hospital with community services.

IPE occurs formally and informally, from a clinical practice view, we have likely experienced the debrief of a clinical incident within the workplace (Nisbet et al. 2007).

Educational Challenges

One of the main questions from an educational perspective will be to consider what IPE learning should focus on (O’Keefe, Henderson & Chick, 2017). Is it the procedural (technical skills) or soft skills (non-technical skills) that are key learning? There will be the need for education faculty to be trained in delivering IPE (Watkins, 2016).

There is an identified need in healthcare for experiential learning opportunities, set in the clinical environment and not just in the simulation laboratory or higher education settings, (Shrader et al, 2018). Difficulties of delivering IPE in the higher education, such as logistics of collaboration around busy schedules, resources, accreditation and varied assessments (O’Keefe, Henderson, & Chick, 2017). To deliver within the clinical environment these factors need to be considered to ensure effective training focuses on improving consumer outcomes, collaboration and evidence based practice.

 

IPE Barriers

  • Professional silo’s, not to breakdown but connect.
  • Understanding each professions roles and responsibilities.
  • Scope of practice.
  • Difficulties of delivering IPE in higher education.
  • Traditional workplace hierarchy of top down approach, the collaborative IPE challenges these values and beliefs in order to change culture.
  • Interprofessional feedback process across different professions and skill mix. Skilled and structured feedback is required to maintain trust and enquiry in a safe environment.
  • Resources to deliver quality simulation, both technical and non-technical skill training.
  • Learning from mistakes and shared learning in the no-blame culture of healthcare.

Essential Components For IPE

Steven et al. (2017) identified these essential components from IPE education programs:

  1. Knowledge for practice,
  2. Skills for practice,
  3. Ethical approach,
  4. Professionalism,
  5. Continuing professional development (CPD),
  6. Patient-centered approach,
  7. Teamwork skills.

The Future

The recognition for collaborative practice and improved consumer outcomes through dedicated IPE programs delivered by specific IPE faculty (Bridges et al, 2011).

There will be a need for interprofessional competencies as IPE in the education and the workplace occurs, and how these fit into specific regulatory requirements will have to be considered (Englander et al, 2013).

References

Ausmed (2018). Position Statement: Interprofessional Continuing Education.

Ausmed (2018). Interprofessional Education in Healthcare – Exploring the Benefits.

Ausmed (2018). Meeting the Challenges of Interprofessional Collaboration.

Barr, H. (2002). Interprofessional Education: Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow. CAIPE and LTSN Centre for Health Science and Practice.

Bridges, D., Davidson, R. A., Soule Odegard, P., Maki, I. V., & Tomkowiak, J. (2011). Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education.

Englander, R., Cameron, T., Ballard, A. J., Dodge, J., Bull, J., & Aschenbrener, C. A. (2013). Toward a common taxonomy of competency domains for the health professions and competencies for physicians. Academic Medicine, 88(8), 1088-1094.

Hunt, S. (2007). Participatory community practice: Developing interprofessional skills. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 8(3), 71.

O’Keefe, M., Henderson, A., & Chick, R. (2017). Defining a set of common interprofessional learning competencies for health profession students. Medical teacher, 39(5), 463-468.

Nisbet, G., Thistlethwaite, J., Moran, M., Chesters, J., Jones, M., Murphy, K., & Playford, D. (2007). Sharing a vision for collaborative practice: the formation of an Australasian interprofessional practice and education network (AIPPEN). Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 8(3), 1.

Shrader, S., Jernigan, S., Nazir, N., & Zaudke, J. (2018). Determining the impact of an interprofessional learning in practice model on learners and patients. Journal of interprofessional care, 1-8.

Steven, K., Howden, S., Mires, G., Rowe, I., Lafferty, N., Arnold, A., & Strath, A. (2017). Toward interprofessional learning and education: Mapping common outcomes for prequalifying healthcare professional programs in the United Kingdom. Medical teacher, 39(7), 720-744.

Watkins, K. D. (2016) ‘Faculty development to support interprofessional education in healthcare professions: A realist synthesis’, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30(6), pp.

World Health Organization. 2010. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. WHO Press.

 

 

 

Barriers to using research findings in practice: The clinician’s perspective

Paul Ross

Journal Club Article: Funk, S. G., Champagne, M. T., Wiese, R. A., & Tornquist, E. M. (1991). Barriers to using research findings in practice: The clinician’s perspective. Applied Nursing Research, 4(2), 90-95. [abstract]

In 1991, Funk and colleagues highlighted the progress made in the quantity, quality and new areas of nursing research being instigated.  This paper produced the BARRIERS scale, which has been used as a validated tool to further investigate research in nursing in different settings and countries.

Aim: To determine clinicians’ perceptions of the barriers to using research findings in practice and to solicit their input as to what factors would facilitate such use.

Method:  Questionnaires to 5000 selected full time working nurses based on five educational strata (those with diplomas, associate degrees, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees). 40% completion of the questionnaire.

Nice touch part: “Each questionnaire included an individual packet of coffee and a letter inviting the recipient to take a few moments to relax and complete the questionnaire”.

BARRIERS scale: 28-item scale requires respondents to rate the extent to which they think each item is a barrier to nurses’ use of research to alter or enhance their practice. Responses are circled on a 4-point scale (I, to no extent; 2, to a little extent; 3, to a moderate
extent; and 4, to a great extent).

The scale is divided into four subscales:

  1. characteristics of the nurse (related to the nurse’s research values, skills, and awareness).
  2. characteristics of the setting (related to the barriers and limitations perceived in the work setting).
  3. characteristics of the research (methodological soundness and the appropriateness of conclusions drawn from the research).
  4. characteristics of the presentation of the research and its accessibility.

Results:  “Insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas was cited most frequently, with lack of support from administration and physicians following closely behind.

The two greatest barriers were the nurse’s not feeling that she/he had “enough authority to change patient care procedures” and “insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas,” both of which are barriers of the setting.

The characteristics of the setting were rated among the top 10 barriers. They included lack of cooperation and support from physicians, administration, and other staff; inadequate facilities for implementation; and insufficient time to read research.”

The characteristics of the nurse in recognising the limits of their knowledge and skills to review and conduct research.

Summary: Nurses need to use and understand research to deliver evidence based practice. Research improves critical thinking and clinical decision making in clinicians. There are numerous barriers that hinder the use of research in the clinical setting, mainly linked to culture and traditional leadership hierarchies.

Limitation: The world and healthcare has changed since 1991, so aspects such as technology and the mass of information may lead to questions of validity for the BARRIERS scale, despite it’s historic use. Take a read of this systematic review by Kajermo et al. (2010). It may also help to understand the drivers of change, which can then be replicated in other settings to increase nurses involvement in research.

Resources

The Barriers Scale. (2018). The BARRIERS to Research Utilization Scale. UNC.edu

Kajermo, K. N., Boström, A. M., Thompson, D. S., Hutchinson, A. M., Estabrooks, C. A., & Wallin, L. (2010). The BARRIERS scale–the barriers to research utilization scale: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 5(1), 32.

Journal Club: Defining the key roles and competencies of the clinician–educator of the 21st century.

Paul Ross

Journal Club: Sherbino, J., Frank, J. R., & Snell, L. (2014). Defining the key roles and competencies of the clinician–educator of the 21st century: a national mixed-methods study. Academic Medicine, 89(5), 783-789.

Background

This paper looks at the challenges of the clinician educator in the medical profession, the challenge of being a clinician and an educator. Defining an educator and the roles they perform in the clinical and educational environments varies considerably in terms of the scope of abilities or competencies.

Aims

  1. Create a consensus definition of what is a clinician–educator.
  2. Understand the domains of competence of being a clinician–educator.
  3. Types of training and preparation is required for the clinician–educator.

Method

Two-phased mixed method study:

  • Phase 1: focus groups using a grounded theory analysis.
  • Phase 2: a survey of 1,130 deans, academic chairs, and residency program directors to validate the focus group results.

Results

Results from phase 1 focus groups:

  1.  Being active in clinical practice,
  2. Applying education theory to education practice,
  3. Engaging in education scholarship.

Results from phase 2 survey:

Domains of competence and core competencies for clinician–educators:
  1. Designs assessment designs programs.
  2. Employs effective communication strategies.
  3. Learning theories and best practice for curriculum development, and conducts evaluations.
  4. Knowledge of education theory and application to education practice.
  5. Leadership in educational programs.
  6. Scholarship: “Contributes to the development, dissemination, and translation of health
    professions education knowledge and practices.”
  7. Uses effective teaching in teaching environments. Develops other faculty members.

Conclusion

Key roles of the clinician-educator: participates in clinical practice, applies theory to education practice, engages in education scholarship and consults on education issues. Identified the need for clinician-educator formal training programs.

Relevance For Nursing

What is interesting in this article is the continued mention of clinical competence or expertise in medical education. In nursing is the higher education setting seen as the source of educational knowledge, research and scholarship? But is higher education too far removed from the clinical environment to understand real world clinical challenges? Is there a different approach to engage both worlds for delivery of evidence based practice?

Resources

ICE Blog. (2014). Defining a Clinician Educator.

Sherbino, J., Frank, J. R., & Snell, L. (2014). Defining the key roles and competencies of the clinician–educator of the 21st century: a national mixed-methods study. Academic Medicine, 89(5), 783-789.

Artificial Intelligence in The Classroom: A Step Too Far?

Paul Ross

Education Approach

This is called the Intelligent Classroom Behavior Management System and is using facial recognition technology system to scan and observe student’s behaviour in the classroom. 7 difference expressions are recognised such as angry, disappointed, happy, neutral, sad, scared and surprised (yet no bored classification!). The system scans the students every 30 seconds so no room for a quick sleep or messing around here.

A.I. Too Far?

Imagine being constantly watched in the classroom. The systems allows greater feedback and classroom awareness, but what about the impact on behaviour and creativity? This has the potential for enforcing expected behaviours and expressions, rather than allowing individuality. All to much like big brother for me, take a read of 1984 by George Orwell. But it will be interesting to see how surveillance and AI is viewed by students and societies across the world. Let’s hope student freedom to learn is the focus and not safety fears.

Resource

Techjuice. (2018). This school scans classrooms every 30 seconds through facial recognition technology.

 

Reflection on Conference Versus Unconference: Notes & Thoughts

Paul Ross

My main reflection point is the difference in my motivations for attending, one was it was new and innovative, the other was to submit a research project and update clinical evidence based knowledge. So really they are just two separate entities, although if learning is going on then we should look at ways to enhance delivery and engagement.

Here are some of my thoughts on some of the differences:

  • Structure & Format.

The unconference was a new concept and all about the unknown, whilst the traditional conference was scientific, clinical focused and had a fully structured program. They are chalk and cheese so comparison is so reliant on personal perspective and I think they are so different but maybe there is space in the traditional format to enhance the dialogue and engagement with some open discussion sessions.

  • Preparation

For the unconference, the use of dialogue in communicating ideas was to be used. So pre-reading for myself was Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together : A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life (1st ed.). New York: Currency. Then practicing on Trello which was used for the online discussion and resource platform.

  • Room set up: how does this impact on dialogue opportunities.

The traditional is still set up for presenting the powerpoint, with rows of seats and ‘sage on the stage’ stuck behind the lectern. It’s all too passive. Questions from the audience are minimal in this set up and often time runs out to have any discussion. The unconference used a variety of available rooms but all used the circle approach for a safe container for discussion.

  • Active & Engaged.

The passive approach versus the engaged. Time went so fast in the unconference, coffee breaks were missed and the day passed quickly. The unknown really generates excitement. Interesting presentations at the formal approach also got the crowd engaged and discussing. The majority were clinical focused and so followed the usual scientific template, and this may well be the correct way to deliver (I just dont know).

gray owl perching on brown post under blue sky during daytime

  • Who gets to talk, is it across the floor or is the “guru” the only voice?

The unconference was varied, some spoke more than others so we will look at everyone’s comments to see if others had a different experience. But discussion came from all participants. The use of storytelling around clinical experiences was a common tool in the unconference. The formal conference was all about the experts, little voice from attendees.

  • Presentation styles

In the unconference, the key trigger presentations set the background, added some ideas and then set the tone for the group discussion. It felt complimentary and then the participants went looking for issues and answers, not the expert providing their summary.

  • Online participation

The unconference offered some online aspects, with uploading of recorded key trigger presentations, active access to the Trello platform. As with most conferences the risk of unreliable wi-fi made for a cautious approach. Its also very difficult to facilitate face to face discussion, with online participants and to integrate the two. One for the future is to learn if better tools are available to meet the needs of online participants.

  • Use of social media tools

Platforms such as Slack, Trello and Twitter were part of the unconference format and so encouragement to engage was provided. Twitter analytics were followed using Symplur as well. For the traditional, individuals were using social media platforms but not much engagement came from the formal bodies.

  • Networking opportunities

No difference but the scale. The unconference is a new collaboration across disciplines so is hopefully the start of an community of practice that flourishes.

  • Learning

Learning occurred in both formats, just on different topics. I am a big believer in motivation and what makes you attend. They were both in my own time, so i had bought into both programs.

This is one persons thoughts, experiences and biases. A wider perspective is needed. In the end, they are delivering different products but it’s good to reflect and consider what learning is occurring and how best to facilitate.

 

Reflection on Conference Versus Unconference

Paul Ross

Pre-Attendance Reflection

This week will be a very interesting experience on the educational front as I attend a 1 day unconference and after a formal 3 day clinical focused conference. Leading up to the unconference is really exciting as the day has the usual venue, rooms, an outline of the day but also has online participants. The program is also not filled with presenters, just a few ‘key trigger’ talks and then who knows where the journey goes from there. There are facilitators to guide the process but the content and direction will be driven by the participants. This is so different to anything I have ever experienced before and makes for something really new to engage in as community of healthcare educators. The formal conference has the usual structure of location, rooms, set times for presentations, sponsored sessions and also social networking events. I have a copy of the 3 day timetable and have set out my itinerary of sessions I want to attend so I feel as I know what to expect. I am motivated to attend but am not sure of my level of participation in the formal conference, likely as a receiver of information.

My observation aims during these conferences are:

  • Room set up: how does this impact on dialogue opportunities.
  • The atmosphere.
  • Who gets to talk, is it across the floor or is the “guru” the only voice?
  • Facilitation style
  • Presentation styles
  • Online participation
  • Use of social media tools
  • Networking opportunities
  • Interprofessional healthcare collaboration or traditional hierarchies
  • Feedback from participants
  • Did I learn anything?

I will add my reflections post attendance in a weeks time after the events have finished. ‘Notes and Thoughts’ will be added on topics from the conferences on a day to day basis as well.

Unconference

Paul Ross

“An unconference is a participant-driven meeting. The term “unconference” has been applied, or self-applied, to a wide range of gatherings that try to avoid one or more aspects of a conventional conference, such as fees, sponsored presentations, and top-down organization” (Wikipedia, 2018).
The Unconference

Heutagogy: is learning where the focus is learner centred with a self-determined learning approach.

Collaborative Interdisciplinary Unconference 2018

Calling all Educators – Make a difference in ICU Education: A crowd-source organised conference aimed at developing the field of interprofessional critical care education, training, teamwork and patient-centred care with the ANZ Clinical Educators’ Network in collaboration with ANZICS, ACCCN, CICM(ANZ). Physically located in Adelaide, SA.

Follow #unconfed and Symplur conference #unconfed hashtag for social media discussion.

Resources

Budd, A., Dinkel, H., Corpas, M., Fuller, J. C., Rubinat, L., Devos, D. P., … & Sharan, M. (2015). Ten simple rules for organizing an unconference. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(1), e1003905.

Carpenter, J. P., & Linton, J. N. (2018). Educators’ perspectives on the impact of Edcamp unconference professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 56-69.

Nursing Education Network. (2016). Heutagogy and Nursing.

Seeber, I., De Vreede, G. J., Maier, R., & Weber, B. (2017). Beyond Brainstorming: Exploring Convergence in Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(4), 939-969.

 

 

 

 

Life Connected: Creating a Blog in Nursing

Paul Ross

This blog is 18 months old, has 170 posts and increasing numbers of visitors so it’s going well in its little niche area of nurse educator resources. The ‘we’ has become ‘me’ in the last 12 months due to other work commitments, training and exams for my co-creator. So here are a few things I have reflected on during the blogging journey:

  1. Writing skills – I keep the posts short and hopefully focused for learning on the go. I just don’t have the storytelling skills that I see other blogger’s use. I feel more confident in using an approach that is comfortable for me, and hopefully others find useful.
  2. Positive Approach- The sharing and discussion around resources, rather than the critique continues to be the focus. I am not a professor or an academic so I will leave the critiquing to the experts.
  3. Lifelong Learning – I love all the clinical, education and other array of resources that I read as preparation for the blog posts. I have continued with reading education focused books post qualification which is a major positive part of ongoing development.
  4. Learning Networks –  Mainly through social media platforms has expanded from the critical care community to a wider nursing network, but also wider to those in school and higher education, business leaders and motivators and authors/journalists. With this, the topics I am exposed to are so varied.
  5. Social Media – Tricky one with recent privacy issues in the news, but let’s focus on the agile sharing and discussion of evidence based practice.
  6. Discussion – there has been a few comments on posts but not as much discussion as I thought may be generated directly on the blog. However, discussion is occurring on other social media platforms so it may be just how people prefer to communicate in different media.
  7. Education not clinical focused – I have avoided any clinical nursing discussion and hopefully this keeps the blog away from the grey areas of clinical advice, accountability and professionalism!
  8. Slide-ology – I have tried to make the blog more visual, but this is okay if you have the internet bandwidth. I wonder if the images and embedded videos need to be removed and keep it plain text to enable true accessibility.
  9. FOANed – It’s still advert free and independent- but I have to work a few extra shifts to pay for the yearly costs of running the blog.
  10. Open Access – it’s complicated, but I do think all of healthcare (including patients/consumers) needs access to the best current evidence and this is not the case.
  11. Heutagogy –  amazing online resources being created by nursing students across the world. Impressed and in awe of their knowledge, awareness, mindfulness and reflections.
  12. Frequency of posts – It’s a balance with work, study, other projects and something called free time. I have at times been prepared with posts ready for the next 2 months, then in contrast it has ran on a week to week basis. Balancing work and formal study, the frequency has reduced from a post every 3 days to once per week but all academic assignments and deadlines were met.
  13. The blog is my organised notes – I can refer back to posts and resources with such ease, rather than searching through note books and folders.
  14. CPD – my hours are well and truly met.
  15. Coding – still on the to do list!
  16. Community of Practice – Part of the nurse blogging “WeNurses” community as part of the #NHS70 celebrations.
  17. Does the blog need a peer review process or keep it agile? One to ponder for the future.
  18. Fun – it’s actually been a rewarding experience.

Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM)

Paul Ross

Some resources just stand out in their innovation, quality and delivery, and Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) has to be one of the best for education. This organisation is part of the free open access to medical education (#FOAMed) movement, so its all accessible. It shows if you don’t have access to journals, books or higher education, that the online world can still help supplement your education theory and development with peer reviewed resources. Take a look at the incubator project, is this the start of challenging the traditional education pathways? If the doctors can do it, surely nurses can be inspired to create a community of learning away from the traditional sources of knowledge and make learners as co-designers and change the agility in knowledge translation and evidence based practice?

Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM)

Image result for aliem

eBook of the ALiEM blog series available for review and to join the peer review process.

Community of practice approach to learning networks.

Image result for aliem

“The ALiEM Faculty Incubator Project is a year-long professional development program for educators, which enrolls members into a mentored digital community of practice. This small, 30-person, exclusive community will stoke the fires of creative engagement through mentorship and collaboration. We aim to strengthen your educational skills and produce tangible works of scholarship. Our goal is to construct a curriculum, delivered to you in a closed digital platform, and help you launch and accelerate your career development.”

Lacking in academic integrity I hear you say, take a look at the publication list around learning, education and social media from their team.

 

Follow the @ALiEMteam on Twitter.

 

 

 

The Role of Debriefing in Simulation-Based Learning. 

Paul Ross

Journal Club Article: Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115-125.

Purpose

Determining what is important in the aspects of debriefing within simulation based learning.

Background

The importance of remembering the adult learner, and all the experience they bring through knowledge, assumptions and feelings. Active participation and leveling (#Heutagogy) of the traditional hierachies between teacher and learner are part of the adult learning philosophy. The adult learner is seen as self-directed, motivated and learns from meaningful and work related education that can applied in workplace.

“Adults learn best when they are actively engaged in the process, participate, play a role, and experience not only concrete events in a cognitive fashion, but also transactional events in a emotional fashion. The learner must make sense of the events experienced in terms of their own world” (pg. 115).

“The concept of reflection on an event or activity and subsequent analysis is the cornerstone of the experiential learning experience.” (pg. 116).

Origins of debriefing in simulation were from critical stress incident debriefing and to do this in a timely manner post incident, with the aim to stimulate group cohesion and empathy.

The Debriefing Process

  • Supportive climate; open, sharing, honest, free to learn.
  • Environment of trust; the pre-brief to explain the purpose of the simulation and what is to be expected.
  • The roles of debriefer and those to be debriefed.

Models of Debriefing

The aim of the debrief is to make sense of the event. The structure of the simulation may be:

  1. Experience the event,
  2. Reflect on the event,
  3. Discuss the event with other participants,
  4. Learn and modify behaviour learnt from the experience.

Objectives

As ever match learning such as the debriefing to the learning objectives. Allow emergent and evolving learning that occurs throughout the simulation process. “Two main questions:

  1. Which pieces of knowledge, skills, or knowledge are to be learned?
  2. What specifically should be learned about each of them?”

Role of The Facilitator

The facilitator will be a Co-learner in the simulation with the aim to guide and direct, rather than a traditional lecture based authoritarian approach. Debriefing is a skill and requires training and development. Resources such as the support from experts to guide and develop are important in developing simulation skills.

Debriefing 

Dismukes & Smith (2017) describe three levels of facilitation:

  1. High: High level facilitation actually requires low level of involvement from the facilitator. “Participants largely debrief themselves with the facilitator outlining the debriefing process and assisting by gently guiding the discussion only when necessary, and acting as a resource to ensure objectives are met” (pg 119).
  2. Intermediate: “An increased level of instructor involvement may be useful when the individual or team requires help to analyze the experience at a deep level, but are capable of much independent discussion” (pg 119).
  3. Low: “An intensive level of instructor involvement may be necessary where teams show little initiative or respond only superficially” (pg 120).

Summary 

The debrief is described as ” the heart and soul of the simulation”.

Resources

Dismukes, R. K., & Smith, G. M. (2017). Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations. Routledge.

Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115-125.

Lederman, L. C. (1991, July). Differences that make a difference: Intercultural communication, simulation, and the debriefing process in diverse interaction. In Annual Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association, Kyoto, Japan (pp. 15-19).

Petranek, C. (1994). A maturation in experiential learning: Principles of simulation and gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 25(4), 513-523.

Thatcher, D. C., & Robinson, M. J. (1985). An introduction to games and simulations in education. Hants: Solent Simulations.