Theorising simulation in higher education: difficulty for learners as an emergent phenomenon^†

† The paper draws on research carried out in all three affiliations

ABSTRACT

Despite the widespread interest in using and researching simulation in higher education, little discussion has yet to address a key pedagogical concern: difficulty. A ‘sociomaterial’ view of learning, explained in this paper, goes beyond cognitive considerations to highlight dimensions of material, situational, representational and relational difficulty confronted by students in experiential learning activities such as simulation. In this paper we explore these dimensions of difficulty through three contrasting scenarios of simulation education. The scenarios are drawn from studies conducted in three international contexts: Australia, Sweden and the UK, which illustrate diverse approaches to simulation and associated differences in the forms of difficulty being produced. For educators using simulation, the key implications are the importance of noting and understanding (1) the effects on students of interaction among multiple forms of difficulty; (2) the emergent and unpredictable nature of difficulty; and (3) the need to teach students strategies for managing emergent difficulty.

KEYWORDS:

• Simulation
• professional learning
• sociomaterial theory
• difficulty
• emergence

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr Jean Ker, University of Dundee, UK, for helping to identify the importance of ‘difficulty’ in simulation, and for pointing us towards innovative practice in simulation education and assessment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

† The paper draws on research carried out in all three affiliations

1. This insight came from one anonymous reviewer of this article, who helpfully commented:

I wondered if there was a more unsettling possibility that this sociomaterialist lens opened up, which was the radical incompatibility of experiences, a Heraclitean scepticism about ever stepping in the same river twice. If this is the case, how do we reconcile this vision to understandable concerns about fairness in assessment, especially in disciplines such as medicine that are quite naturally interested in maintaining standards?’ (Anonymous reviewer)