In a current project (2018-2019) in the social and health care programs, the aim is to study the students’ learning outcome of simulation-based classes. The simulations use mannequins (robots) and include the three phases of simulation-based learning: briefing, scenario, and debriefing. Studies of simulation-based learning show that the phases of pre-briefing and debriefing phases are crucial for the students’ learning outcome. In the pre-briefing it is important that the students are able to identify the learning outcome to be reached during the simulation-based lesson (Chmil, 2016), that the students are introduced to the hybrid way of learning through simulation (Sjöberg et al, 2015) and that the activities in the pre-briefing phase have clear similarities with the activities in the scenario (Poikela et al., 2014). The debriefing should reflect what has actually happened in the scenario and be kept in a positive and direct form. It should enable the students to share knowledge to obtain a mutual perception of the patient’s situation (Flatgård & Berg, 2016; Reime et al., 2016). Furthermore, the debriefing should ensure psychological safety (Edmundson et al., 2016, p. 66). Research about the scenario shows that fidelity is the central issue, which includes physical fidelity referring to the physical context, conceptual fidelity concerning the relation of the elements in the scenario, and psychological fidelity referring to how much the simulation psychologically mimics real environments (Lioce et al., 2015). Based on the assumption that the students’ learning outcome depends on the content of inn particular the pre-briefing and debriefing phases as well as on the interrelation of the three phases, the research question is: How should the three phases of simulation-based training be organised in order to benefit the students’ learning? The empirical data includes observations, semi-structured group interviews with 6-8 students, and individual interview with teachers twice in each of five social and health care colleges during 2018. Guides for observation and interviews will focus on results from research and the types of learning mentioned above. One assumption is that the results will show that the more the teacher is able to make the students perceive the connection between the interrelation of the three phases and the learning outcome targets the better the students’ learning outcome.

Chmil, J.V. (2016). Prebriefing in Simulation-Based Learning Experiences. Nurse Educator, Vol. 41, no. 2: 64-65. Edmondson, A. et al. (2016) Understanding Psychological Safety in Health Care and Education Organizations: A Comparative Perspective. Research in Human Development, 13: 65-83. Flatgård, I. & Berg, G.V. (2016). Simulatortrening in situ. Lek eller læring? English translation: Simulator training in situ. Play or learning? Nordic Nursing Research, Vol. 6, no.3: 216-232. Hudgins, K. (2017). Clinical Simulation Learning in Critical Care. Crit Care Nurs Q, Vol. 40, No. 2: 108-110. Lioce, L. et al. (2015). Standards of best Practice: Simulation Standard IX: Simulations Design, Clinical Simulations in Nursing (2015) 11: 309-315. Poikela, P., Ruokamo, H. & Teräs, M. (2015). Comparison of meaningful learning characteristics in simulated nursing practice after traditional versus computer-based simulation method: A qualitative videography study. Nurse Education Today 35 (2015): 373-382. Reime, M.H. et al. (2016). Simulated settings; powerful arenas for learning patient safety practices and facilitating transference to clinical practice. A mixed method study. Nurse Education in Practice 21: 75-82. Sjöberg, D., Karp, S. & Söderström, T. (2015). The impact of preparation: conditions for developing professional knowledge through simulations, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol 67, No. 4: 529-542.