ASPiH Conference 2013

SBME: Exploring boundaries between formal, non-formal, and informal learning

Armineh Shahoumian, Lancaster University, Gale Parchoma, University of Calgary, Murray Saunders, Lancaster University, Jacky Hanson, Mike Dickinson, Mark Pimblett, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals

Background/Context

In medical education learning extends beyond university settings into practice. Non-formal and informal learning support learners’ efforts to meet externally set and learner-identified objectives. In SBME research, boundaries between formal, non-formal, and informal learning have not been widely explored. Whether SBME fits within or challenges these categories can make a contribution.

Formal learning is described in relation to educationalsettings, planning, assessment, and accreditation. Informal learning results from workplace-, home- and community-based activities (Werquin, 2012), often lacks assessment, and can include incidental learning as an unanticipated consequence (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Non-formal learning is structured in terms of learning objectives, time, and support (Colley et al., 2002), but focused on formative assessment within practical experience.

This study investigates practices in a simulation centre, where SBME attempts to address “quality and riskmanagement activities” (Gaba, 2004, p.i3).

Research Questions:

  1. To what extent do SBME activities fit into the categories of formal, informal and non-formal learning?
  2. What are learners’/facilitators’ perceptions of learning taking place across briefing, simulation, and debriefing activities?

Methods

This qualitative case study examines SBME in practice through observations and interviews. Ninety third-year medical students participated: fourteen were interviewed. Eighteen sessions were observed. Data analysis was conducted in a five-phase cycle including compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding.

Results

While students discuss SBME support for achieving formal outcomes, observations reveal hidden learning within the context. Although there are set objectives for SBME sessions, a significant amount of taken-for-granted learning may indirectly improve learners’ clinical and human factor performances.

Discussion

Whilst non-formal learning is valued by facilitators for providing nearly risk-free opportunities for “trial and error experimentation” (Marsick & Watkins, 1990, p.12), preliminary results suggest examining informal and incidental learning will also provide a comprehensive understanding of SBME.

References:

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P. and Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual terrain: A consultation report. Leeds: Lifelong Learning Institute.

Gaba, D.M. (2004). The future vision of simulation in health care. Quality Safety Health Care; 13 (Supplement 1), i2–i10.

Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K.E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York: Routledge.

Werquin, P., (2012). The missing link to connect education andemployment: Recognition of non-formal and informal learning outcomes, Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 259-278.

1