Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2025
Author Spotlight: A Novel Setup to Conduct Naturalistic Laboratory Experiments with Real Human Actors in Scenarios
Published on: August 4, 2023
Collaboration Scripts or Checklists to Engage Novice Observers in Immersive Simulation?
Marie-Laurence Tremblay1, Alexandre Lafleur, Peter Dieckmann
1From the Faculty of Pharmacy (M-L.T.), Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; Faculty of Medicine (A.L.), Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES) (P.D.), Center for Human Resources and Education, Capital Region of Denmark, Herlev, Denmark; Department of Public Health (P.D.), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Quality and Health Technology (P.D.), University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway; Skillslab Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (J-J.R.), School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; and Department of Educational Development and Research (D.D.), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Introduction:
In simulation, students often observe their peers perform a task. It is still unclear how different types of instructional guidance can turn the observational phase into an active learning experience for novices. This mixed-method study aims to understand similarities and differences between use of collaboration scripts and checklists by observers in terms of cognitive load and perception of learning.
Methods:
Second-year pharmacy students ( N = 162) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions when observing a simulation: collaboration scripts (heuristic to analyze in dyads while observing), checklists, both, or no guidance. We measured observers' intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load and self-perceived learning and conducted focus group interviews.
Results:
Intrinsic cognitive load was significantly lower for checklists (M = 3.6/10) than for scripts (M = 4.7/10) or scripts and checklists combined (M = 4.7/10). Extraneous cognitive load was significantly lower for checklists (M = 1.5/10) than for scripts combined with checklists (M = 2.6/10) or no guidance (M = 1.8/10). There was no statistical difference between conditions for self-perceived learning. Coding of focus group interviews revealed 6 themes on observers' perception of learning under different conditions of instructional guidance. Students explained that collaboration scripts felt more complex, whereas checklists were perceived as a simple fact-checking exercise. Observing the simulation, regardless of guidance, was a meaningful learning experience.
Conclusions:
With or without guidance, observers are actively engaged with the simulation, but their effort differed depending on instructions. When choosing between checklists or collaboration scripts, educators should be guided by the type of simulation task.
