The sudden shift in clinical education during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Oregon’s nursing programs to rely more heavily on simulation methods. This study investigates how effectively these alternate modes of clinical instruction—face-to-face and virtual simulations—meet the learning needs of students, using data collected from the CLECS 2.0 survey tool.
Faculty respondents generally viewed face-to-face simulations as comparable to traditional clinical experiences in most areas, except for communication and holistic care. Students, however, rated simulations less favorably across nearly all categories, citing a perceived gap in the learning value compared to real-world settings. Despite previous studies indicating no significant differences in outcomes between simulations and traditional instruction, these Oregon-based perceptions deviate from the broader literature.
Both students and faculty agreed that virtual simulation was the least effective across all sub-scales. This shared perception may stem from multiple interrelated influences, including comfort with technology, access to high-fidelity simulation tools, and the presence (or absence) of experienced facilitators. These findings suggest the need for deeper inquiry into how simulation is deployed and perceived in diverse learning environments—and how institutional or instructional variables may shape those perceptions.
