Category: LRNT 523

The Future of Nursing Simulation in 2035

As I look towards the future of nursing education at my institution, and across the province, I can see an expanded role for virtual reality and augmented reality simulation. It is difficult due to the chronic nursing shortages in our province and across Canada to provide students practical experiences in real world settings, student nurses require clinical supervision from qualified nurses to graduate and obtain their licensure, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide clinical opportunities. Accepting that simulation is at the forefront of nursing education and research consistently showing that it supports learning and helps bridge the gap from theory to practice (Sengul & Sarikose, 2025) I believe we will see VR and AR integrated into nursing education.

Looking forward to 2035, I can imagine students interacting with A.I. generated patients and allied healthcare professionals in realistic clinical scenarios. This would allow students to practice clinical decision making, communication skills, and procedures in fully VR or AR environments before working with real patients, this could potentially be done in the student’s own home. I see educators still playing an important role in developing and monitoring simulations and providing debriefing to students. This could help solve clinical placement challenges but I don’t see it completely replacing real world settings.

I recognize that advanced technology doesn’t always mean better learning and concerns over how technology is distributed and accessed raises ethical concerns. Singh and Maughan (2014) raise serious concerns through their case studies on how access to technology and who decides access can impact learners and society. Selwyn’s (2024) discussion on the limitations of AI also make me question how much we should rely on AI to support learning. I want to explore whether theses technologies can meaningfully address challenges facing nursing education and what that might look like.

References:

Selwyn, N. (2024). On the Limits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk ,10, 3-14. http://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v10.6062

Sengul, T., Sarikose, S. (2025). Enhancing learning outcomes through AI-driven simulation in nursing education: A systematic review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2025.101797

Singh, S., Maughan, T. (2014). The future of ed tech is here, it’s just not evenly distributed. Medium. The future of ed tech is here, it’s just not evenly distributed | by Tim Maughan | Futures Exchange | Medium

Augmented Reality Glasses & The Media Debate

Written by Callan Williamson & Vince Ruffolo

AR glasses can profoundly impact education because they can provide a new way of learning that cannot be easily reproduced in other media. AR glasses are a highly immersive media technology that can allow students to explore content by projecting digital images and virtual screens directly into a field of view and use learning tools that provide interactive three-dimensional models or deep simulation models for new professionals. Using AR technology, teachers could interact with students during learning modules or help them when they might be struggling, resulting in better learning outcomes. (Mathewson, 2018; Rudra, 2025).

This helps to understand how the AR Glasses media form would impact learning through a Kozma perspective (1994) because he would contend that these features could not be considered merely as making instruction more proficient but that AR glasses could actually offer new methods of representing information. This means that instead of being merely a delivery system, AR glasses can fundamentally alter the learning experience for the student. AR glasses could, for example, aid in real-time teacher decision making which might enable more immediate interaction between teacher and student, potentially allowing for a more enhanced learning experience. AR glasses could also enable teachers to get real-time visual feedback on who is having difficulty with the material, while keeping an eye on the classroom (Mathewson, 2018). In addition, Rudra (2025) refers to AR glasses that can present 3D models and contextual information to students, representations that are educationally important to Kozma because students can engage with concepts in a way that traditional media cannot easily replicate. Kozma would say that these are examples of how AR technology would change the relationship between the teacher and student in the act of instruction thereby making AR media a learning experience unlike another form of media. 

On the other hand, Clark (1994) argues that if there is no single definable attribute of a medium that provides a unique effect on learning, then a medium serves as a proxy, or vehicle, for other variables that influence learning. AR glasses fall into this category, providing a vehicle to reach learning outcomes that may make an educator’s job easier, but do not necessarily produce learning themselves. Identifying struggling students, checking for understanding, and adapting instructional practices are all activities educators already use. The AR glasses may provide additional information that leads to higher efficiency, but it is the instructional method, rather than the technology itself, that Clark would identify as responsible for the resulting learning. An example of Clark’s (1994) stance can be inferred from Mathewson (2018), Mathewson notes that teachers already rely on students’ facial expressions and body language to determine when they may need assistance, this suggests that AR glasses may provide information that can enhance instructional practice that is already occurring, rather than introducing something new.

References:

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30218684

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30218683 

Mathewson, T.G. (2018, October 4). These glasses give teachers super powers: Augmented reality glasses for classrooms seem straight out of science fiction. The Hechinger Report. “Lumilo” augmented reality glasses give teachers super powers 

Rudra, S. (2025, March 5). How Augmented Reality Glasses Could Support Learning: Smart lenses create digital layers for a more immersive learning experience. EdTech Focus on K-12. How Augmented Reality Glasses Could Support Learning | EdTech Magazine 

Dr. Pamela R. Jeffries, Nursing Simulation & Experiential Learning

My experience in nursing education and the use of simulation in nursing led me to Dr. Pamela R. Jeffries, a nurse educator whose research has made significant contributions to simulation, experiential learning, and technology in nursing education (Pfrommer, 2024). As simulation technology becomes more sophisticated, I am interested in whether increasingly complex technology actually produces better learning.

Jeffries’ most important contribution to ed tech and nursing education is the development of the NLN/Jeffries simulation framework, which later developed into the NLN Jeffries Simulation Theory, a foundational framework for the development and evaluation of simulation-based learning, including elements such as learning objectives, educational practices, the simulation experience, and learner outcomes (Cowperthwait, 2020; Fentress et al., 2014). As the nursing education field continues to incorporate more technology, ranging from high-fidelity mannequins, virtual simulation, gaming, artificial intelligence, and others, her work remains relevant in the education technology field as it emphasizes that the value of these technologies is dependent on how effectively they support learning, rather than how technologically sophisticated they are.

Jeffries’ work reflects an experiential view of learning; students engage with simulation by participating in realistic situations, make decisions, receive feedback, and reflect on their experiences with their instructors and peers. The Faculty Simulation Toolkit (Hammond et al., n.d.) identifies simulation as an example of active learning and directly connects active learning with experiential learning, reflection, and knowledge construction. This perspective connects with Weller’s (2020) critique of the “year zero mentality” in educational technology. Rather than assuming technology represents improvement simply because it’s more sophisticated, Jeffries provides a way to consider whether technology enhances learning.  

Links:

Dr. Jeffries advocates for clinical nurse leaders to leverage AI tools in staffing. Nursing’s Digital Identity: Leveraging Unique Nurse Identifiers and Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools to Transform Hospital Nurse Staffing Models – ScienceDirect

Podcast Interview for Osmosis by Elsevier on the importance of simulation in nursing education. The Growing Importance of Simulation in Nursing Education: Dr. Pamela Jeffries, Dean of Vanderbilt University School of Nursing

Generative A.I. Statement:

This work was created through human effort, no A.I. was used in its creation.

References:

Cowperthwait, A. (2020). NLN/Jeffries Simulation Framework for Simulated Participant Methodology.    Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 42(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2019.12.009.

Hammond, C., Knoops, M., Morin, M., Peiravi, M., PIlla, J., Samwel, S., Stockdale, J. (n.d.). Faculty Simulation Toolkit. Open Library.

Fentress, H., Thomas, C., Gantt, L. (2014). The Educational Practices Construct of the NLN/Jeffries       Simulation Framework: State of the Science. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10(7), 345-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.04.006.

Jeffries, P., Russell, R., Lee, S.Y., Ivory, C., Aldritch, K. (2026). Nursing’s Digital Identity: Leveraging          Unique Nurse Identifiers and Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools to Transform Hospital Nurse   Staffing Models. Nurse Leader, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2026.102700

Pfrommer, M. (Host). (2024, December 12). The Growing Importance of Simulation in Nursing                Education: Dr. Pamela Jeffries, Dean of Vanderbilt University School of Nursing (514) [Audio   podcast episode]. In Osmosis+. Elsevier.                                                   https://www.osmosis.org/podcast/simulation-in-nursing-education-pamela-jeffries-vanderbilt

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.                https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

LRNT523 Activity 3 – Video, Social Media, & Nursing Education

Weller (2020) argues that the reduced cost of creating high quality video productions and the ease in which finding high quality video content made it much easier for educators to make multimedia courses (p. 88). This has held true for nursing education in my experience, I have personally made demonstration videos or recorded lectures for my students to provide instruction. What I find particularly compelling in Weller’s (2020) chapter on video though is his statement that video as a means of assessment is limited due to standards of how to evaluate a video, he states, “Perhaps the issue is more that educators know what a good essay looks like, and how to assess it, but are less sure what constitutes a video.” (p. 89). I have experimented with having students complete recorded assignments and I struggle with assessing them, primarily because video creation is not a learning outcome in my courses.

Weller acknowledges many of the risks of social media, including misinformation, trolls, bots, privacy, and corporate control, but he also emphasizes its potential to democratize academic discussion and research. What I struggle with is Weller’s take that social media can democratize academic research and discussion, I find it difficult to reconcile Weller’s optimism with current events, like the recent court case in the United States that accuses Meta of targeting children with addictive algorithms (Hays, 2026). Due to this I would be extremely hesitant to suggest social media to students as a trusted source of information without significant critical evaluation.

References:

Hays, K. (2026, August 18). Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, US court hears. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5r7vr7q1o

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.https:/doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

Activity #2: Reflecting on Readings

As I read through the first eight chapters Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed Tech I couldn’t help being surprised at the many similarities between education technology and ‘Tech Bro’ culture. Weller argues that there is a year zero mentality in education technology, “…where any recognition of prior work undermines the myth of the individual creator.” (p. 6). This immediately made me think of Elon Musk, an investor who has at times been venerated as a genius despite the large teams of people actually developing the technologies associated with his companies. I draw this parallel to highlight something that I’m seeing in education, the promotion of technological solutions to ‘problems’ in education without spending the time to investigate if the solution is needed. In my field we see new simulation technology geared towards nursing education programs all the time; AI patients that students can interview that then provide real time feedback, medication administration simulations where a student must complete a medication order step by step, and high-fidelity mannequins that can do everything from talk, to bleed, to deliver a baby. While these technologies sound amazing at face value, they don’t always address real problems, technological sophistication doesn’t always translate to better learning. I have found that students get more out of interviewing a real person, medication simulation can be done with paper, a pen, and candy, while high fidelity mannequins are costly financially and in time required to train instructors in their use. Another point Weller made that I found surprising at first was that universities often feel pressured to adopt new technologies because they fear they may get left behind, but my experience in nursing education makes me question if this pressure actually results in better learning. This constant Silicon Valley style disruption, that doesn’t look at what came before I think can do more harm than good, especially when the companies producing the technology have a strong incentive to prioritize profits over education. Weller’s discussion of Shirky’s disruption narrative brought to mind Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Johnson, 2022), where Miles Bron and his sycophants call themselves ‘the disruptors’ and constantly pursue the next big idea without considering its consequences. While I don’t think all technology in education is bad, I do think it needs to be approached in a critical way that is always asking the questions; does the technology fill an actual need? Is the technology beneficial for learning? And/or is the technology addressing an actual problem in education?

References:

Johnson, R. (Director). (2022). Glass Onion: A knives out mystery [Film]. Netflix.

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

               https:/doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01