As part of our INTAPT assignment, I co-facilitated the workshop titled “Let’s pretend so we don’t panic later: Simulation in Health Professions Education (HPE)” alongside Corey Grunberg, Danyal Ladha, and Zeyu (Serafina) Qi, on February 24, 2026. The session was attended by an interprofessional cohort of Doctors, Fellows, Physicians, and Registered Nurses, many of whom had prior expertise in education. This required finding a careful balance between maintaining an appropriate level of challenge while keeping the session engaging and accessible. The workshop received an overall rating of 5.00, which was encouraging and reflected the alignment between our design and participant expectations.

A key strength of the workshop was the deliberate integration of theory with practice. We incorporated principles of Adult Learning Theory by ensuring the content was relevant, problem-centered, and grounded in participants’ prior experiences¹. We also drew on Social Constructivism by creating opportunities for collaborative learning and discussion, mainly through the museum activity². These approaches helped foster a psychologically safe environment where participants felt comfortable engaging and contributing. We structured the debrief session using a “plus-delta” approach, aligning with Experiential Learning, where we reflected on our experience of conducting the workshop and devised new strategies for facilitating similar sessions in the future³.

The museum activity stood out as particularly effective, as it allowed participants to engage in discussion, movement, and peer learning—reinforcing key concepts in a meaningful way. While the Family Feud segment was less directly tied to the learning objectives, it served as a useful energizer and supported engagement through elements of motivation and attention.

Although we did not use a formal assessment tool, the interactive activity in which participants designed low-fidelity simulation scenarios served as an effective way to evaluate learning. The ideas generated were thoughtful and contextually relevant, demonstrating the application of knowledge at higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, particularly analysis and creation⁴. This provided reassurance that knowledge translation had occurred and that the learning objectives were being met.

Participants highlighted several key takeaways, including understanding different simulation modalities, learning how to approach simulation design systematically, and recognizing the importance of debriefing. As a facilitation team, we worked well together and were able to adapt smoothly, particularly when addressing minor technical issues without disrupting the flow of the session.

From a personal perspective, I felt that I brought a calm presence, clear communication, and confidence to the session. At the same time, feedback highlighted that my pacing may have felt fast for some participants. This was an important reminder of the need to be more intentional about managing cognitive load, drawing on Cognitive Load Theory, and allowing space for processing⁵.

Moving forward, I plan to be more mindful of pacing, incorporate more deliberate pauses, and continue to refine how I give instructions for group activities. While the strong evaluation was reassuring, the most valuable learning for me lies in these areas for growth and ongoing improvement.

References:

1. Mayer, R.E. The Past, Present, and Future of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 36, 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
2. Taylor, D. C. M., & Hamdy, H. (2013). Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Medical Teacher, 35(11), e1561–e1572. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153
3. Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of social sciences, literature and languages, 1(1), 9-16.
4. Mitchell, A. (2025). Debriefing after a simulation activity: using the Plus Delta debrief model. British Journal of Nursing, 34(22), 1147–1148. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2025.0257
5. Adams N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152–153. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010