Faculty Development and Multimodal Simulation Integration: From Course Objectives to Practice-Ready Learning

Faculty are often asked to “add simulation” to a course as though it is a simple plug-in. In reality, the work is much more nuanced than that.

What faculty usually need is not just a simulation activity. They need support translating course objectives into learning experiences that are meaningful, feasible, and aligned with how learners actually develop. They need help deciding what should be practiced, what should be observed, what should be debriefed, and which modality is the best fit for the outcome. They also need approaches that work in the real world, within the constraints of time, staffing, space, curriculum, and learner readiness. That is where faculty development matters.

In my work, I partner with faculty and program leaders to design, implement, and refine multimodal simulation- and scenario-based learning experiences across courses and programs. That work has included scenario design, facilitation planning, debriefing support, standards alignment, and practical integration of simulation and experiential methods into existing curricula. The goal is not to make learning more complicated. The goal is to make it more intentional.

And increasingly, that means helping educators think beyond simulation as a single event and toward a multimodal learning strategy.

Start with the objective, not the equipment

One of the biggest mistakes programs make is starting with the tool. They have a manikin, a virtual platform, a skills lab, or a simulation space, and the design process begins there. But meaningful experiential learning does not start with the equipment. It starts with the question: What do learners need to know, do, and demonstrate?

That sounds simple, but it changes everything.

A foundational psychomotor skill may need demonstration, coached return demonstration, and repetition. A communication objective may be better served through role play or a standardized patient approach. A teamwork or escalation-of-care objective may require an unfolding scenario. Clinical reasoning may be strengthened through a structured sequence that moves learners from focused stations to applied decision-making to debriefing and reflection.

This is why I often talk about right-fit modality. Not every objective needs the same level of immersion, technology, or complexity. The Society for Simulation in Healthcare’s TIMMI framework is built around that same idea: educators should make thoughtful modality decisions based on factors such as instructional method, media, simulation modality, and learner context rather than assuming one format fits every learning goal.

When faculty begin with the objective rather than the tool, they make better decisions about fidelity, flow, facilitation, and assessment.

Faculty development is really design support

When people hear “faculty development,” they often think of training faculty to operate simulation equipment or facilitate a debrief. Those pieces matter, but they are only part of the picture.

What faculty often need most is design support.

They need space to unpack course outcomes and ask where experiential learning genuinely adds value. They need help deciding whether a low-cost, repeatable method is the right first step or whether a more immersive modality is warranted. They need help scaffolding learning across a sequence instead of trying to force every objective into one complex scenario. And they need practical guidance on writing observable objectives, structuring learner roles, mapping performance criteria, and designing debriefing questions that actually support reflection and growth.

That kind of support builds confidence, but it also improves quality and consistency.

It also helps faculty think more broadly about modality selection. The SSH Healthcare Simulation Dictionary describes simulation modality as a broad descriptor of the simulation experience, which reinforces the idea that faculty development should focus not just on “running sim,” but on choosing and combining modalities with purpose.

A multimodal approach creates stronger and more feasible learning

Some of the most meaningful work I have done with faculty has centered on helping them move away from an all-or-nothing view of simulation.

Not every learning goal calls for a full scenario. Not every course needs high-fidelity technology. Not every high-quality experience has to look dramatic.

In many settings, the better approach is a multimodal architecture for learning. That might include a brief framing activity, skills stations, peer practice, role play, scenario application, and structured debriefing. It might involve mixing lower-cost, high-repetition strategies with selected immersive experiences where they add the most value. It might mean using a screen-based or virtual case to build decision-making before learners move into a live scenario. It might mean using role-play and communication stations to strengthen confidence before asking learners to perform in a more complex team-based encounter. This kind of design is often more educationally sound and more sustainable.

That is the heart of the work for me: helping educators build learning experiences that are rigorous enough to matter and practical enough to last.

Designing for real implementation

This is the part that often gets overlooked.

A simulation plan can sound excellent in a planning meeting and still fail in practice because it asks too much of faculty, depends on resources that are not consistently available, or does not fit naturally into the curriculum. Good design has to account for implementation realities.

That means asking questions like: What is the essential learning goal here? What should learners practice first before entering a scenario? What modality is the right fit for that step? What level of realism is actually needed? What can faculty consistently facilitate well? How will performance be observed, documented, and debriefed? How does this connect back to course and program outcomes?

These are the questions that help faculty move from isolated ideas to sustainable design.

For me, this is where multimodal planning becomes especially useful. It creates room for thoughtful sequencing, clearer expectations, and better use of available resources. It also helps faculty see that effective simulation integration is not about doing the most. It is about making intentional decisions that fit the learner, the objective, and the setting.

Stronger integration across the curriculum

When faculty receive this kind of support, the result is not just “more simulation.” It is stronger curricular integration.

Learners benefit when experiential learning is scaffolded across a program rather than dropped into isolated courses. Early experiences might emphasize foundational skills, communication, and confidence. Later activities may focus on prioritization, teamwork, handoffs, escalation, and clinical judgment. Faculty begin to see how multimodal learning can support development over time instead of trying to accomplish everything in one event.

Programs also gain more consistency. Faculty become more confident in choosing modalities, designing scenarios, aligning experiences to standards, and facilitating debriefing in ways that reflect shared expectations. Learners experience clearer objectives, more purposeful practice, and better connections between what happens in class, in lab, in simulation, and in real-world care environments.

What programs gain

The result of this work is not simply more activity. It is more intentional learning.

By partnering with faculty and program leaders to design, implement, and refine multimodal learning experiences, programs can build greater faculty confidence, stronger curricular integration of simulation and experiential methods, and more consistent, high-quality learning experiences. Those experiences support clinical judgment, communication, teamwork, learner engagement, and skills development in ways that are better aligned with course goals, program outcomes, and practice expectations.

Just as importantly, faculty gain a clearer decision-making framework. Instead of relying on a one-size-fits-all model or repeating inherited activities, they become better equipped to ask: What is the goal? What is the right-fit modality? What level of support do learners need? What is feasible here? How will we know it worked?

That kind of capacity-building is what makes this work sustainable.

Why this matters

I do not see faculty development as separate from workforce development. I see it as one of the ways workforce development becomes real.

If we want learners to enter practice with stronger judgment, communication, adaptability, and confidence, we need to support the educators designing those learning experiences. We need faculty development that goes beyond exposure and moves toward intentional design. We need multimodal strategies that match outcomes, context, and learner needs. And we need to stop assuming that better simulation always means more technology, when often it means better alignment.

Supporting faculty with learning design matters. When educators have the structure, guidance, and partnership to design meaningful experiential learning, they are better able to create high-quality, practice-ready experiences that fit both their learners and their curriculum.