Discussion
fatigue
In line with published literature, the current results are positive for the use of VR simulation in radiography education. Students in the VR simulation cohort performed better than students in the physical simulation cohort on four out of five OSCE assessment criteria and at the same level on the fifth criterion (Table Until recently, physical simulation had been used in our programme to prepare students for clinical placement. In conjunction with literature reports, the current results provide reinforcement of the decision to introduce VR simulation in the host institution and provide evidence that it may be advantageous to replace the use of physical simulation. Such a decision could not be taken with certainty without extending the current study to investigate the use of VR simulation over physical simulation for students in later years of the degree programme, who would be learning more complex procedures. However, further adoption of VR simulation would convey multiple advantages. Training to safely use ionising radiation could be completed in a risk‐free environment. The practicality of being able to deploy VR software almost anywhere would offer students opportunity for repeated practice: this opportunity along with our results suggests that students could potentially be better prepared for clinical placements through VR simulation.Virtual reality simulation also overcomes other limitations of traditional radiography simulation, such as limited availability of standardised patients and should VR simulation be extended to include assessment it can allay assessor fatigue throughout long assessment days.It is important to consider why students in the VR cohort were able to effectively transfer knowledge and skills from simulation to the real world. Clearly this arises from more than the ‘coolness’ factor of VR. The learning theory of Connectivism has been offered as a useful framework for understanding learning in the digital age.