Social and Health Care Students Assess
How Simuna Supports Their Professional Skills

We continuously monitor how Simuna affects learning, teachers' work and students' readiness for working life, and we also look for answers outside our own organisation. In a joint ITK2026 article (in Finnish) by Taitotalo, a Finnish adult education provider, and 3DBear, we described a pilot in which students trained as practical nurses entirely online. Taitotalo's training had previously been built around classroom teaching and shared timetables. In the pilot, adult students progressed at their own pace, regardless of time and place, and learning outcomes were still at least on a par with classroom teaching. In August, health care lecturer Milja Forsman reported (in Finnish) on how Simuna AI, built for teachers, worked in lesson planning and assessment.

Those gave a voice to an education provider and a teacher. This time, the students are the ones answering.

3DBear commissioned the assessment from the International Centre for EdTech Impact. The report first reviews research on simulation-based learning, AI avatars and gamification in vocational education, and describes how Simuna is intended to affect students, teachers and institutions. These assumptions are then tested with a student survey.

Between January and May 2026, 103 students already using Simuna responded to the survey across five qualification modules: Client Interaction and Guidance, Promoting Health and Functional Capacity, Medication Management, Promoting Participation of Older Adults and Working in Home Care. The responses were linked to progress data recorded by the learning environment. The study follows the ESSA III research standard. The research centre designed the questions and was responsible for the analysis, and 3DBear added two usability items to the survey.

The clearest results concerned students' understanding of their own responsibilities and ways of working on the job.

After using the Simuna materials, 76% of respondents felt better prepared for real social and health care work situations, and 75% felt they dared to act more independently in client or patient situations. 80% said they better understood the professional behaviour expected of them in working life, and 73% that their professional confidence had improved. On connecting theory and practice, 63% said the materials had helped a lot or a great deal.

Among the qualification modules, the clearest differences appeared in medication management. Students who had studied it rated learning transfer, preparation for work and motivation and concentration statistically significantly higher than other respondents. The report treats the comparison as indicative, because the same student may have studied several modules.

A recurring theme in the open-ended answers was the chance to practise situations before facing them at work, and some said they had later returned to the material on the job. One respondent described their experience like this:

Ratings of motivation and concentration were positive but varied more than in the other sections. 69% said they had been able to focus well on learning, and half felt the material had increased their motivation to learn a lot or a great deal. According to the report, motivation depends on factors such as task difficulty, perceived relevance, technical reliability and teacher facilitation. In the open-ended answers, around one in ten mentioned limitations such as technical issues, tasks that were too easy or a preference for in-person teaching.

The modules on promoting participation of older adults and on home care included conversation exercises with an AI avatar. Of the 53 respondents who had completed these modules, 40% found the interaction natural and 26% unnatural, while the rest rated it neutral. The report recommends further development of the conversations.

In usability, logging in received the best ratings, with 76% finding it easy. 61% found the 360° simulations realistic, and 60% found starting, pausing and resuming them easy.

Progress percentages recorded by the learning environment remained low, but according to the report this does not necessarily mean that students found the material ineffective. Teachers select the sections of the material that suit their teaching, and the system records only work done on the platform, so work done under a teacher's guidance does not show in the figures. According to the report, institutions benefit from a clear model for embedding the material into lessons, independent study and preparation for workplace learning.

The report describes Simuna as it was in spring 2026. We continuously review the feedback that comes in from courses, and some of the changes we made over the summer address the report's areas for development directly.

The more qualification modules respondents reported having studied with Simuna, the more strongly they rated their ability to apply what they had learned in practice, but the lower they rated their own professional self-efficacy. Ratings were nonetheless high overall: depending on the question, 75–86% of respondents were very or extremely confident in their skills. Both associations held when previous experience with Simuna and course progress were taken into account.

This is a cross-sectional survey without a control group. The results reflect students' own assessments rather than measured change in competence, and they cannot be used to infer cause and effect.

The report regards the findings as early empirical support for Simuna as a promising model for simulation-based learning in vocational education. For future research, it recommends three things: