Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 13–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nurse Education in Practice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nepr

Vicarious learning: A review of the literature

Debbie Roberts *
University of Salford, School of Nursing, Mary Seacole Building, Frederick Road Campus, Salford M6 6PU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: Experiential learning theory stresses the primacy of personal experience and the literature suggests that
Accepted 25 January 2009 direct clinical experience is required in order for learning to take place. However, raw or first hand expe-
rience may not be the only mechanisms by which students engage in experiential learning. There is a
growing body of literature within higher education which suggests that students are able to use another’s
Keywords: experience to learn: vicarious learning. This literature review aims to outline vicarious learning within a
Vicarious learning nursing context. Many of the studies regarding vicarious learning are situated within Higher Education in
Peer learning
general, however, within the United States these relate more specifically to nursing students. The litera-
Experiential learning
ture indicates the increasing global interest in this area. This paper reveals that whilst the literature offers
a number of examples illustrating how vicarious learning takes place, opinion on the role of the lecturer is
divided and requires further exploration and clarification. The implications for nurse education are
discussed.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Vicarious learning defined

Student nurses are often expected to share their experiences
within groups in an academic context. Whilst the literature regard-
ing experiential learning makes it clear students can and should
benefit from learning through primary experience, it seems that
there is an emerging body of literature which asserts that students
are also able to learn from each other’s experiences. Learning from
a peer’s experience is known as vicarious learning; although indi-
vidual students will have their own personal experiences from
clinical practice other students can benefit and use the shared
examples in order to learn. This paper explores the literature in
relation to the concept of vicarious learning and aims to explain
the mechanisms suggested within the literature that contribute
to vicarious learning. A critical perspective of the literature is pro-
vided, in particular the role of the lecturer in vicarious learning is
examined. Implications for nurse education are highlighted.
Search strategy
An electronic data base search was conducted accessing British
Nursing Index (BNI), British Education Index and CINAHL using the
key words vicarious learning and peer learning. A manual search
was also conducted using back-chaining techniques. There was
no limit placed on the time span of material in order to ascertain
as much information on the subject as possible.
* Tel.: +44 161 2957279.
E-mail address: d.roberts@salford.ac.uk.
Bruner (1986) states that ‘‘most of our encounters with the
world, are not direct encounters” (p. 122), which would seem to
imply that it is possible to learn through mechanisms other than
primary or first hand experience. According to the literature there
are a variety of definitions of vicarious learning: being able to ob-
serve or ‘listen in’ on experts or peers as they discuss a new topic
(Cox et al., 1999); learning through the experiences of another (Fox,
2003). Students are said to learn vicariously (from another’s
experience) through discussion (or discourse), conflict, challenge,
support and scaffolding from a more competent other (Topping,
2005) and story telling (Ashworth, 2004; Ellis et al., 2004; Nort-
hedge, 2003; Harden, 2000; Nehls, 1995; Diekelmann, 1990;
Davidson, 2004). According to Lave and Wenger (2005) under-
standing and experience are inextricably linked, being what they
term as ‘‘mutually constitutive” (p. 152), they go on to suggest that
in this way the notion of participation blurs the boundaries be-
tween thinking and doing since our experiences are evident in all
thought, speech, knowing and learning. Understanding and experi-
ence are said to be in constant interaction (Lave and Wenger,
2005). In all cases the students use their peer’s second hand expe-
riences in order to learn for themselves. Such learning may be
planned as part of the curriculum whereby students are expected
to feedback their clinical experiences on return to the classroom;
or opportunistic.
Spouse (2003) uses the term vicarious learning experience to
refer to learning through story telling for a group of nursing stu-
dents. Students within her study met in informal peer groups to
share their experiences of the pre-registration programme. In

1471-5953/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2009.01.017
14 D. Roberts / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 13–16
doing so, the suggestion is that the students construct and rehearse
their thinking which enables them to learn from each other.
Mechanisms of vicarious learning
It is important to differentiate vicarious learning from other
mechanisms which involve students in learning from each other.
For example, peer teaching or peer tutoring is a far more formal
and instrumental strategy whereby advanced students or those
further on in progression, take on a limited instructional role (Boud
et al., 2001). In other words, the more senior students are used to
formally teach various aspects of the curriculum to more junior
students. This may take place within clinical practice or within
classroom environments. Within this literature review vicarious
learning refers to peers who are other people in a similar situation
to each other and share a similar status to each other, who do not
have a role in that situation as a teacher or expert practitioner;
each is seen as a fellow learner (Boud et al., 2001).
Vicarious learning is characterised by active listening and
reflective thinking (Nehls, 1995), seeking to understand by being
fully engaged in the situation; students are learning and thinking
together. There is an absence of note taking (Ellis et al., 2004).
However, in order for students to learn from each other’s experi-
ences they first have to acknowledge that fellow students have
something which is worth learning; something which Ashworth
refers to as being attuned to the other’s discourse (2004). This
may involve a cultural shift in the learners away from wanting to
be taught by teachers to one of sharing emotionally and motiva-
tionally in the concern for learning (Ashworth, 2004).
The sharing of experiences often takes place through reflection
on practice encounters and relating these through stories to fellow
students (peers). Bruner (1986) refers to this as ‘‘culture making”
(p. 127), whereby the student becomes party to the formation of
knowledge and the recipient of knowledge transmission. Dialogue
between students is often referred to as discourse within the liter-
ature on learning in Higher Education. Many studies suggest that
students are able to learn vicariously (from another’s experience)
through such discourse (Ashworth, 2004; Ellis et al., 2004; Nort-
hedge, 2003; Nehls, 1995). The discourse is shared through conver-
sations, narratives, testimony or stories and these terms are
sometimes used interchangeably. Through the process of articulat-
ing and externalizing experiences the student is paradoxically able
to share communally in the nature of internal experience (Bruner,
1969). Similarly, Polkinghorne (1988) asserts that learners are able
to expand the realm of meaning associated with new events by
reflecting and recollecting and configuring and refiguring
experiences.
Students learn vicariously during story telling as the narrator
must ‘‘recognize and reflect upon her life positions, roles and moti-
vations, and in so doing create an opportunity for the narrator and
the audience alike to develop new perspectives” (Bowles, 1995).
However, it is not clear if this change in perspective occurs by acci-
dent or whether the students need some help to turn the learning
opportunities into learning.
Spouse (2003) argues that sharing experiences through story
telling is important for student learning. The stories are steeped
in reality which the students find interesting, the students engage
with each other’s stories by clarifying and enlarging various as-
pects or by rehearsing parts that are especially pertinent. This en-
ables students to develop concepts of themselves in different roles,
according to who they were talking to. The learning is reciprocal
because the story teller develops new insights based on the sug-
gestions and the sense making activities of other group members
whilst the group benefits from the development of a shared under-
standing. Indeed those of the group who have not directly partici-
pated in the activity, develop what Spouse terms a vicarious
learning experience which helps them formulate actions when
they meet similar situations ( Spouse, 2003). In Spouse’s study
the dialogue takes place away from clinical practice and this may
have implications for nurse education, since this kind of activity
may need to be embedded into nursing curricula, in order to pro-
mote such experiential learning from peers.
Furthermore, it appears that there is a psychological (perhaps
unconscious) component of learning through clinical practice.
According to Polkinghorne (1988) our experiences are fashioned
and constructed ‘‘out of the interaction between a person’s orga-
nizing cognitive schemes and the impact of the environment on
sense apparatus” (p. 16). Indeed, he goes on to argue that hearing
and interpreting the narratives of others produces knowledge that
‘‘enlarges the understanding of human experience” (p. 159).
The role of the educator in vicarious learning
Northedge (2003) is of the firm opinion that students are unable
to make use of discourse by themselves, finding it difficult to
understand. For Northedge it is the teacher who is pivotal to en-
abling learning through discourse because it is the teacher (who
is already a speaker of the specialist discourse) who lends the stu-
dents the capacity to frame meanings they cannot yet produce
independently. It is the teacher who opens up the conversation
and shares a flow of meaning; the students join with the teacher
in sharing meaning and they also share something of the frame
of reference that sustains it (Northedge, 2003). This development
takes place as the teacher poses questions and introduces new ele-
ments and takes the students on an excursion into specialist dis-
course to experience how meaning is made there, helping the
students move from the frame of every day language to the dis-
course of the specialist knower. The students internalize the ques-
tions asked, forms of evidence and arguments deployed, types of
conclusion arrived at and history of previous debates; through par-
ticipation. Bruner (1969) explains this as teaching in the hypothet-
ical mode whereby the teacher and the student adopt a co-
operative approach to learning. It is this cooperation which Bruner
asserts encourages discovery in the learner. According to Nort-
hedge (2003) the stories are judiciously chosen by the teacher to
include a range of issues, debates and voices to enable the students
to develop a sense of the nature of the knowledge community and
its discourses. As students become more experienced in thinking
about the stories Northedge suggests they make links to their
own actions and decisions and so learn from each other. Interest-
ingly, he asserts that the students are invited to think about issues
in ways that correspond to the thinking of experts within the care
community. However, I would question this notion since he im-
plies that the teacher is automatically an expert and precludes
the students from acting in this capacity for each other. It could
also be argued that Northedges’ theory is flawed because as the
teacher selects the excursions, the teacher is in control; therefore
it is the teachers’ thinking to which the students are exposed.
Similarly Nehls (1995), Diekelmann (1990) and Koenig and Zorn
(2002) also explore the link between students and teachers during
learning. Interestingly all three writers emanate from the United
States of America where it seems there is a greater acknowledge-
ment of the use of vicarious learning and where the emphasis is
one of a learning community. Nehls outlines an approach to learn-
ing which she refers to as narrative pedagogy; where teachers seek
to establish partnerships with students in a lifelong quest for
knowledge. Reciprocity is emphasised to form a community of
learners. Together the community explores how and in what ways
one becomes a nurse. The teacher uses narrative to reinforce the
centrality of the lived experience and learning is said to take place
 D. Roberts / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 13–16
through dialogue and attention to nursing practices (Nehls, 1995).
The underlying assumption to this concept is that the teacher is
also a learner. As teacher and students share personal practices,
the students come to appreciate that nursing knowledge can
evolve by reflection on experience. By examining their own expe-
rience as well as that of others is suggested that the students begin
to recognize where they need to focus their attention. The narra-
tive pedagogy seeks to establish dialogue and connections between
members of the group which enables the students to see the
importance of reflecting on practice not just to learn but to contrib-
ute to nursing knowledge.
Similarly, for Diekelmann, the teacher is also seen as learner.
However, she suggests that this concept is not new; it has always
existed as a way of ‘being with’ students, referring to it as a com-
portment in which the teacher attunes herself to the creation
and recreation of meaning amongst their students. The role of
the teacher as learner involves the teacher in bringing difficult
questions that have meaning for the students into their teaching.
Teacher and student work together to explore meaning and signif-
icance seeking to transform healthcare. The suggestion is that the
corpus of knowledge throughout the group is extended as all par-
ties learn vicariously from and with each other.
Discourse between students can have a powerful effect on
learning as in some cases it is suggested that our beliefs are estab-
lished through the experiences and opinions of another’s discourse.
Harden (2000) explains that as we listen to what others say to us
and to conversations around us we internalize what is said and
tend to use these topics in our own discourse. Harden explores
Bakhtin’s theory of language and explains that the speaking person
intends to transmit ideas as their own, but thoughts are actually
representations of another person’s speech; we form our own
judgements and thoughts by selectively choosing ideas we hear
from others. Words of authority are accepted as the truth rather
than being interpreted. This has implications for vicarious learning
amongst student nurses in that if students are left to their own de-
vices to learn from and through discussion it may be difficult for
new ideas to surface. If Harden is correct in her assumptions then
ideas and thoughts are perpetuated, rather than encouraging origi-
nal ideas and critique. Indeed students who are left to their own
devices may as Laurillard suggests flounder in progressive igno-
rance (Laurillard, 1993).
Vicarious learning and dialogue
Students may also choose not to engage in discussion. Ellis et al.
(2004) explain that higher education students may deliberately opt
out of discussion or may use the discussion to develop generic com-
munication skills, or as a way of finishing a task. This, they suggest,
indicates a lack of intention to understand the project more fully
through discussion. Additionally some students will say something
during discussion (even if it is not relevant) in order to appear inter-
ested and engaged with the subject. Furthermore, even when the
purpose of the discussion has been made clear, there may still be
misunderstanding amongst students; who may not be aware that
the discussion forms part of an experience of reflecting on and
engaging with the subject (Ellis et al., 2004). Thus the purpose of dis-
cussion and sharing of experiences needs to be made explicit and
transparent in order for students to see their value.
Ashworth (2004) discusses participation in conversations from a
different perspective. He emphasises strongly the idea of question-
ing conversation as the prime situation for learning activity to thrive
through interpretation; although he does not discuss who should do
the questioning. Ashworth suggests that during questioning conver-
sations students compare the meanings of their own life worlds to
those offered through the story. Learning is seen as a more intimate
15
interpersonal process. Students may find it difficult to contribute for
a number of reasons; social interaction essentially involves a risk of
selfhood. Ashworth explains that each act of communication, verbal
and non-verbal, or even the choice of silence and stillness, reveals ta-
cit claims of the individual to be a particular sort of person. For some
individuals it is possible to suspend concern with self; these individ-
uals are able to learn. However, for others, if one’s selfhood or iden-
tity as a worthy participant in learning is impinged, this results in
lack of attention to the conversation and therefore learning is in
jeopardy (Ashworth, 2004).
Selfhood is also discussed by Davidson (2004) in relation to a
group of 10 undergraduate nursing students. Story telling was used
as one of the primary teaching and learning tools. The students
suggested that whilst the stories provided an intellectual compo-
nent, they also provided emotionally charged information which
challenged the students from a psychosocial-cultural perspective.
The students in the study commented that participation in the dis-
cussion enabled the information contained within the stories to
become more vivid, recallable and interesting. Again some stu-
dents appeared to tell their stories whilst others did not. Those
who did not said that the story telling did enhance their learning
throughout the course as stories were relived and related to self (
Davidson, 2004); which would seem to add weight to the notion
that vicarious learning is valuable to students.
Vicarious learning, imagination and foreign cultures
Fox (2003) describes vicarious learning as using the medium of
human imagination to allow one to learn through the experiences
of another. This approach is explained as one which engages hu-
man imagination in a safe environment before, during or after ac-
tual cross cultural experience. The imagination is used to provide a
virtual experience. Here, Fox is referring to a literal cross cultural
experience: visiting a different country. Furthermore it is sug-
gested that the imagination generates a virtual reality of vivid
graphics which cannot be reconstructed on the computer screen
or the silver screen. Fox suggests that carefully selected literature
may be a means of engaging culture learners in critical reflection
in ways which minimise stress and improves the individuals’ abil-
ity to cope with cross cultural adjustment. Fox clearly links vicar-
ious learning with reflective practice (another psychological
process). However, Fox does appreciate a place for personal expe-
rience arguing that unless the subject has passed through the expe-
rience it may all seem very unimportant and theoretical; and
therefore abandoned by the human memory. The key seems to
be getting at the emotions without the benefit of actual experi-
ence; engaging the mind and emotions of learners in a transforma-
tive process. In Fox’s view it is the trainer in cross cultural learning
who frames and debriefs such experiences in a way that genuinely
leads to intercultural comfort and competency. Fox alludes to
Mezirow’s theory of perspective transformation whereby the facil-
itator introduces a level of dissonance into the learners’ psyche in
order to create a teachable moment. In terms of intercultural prep-
aration, Fox purports that learning must begin with the experien-
tial in order to awaken an affective response and only then can
knowledge be implanted in ways that are memorable and transfor-
mative (Fox, 2003). It is argued that the method is one of discovery
where the teacher is a fellow explorer who facilitates the process of
uncovering truths. For Fox the emotions are crucially important
because engaging in emotion is a means of discovering and embed-
ding cognitive principles in the active learner. Fox makes further
use of Mezirow’s theory again as it is Mezirow who suggests that
as a component of the learning process, cultural disequilibria is
the catalyst for change and it is the emotions which serve as the
driving force pushing the participant to become competent.
16 D. Roberts / Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 13–16
In relation to nursing it could be argued that student nurses are
learning to belong to a new and different culture; making great ef-
forts in order to fit in and belong. Therefore much of what Fox sug-
gest in terms of cultural learning could apply to student nurses.
However, Fox often alludes to Mezirow’s model of reflexivity. Mezi-
row (1981) identified seven levels of reflexivity with perspective
transformation taking place only at the highest levels. The levels
are sequential and increase in complexity. Indeed Mezirow asserts
that the first four levels involve what he terms as reflectivity, affec-
tive reflectivity, discriminate reflectivity and judgmental reflectivity
and these are conscious thought processes. It is the higher order lev-
els of conceptual, psychic and theoretical reflectivity which together
are termed critical consciousness. Fox does not state how individu-
als arrive at the higher levels. It is not clear whether the facilitator
plays a role in helping students to achieve the lower levels first be-
fore moving on to perspective transformation. Furthermore, it is
debatable whether all students are able to reflect at the highest lev-
els. Therefore, Fox’s use of Mezirow may be inappropriate.
Emotions and imagination are also mentioned by Koenig and
Zorn (2002) who provide more of an explanation of how vicarious
learning takes place. They assert that the story teller provides facts,
situation and characters. It is the listener who visualizes the details
and creates images of the setting and characters in their imagina-
tion. Koenig and Zorn suggest that this facilitates links between
the story and other similar situations and knowledge is transferred
from one situation to another; thus linking theory and practice. To-
gether teachers and students participate in the lived experience.
However, Koenig and Zorn fail to explain whether students would
be able to sequence, analyse and synthesise the data of the stories
without the help of the teacher although they do acknowledge that
the process of mutual story telling can help students and teachers to
value their experiences as unique individuals and to make sense of
their lives.
Another view of vicarious learning is presented by Cox et al.
(1999) who demonstrate vicarious learning through an empirical
study of 54 undergraduate students with varied backgrounds.
Vicarious learning is said to be beneficial to learners as they ob-
serve or ‘listen in’ on experts or their peers as they discuss a new
topic. Cox et al. aimed to discover whether and how dialogue can
be helpfully ‘re-used’ by others; the extent to which vicarious
learning might be facilitated by observing experts or by observing
peers. The research used an experimental procedure in a computer
laboratory with four experimental conditions and one control
group. The study outlines two main findings which demonstrate
that students do ‘re-use’ dialogue of others and the authors suggest
that this demonstrates that the effort of comprehending dialogue,
with all its meta-linguistic ‘baggage’ (compared to expository
instructional discourse) does not override its educational utility
(Cox et al., 1999). They go on to acknowledge that the educational
value of the tutor–student dialogue derives from aspects not tested
by the research. They tentatively suggest that the value may lie in
the student centeredness of the dialogue and the manner in which
the tutor conveys rhetorical issues to the student. In other words,
how issues in the domain are talked about and what kinds of ques-
tions get asked. The second finding of the study was that un-anno-
tated, diagrams alone were surprisingly effective in helping
students to learn. The findings of the effectiveness or otherwise
of student-peer dialogue was inconclusive in terms of vicarious
learning. This study may have implications for nurse education in
that it may be helpful for students to witness dialogue between
one student and a tutor in front of a group of students. The stu-
dents may then relate the questions asked to themselves and begin
to formulate their own responses, thus adding to their library of
personal experience. Cox et al. acknowledge that more work is re-
quired in order to explore vicarious learning amongst peers. In par-
ticular, in order to apply this work to a nursing context there may
be issues of confidentiality which may need to be addressed prior
to embarking on using the sharing of experiences amongst groups.
Using peers to learn from experience may also be important in
terms of forming an identity as student nurses. The sharing of expe-
riences enables students to share their diversity, become socialized
into the profession and adapt to the educational system (Koenig
and Zorn, 2002). In particular the American studies emphasise the
notion of creating a caring and nurturing climate amongst the
group, caring practices are encouraged throughout the group, with
the view that these caring practices will be transferred out into the
clinical setting (Koenig and Zorn, 2002; Diekelmann, 1990; Nehls,
1995). Caring in class leads to caring in practice; although evidence
of this taking place is lacking within the literature.
Conclusions
The literature suggests that students are able to use the experi-
ence of others in order to learn. This is suggested to take place dur-
ing discourse, discussion and storytelling. Students internalize
what is said during discussion and relate these ideas to their
own. In some cases the ideas are used as their own in future de-
bates. Questioning and challenge appear to be important in helping
students to learn however, it is debatable whether students can act
in this capacity for each other. The role of the lecturer remains un-
clear. In some cases research demonstrates that students will learn
from each other without intervention from faculty, whereas in
other studies the lecturer appears to be crucial in terms of helping
the students to find meaning in the discourse. In order to help the
students to learn from each other’s experiences it is suggested that
teacher and learner engage as partners in a quest for knowledge
and form a community of enquiry. However, more work is required
in order to understand more fully the impact of vicarious learning
on nurse education.
References
Ashworth, P., 2004. Understanding as the transformation of what is already known.
Teaching in Higher Education 9 (2), 147–158.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson, J. (Eds.), 2001. Peer Learning in Higher Education.
Kogan Page, London.
Bowles, N., 1995. Story telling: a search for meaning within nursing practice. Nurse
Education Today 15, 365–369.
Bruner, J.S., 1969. On Knowing. Essays for the Left Hand. Atheneum. Reprinted by
arrangement with Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, USA.
Bruner, J.S., 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press,
Massachusetts, USA.
Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., Mayes, T., 1999. Vicarious learning from
dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science 27, 431–458.
Davidson, M.R., 2004. A phenomenological evaluation: using storytelling as a
primary teaching method. Nurse Education in Practice 4, 184–189.
Diekelmann, N., 1990. Nursing education: caring, dialogue and practice. Journal of
Nursing Education 29 (7), 300–305.
Ellis, R.A., Calvo, R., Levy, D., Tan, K., 2004. Learning through discussions. Higher
Education Research and Development 23 (1), 73–79.
Fox, F.F., 2003. Reducing intercultural friction through fiction: virtual cultural
learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, 99–123.
Harden, J., 2000. Language, discourse and the chronotype: applying literary theory
to the narratives in health care. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31 (3), 506–512.
Koenig, J.M., Zorn, C.R., 2002. Using storytelling as an approach to teaching and
learning with diverse students. Journal of Nursing Education 41 (9), 393–399.
Lave, J., Wenger, E., 2005. Practice, person, social world. In: Daniels, H. (Ed.), An
Introduction to Vygotsky, second ed. Routledge, London (Chapter 6).
Laurillard, D., 1993. Rethinking University Teaching. Routledge, London.
Mezirow, J., 1981. A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education
32 (1), 3–24.
Nehls, N., 1995. Narrative pedagogy: rethinking nursing education. Journal of
Nursing Education 34 (5), 204–210.
Northedge, A., 2003. Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in
Higher Education 8 (2), 169–180.
Polkinghorne, D.E., 1988. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. State
University of New York Press, USA.
Spouse, J., 2003. Professional Learning in Nursing. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Topping, K., 2005. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 25 (6), 631–645.