Upload
jordan-walker
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Computer Based Learning Environment to Support
Engineering Design, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship
Team• Glenn Gaudette, PhD
– Biomedical Engineering
• Janice Gobert, PhD– Learning Sciences & Technology
• Terri Camesano, PhD– Chemical Engineering
• Frank Hoy, PhD– School of Business
• Ermal Toto (PhD Candidate)– Learning Sciences & Technology
• Ozge Yasar (PhD Candidate)– Learning Sciences & Technology
• Elaheh Kamaloo (PhD Candidate)– Chemical Engineering
Objective of Webinar• Provide information on development of a new
simulation designed for college freshmen studying engineering design
- Provide students with opportunity for project based learning in engineering design and entrepreneurship
- Professors obtain data to assess students’ engineering design skills and entrepreneurial knowledge
• Gauge interest in developing other engineering microworlds & deploying through KEEN
Goals for this Project
• Introduce first-year students to engineering design and entrepreneurship
• Develop engineering design microworld• Include variables regarding
entrepreneurship• Assess students’ learning and skills
Computer Assisted Learning &Assessment System
• Janice & SLINQ team• Developing Inq-ITS (Inquiry-Intelligent Tutoring
system) that assesses and tutors students in real time using interactive simulations called "microworlds" – provide environment for students to hone their content
knowledge and inquiry skills– generate real time assessment reports automatically sent to
teachers– undergirded by educational data-mining and knowledge-
engineered algorithms
Introduction to the Microworld and Task
“Imagine you have recently been by a small start-up company that is interested in entering the catheter market. They bring several resources to the table, including marketing, sales, finance, and distribution. Your job is to design the catheter for them to sell.
In the next screen you will have several design attributes to consider.
Once in the microworld, you can change your selection and go through the process multiple times before you choose a catheter design and draw your conclusions.”
Catheter Design Microworld
Demo Glenn, Frank, & Ermal
• For others, go to:• http://slinq.org/• Username: to be sent by KEEN• Password: 1234
• 51 students completed assignment (required for 1 class; extra credit for another class)
• Log files were generated for each student– All actions, all changes to parameters, all scores
(engineering & business)
• Log data were analyzed for:– how systematic they were in their engineering design(s) – inclusion of market specs to optimize profit– students’ open response questions were hand-scored (for
validation)– correlations with various learning indices
Design & Implementation of a Computer Assisted Catheter Microworld
Evaluation
• Engineering score was determined based on the most commonly used size, material and add-ons
• Profits were based on the costs, sales price, supplies purchased and market share
Statistics
• Average (Max/Min):– # of trials/student = 54 ± 49 (238/1)– Engineering Score = 82 ± 11 (100/42)– Profit
• Foley = $2.73M ± $2.4M ($7.03M/-$1.26M)• Venous = $77k ± $89k ($217k/-$33k)
– Market share = 6 ± 4% (11.3/0)
Example – Log File Engineering Variables
Business Variables
Type Area Length Material Wire Radio AntithromboticSiliconcoated Antimicrobial Market Share Supplies Price
foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 10000 15foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 20foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 18foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 17.5foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 17.25foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 17foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 16foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 15.95foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 19foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.89foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.91foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 636378 18.9foley 12.56637061 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 636378 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 636378 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 424380 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 500000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 550000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 520000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 515000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 512500 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 512000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 511000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510500 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510300 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510200 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510100 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.91foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.89foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9
Categorizing Students’ Learning
• High Engineering– Systematic
• Low Business– Not systematic– No regards for
market value– No compromises
Business Score
Eng
inee
ring
Sco
re
• Low Engineering– Not systematic
• High Business– Systematic– Market driven– Willing to make
compromises
• High Engineering– Systematic
• High Business– Systematic– Market driven– Willing to make
compromises
• Low Engineering– Not systematic
• Low Business– Nor systematic– No regards for
market value– No compromises
N = 23 students
N = 0 students
N = 3 students
N = 22 students
N = 3 students
Relationship Between Profit and Engineering Score
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-2,000,000
-1,000,000
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Foley
Venous
Engineering Score
Pro
fit (
$)
Histogram of Engineering Score
Histogram of Profit
Where to go from here?• We would like your feedback, especially
with regard to:– Technical challenge presented– Link between technical and business
challenge– Interest in other engineering microworlds
for learning and assessment?– What data from the microworld would be
useful for assessment?
Thank You!
Supplementary slides
High Engineering/High Business – Example
Computer Generated (Normalized)
Human Scored
Student Engscore ProfitNumber Of Trials
CVS Consecutive CVS Any
CVS Score (0-2)
Business Score (0-2)
1633 91.25 4,554,738.00 43 0.81 4.47 0 01635 88.25 5,734,667.00 21 0.48 1.90 0 21641 91.25 4,131,079.00 63 0.68 7.71 1 01642 91.25 3,942,097.00 3 0.33 0.67 0 01644 91.25 4,024,284.00 20 0.55 2.20 0 11645 91.25 4,956,385.00 37 0.78 9.89 0 21646 88.25 6,522,000.00 49 0.84 7.71 2 21652 83.75 4,665,000.00 83 0.77 5.59 2 21653 91.25 3,607,297.00 170 0.51 9.73 0 01658 86.75 4,619,135.00 22 0.77 5.64 2 21661 85.25 3,988,089.00 176 0.81 7.77 2 21664 83.75 6,431,420.00 37 0.14 8.54 2 21665 88.25 6,585,678.00 49 0.63 4.37 0 11667 88.25 6,909,353.00 57 0.63 3.33 0 01670 91.25 4,580,652.00 67 0.73 6.72 1 21673 82.25 7,034,565.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0
High Engineering/High Business
Computer Generated (Normalized)
Human Scored
Student Engscore ProfitNumber Of Trials
CVS Consecutive CVS Any
CVS Score (0-2)
Business Score (0-2)
1633 91.25 4,554,738.00 43 0.81 4.47 0 01635 88.25 5,734,667.00 21 0.48 1.90 0 21641 91.25 4,131,079.00 63 0.68 7.71 1 01642 91.25 3,942,097.00 3 0.33 0.67 0 01644 91.25 4,024,284.00 20 0.55 2.20 0 1
1645 91.25 4,956,385.00 37 0.78 9.89 0 21646 88.25 6,522,000.00 49 0.84 7.71 2 21652 83.75 4,665,000.00 83 0.77 5.59 2 21653 91.25 3,607,297.00 170 0.51 9.73 0 01658 86.75 4,619,135.00 22 0.77 5.64 2 21661 85.25 3,988,089.00 176 0.81 7.77 2 21664 83.75 6,431,420.00 37 0.14 8.54 2 21665 88.25 6,585,678.00 49 0.63 4.37 0 11667 88.25 6,909,353.00 57 0.63 3.33 0 01670 91.25 4,580,652.00 67 0.73 6.72 1 21673 82.25 7,034,565.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0
High Engineering/High Business - 1645Engineering
VariablesBusiness Variables
Type Area Length Material Wire Radio AntithromboticSiliconcoated Antimicrobial Market Share Supplies Price
foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 10000 15foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 20foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 18foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 17.5foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 17.25foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 17foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 16foley 22.06183441 20-24.9:50 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 300274 15.95foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 19foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.89foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.91foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 latex 0 1 0 1 1 100 636378 18.9foley 22.06183441 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 636378 18.9foley 12.56637061 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 636378 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 636378 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 424380 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 500000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 550000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 520000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 515000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 512500 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 512000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 511000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510500 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510300 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510200 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510100 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.91foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.89foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9foley 28.27433388 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 0 1 0 0 1 100 510000 18.9
High Engineering/High Business - 1645
• Please describe the catheter you chose. What parameters influenced you decision/profit?
• My final cather is a foley style catheter made of silicon. This catheter is in the 37.5-42.5 units long category, and the catheters have an area of 6mm. The catheter is anti-microbial and also has a radio-opaque strip. The amount of catheters which I will order is 510,000 The primary decisions that led to my final product where the fact that the chosen length and width allowed for the greatest engineering score. The material choice and extras also contributed to the higher engineering score. In addition to this, I personally felt that, even though silicon is more expensive, it should have been the material, as this contributes to patients with severe latex allergies, thus increasing the market share. The next component was finding what percentage of the market I was able to get, and then determining what number I would order. The order amount was found by trial and error, discovering what amount would lead to the highest profit. The final result was a catheter which had a 9.13% market share, and engineering score of 91.25, and made a profit of 4,956,385 dollars.
• What can you say about the relationship between your engineering score and profitability?
• I found that it is possible to have a very high engineering score as well as a moderate profit. However, in other examples on the original cite, I was able to find that the highest profits could be met with a lower engineering score. However, I determined that realistically, if there is a good balance between a sizeable profit and the engineering score, it would be better to have the higher engineering score as this would create a higher demand and therefore and greater market for the product.
High Engineering/High Business
• High Engineering Score– Systematic
• High Business Score– Systematic– Market Driven– Willing to make compromises
High Engineering/Low Business – Example
Computer Generated (Normalized)
Human Scored
Student Engscore ProfitNumber Of
TrialsCVS Consecutive CVS Any
CVS Score (0-2)
Business Score (0-2)
1632 95.5 217,574.00 32 0.72 3.50 0 11636 88.25 -108,301.00 38 0.71 7.11 2 21638 84.5 1,282,803.00 32 0.47 1.56 0 21639 85.25 290,826.00 81 0.79 9.51 2 11643 83 557,263.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 01650 87.5 -1,260,000.00 69 0.78 5.04 0 01654 82.25 616,512.00 238 0.71 9.03 1 11656 91.25 1,323,750.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 01659 85.75 150,480.00 87 0.57 3.95 0 01662 85.25 706,667.00 7 0.71 3.43 1 11663 100 149,374.00 173 0.72 5.51 0 11669 100 195,474.00 71 0.72 6.06 0 11672 81 14,139.00 28 0.86 5.43 0 01676 82.75 26,505.00 18 0.44 2.78 0 11678 85.25 1,178,333.00 93 0.85 7.44 0 01679 98.5 157,333.00 28 0.61 2.50 2 21683 85.25 1,586,000.00 111 0.43 2.41 0 2
High Engineering/Low Business – 1669Engineering Variables Business Variables
Type Area Length Material Wire Radio AntithromboticSiliconcoated Antimicrobial Market Share Supplies Price
cathetertype area actualLength material Wire Radio AntithromboticSiliconcoated Antimicrobial marketshare supplies price
venous 5.599024967 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 1 1 1 1 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 1 1 1 1 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 1 0 1 1 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 1 1 1 1 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 1 1 1 1 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 0 1 1 0 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 20-24.9:50 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 35.0-37.4:75 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 3.141592654 42.6-45:75 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 8.552985999 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 41.85386813 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 138.9290811 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 126.0791032 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 113.0973355 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 35venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 20 12500 40venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 25 13000 40venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 15 12500 45venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 1 15 12500 45venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 15 12500 45venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 10 12500 40venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 latex 1 0 1 0 0 10 12500 40venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 pvc 1 0 1 0 0 10 12500 40venous 100.2874915 37.5-42.5:100 teflon 1 0 1 0 0 10 12500 40venous 89.41671696 37.5-42.5:100 teflon 1 0 1 0 0 10 12500 40venous 89.41671696 37.5-42.5:100 silicon 1 0 1 0 0 10 12500 40
High Engineering/Low Business – 1669
• Please describe the catheter you chose. What parameters influenced you decision/profit?
• The first goal in building my catheter was to come up with a design that received the highest engineering score possible. I succeeded in finding a product with an engineering score of 100. It was 10.67mm or 32Fr in diameter, 37.5-42.5 (cm? no units) long and made of silicon. In addition it was wire reinforced and anti-thrombotic. I think went on to adjust the price per catheter and how many catheters to produce to maximize the profit. My product only took up 10% of the market there for I only needed to make 10250 catheters, and the optimal price per catheter was $43.
• What can you say about the relationship between your engineering score and profitability?
• A higher engineering score usually meant I higher profit but occasionally in the early trials there were times when that was not the case.
High Engineering/Low Business
• High Engineering Score– Systematic
• Low Business Score– Systematic– Not Market Driven– Not Willing to make compromises– Confirmation bias toward an engineering
solution to a market problem.
Low Engineering/Low Business - Example
Computer Generated (Normalized) Human Scored
Student Engscore ProfitNumber Of
Trials CVS Consecutive CVS AnyCVS Score (0-2)
Business Score (0-2)
1697 57 -252,000.00 6 0.166666667 0.333333333 0 0
1700 42 -48.00 17 0.470588235 1.647058824 0 0
1742 56.25 -6.00 8 0.625 1.5 0 0
• Small Number of Trials• Not Systematic• Tend to write small or empty responses
(Disengaged)
Correlations of interest
ProfitCVS Score Consecutive
Business Score (open response
questions)
CVS Score (open response
questions)
r = .288p = .04
r = .457p = .001
r = .579p < .001
Business Score (open response
questions)
r = .271p = .054
- -
Example Student #1
• Made 60 “clicks”• Built catheter 22 times• Doesn’t have any answers, student
didn’t submit.
Example Student #2
• Made 285 “clicks”• Built catheter 87 times• 1. Please describe the catheter you chose. What parameters influenced you
decision/profit?• Answer: I first set out to build the best catheter possible. I started with a Foley catheter, and
simply changed one variable at a time to find which ones yielded the highest engineering score. There were several instances where different options had the same score (i.e. silicon vs latex), in which case I selected the parameter that made the most sense from a business standpoint (lower cost, higher market share). After I was able to maximize the engineering score (83.75 out of 100), I moved on to maximizing profits. I set my price ($23) slightly below the market value price ($25), then adjusted my production to match my company’s stake in the market. If my company made up 9.54% of a 4,648,190 unit market, I manufactured 443,437 units.
• 2. What can you say about the relationship between your engineering score and profitability?
• Answer: I felt that I was able to maximize both. Even though a product that was poorly designed would have been cheaper, I wouldn't have been able to sell as many.
Example of Open Response Scoring
• Students’ answers to open response questions were hand scored for:– use of parameters that reflect Control for
Variables Strategy (CVS), 0-2– use of parameters that reflect market-
based decisions, 0-2
Example of Open Response Scoring-Student ID#:1652
• Question 1: Please describe the catheter you chose. What parameters influenced you decision/profit?• 1. My first attempts at making a profitable product were mostly based on random choices and then trying to optimize what
little profit they made. I found this was not working so I moved on to a more methodical system which included changing each parameter individually and going through until I found something that increased profit.
• 2. At this point, I decided that I needed to start by trying to get the best engineering score I could that still turned a profit, because it was easier to increase the money than the engineering score.
• 3. So I used latex because through a bit research I found it was the cheapest material. Through trial and error I worked to get better scores based on length and size of the catheter. I decided to use all the extras because I thought it would increase the scores.
• 4. Once I felt I had the best one I was going to get, I moved on to optimizing profit. For this I started out with low supplies and higher cost, but I realized this wasn’t going to get me anywhere so I increased the supplies and lowered cost until I got the optimum combination. During this process, I found that projected market share held no impact on the profit so I didn’t worry too much about that.
• Question 2: What can you say about the relationship between your engineering score and profitability?• 5. When I was attempting to optimize my engineering score. It became clear to me that they relationship between that score
and profitability was not a significant relation. But the choice made using the engineering parameters made a difference in profit.
• 6. I found that material wise, they made a difference. Some materials were expensive, while others like latex were not. Also the amount of add ons effected profit. Sometime they increase the value of the catheter while others time they just added to production cost.
• 7. The size of the catheter did not have quite as large a change on profit. Also I found that foley catheters were more profitable usually than venous. So in regards to engineering score and profitability there was little relation because getting a higher engineering score didn't always mean having a higher profit unless you dealt with the marketing aspect better. On the other hand, the engineering parameters had a significant relation to the profit.
Student ID CVS Score (0-2) # of related comments Phrase # Business Score (0-2) # of related comments Phrase #1652 2 2 1,4 2 4 4,5,6,7
Student ID#: 1652 computer based scores
• .77 CVS consecutive• 5.6 CVS any
Example Log Fileactionkey userid widget wigettype object objecttype property value valuechange step
1 1658 MICROWORLD_LOAD
2 1658Simulation catheterSim typeselect sel iv foley set CHANGE_IV
3 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 2set CHANGE_IV
4 1658Simulation catheterSim lengthselectfoley sel iv 50set CHANGE_IV
5 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv silicon set CHANGE_IV
6 1658Simulation catheterSim thromboticcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV
7 1658Simulation catheterSim microbialcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV
8 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
9 1658Simulation catheterSim shareentry fill iv 1set CHANGE_IV
10 1658Simulation catheterSim shareentry fill iv 10set CHANGE_IV
11 1658Simulation catheterSim suppliesentry fill iv 10000set CHANGE_IV
12 1658Simulation catheterSim priceentry fill iv 20set CHANGE_IV
13 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
14 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv latex set CHANGE_IV
15 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
16 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv pvc set CHANGE_IV
17 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
18 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv teflon set CHANGE_IV
19 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
20 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv latex set CHANGE_IV
21 1658Simulation catheterSim stripcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV
22 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
23 1658Simulation catheterSim microbialcheck check iv set CHANGE_IV
24 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
25 1658Simulation catheterSim microbialcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV
26 1658Simulation catheterSim bacterialcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV
27 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
28 1658Simulation catheterSim wirecheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV
29 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
30 1658Simulation catheterSim wirecheck check iv set CHANGE_IV
31 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 24504set CHANGE_IV
32 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
33 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 41701set CHANGE_IV
34 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
35 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 4set CHANGE_IV
36 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
37 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 24563set CHANGE_IV
38 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
39 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 41703set CHANGE_IV
40 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
41 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 41705set CHANGE_IV
42 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
43 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 24624set CHANGE_IV
44 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
45 1658Simulation catheterSim areaselect sel iv 6set CHANGE_IV
46 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
47 1658Simulation catheterSim lengthselectfoley sel iv 100set CHANGE_IV
48 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
49 1658Simulation catheterSim lengthselectfoley sel iv 50set CHANGE_IV
50 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
51 1658Simulation catheterSim lengthselectfoley sel iv 100set CHANGE_IV
52 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
53 1658Simulation catheterSim shareentry fill iv 44317set CHANGE_IV
54 1658Simulation catheterSim suppliesentry fill iv 242171set CHANGE_IV
55 1658Simulation catheterSim priceentry fill iv 23set CHANGE_IV
56 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
57 1658Simulation catheterSim suppliesentry fill iv 443437set CHANGE_IV
58 1658expmodern expWidget run button RUN
59 1658 MICROWORLD_LOAD
60 1658 MICROWORLD_LOAD
Summary of Pilot Results• Wide range of learners
– High engineering score; high business scores (n=22)
– High engineering score; low business scores (n=23)
– Mid engineering score; low-mid business (n=3)– Low engineering score; high business scores
(n=0)– Low engineering score; low business scores (n=3)
CVS Computer ScoresVar 1 Var 2 Var 3 Var 4 Var 5
Trial 1 A A A A A
Trial 2 A A A A B
T1 to T2 Cvs Consecutive = 1 CVS Any T1 to T2 = 1 (Total CVS Any = 1)
Trial 3 A A A A B
T2 to T3 Cvs Consecutive = 0 CVS Any T1 to T3 = 1 and T2 to T3 = 0 (Total CVS Any = 1)
Trial 4 A A A B B
T3 to T4 Cvs Consecutive = 1 CVS Any T1 to T4 = 0 and T3 to T4 = 1 and T4 to T2 = 1 (Total CVS Any = 2)
Total CVS Consecutive = 2Normalized Scores are obtained by devided the scores with the number of Trials.
Total CVS Any = 4