A Computer Based Learning Environment to Support Engineering Design, Innovation, and...

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

http://slinq.org/

http://slinq.org/

http://slinq.org/

http://slinq.org/

• 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


Human Scored

Student Engscore ProfitNumber Of Trials

CVS Consecutive CVS Any

CVS 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


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


Human Scored

Student Engscore ProfitNumber Of

TrialsCVS Consecutive CVS Any

CVS 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


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)


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


11 1658Simulation catheterSim suppliesentry fill iv 10000set CHANGE_IV

12 1658Simulation catheterSim priceentry fill iv 20set CHANGE_IV


14 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv latex set CHANGE_IV


16 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv pvc set CHANGE_IV


18 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv teflon set CHANGE_IV


20 1658Simulation catheterSim materialselect sel iv latex set CHANGE_IV

21 1658Simulation catheterSim stripcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV


23 1658Simulation catheterSim microbialcheck check iv set CHANGE_IV


25 1658Simulation catheterSim microbialcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV

26 1658Simulation catheterSim bacterialcheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV


28 1658Simulation catheterSim wirecheck check iv 1set CHANGE_IV


30 1658Simulation catheterSim wirecheck check iv set CHANGE_IV

























55 1658Simulation catheterSim priceentry fill iv 23set CHANGE_IV






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

A Computer Based Learning Environment to Support Engineering Design, Innovation, and...

Documents

Transcript of A Computer Based Learning Environment to Support Engineering Design, Innovation, and...