time and effort of repurposing virtual patients from casus to campus using the evip standard:...

28
Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients Benjamin Hanebeck 1 ; Stephan Oberle 1 ; Jörn Heid 2 ; Frank Hess 2 ; Inga Hege 3 ; Martin Fischer 4 ; Martin Haag 2 ; Sören Huwendiek 1 1 Department of General Paediatrics, University Hospital for Adolescent and Paediatric Medicine and Centre for Virtual Patients, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2 Centre for Virtual Patients, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany ; 3 Ludwig-Maximilians-University München, Germany ; 4 University Witten-Herdecke, Germany 2nd International Conference on Virtual Patients & MedBiquitous Annual Conference, 28.04.2010

Upload: keanu-purrington

Post on 16-Dec-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using

The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer

Centre for Virtual Patients

Benjamin Hanebeck1; Stephan Oberle1; Jörn Heid2; Frank Hess2; Inga Hege3; Martin Fischer4; Martin Haag2; Sören Huwendiek1

1Department of General Paediatrics, University Hospital for Adolescent and Paediatric Medicine and Centre for Virtual Patients, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany ; 2Centre for Virtual Patients, Medical Faculty of Heidelberg

University, Heidelberg, Germany ; 3Ludwig-Maximilians-University München, Germany ; 4University Witten-Herdecke, Germany

2nd International Conference on Virtual Patients & MedBiquitous Annual Conference, 28.04.2010

Page 2: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Introduction

• Developing new virtual patients (VP) is costly• Repurposing existing VP is a reasonable means

to save resources

• However, transfer of VP between different VP systems is complicated

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 3: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Introduction• VP Standard was established:

Medbiq VP taken as part of the eViP-standard as a shared structure

• System specific features can be covered by extensions– QTI extension for knowledge-questions– ...

Additionally, a repurposed VP needs to be adapted to local needs (content, scenario)

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 4: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Introduction

• Efforts, boundaries and benefits of using the eViP-standard to transfer a VP from one VP-system to another are, as yet, unreported.

• Does the standard reduce efforts by enabling automatic repurposing?

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 5: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Introduction

• Efforts, boundaries and benefits of using the eViP-standard to transfer a VP from one VP-system to another are, as yet, unreported.

• Does the standard reduce efforts by enabling automatic repurposing?

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 6: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods• Development of a new CAMPUS player

component enables playback of eViP-Standard-compliant material

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 7: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods

Modification of the CAMPUS authoring component to enable

• …import of eViP-Standard compliant VP with QTI

support• … editing of the imported VP

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 8: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods

• Choice of an appropriate VP-System for VP exchange / automated repurposing

• CASUS and CAMPUS – linear VP structures – QTI extension

• Selection of 15 VP from CASUS

in average 17,7 cards/VP (± 6,2)

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 9: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods - Manual repurposing

• A new blank CAMPUS VP was created • The content was copied manually from the

existing CASUS VP into the CAMPUS authoring component

• Question were recreated where possible, Media was embedded

• Efforts were noted by using the eViP effort sheet

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 10: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods - Automated repurposing• An eViP-Standard compliant export of the

CASUS VP was imported into the CAMPUS authoring component

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 11: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

• Playback and check of the VP• Corrections were made where necessary

• Efforts were noted manually

• In all cases of manual and automatic import: No efforts for content adaption were taken into account

Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods - Automated repurposing

Page 12: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – Manual repurposing

Centre for Virtual Patients

It took 11,3 hours in average / VP.

Page 13: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – Automated repurposing

Centre for Virtual Patients

It took 1,8 hours in average / VP.

Page 14: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – Automated repurposing: Issues

Centre for Virtual Patients

Problems:

• Hyperlinks imported incorrectly

(concerning CASUS Expert Network, links to videos, external resources…)

• Some questions displayed incorrectly (e.g. sorting task)

• Layout problems (e.g. different font types)

• Labels of pictures not displayed

Solutions: Manual corrections

Page 15: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Boundaries

Centre for Virtual Patients

• Originating VP has to be eViP-Standard compliant

• As many extensions as possible should be shared between the used VP systems (e.g. QTI)

• Results were achieved with easy repurposing approach (linear pathway, QTI extension, same language)

• Efforts increase with differences between VP systems (e.g. linear vs. branched)

Page 16: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Benefits

Centre for Virtual Patients

• Repurposing VP is a lot more time efficient by using an automated import

• Only little corrections necessary

• Adaptations / extension of content in target VP system possible

• Improving of export/import-functionalities continuously increases quality of interoperability

Page 17: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Conclusion

Centre for Virtual Patients

• Repurposing VP using the eViP-standard can save time and efforts

• Not completely automated but semi-automated repurposing process

+

Page 18: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Contact:

www.campusvirtuals.de

Thank you!

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 19: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients
Page 20: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Is still done • but beforehand• only once

Resulting in an increase in interoperability

Page 21: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients
Page 22: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients
Page 23: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – manual repurposing

Centre for Virtual Patients

It took 11,3 hours in average / VP.

Page 24: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – automated repurposing: Problems and Solutions

Centre for Virtual Patients

Problem Solution

Duplicated questions (double import)

Manual deletion

External links did not work (e.g. videos)

Manual integration

Answers to questions were doubled

Manual correction

Page 25: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – automated repurposing

Centre for Virtual Patients

It took 1,8 hours in average / VP.

Page 26: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Introduction

• Remaining problem:– Teaching content sometimes differs not only

internationally but also nationally – Often an identical reproduction of a VP is not

satisfactory for teachers

• Need:

No playback-only solution, but possibilities to edit and adapt a VP

Centre for Virtual Patients

Page 27: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Results – manual repurposing: Problems and Solutions

Centre for Virtual Patients

Missing question types

• Problem: some types are not natively supported by CAMPUS authoring component (e.g. rating of symptoms, sorting tasks)

• Solution:

• manual substitution by an available question type (e.g. MCQ, free text) covering the same content

• manual creation of an interactive graphic based on Flash using an editor implemented in CAMPUS

Page 28: Time And Effort Of Repurposing Virtual Patients From CASUS To CAMPUS Using The eViP Standard: Automated Vs. Manual Transfer Centre for Virtual Patients

Methods

Centre for Virtual Patients

• CAMPUS, a system for learning with VP exists since 1996

• Consists of – An authoring system– A simulative Java based player– A card-based eViP standard compliant player– An application for secure, keyfeature-based

assessments

• Linear order of interactions