Simulation Training: Evaluating the Instructor’s Contribution to a Wizard of Oz Simulator in Obstetrics and Gynecology Ultrasound Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workplaces today demand graduates who are prepared with field-specific knowledge, advanced social skills, problem-solving skills, and integration capabilities. Meeting these goals with didactic learning (DL) is becoming increasingly difficult. Enhanced training methods that would better prepare tomorrow's graduates must be more engaging and game-like, such as feedback based e-learning or simulation-based training, while saving time. Empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of advanced learning methods is lacking. Objective quantitative research comparing advanced training methods with DL is sparse. OBJECTIVES: This quantitative study assessed the effectiveness of a computerized interactive simulator coupled with an instructor who monitored students' progress and provided Web-based immediate feedback. METHODS: A low-cost, globally accessible, telemedicine simulator, developed at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel-was used. A previous study in the field of interventional cardiology, evaluating the efficacy of the simulator to enhanced learning via knowledge exams, presented promising results of average scores varying from 94% after training and 54% before training (n=20) with P<.001. Two independent experiments involving obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn) physicians and senior ultrasound sonographers, with 32 subjects, were conducted using a new interactive concept of the WOZ (Wizard of OZ) simulator platform. The contribution of an instructor to learning outcomes was evaluated by comparing students' knowledge before and after each interactive instructor-led session as well as after fully automated e-learning in the field of Ob-Gyn. Results from objective knowledge tests were analyzed using hypothesis testing and model fitting. RESULTS: A significant advantage (P=.01) was found in favor of the WOZ training approach. Content type and training audience were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated the contribution of an integrated teaching environment using a computerized interactive simulator, with an instructor providing immediate Web-based immediate feedback to trainees. Involvement of an instructor in the simulation-based training process provided better learning outcomes that varied training content and trainee populations did not affect the overall learning gains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".