The purpose of this experiment was to determine the difference (if any) between sorting a standard deck of cards and a low vision deck. Three tests: color, suit, and number sorting were compared. The dependent variables in the experiment included time and the number of trials it took for the student to complete the task successfully. The independent variables were sorting the two different decks by color, suit, and number.
1.There will be a significant time difference between sorting the standard deck of cards and the low vision cards by suit. The four distinct colors (red, green, blue, and black) will be easier to recognize and sort.
2.There won't be a significant time difference when sorting the standard deck of cards and the low vision deck of cards by color. The association of red and green vs. blue and black (with the low vision cards) is just as easy to decipher as sorting by red and black.
3.When sorting by number, there will be a significant time difference. The low vision cards will cause confusion since they lack the corresponding number of symbols to the card number.
4.There will be a significant difference in the number of trials when sorting the cards by suit. It takes less concentration to sort the cards by four distinct colors, therefore yielding less trial errors using the low vision cards.
5.When sorting the cards by color, there will not be a significant difference in the number of trials between the low vision and standard deck of cards. Again, the association of red and green versus vs. blue and black (with the low vision cards) is just as easy to decipher as sorting by red and black, therefore yielding an equivalent number of trial errors between the two different decks.
6.There will be a significant difference in the number of trials when sorting the cards by number. In comparison to the standard deck, the low vision cards lack the face-card pictures and have fewer symbols placed on the cards, therefore yielding a larger number of errors when using the low vision cards.
The experimental subjects consisted of all the students enrolled in Professor Smith's ISyE 349 class, and each subject served in all of the experiments.
Experimental Design Factors (for future observation):
1.Analyzing the gender efficiency difference for both time and number of trials
2.Affect of amount of sleep on sorting output time and number of trials
3.Look at the correlation between the output of those who are more experienced/skilled card players to those of novice skill level
4.Control the amount of space each subject is allowed to use while sorting the cards and test whether more space decreases their test time and/or number of trial errors
Apparatus and Environmental Conditions:
*Each subject was given a deck of standard cards and low vision cards to sort
*Room setting was relatively quiet (noises consisted of only other subjects and TA talking with occasional construction sound), had adequate lighting, and each subject was given the option to sort the cards anywhere within the provided lab room space
Given a standard deck of cards and low vision cards, each subject must sort the two decks for every corresponding test. The subject must sort both decks independently by color (test 1), suit (test 2) and card number (test 3). Both the number of unsuccessful trials and the time it takes to complete the test will be recorded. The subject must repeat a failed test (when the subject makes an error during the test process) until he/she completes the test successfully without error.
Using Excel, the means and two-tailed p-values were calculated for each test.
Data Analysis: Comparison of Means and Two-Tailed P-Value
Standard DeckLow Vision Deck
MeanTwo Tailed P-ValueMeanSignificant Difference?
Sorting by Color-Time...