*^*^* implementation & evaluation *^*^*

To implement the Riddel Anatomy e-LI we need the computer lab with a server, as well as that my or a colleague’s computer also needs to be linked to the server to be able to put up the tests as well as retrieve the data once it is available.  Since each individual studnet has a specific code that is generated in the software itself, an additional learner management system won’t be necessary.  A student needs to login with his student number, do the electronic learning, do the test, get >75% for the test and obtain the learner-specific code.  Students won’t be able to use each other’s codes to gain access to the next level.  Should a student move on to the next section, login with his student number, only the specific code will have him access the next section. 

There are scheduled lecture times which will be facilitated in the computer lab to be able to conduct the e-LI.  Since I will have contact with the students face to face, having them do the e-LI in the computer labs, I will not need reporting such in the case of traffic numbers for a specific webpage etc.  At any point in time I can get reports from the server to see who has been participating and obtaining their codes.  But I will also allow the students to come work in the lab after class/during lunch etc to finish with the e-LI, so I’ll only need to extract the data on the given due date for the codes.  Students who obtain their codes after completing the whole Introductory Course, will get a 10 mark head start for their summative assessment.

Maintenance...  now there can be a hick-up.  After setting up the link to the server, it is usually being tested before students have to start with a test.  That is in our hands.  But if the server fails...  Then the marks are not written into the results-file, and students need to start all over again.  This Anatomy e-LI is (fortunately) not a life-death assessment and if the server fails, then it’s almost as if the student didn’t obtain >75% and need to start again.  So in this Introductory Course setting it is not a train smash like in a formative/summative assessment.  Fortunately we have a few efficient IT staff members close by that could assist should this happen.  Hopefully they'll be able to assist promptly to prevent further results not able to write to the appropriate file on the server, but unfortunately those that were submitting in the midst of a server failure would have to start all over again.  As a back-up we do give test paper slips where students write down their names, student numbers as well as marks and codes for in case technology fails us.

Evaluation...  So, Riddel has its own built-in Indexes – Difficulty Index as well as Discrimination Index.  These can be taken into account to fine tune the assessment for the next year. This e-LI requires students to obtain >75% to serve as a foundation for the rest of the course content, therefore it will make sense that students will obtain >75% a few weeks later after the terminology and basics would have been already integrated within the lectures and practicals.  So to redo the test after a few weeks will be able to assist in evaluating the e-LI – if there was a question that no one got right the first time (during the introductory course), as well as the second time (a few weeks later), then maybe it is a bad question?  Or additional explanations or information or illustrations need to be incorporated to give clarity on that specific point.  A survey could also be set up on Blackboard after the first practical for students to reflect on and give feedback on the value of the Introductory Anatomy e-LI. 

The only thing I miss in this evaluation phase is that we can determine if students understand the terminology, but how to evaluate if they actually use the terminology and if it is used in the correct way.  And to achieve that is only by means of time...  Practical after practical where they discuss Anatomy and realize that it is easier and more accurate to use for example the term ‘distal’ than ‘under’ or ‘below’, etc.  Terminology is after all like a language that needs to be applied and exercised.  But we don’t have a means of assessing if students are using the correct terminology during practicals.

That's my thoughts for now.  Over and out.