Sakai and its application to teaching forensic science across geography, time, profession and generation divides.

Dr. Andrea CramptonCharles Sturt University

Australia

HOW TO USE SAKAI AND CONTEMPORARY PEDAGOGY TO CONSTRUCT AN INDUSTRY RELEVANT DYNAMIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.

FSC 200- Introduction to Forensic Science

• Courses Served• BMedSc/BForensicBiotech; Bachelor of Policing;

BMedSci/BBiotech(Med-App); BPolicing(Investigations); BSc; Bachelor of Arts; BForensicBiotech

• Enrolments• 2007 : 37 ;7 Internal (AV age 19.5), 30 Distance (AV age 31.7)

• 2008 : 27 all distance

My Aim

• Utilise the knowledge and skills of the experienced students in the class

• Maximise student exposure to different ways in which the same information is viewed by those with a different background and with different career aspirations within the field

• Promote the development of key teamwork skills• Encourage deeper learning

Pedagogical Approach

• Constructionists• Guide on the side, student centred, active

learning

Content Delivery

• Text book – Jackson and Jackson : Forensic Science.• Lectures – live and virtual • Podcasts – Interviews with industry members• Wiki –News, tutorials and class records (fingerprint

patterns)

All hosted on CSU version of Sakai called Interact

FSC 200 – Sakai Site

Tool + Aim

• Scenario driven group assessment• 9 teams of 4-5 students• Each team own Interact Site• Each team member given a role –

“scripting”• FOA, SOCO, Lab Tech, Lab Manager

The Scenario• Assessment 1 – Define role • Scenario given to FOA• Assessment 2- Action within role and

communication with group• Break in Case -2nd scene/suspect• Roles suspended, one team

• Group forensic report written as wiki

A 2008 Group Page

How The Tools Were Actually Used

• Chat• 736 messages in 3 months• Asynchronous and Synchronous• 7/9 groups at least 1 synchronous session• 36 hr 38 mins synchronous • 76% 8am-5pm

Asynchronous

• Distance – 24 messages/ student• Internal – 13 messages/student

Group Forensic Report

• Wiki• Tech Savy• Tech proficient• Tech phobic

I loved it, but what about the students?

• Evaluation, use and perceptions• Reflective essay as last assessment item• Official evaluations• Comments made in chat or sent via email

Official Evaluations

Question 2007 2008

The opportunities for collaboration afforded by CSU Interact helped my learning in this subject

Not available 38% VSA, 15% SA,15% A15% U8%SD, 8%VSD

This subject allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of the organisation I wish to work in

25 VSA, 25% SA,25% A12% U

38% VSA, 8% SA,31% A8%D

This subject allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of the organisation I work in

25% VSA, 25% SA,25% A25%D

23% VSA, 8% SA,31% A8% U8%D

Interact In Their Words!

• ST1 “having the opportunity to see the benefits of Interact such as easy access to class material and the feeling of actually having constant lecturer support through the use of the announcements and results of section was a great learning experience which will hopefully be useful in the years to come.”

• ST2 ”it gave direct and personal contact via the forums (chat room) to both your

group participants and lecture, which I found terrific. As a group the three of us could converse directly to learn from what others were addressing in the group chat room and post our concerns. So for me it was a great Condit to other students both on-campus and DE.”

• EV1 Interact was fantastic. It was so easy to use (once you knew how) and it was so easy to communicate with fellow students and academic staff. It made life a lot easier.

The Scenario/Constructionist Approach

• ST3“Another advantage of doing this activity as a group is that by interaction with other students in the subject we were able to gain a greater understanding of the area forensics. …. By working with students who are already involved in the area we were able to learn things that they knew and apply them to our investigation”

• ST4“Group work is an effective means of learning especially for those times when I found myself clueless.

As forensic scientists interact with the police force and the legal Court of Justice’s group work gave me an inside of the real world it gave me an opportunity to learn how to adjust and respect individual differences. The activity was indeed fun and educational and are very good interactive tool for learning forensic science.”

• ST5” this group activity has taught me a great deal about both working in a forensic team and in a team in general. And then how much a forensic investigation relies on teamwork and trust between its members that everyone will adequate play their part. Is not only applies in a forensic team but any team. I also learned how to manage my time effectively when trying to fit in with four other people. Is important for me to have my work in on time as the others in the group relying on my work to allow them to do theirs”

Summary: Evaluation Rubric

• Communication and collaboration• 30% of student assessment required

ongoing communication and collaboration.• Students were given the opportunity to

reflect on their actions when the group came together and peer learning and feedback was encouraged.

Summary: Evaluation Rubric

• Learning Material• Subject outline was provided in print and

online and include a table showing which role had to do what when.• Virtual tutorial using screen capture was

created to guide students in how to set up and contribute to a wiki.

Date Scenario component Report to GroupWk 3 Groups and roles assignedWk 4 Socos will receive information about a scenario from the subject coordinator playing the

role of FOA.Interact component: Who: Scene of crime officer/s What: Provide the team with information of the nature and in the format that a SOCO would provide in relation to the scenario provided . If a group has more than one SOCO then they must decide how best to divide the necessary task to ensure that the scene is appropriately processed. Role of Others: Use the information provide as relevant to your role. If applicable ask questions (note if your role would not normally interact with this role then you cannot ask questions at this stage). Role of Subject Coordinator: 1. To play the role of FOA and answer any questions asked by the SOCOs to the FOA. 2. To provide the results of any at-scene test done by the SOCO’s. Play the role of the SOCO’s eyes in providing information about specific items relevant to the nature of the questions being asked, e.g. are there fingerprints on the door handle?

Wk5 Interact component: Who: Lab technicians What: If a group has more than one lab technician then they must first decide which area they wish to specialise in e.g. Body fluids or recoverable materials etc (together you must ensure that all necessary evidence types are covered). Identify what evidence from the SOCOs report your area of speciality should analyse. Identify the technologies used, the information it would provide and any limitations of the technology or process (e.g. if the sample was degraded would the technology still be suitable? Was quantity an issue?). Indicate how your analysis might inform the analysis done by other lab areas. Lab technicians may also ask SOCOs for further information on a piece of evidence they gathered if they feel it is relevant to their analysis.Role of others: SOCOs should respond to any questions posed by the lab techs as appropriate. Other members should view the reports and correspondence from other roles and think of any information that may have been missed.Role of Subject Coordinator: Lab equipment and database. The subject coordinator will provide the lab techs with the results of any analyses they select to perform on the evidence they have been provided.

Summary: Evaluation Rubric

• Learning outcomes and assessment• Student – faculty contact

• Chat in teams and general page• Phone and email

• Encourages cooperation among students• Team work based• Facilitated peer learning• Each student had level of responsibility to other students

• Encourages active learning• Enabled students to connect theory with practice and discussion different views on

choice of actions

• Prompt feedback• From team members on regular basis and as part of formal procedures• From lecturer in response to emailed questions as well as the lecturer joining team

chat sessions

Summary: Evaluation Rubric

• Learning outcomes and assessment• Emphasizes time on task

• Needed to meet deadlines to ensure other team members could do their work• Time allocated was proportional to value of the task• Incorporation of life experiences and prior knowledge was facilitate for the benefit of the

individual and their team. • Communication of high expectations

• It was actually the student’s own drive to not let the team down that created an environment of high expectations

• Quality of work produced exceeded lecturer expectations• Respect diverse talents and ways of learning

• Content was provided as both text and audio• Encouraging peer learning gave all opportunity to demonstrate their strengths and use

them for the benefit of others.• Teams with mixed backgrounds ensured all experienced what different talents could

bring to a project

Summary: Evaluation Rubric

• Course look and fell and web usability• Consistency in tool use and presentation in

both general page and team pages.• Tool bars and tables of content linking wiki

pages were used to promote easy access to all areas.

Summary: Evaluation Rubric

• Learner support• The instructor was available on a daily basis

by email or phone• Institutional tech support was available 24

hours a day 7 days a week• Regular visits to each team site enabled

identification of issues and potential problems early and thus facilitate introduction of preventive measure.

But Did It Work

• ST6 ”I felt that due to my previous involvement in criminal investigations and court procedures I was able to contribute heavily in this respect. I was however surprised that I was so willing to spend time and effort to share my knowledge with the group. Hopefully this interaction has assisted in the overall learning effort of the team. “

Acknowledgements

• Assoc Prof. Lyn Angel and Dr. Heather Cavanagh• CSU technical support and Interact pilot trial

team• Prof. Ross Chambers and Dr. John Harper• Members of the School of Biomedical Sciences

and School of Humanities and Social Sciences• The Students of FSC 200