Teaching with Sakai Innovation Award:
2009
Award Status:
First Place
This subject is designed to introduce the concepts, disciplines and principles of the forensic sciences in their application to modern policing practices and justice. Topics include the history of forensic science, an overview of the commonly utilised scientific disciplines (e.g. forensic biology, medicine, pathology, odontology, anthropology, toxicology, chemistry, psychology, document examination, ballistics, and crime scene), the use and implications of forensic databases, ethical issues and federal legislation (the forensic procedures model for the collecting of forensic evidence), the skills involved in scientific analysis (observation, interpretation, record keeping, report writing, expert testimony), work environment health and safety issues and accreditation procedures and quality assurance.
6. Objectives
Upon successful completion of this subject, students should:
* appreciate the diversity of the forensic disciplines
Course Information Course Length (number of weeks):
13
Course Delivery Mode:
Other (please describe below)
Describe Other Delivery Mode:
Some students are In-Class but the majority are distance only with no face to face
Average Number of Enrolled Students:
Between 30 and 60 students
Course Level:
College/University
Course Development & Delivery Course Contributors:
Original course developers
Dr. Paul Roffey and Mr Michael Liddy
All sakai related components and scenario assessment item were developed by.
Dr Andrea Crampton
Course Development:
I originally planed a team based group assessment based on a fictitious crime scene scenario with the group work conducted by email, asynchronous forums and file exchange. I was then given the opportunity to be a pilot user of Sakai within our university resulting in a flood of opportunities. I kept the team approach but now in line with constructionist principals I was able to give each team their own site to collaborate through. File exchange was not via resources, communication within the groups could be synchronous or asynchronous via the chat tool and the final assessment item, group forensic report was created in a wiki. I based 30% of the student’s assessment on Sakai mediated activities
There were less technical hurdles then I expected and that was in part due to the support of the local IT as well as the willingness of the students to work through issues themselves and share the solutions to technical issues. Two students did drop out of the subject in response to the use of the Sakai platform as they felt their computer skills were not up to the required level for constructive contributions to their group work. Both of the students noted that this was the way of the future and thus they needed to take an additional computer course to improve their confidence with technology. The students were offered one-on-one assistance but still felt that they might let their team down and thus did not want to proceed.
The content of the course was delivered internally as standard lectures and externally via traditional reading packages and a study guide. However both the internal and distance cohorts were treated as the one cohort within the Sakai environment and both were given access to virtual lectures (identical to the internal lecture but presented as voice over powerpoints), podcast etc. This combined approach helped the student bridge the cohort divide. Additionally the individual teams contained a mixture of internal based and distance students; an advantage of this in the pilot environment was that each group had a member who was local and who could come to my office to work through any technical issues or training. Mixing of internal and external also meant that students with different life experiences and from across different courses were put together to facilitate peer learning.
Course Delivery:
The learning environment was split into 2 key section the main class page and group pages. Main class page The class page was a “one-stop shop” with links to resources held in the library, subject outlines, a shared calendar for due dates, a resources section containing virtual lectures podcast interviews with forensic specialists, chat tool, wiki, blog and an announcement area for messages from the lecturer. The class wiki had several uses, in one instance; it was used to create a table of fingerprint patterns to which students could contribute in their own time. This enabled the generation of information on proportions of certain fingerprint types across the class regardless of location. The central chat section was used by lecturer and students to communicate technical fixes, assessment clarification and contribute to content-related discussions. Collaborative group learning The students’ main use of Interact was in their group pages, it was here that the ability of Sakai to facilitate a constructionist approach to education was maximised as the students had full control of their group sites. The students decided how they were going to interact, when and with which tool; the instructor facilitated the discussion as needed and provided technical assistance. The ceding of control to the students was designed to enhance their participation and is in line with the constructionist principle of students having control over their learning. Each group, contained 4 to 5 students and their interactions scripted with each student given 1 of 4 roles to play in relation to a crime scene scenario with the end point being the construction of a group forensic report in the wiki. One student was given the role of “first on scene officer” (FOA), whose task was to provide other students, as appropriate to their roles, information on the crime scene including sketches, questions asked of witnesses, actions taken once they arrived at the scene and key observations. This information was communicated to the next role most often via the chat room and the sharing of images via the resource section. The next students were given the role of “scene of crime officers” (SOCOs) with each group having two SOCOs. The SOCOs had to communicate with the FOA about the crime scene and with each other to determine how tasks should be divided. The two remaining roles were lab technician and lab manager who could only use the information provided by the SOCOs and answers to specific technical queries supplied by the lecturer, they did not have access to the crime scene images, nor could they hypothetically analyse evidence that had not been collected by the others’ roles. After each role had completed their section of the investigation the group was able to come together outside the confines of their designated roles to work on fresh evidence needed to solve the case. Allowing students to come out of their designated roles enhanced peer learning as the more experienced students were free to discuss issues will all other members of the group regardless of their role in the initial stages of the investigation.
--
Course Self-Assessment Communication & Collaboration Self-Assessment:
Excellent
Communication & Collaboration Evidence:
30% of student assessment required them to collaborate with other students within a scenario set up to facilate the construction of a group report.
Learning Material Self-Assessment:
Excellent
Learning Material Evidence:
All student received a printed outline with the assement item and its requirments clearly indicated in a week by week table. The information was also available in the online subject outline and reiterated on the class Sakai site.
I also constructed a "how to write a wiki" training tool via video screen capture using captivate. This tool was specfic for their forensic report.
Learning Outcomes & Assessment Self-Assessment:
Excellent
Learning Outcomes & Assessment Evidence:
The goals and outcomes were clearly stated in the assessment requirements and within the description for the scenario. Further the course met all 7 principals for good practice in undergraduate education.
1. Interaction between students and instuctor and peers was facilitate both via the general class page (in chat section and announcements) and the group pages as studetns interacted with each other and instructor "dropped in" on regular occassions. Further, the instructor communicatied via email and phone.
2.The scenario set up gave students a sence of responsibility within their team and a knowledge that the quality of their work would affect the quality of those that followed them. This lead to peer support and cooperation amongst the students
3.The scenario assessment item was designed to enable the studetns to connect the theory with practice and thus activly apply what they were learning. As the students came from diverse backgrounds they oftern interpreted things differently and thus deeper exploration of issues was enabled through the ensuing discussions. The studetns also used various tools including asynchronous and synchronous chat to effect these discussions.
4. Half way through the scenario studetns a free to interact outside the confines of their roles. As the police students were given science based roles and the science police based roles by letting them talk outside their roels they could bring their life experiences into the group and thus provide each other with valuable feedback on how they had performed in their roles.
5.Interactions and collaboration had to follow a strict timetable to ensure equality and that the task was complete on time. Students developed models of interaction that suited members (for some this was scheduled online meetings, for others this was weekly due dates with asynchronous discussion across time zones).
6. Students were informed that failure to be active member of the team would result in failure of the subject. Further fellow team members were given the opportunity to identify it a team member had not contributed sufficiently.
7. Some students were tech savy and comfortable with the environment others were not. Students were given the freedom to work on each others strengths, in some cases many people contribute knowledge for the wiki but only one person was responsible for typing the infomation into the wiki. Whilst in other groups there were 147 versions of the wiki equally authored by all team members.
Course Look & Feel, Web Usability Self-Assessment:
Excellent
Course Look & Feel, Web Usability Evidence:
The same tools were used in the class pages and in the team pages, promoting consistency. Content was presented as audio as well as text based information. Navigation was simplified by tool bars and in some groups a wiki based table of contents
Learner Support Self-Assessment:
Excellent
Learner Support Evidence:
The instructor was available on a daily basis and by mobile in the case of an emergency. Further the institute technical support was available to students 24 hours a day. As the scenario required the instuctor to be activly involved many potential issues of both content and technical were addressed before they became problems. Being able to "drop in" on multiple isolate team sites eanbled the instructor to note patterns of concern or missunderstanding.
Teaching Innovation Teaching Innovation:
My use demonstrates Sakai's abiliyt to facilate constructive collaboration across many barriers, including physical (distant and internal), age (from 19-52) course path (scientists and police) and level of life experience (from novice to expert).
The distance students felt they were actually being tuaght as opposed to buyying a reading package. those with life experience felt they were contributing something to society whilst still getting even more back.
I think these quotes generated from reflective assignments from the students tell it better (note Interact is the local version of Sakai):
ST5 “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.” ST6 ”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.” ST7“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” ST8“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.” ST9” 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”
And finally this quote sums up the advantage of the peer learning approach
ST10”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. “
