Andrea Crampton Twsia


Published on

Presentation from Teaching With Sakai Innovation Award first place winner.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • First run out of our school in 2006, as a distance only course in traditional format of here is your study guide, go buy this text and on these dates send me your answers to these questions……….student/lecturer interaction was minimal more to do with extensions and excuses than education…………..not me……..was actually a fill in staff member. Probably suited many students perfectly………but did it promote the skills needed for the field, did it promote skills for live long learning…..etcThe rest of this presentation will focus on FSC200 in 2007 the year in which it was run as both internal and distance class. This year there were not enough students for a internal cohort so they were moved to distance
  • Some with 20 year experience….knew what and how but not always the full why……….Great chance for police and scientist to talk……..and get a better view on each others priorities in lifeIn promoting the skills also gave students and opportunity to realise how they felt about team work as if did not like it then may need to rethink their chosen path..Get the students active in the learning process……get them to think during the semester not just at exams…….and make it enjoyable.
  • all about students learning how to learn within the discipline and learning though active engagement with the material and with instructor acting as a guide rather than the keeper of all knowledge to be delt out as required. This approace facilitates the incoproration of peer learning, another key component giving the students skills for life long learning……….
  • Virtual lectures available to all students still 100 % attendanceIncluding micheal, former student, consultant etc……..Give example of virtual lecture apart from interact page
  • Show wiki, chat, presence, resources eg virtual lecture. In wiki show news and table creation
  • Cute tool, I could talk about it all day but in the end Interact is just a tool…………and I had students paying for an education not a tech show…Scripting is edu speak for defining their role and thus how interacts both in relation to content and time. In this case there were 4 roles – FOA, SOCCO (2 individuals), lab tech and lab manager (in 2008 god rid of lab manager and in 2009 no foa). All of the police students were given lab roles and all scientist given police roles………they thought I had made a mistake as to them it made sence to be in their existing or future roles……….1st assessment task not on interact was to research the role……… they knew the type of info they should collect and whenSome may say that scripting means this was not a pure constructionist approach as there were some bounds on who could speak when ie they were restiricted to topics and times that match their role but I have found that this deviation if is one is positive as it confers a level of responsibility they know that others are rtelyin on them to do their job………this responsibility seems to get even the least motivated students to be active……further giventhe cohort it works with their already strong team work leanings and preference for boundaries and protocols be it on the streets as police or in the labs.
  • In 2007 3d of body in office could scan room etc……..2008 student set up with pics in word doc etcOnce scneario given to Foa I then acted as witness, eyes and ears and thus they had to ask me what they are seeing………the quality of those wquestiosn affected the team performance……once the Foa had gotten their info ~1 week they put up a report on group page this most often included a scetch of the scene, next the soccos came into play and they quized the foa via chat and looked at sketches and crime scene they also asked me questions as their eyes and ears, they then sent their evidence list to the lab……who asked them for clarrification including such things as where are the control samples………..guided by lab manager…….The assessment task included their report showing what and why they did what they did as well as a log of their communicaiton and interaction…….Once all in - breaking in case – no roles just one team…….this is where peer learning came in as before this the police students had to keep quiet about what the foa and soccos were getting wrong…………now the scientist could learn from the police as they went through the secondary scene and the police could see the missing science links…Then had group forensic report
  • Show foyled and wikiKey thing from constructionist point is that the students controlled what and when they communicatedShow anthony new contribution as police officer
  • Note that in the same 3 month period there was only 24 hrs of lectures scheduled of which only 20 used do the students had more synchronous contact time then if they were internal and at lectures………Was surprised that most chat was in work time, perhaps using computers at work….3 chats from 5am -8am5 chats 5pm-9pm (several parents)3 chats from 9pm-midnight (shift workers)NOTE 2007 data
  • Important to note that the internals could not only talk to each other as there were in blended groups.Within the literature it has been suggested that the preference for asyn over syn is realted to personality with extroverts preferring the more social format of synchronous……… this case it is more likely thatFor the distance their preference for asynchronous was that it fitted with the flexibility that they need when juggling other commitments such as work. Also only way for the shift workers to communication with non shift workers.
  • 3 groups……..evident…….. For some all memebers were either tech savy or tech proficient and thus all contributed tot eh direct writing of the report on the wiki (the program keeps a log so you can see who when and what) In one group only one person wrote the report on the wiki (someone working in computer forensics) with the other students providing quality submission as work documents of in chat…… Again how this was done was up to the students and part of team work and work loadSome groups only had 10 version………one group this year have 145Note all got same grade………..unless I perceived somoen had not pulled their weight in which case I suggested a % reduction eg 85% of team grade but let the team comment on my suggestion……….never did they argue for less… one case for more for the person as they felt that the person early inputs were of such high quality that it gave them solid foundations.
  • 2008 34% response rate, 13 studetns so 8% =1 studentVSA= very strongly agree, SA strongly agree, A= agree, U = uncertain, D = disagree, Sd strongly disagree, VSD very strongly disagree2007 27% response rate only 8 studentsSo in general the interact driven teaching was liked. For me it’s the bottom line that I have been really happy with……….as it indicates that what is being covered is seen as relevant to those in the field or directly training in the field…………
  • First 2 from reflective essays …… last one is from comment on official evalution
  • It seems my aim of developing teamwork skills and mirroring the workplace was achieved
  • Here is example of learning material layout for 1st 3 weeks
  • Meet 7 goals for good practice in undergraduate educationChat room interation was in both the class site and team site of afforeded unplanned acasual interactoins as well as more formal interactions.Mode of interaction – for some this meant synchronso chat sessions at a scheduloed time, for other is was extra tema due dates for discussionsStrengths- be it experience working with forensic cases or technical experience in some groups eveyoone was comfortable with the technology in another group there were seveal technophobbes but on etech expert……. From cyber forensics force and thus that person wrote the wiki from the contribution of others
  • Eg, 2 week for 2Assessment structure ensured that all students had the same amount of time and resource access to complete the task0% part and 3 weeks for 30%Students had to reflect on the contribution of each team member to determine if all should receive the same grade
  • Note due to the nature of the students this did include when I was on leave for long weekends as that was sometimes when the students who generalyy worked fulltime had a bulk of time to give to the projectIn some istance a student from one group and I would work through a technical issues that they discovered and then either I or them would put the tip up on the general class page.
  • Not even for their own benefit but for the benefit of all
  • Andrea Crampton Twsia

    1. 1. Sakai and its application to teaching forensic science across geography, time, profession and generation divides.<br />Dr. Andrea Crampton<br />Charles Sturt University<br />Australia<br />
    2. 2.
    3. 3. How to use Sakai and contemporary pedagogy to construct an industry relevant dynamic learning environment.<br />
    4. 4. FSC 200- Introduction to Forensic Science<br />Courses Served<br />BMedSc/BForensicBiotech; Bachelor of Policing; BMedSci/BBiotech(Med-App); BPolicing(Investigations); BSc; Bachelor of Arts; BForensicBiotech <br />Enrolments<br />2007 : 37 ;7 Internal (AV age 19.5), 30 Distance (AV age 31.7)<br />2008 : 27 all distance<br />
    5. 5. My Aim<br />Utilise the knowledge and skills of the experienced students in the class<br />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<br />Promote the development of key teamwork skills<br />Encourage deeper learning<br />
    6. 6. Pedagogical Approach<br />Constructionists<br />Guide on the side, student centred, active learning<br />
    7. 7. Content Delivery<br />Text book – Jackson and Jackson : Forensic Science.<br />Lectures – live and virtual <br />Podcasts – Interviews with industry members<br />Wiki –News, tutorials and class records (fingerprint patterns)<br /> All hosted on CSU version of Sakai called Interact<br />
    8. 8. FSC 200 – Sakai Site<br />
    9. 9. Tool + Aim<br />Scenario driven group assessment<br />9 teams of 4-5 students<br />Each team own Interact Site<br />Each team member given a role – “scripting”<br />FOA, SOCO, Lab Tech, Lab Manager<br />
    10. 10. The Scenario<br />Assessment 1 – Define role <br />Scenario given to FOA<br />Assessment 2- Action within role and communication with group<br />Break in Case -2nd scene/suspect<br />Roles suspended, one team<br />Group forensic report written as wiki<br />
    11. 11.
    12. 12. A 2008 Group Page<br />
    13. 13. How The Tools Were Actually Used<br />Chat<br />736 messages in 3 months<br />Asynchronous and Synchronous<br />7/9 groups at least 1 synchronous session<br />36 hr 38 mins synchronous <br />76% 8am-5pm<br />
    14. 14. Asynchronous<br />Distance – 24 messages/ student<br />Internal – 13 messages/student<br />
    15. 15. Group Forensic Report<br />Wiki<br />Tech Savy<br /> Tech proficient<br />Tech phobic<br />
    16. 16. I loved it, but what about the students?<br />Evaluation, use and perceptions<br />Reflective essay as last assessment item<br />Official evaluations<br />Comments made in chat or sent via email<br />
    17. 17. Official Evaluations<br />
    18. 18. Interact In Their Words!<br />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.”<br /> <br />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.”<br />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.<br />
    19. 19. The Scenario/Constructionist Approach<br />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”<br /> <br />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.” <br />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”<br />
    20. 20. Summary: Evaluation Rubric<br />Communication and collaboration<br />30% of student assessment required ongoing communication and collaboration.<br />Students were given the opportunity to reflect on their actions when the group came together and peer learning and feedback was encouraged.<br />
    21. 21. Summary: Evaluation Rubric<br />Learning Material<br />Subject outline was provided in print and online and include a table showing which role had to do what when.<br />Virtual tutorial using screen capture was created to guide students in how to set up and contribute to a wiki.<br />
    22. 22.  <br />
    23. 23. Summary: Evaluation Rubric<br />Learning outcomes and assessment<br />Student – faculty contact<br />Chat in teams and general page<br />Phone and email<br />Encourages cooperation among students<br />Team work based<br />Facilitated peer learning<br />Each student had level of responsibility to other students<br />Encourages active learning<br />Enabled students to connect theory with practice and discussion different views on choice of actions<br />Prompt feedback<br />From team members on regular basis and as part of formal procedures<br />From lecturer in response to emailed questions as well as the lecturer joining team chat sessions<br />
    24. 24. Summary: Evaluation Rubric<br />Learning outcomes and assessment<br />Emphasizes time on task<br />Needed to meet deadlines to ensure other team members could do their work<br />Time allocated was proportional to value of the task<br />Incorporation of life experiences and prior knowledge was facilitate for the benefit of the individual and their team. <br />Communication of high expectations<br />It was actually the student’s own drive to not let the team down that created an environment of high expectations<br />Quality of work produced exceeded lecturer expectations<br />Respect diverse talents and ways of learning<br />Content was provided as both text and audio<br />Encouraging peer learning gave all opportunity to demonstrate their strengths and use them for the benefit of others.<br />Teams with mixed backgrounds ensured all experienced what different talents could bring to a project<br />
    25. 25. Summary: Evaluation Rubric<br />Course look and fell and web usability<br />Consistency in tool use and presentation in both general page and team pages.<br />Tool bars and tables of content linking wiki pages were used to promote easy access to all areas. <br />
    26. 26. Summary: Evaluation Rubric<br />Learner support<br />The instructor was available on a daily basis by email or phone<br />Institutional tech support was available 24 hours a day 7 days a week<br />Regular visits to each team site enabled identification of issues and potential problems early and thus facilitate introduction of preventive measure. <br />
    27. 27. But Did It Work<br />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. “<br />
    28. 28. Acknowledgements<br />Assoc Prof. Lyn Angel and Dr. Heather Cavanagh<br />CSU technical support and Interact pilot trial team<br />Prof. Ross Chambers and Dr. John Harper<br />Members of the School of Biomedical Sciences and School of Humanities and Social Sciences<br />The Students of FSC 200<br />