A Case-Based Scenario with Interdisciplinary ... - ACS Publications

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

A Case-Based Scenario with Interdisciplinary Guided-Inquiry in Chemistry and Biology: Experiences of First Year Forensic Science Students Sarah L. Cresswell and Wendy A. Loughlin* School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: In this paper, insight into forensic science students’ experiences of a case-based scenario with an interdisciplinary guided-inquiry experience in chemistry and biology is presented. Evaluation of student experiences and interest showed that the students were engaged with all aspects of the case-based scenario, including the curriculum theory components as well as the active learning within interdisciplinary laboratories. Working in groups of three during laboratories was favored by students, but mixed responses for group assessment were observed. Since the introduction of the case-based scenario, sustained improvements in student assessment outcomes were observed. Questionnaire respondents indicated a strong interest in case-based learning. We propose a methodology framework for the case-based scenario investigation in forensic science and discuss the student experiences and improved learning occurring with the scenario involving an interdisciplinary guided-inquiry experience in chemistry and biology. This work suggests that an interdisciplinary guided-inquiry learning approach, ideally contextualized within a case-based scenario, is adaptable to other science discipline combinations. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Forensic Chemistry In this study, we will examine a “crime scene” case-based scenario in the context of training forensic science first year students. The laboratory procedures in chemistry and biology that support the case-based scenario have been detailed in a previous study24 (Figure S1). In this study, the “forensic casebased scenario” included learning activities, such as guidedinquiry laboratory sessions and writing of a witness statement of “expert evidence” as a forensic scientist. The aim of the casebased scenario was to provide active student engagement and participation in the learning processes and to develop forensic science skills and training in students from the first year of study. In this study, we consider the implementation and assessment of the case-based scenario and the students’ academic outcomes and investigate the perceived general interest of students in their forensic science courses as a result of their experience of the casebased scenario.

T

he continued trend of increasing student enrollments in forensic science tertiary education programs over the past 10−15 years1,2 has stimulated the design of “fit-for-purpose” forensic science programs of study and discussion of current issues in teaching of forensic science.3−6 Forensic science is an ideal vehicle for problem scenario learning through guidedinquiry. Guided-inquiry7 uses a problem scenario which is placed in a real-world context and challenges students to develop skills in analysis/problem solving, group work, and application of knowledge.8,9 Evaluations of student perceptions of learning processes support curriculum design which promotes leaning by doing10 and discovery-oriented inquiry.11 In the higher education sector inquiry-based learning is a widely advocated pedagogical approach,12 and conceptual frameworks, models, and developmental rubrics have been used toward curriculum implementation.7 There are many examples described in the literature of guided-inquiry, and the related problem-based learning, for the areas of chemistry and biology, but it should be noted that such examples are usually oriented toward a single science discipline, for example: organic, inorganic, and physical chemistry;13−18 analytical chemistry;19 and spectroscopy.20 Training a forensic scientist requires a solid grounding in science, in particular chemistry and molecular biology,21 development of communication, teamwork, problem solving, and analytical thinking. It is preferable that this interdisciplinary training occurs from the start of the program of study and forms essential skills for forensic science graduates.22,23 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

METHODOLOGY

Course Structure

Prior to the introduction of the case-based scenario in 2010, the course was solely composed of 2 h of lecture per week for 13 weeks, focused on explanation and discussion of the principles of Received: October 27, 2016 Revised: May 16, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00827 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Course introduction (lecture); crime scene (tutorial); presumptive tests (lecture); sampling (tutorial); intro to DNA (lecture and tutorial); intro to chromatography (lecture); instrumental chromatography (lecture); roadside testing (tutorial); illicit drugs analysis (lecture); DNA 2 (lecture); laboratory (laboratory)

Laboratory (laboratory)


2.1. Explain why it is necessary to collect samples from crime scenes and to subsample these items in a laboratory prior to analysis

3.1. Package and label items recovered from a crime scene in a way which sets up and maintains the continuity of this evidence prior to presentation in court.

3.2. Identify correct/incorrect packaging and labeling methods for a variety of crime scene samples and understand the impact of any such errors on the evidential validity of the items.

B

a

4.1. Work effectively in a group in a laboratory setting


Writing a statement (lecture); writing a statement (tutorial); crime scene photography (tutorial); laboratory (laboratory)


Presumptive tests (lecture); sampling (tutorial); intro to DNA (lecture and tutorial); introduction to chromatography (lecture); instrumental chromatography (lecture); roadside testing (tutorial); DNA 2 (lecture and tutorial); DNA 3 (lecture and tutorial); laboratory (laboratory) Laboratory (laboratory)

2.2. Explain the reasoning involved in selecting the appropriate tests for the samples collected from a crime scene.

3.3. Perform basic laboratory analysis of chemical and biological crime scene samples. 3.4. Keep appropriate laboratory notebooks containing contemporaneous notes about the steps, processes, and results obtained from analyses in handwritten form. 3.5. Formally express results and interpreted opinion from your analyses in a formal legal statement for evidential purposes.

Intro to DNA (lecture and tutorial); intro to chromatography (lecture); instrumental chromatography (lecture); roadside testing (tutorial); illicit drug analysis (lecture); DNA 2 (lecture and tutorial); DNA 3 (lecture and tutorial); laboratory (laboratory)

1.3. Describe the laboratory processes used in the analysis of crime scene evidence by both forensic chemists and forensic biologists.

Desired learning outcomes are content based outcomes (1.1−1.3); cognitive-based outcomes (2.1−2.2); application outcomes (3.1−3.5), and nonassessable (4.1).

For students to experience teamwork

The role and limitations of presumptive testing, culminating in confirmatory chemical testing and DNA profiling and comparison


1.2. Explain how to collect appropriate samples from a crime scene and how to package and label them correctly.

Importance of identification, collection, preservation, and continuity of items of evidentiary value (evidence)

Learning Activities (Venue)

1.1. Explain the importance of the chain of custody in ensuring the provenance of forensic evidence.

Broad understanding of how crime scenes are defined recorded

Course introduction (lecture); crime scene (tutorial); DNA 2 (tutorial); laboratory (laboratory)

Desired Learning Outcomesa

Overarching Aims

Table 1. Aims, Desired Learning Outcomes, Learning Activities, and Assessments for Case-Based Scenario Course Assessment

Statement for court (practicebased assignment) Statement for court (practicebased assignment)

Group laboratory reports Group laboratory reports

Quiz in tutorial session End of semester written exam Group laboratory reports Quiz in tutorial session End of semester written exam Group laboratory reports Quiz in tutorial session End of semester written exam Quiz in tutorial session Group laboratory reports Quiz in tutorial session Group laboratory reports Quiz in tutorial session End of semester written exam Group laboratory reports End of semester written exam

Journal of Chemical Education Article


Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. Stage of methodology of investigation for case-based scenario in forensic science and assessment stages. Design stage (red box) determined by teaching staff.

forensic investigation in a science context. Theory was assessed by semester exams, which were allocated significant assessment weightings. Attendance was variable at lectures. The course described in this study is a year 1, semester 2 course, taught over the past 6 years to first year forensic science students. The students were provided with a learning environment which adopted a forensic case-based approach where students were taken from the crime scene to analysis of samples using chemistry and biology techniques in the laboratory, through to the preparation of a witness statement of expert evidence for court. The curriculum was composed of 1 h per week of lectures and 1 h per week of tutorials for a 13 week semester aligned with five 2 h guided-inquiry laboratories, taking into consideration student cognitive load and prior scientific knowledge. The assessment types are detailed in Table 1 and are composed of quizzes (15%), laboratory reports (20%), a witness statement for court (20%), and an end-of-semester examination (45%).

Table 2. Example of Evidence Provided to One Student Group for Case-Based Scenario Item Description

Where Found? Or Who from?

Lab Class,a Item Used in

2015-07-1001

Point of entry stain

2, 4, 5

2015-07-1005

Suspected drug samplec

2015-07-2000

DNA reference sample

2015-07-2001


2015-07-2002


2015-07-2003


Broken window at Wilson Pharmacy,b Nathan Qld 4111 On living room table at 4 Mike Mews,d Fairfield, Qld 4103 Arthur Bravo d.o.b.25.09.85 of 4 Mike Mews, Fairfield, Qld 4103 Chris Delta d.o.b.21.02.86 of 4 Mike Mews, Fairfield, Qld 4103 Edward Foxtrot d.o.b.22.01.84 of 4 Mike Mews, Fairfield, Qld 4103 Gareth Hotel d.o.b.18.07.87 of 4 Mike Mews, Fairfield, Qld 4103

Item Number

Case-Based Scenario

In the design of the case-based scenario we considered the methodology of problem solving as investigation,25 which is designed to solve authentic problems, including open-ended experimental problems. A modification of this framework reflects the methodology and stages of assessment using guided-inquiry within the case-based scenario (see Figure 1). The ways in which our proposal differs from previous scientific models26−28 are the absence of formation of a hypothesis (due to potential bias in a forensic case) and an additional summative conclusion level (the witness statement of expert evidence) that integrates the forensic and legal aspects with the interdisciplinary science (chemistry and biology). In the first lecture the students are introduced to the casebased scenario (Figure 1) with a police press release (Figure S2) and then given details of the learning activities (Table 1). During the laboratory sessions, students receive six sealed evidence bags that are appropriately labeled (Table 2). During the whole methodology process the lecturer/tutor/laboratory demonstra-

2, 3

4, 5

4, 5

4, 5

4, 5

a

Laboratory class sessions are described in Table S1. bThere are six different names and addresses for the pharmacies. cThe drug provided to students is one of codeine, morphine, or amphetamine. dThere are six different addresses for the house shared by the four suspects. Six suspect addresses × 6 pharmacy addresses × 3 suspected drugs × 4 suspect names = 432 unique cases for 432 student laboratory groups (3 students per group).

tor guides the students toward an inquiry approach during learning activities (lectures, tutorials, and laboratories; Table 1). Lectures and tutorials were used to explain investigative knowledge and methods from the crime scene to the forensic laboratory, each week, as the scientific theory behind the laboratory techniques used in the case study, by describing how crime scenes are defined and recorded, the importance of C



Article

identification, collection, preservation,29 and continuity of items of evidentiary value (evidence), and the role and limitations of presumptive testing,30 culminating in confirmatory chemical testing and DNA profiling31 and comparison (Table 1). During prelaboratory activities, students were introduced to the concept of a “forensic case” through lectures, followed by a crime scene tutorial in the first “laboratory session” (Tables 1 and S1). Tutorials were focused toward problem solving activities for the theory related to the case-based scenario. For the laboratory sessions, students were assigned to groups of four (2010) and groups of three (2011−2015), based on their discipline interest (science or criminology; biology or chemistry), and worked in the group for all the laboratory sessions. Each group was given a unique “forensic case” with four suspects (Figure 1). Multiple unique “forensic cases” were generated using three drugs (codeine, morphine, amphetamine), four suspects (Arthur Bravo; Christopher Delta, Edward Foxtrot and Gareth Hotel), six pharmacy locations, and six suspect addresses (fictitious or real street addresses) (Figure 1). An illustrative example is given in Table 2. This approach can generate up to 432 laboratory groups with individual forensic cases. By changing the details and number of the pharmacy locations each year, sharing between years was avoided and adjustment for variable student cohort sizes was readily achieved. The format has been successful for six years. The inclusion of group work and group assessment was deliberate, as it placed students in a teamwork environment and facilitated improved feedback timeframes for assessment. Membership of groups was randomly assigned in terms of their previous achievement, so as to partially reflect a workplace team environment. The ability to work in a team is an employability skill identified by employers,11 and the positive aspects and impediments to group work and assessment of group work are discussed elsewhere.32 The assessment weighting for each group laboratory report was low (5 or 10% per report; combined total mark 20% for all three lab reports), and each group member was required to have a rotating role within the group and critique the analyses of the other group members, allowing assessment adjustment for individual group members and thus minimizing the impact of free-riders on assessment. The stages of testing, data collection, and result analysis (Figure 1) were enacted in the guided-inquiry laboratory sessions. The chemistry and biology experiments underpinning the analyses, as described previously,24 were carried out in four two-weekly laboratory sessions (numbers two to five, Table S1). The collective information allowed students to reach conclusions regarding the identification of the drug samples and suspect samples. Floating facilitation in the 2 h laboratory guided-inquiry sessions was carried out by postgraduate demonstrators with forensic discipline expertise and a member of staff, maintaining a staff:student ratio of 1:9. Prior to the laboratory session, staff were inducted around guided-inquiry teaching approaches and during the face-to-face laboratory sessions staff adopted scientific guided-inquiry teaching approaches.33 The guided-inquiry laboratory results and conclusions were already known to the instructor, but the outcomes are undetermined for the students. The laboratory staff would proactively question the students, not provide the answers, provide rationale for the laboratory activities (scientific and constructivist), provide guidance about milestones in the inquiry, and thus guide students in their laboratory work, facilitate inquiry thinking, and challenge students to identify the interrelationships between the experimental results from the laboratory sessions. For example,

the TLC analysis in session three should support the identification of the class of drug from session two. After completion of the laboratory session, the students handed in a group report, for which a group mark was assigned to all students in the group. Detailed written feedback on the reports from one session was provided at the start of the next session and was based on a first-year level group assessment criteria rubric for the guided-inquiry laboratory (Table S2). During the postlaboratory activity (Table S1), students prepared a final report: a witness statement of “expert evidence” about their involvement in the case suitable for presentation in a Queensland Court of Law (Figure S3). Guidance was provided in a lecture and three tutorials regarding preparation of the individual witness statement, including fact presentation, written expression, issues of assumptions and bias, and student FAQs, and a rubric (summarized in Table S3) was available online for additional guidance. Written feedback was provided to students. Evaluation

This paper reports on student cohort results from 2010, 2011 (the first two years of implementation of the case-based scenario), and 2015; typically, 77−92 students per cohort. At the end of their course, after the results had been released, students were asked to carry out self-assessment by answering a questionnaire on the curriculum elements of the case-based scenario and which identified their level of interest in forensic science. The former was evaluated by asking questions related to the course components (theory, laboratory, case-based scenario), delivery (instructors and written instructions), and assessment (laboratory group work, witness statement). The questionnaire was administered in paper form with reply paid envelopes and completed at the end of the course by students who were enrolled. Questionnaires were sent to all enrolled students, without prior recruitment or motivation calls. While the paper mail approach improved student confidentiality, lower response rates of 12−25% were obtained; this was typical of other studies.34 The questionnaire had 25 closed Likert-type questions (Table S4) followed by five open-ended questions, which sought student feedback on enjoyable aspects of the course, improvements to the course, and further comments on aspects students graded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” within the 25 close-ended questions. Paired questions were distributed through the survey to provide correlated questions and negative correlated questions. The questionnaire was designed considering existing literature on question and questionnaire design.35 The questionnaire treated the laboratory sessions as one learning experience and so did not differentiate between the individual laboratory sessions. The students were all first-year undergraduates. Student demographic data on gender, age, and ethnicity was not included on the questionnaire so the data could not be analyzed for these variables. The data from the 25 closed Likert-type questions and open-ended comments for course cohorts was tabulated into Microsoft Excel or NVivo 1036 for processing and analysis. Keywords (obtained from NVivo analysis) from the open-ended comments were tabulated along with word frequency (Tables 3 and 4), for the questions “What were the most enjoyable aspects of the course” and “For aspects you graded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ please give details”, and “What were the least enjoyable aspects of the course” and “For aspects you graded ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly Disagree’ please give details”. All students were asked to participate in the study and gave their informed consent before participating in the research and for the researchers’ use of D



Article

the study were the educational case-study approach, which focused on a single course within a degree program; the questionnaire was optional not compulsory for students; and the introduction of active learning is likely to be more enjoyable for students.37 The aggregated collection of student data in this study prevented statistical analysis for individual student academic outcomes. The individual assessment items, which are summed together for the final grade, remained the same for the years 2010−2015.

Table 3. Frequent Keywords in Individual Student Responses to Open-Ended Comments: Most Enjoyable Aspects Keywords for Most Enjoyable Aspects of the Course

Frequency of Areas Graded Agree/ Strongly Agree (n = 62)

Lab/laboratory Learning/understanding Case/scenario Knowledge/content Enjoyable/enjoyed Interesting/interested Fun/great/fantastic Practical/hands-on Forensic science Lectures/teaching

38 28 26 24 22 20 18 17 17 15

■

RESULTS The students were surveyed for their experiences of curriculum elements of the case-study scenario and their perceived general interest in their forensic science course. The questionnaire data, albeit from a small representation of the cohort, was analyzed using themes as indicators of students’ direct experience of the case-based scenario: curriculum components, curriculum delivery, and assessment. Following are the results of this analysis. In addition, aggregated assessment data was analyzed.

Table 4. Frequent Keywords in Individual Student Response to Open-Ended Questions: Least Enjoyable Aspects Keywords for Least Enjoyable Aspects of the Course

Frequency of Areas Graded Disagree/ Strongly Disagree (n = 52)

Writing (group) lab reports Group work Exam/assessment Feedback Witness statement

29 21 9 6 5

Question 1: What Are Students’ Academic Outcomes and Experiences of the Curriculum Elements of the Case-Based Scenario?

Curriculum Components: Theory, Laboratory, and Case-Based Scenario. Analysis of the questionnaire (Q2, 12, 14, 16, 18−20, Table S4) indicated that most of the questionnaire respondents could use the theory to solve the case scenario in guided-inquiry and did not find the case-based scenario confusing. Questionnaire respondents indicated that the laboratory instructions in the manual were clear, and that the case-based scenario was appropriate to the level of knowledge of students. Curriculum Delivery: Laboratory Component. Analysis of the questionnaire (Q 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 21, Table S4) indicated that most of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed that laboratory instructors clearly explained the purpose of each of the laboratories at the start, demonstrated knowledge of the course materials, and indicated that the instructors treated students fairly and impartially during guided-inquiry laboratory sessions. The importance of staff availability and approachability was

individuals’ existing data for research purposes. Students’ participation was voluntary. All student data was deidentified by an independent person prior to analysis and stored in a secure location. To maintain confidentiality, participants’ names were not revealed and all data was aggregated. Limitations

A statistical analysis of the questionnaire data was not carried out on the annual aggregated questionnaire data due to the low response rate (12−25%). These questionnaire response rates were the best that could be obtained with the cohorts; however, the lower values for the response rate limited the analysis. In addition, the category limit of 5 used by typical statistical software (like SPSS) was not met in places. Other potential limitations of

Figure 2. Rating of student responses for assessment items: laboratory reports, group work, witness statement, and examination (agree = gray; strongly agree = black). E



Article

demonstrated in 2015, when a sessional biology laboratory demonstrator was unavailable, due to circumstances beyond their control, which resulted in a lower satisfaction in the survey response. Assessment Items: Laboratory Reports, Group Work, Witness Statement, and Examination. There were mixed responses to questions (Q4, 5, 17, Table S4) relating to assessment items of laboratory reports, group work, and writing the witness statement. In some years, half the student questionnaire respondent cohort thought it was good to work in groups, and in other years significant subcohorts were undecided or strongly disagreed/disagreed with group work (Figure 2). In contrast, many questionnaire respondents agreed/ strongly agreed that they preferred to write their own lab report rather than preparing a group report. However, there was a subgroup (typically ∼17% of respondents) that indicated they did not want to prepare individual reports (Q5, Table S4). Students’ responses were divided as to whether it was clear what was required in the laboratory reports, despite having access to detailed marking rubrics for the laboratory reports (Table S2). Most questionnaire respondents (Q 22, 23 Table S5) agreed/ strongly agreed that the witness statement tied all the gathered information together (for the case-based scenario). There was a varied response for the witness statement (Figure 2) which was not cohort specific.

Figure 4. Overall course grades from the years 2009−2015: where 7/ HD = grade of 7 equiv to High Distinction; 6/D = grade of 6 equiv to Distinction; 5/Cr = grade of 5 equiv to Credit; 4/P = grade of 4 equiv to Pass; ≤3/F = grade of 3 equiv to Fail.

with each other during 2009−2014, but were lowered in 2015. Performance in the course was consistent over the 2011−2015 time frame, despite the changes in admission standards. Prior (2009) to the introduction of the case-study guided-inquiry approach and in the pilot year (2010), more students failed the course (∼40%; Figure 4). The first year the curriculum changes were implemented (2010) included a larger number of repeat students from the previous year, as well laboratory group sizes of four rather than three. Subsequently, with a significant change in course time, a modification of assessments to include a group grade component, and an optimized case-study guided-inquiry laboratory in place within the course from 2011, the overall performance of students in the course improved and a sustained distribution of enhanced student achievement has been observed for five years (Figure 4).

Curriculum and Assessment Changes and Course Overall Academic Outcomes

Given the integrated nature of the learning outcomes and assessment it was difficult to analyze conceptual and skill learning around individual discipline topics and areas of forensic biology and forensic chemistry. Instead, the assessment was analyzed by type (Figure 3) to provide insight into the effectiveness of the learning activities. During the years of the study, students performed better in the short answer quiz and laboratory reports.

Question 2: What Is the Perceived General Interest of Students in Their Forensic Science Course Based on Their Experience of the Case-Based Scenario?

Perceived interest was measured, as interest cannot be seen or directly measured. Analysis of the questionnaire (Q1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 25, Table S4) indicated that the majority of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the forensic science lectures and tutorials, which both introduced the case-study, as well as the guided-inquiry components of the chemistry laboratory and biology laboratory, were interesting and relevant and that the case-based scenario added interest to the laboratory. Open-Ended Questions

During the analysis of the student survey responses it became evident that student experience, interest, learning in the course, and attitudinal aspects were emergent. Students identified the guided-inquiry laboratories in the context of case-based teaching as enjoyable, as illustrated by the keywords (Table 3) and the following statements: Lab work was the most enjoyable as we were trying to solve our own case. Experiments as it provided practice and more depth of understanding. The most enjoyable aspect of the course was the interlinks between the lab work and the statement writing. Students perceived the laboratories and case-based learning as having a positive impact on their knowledge and learning. This is reflected in the following responses: The scenarios required us to put our knowledge to use. Instead of just memorizing material, we had to use that material and apply it to situations that were different to the textbook examples.

Figure 3. Assessment outcomes for the year 2010, 2011, and 2015 cohorts by type: laboratory reports, short answer quiz, witness statement, and final examination; mean mark ± SD.

The grade distribution for overall academic performance observed in 2011−2015 shows a consistent overall improvement in student performance, as compared to the years of the lecture only approach (2007−2009) and the transition year in which the case-based scenario and interdisciplinary guided-inquiry laboratory was introduced (2010) (Figure 4). It is interesting to note that admission standards for the degree programs were aligned F



Article

The case based scenario really aided my learning. Some students indicated the case-based scenario teaching stimulated their interest, as illustrated by the keywords (Table 3) and the following statements: The case studies made the content more relevant and interesting. Gave me an insight into both chemistry and biology forensic science fields. Other students reflected on interlinks between case-based learning, laboratories, and the broader context of forensic science. Case based teaching gave meaning to the content we were learning and helped put everything into practice. Case based scenario allowed me to understand how what we learnt in ... laboratories could be applied in real life. Gave me more of an understanding of forensic science and made my desire to study the course stronger. The open-ended responses to the least enjoyable aspects of the course, and the areas graded disagree/strongly disagree, were predominantly around group work as illustrated by keywords (Table 4) and the following responses: The least enjoyable aspect of the course was having to work with fellow students whom I find it hard to manage (i.e., having to chase up the data to complete reports). Was sometimes difficult to organize each person in the group. The largest tension for students was the writing of group lab reports (Table 4), rather than the group activity during laboratory sessions. The following responses reveal some perceived reasons: I always ended up fixing other people’s sections and was the only one in my group who organized the lab reports. Compiling the report was difficult as my group members rarely got the report to me at the right time.

centered approach, and thus training and/or professional development of teaching staff38 from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered approach is required for effective delivery of guided-inquiry. Other studies have shown that students found active learning enjoyable37 and motivating,39 and that active learning has led to improvements in students’ thinking and writing.40 In this study, we considered whether the student interest could be related to introduction of activity in laboratories rather than the case-based approach. The case-based scenario was introduced through lectures, followed by crime scene tutorials, with active learning occurring in the four guided-inquiry chemistry and biology laboratory sessions (Table 1). Questionnaire respondents were engaged with all aspects of delivery of the case-based scenario; lectures, tutorials, and the active learning within laboratories. A key feature of this study is the interdisciplinary guidedinquiry experience occurring between chemistry, biology, and forensic science, within a case-based scenario methodology framework (Figure 1). Students performed better in assessment items that were designed to integrate this knowledge under nonexamination conditions: laboratory reports and statement of witness (Figure S3). Student questionnaire respondents, albeit from a small representation of the student cohort, indicated considerable perceived interest in the curriculum components of guided-inquiry as well as overall interest in forensic science. The interdisciplinary approach along with the positive impact of the laboratories and case-based learning often featured in students’ responses (open-ended responses). Furthermore, the questionnaire indicated that questionnaire respondents agreed/strongly agree (87%, Q19, Table S4) that more case-based scenarios should be used in forensic teaching at university. These findings support that students in this study had improved assessment outcomes associated with the case-based scenario and integrated guided-inquiry laboratory, with the questionnaire cohort identifying that the case-based scenario added interest to the guided-inquiry laboratories. The approach of case-based scenarios and guided-inquiry, described here using chemistry and biology in a forensic crime analysis, should be transferable to other areas of science education in higher education and promote interdisciplinary and disciplinary understanding; for example, chemistry and ecology in ocean acidification or chemistry and physics in photocatalytic hydrogen production. Examples within the secondary school science domain already support this approach.41,42 The theme of groups and group work emerged as important for guided-inquiry laboratories. Small-group learning (in one discipline) for undergraduates in science has been shown to be effective in promoting more favorable attitudes toward learning,43 yet students also provided a range of reasons for disliking group work.44 The range of student responses to group work (Figure 2) and the associated assessment items (lab reports, witness statement) was not unexpected. About half the questionnaire respondent cohort supported writing their own laboratory reports and enjoyed writing the witness statement (Figure 2), although there was an identifiable subgroup of questionnaire respondents who did not want to write an individual report and/or did not enjoy writing the witness statement. Some questionnaire respondents recognized the academic benefits of group work: It was nice to be able to do group work and compare results and opinions with others. However, many questionnaire respondents made comments around not liking group work due to group management issues,

■

DISCUSSION Overall, several themes were identified from these results for students’ experiences of the curriculum elements of the casebased scenario. The suite of changes to the curriculum introduced new learning activities and assessment items and aligned these with intended learning outcomes (Table 1) and the methodology framework (Figure 1). The learning activities were integrated; for example, each group of three students experienced an individualized case-scenario (Figure 1) which models forensic science problem solving through the guided-inquiry laboratory. Analysis of the improved student performance by assessment type as an indicator of broad learning outcomes indicated achievement in the short answer quiz (substantive knowledge), and laboratory reports (problem solving and critical thinking skills) contributed to this improvement. Notably, the statement for court (formal expression of students’ laboratory results and opinion from their analyses) along with the written examination for all cohorts (extent and depth of students’ knowledge along with interpretation) provided more of a challenge for students. The laboratory reports introduced an assessment type that allowed appropriate assessment of problem solving and critical thinking skills. This was supported by the questionnaire results, albeit from a small representation of the student cohort (Table S4). Interestingly, the written instruction for laboratory reports and the witness statement remained unchanged during the study, whereas incorporation of verbal advice such as student FAQs for the laboratory sessions, laboratory reports, and witness statement may have contributed to the improved overall grades by 2015. It should be noted that the guided-inquiry approach is a learnerG



■

often around different approaches to completion of assessment items by a deadline and the difficulties in organizing each person in the group for report writing. As this was carried out outside of formal class time, perhaps structured report writing sessions would assist group work for writing assessment pieces. Analysis of the responses of students revealed that teamwork skills and team responsibilities perhaps needed development, with many students focused on their individual perspective. Notably in Figure 2 the number of questionnaire respondents who thought it was good to work in groups significantly increased from 40% (2010) to a yearly average over 75% (2011 and 2015). It is interesting to note that, despite the varying student opinions from the questionnaire cohort, Figure 3 indicates that overall students displayed better assessment outcomes for the laboratory. This study supports the interdisciplinary approach used for the guided-inquiry laboratory component.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: w.loughlin@griffith.edu.au. ORCID

Wendy A. Loughlin: 0000-0002-9222-5623 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by a Griffith University Grant for Learning and Teaching. Human Ethics Approval No. BPS/12/ 10/HREC and GU/2015/753.

■

■

REFERENCES

(1) Kinser, J. M. Large scale simulation for education in forensic DNA science. Creative Educ. 2011, 2 (1), 18−21. (2) Horton, R. C.; Kelly, T. L.; Lenehan, C. E.; Lennard, C.; Lewis, S. W.; Lim, K. F.; Roux, C.; Southam, D. C. Assessing students’ attitudes toward forensic science: Collecting an expert consensus. Forensic Sci. Policy Manage. 2012, 3 (4), 180−188. (3) Lewis, S.; Brightman, R.; Roux, C. Forensic Science Tertiary Education in Australia. Chem. Aust. 2005, 72 (3), 4−8. (4) Mennell, J. The Future of forensic and crime scene science. Part II. A UK perspective on forensic science education. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006, 157, S13−S20. (5) Adams, D. E.; McCoy, M.; Jourdan, T.; Lord, W. Forensic science education programs: A new paradigm. Sci. Justice 2010, 50, 26. (6) Quarino, L.; Brettell, T. A. Current issues in forensic science higher education. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2009, 394, 1987−1993. (7) Lee, V. S. What is inquiry-guided learning? New Direct. Teach. Learn. 2012, 2012 (129), 5−14. (8) Domin, D. S. Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 140−152. (9) Domin, D. S. A review of laboratory instruction styles. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 543−547. (10) Glazer, N. Student perceptions of learning data-creation and dataanalysis skills in an introductory college-level chemistry course. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (2), 338−345. (11) Spronken-Smith, R.; Walker, R.; Batchelor, J.; O’Steen, B.; Angelo, T. Evaluating student perceptions of learning processes and intended learning outcomes under inquiry approaches. Assessment Eval. High. Educ. 2012, 37 (1), 57−72. (12) Aditomo, A.; Goodyear, P.; Bliuc, A. M.; Ellis, R. A. Inquiry-based learning in higher education: principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Stud. High. Educ. 2013, 38 (9), 1239−1258. (13) Overton, T.; Potter, N. Solving open-ended problems and the influence of cognitive factors of student success. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9, 65−69. (14) Overton, T. L.; Byers, B.; Seery, M. K. Context- and problembased learning in higher level chemistry education. In Eilks, I., Byers, B., Eds.; Innovative Methods of Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Higher Education; RSC Publishing: Cambridge, U.K., 2009; pp 43−59. (15) O’Connor, C.; Seery, M.; McDonnell, C.; O’Donnell, C.; Fox, J.; Cullen, J.; Cresswell, S. Development of Context-Based Forensic Chemistry Labs for Chemistry Undergraduates. Wavelength 2008, 4 (1), 10. (16) Belt, S. T.; Leisvik, M. J.; Hyde, A. J.; Overton, T. L. Using a context-based approach to undergraduate chemistry teaching − a case study for introductory physical chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2005, 6 (3), 166−179. (17) Overton, T. Teaching chemists to think: from parrots to professionals. Univ. Chem. Educ. 2001, 5, 62−68. (18) Summerfield, S.; Overton, T.; Belt, S. Problem-Solving Case Studies. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75 (7), 181A−182A.

CONCLUSIONS This paper proposes a forensic science investigation methodology and reports on the implementation of a case-based scenario aligned with a student guided-inquiry chemistry and biology laboratory. Although this is a small study with limitation on the data, it nonetheless supports the positive impact of the curriculum elements of a case-based scenario and guided-inquiry laboratory, which resulted in better assessment outcomes, supported by questionnaire respondents who showed an increased interest in case-based learning. In addition, the need for group work to be redefined for students as “teamwork”, along with a clear induction of students to the roles and responsibilities of teamwork, and thus potential assessment of the student team roles, emerged as part of the findings in this study. Together, these findings contribute to the growing body of literature that raises questions of the continued use of traditional lecturing, and supports active learning as the preferred validated teaching practice in science.45 In implementing an interdisciplinary guided-inquiry experience a learner-centered teaching approach is required. Furthermore, embedding such an approach into the first year of a degree program provides interdisciplinary learning in a degree program. Future work could include a deeper analysis of the impact of interdisciplinary guided-inquiry experience on aspects of student learning, for areas such as understanding and applying the principles and techniques of the science discipline, along with analysis of development of analytical, critical thinking and problem solving skills. In conclusion, cognizant of the dynamics of the current scientific arena, the interdisciplinary guided-inquiry learning approach, as seen in the present example, a case-based scenario between chemistry and biology in the context of forensic science, should be easily adaptable to other science discipline combinations to promote student interest/engagement and improve student learning in science.

■

Article

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00827. Schedule for laboratory, assessment criteria for laboratory reports and witness statement, questionnaire results, laboratory procedures, student instructions, press release, and sample witness statement (PDF, DOCX) H



Article

(19) Belt, S. T.; Evans, E. H.; McCreedy, T.; Overton, T. L.; Summerfield, S. A problem based learning approach to analytical and applied chemistry. Univ. Chem. Educ. 2002, 6 (2), 65−72. (20) Lucas, T.; Rowley, N. M. Enquiry-based learning: experiences of first year chemistry students learning spectroscopy. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 478−486. (21) Robertson, J.; Roux, C. The Development and Enhancement of Forensic Expertise: Higher Education and In-service Training. In Fraser, J., Williams, R., Eds.; Handbook of Forensic Science; Willan Publishing: USA and Canada, 2009; pp 566−595. (22) Fraser, J.; Williams, R. Handbook of Forensic Science; 2009, Willan Publishing, Collumpton, U.K.. (23) Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA). Forensic Science: Implications for Higher Education 2004; 2004, 104. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ knowledge-hub/forensic-science-implications-higher-education (accessed Apr 2017). (24) Cresswell, S. L.; Loughlin, W. A. An Interdisciplinary GuidedInquiry Laboratory for First Year Undergraduate Forensic Science Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (10), 1730−1735. (25) Aznar, M. M.; Orcajo, T. I. Solving problems in genetics. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27 (1), 101−121. (26) Criswell, B. Framing inquiry in high school chemistry: Helping students see the bigger picture. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (2), 199−205. (27) Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92 (5), 941−967. (28) Hodson, D. Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. J. Curric. Stud. 1996, 28 (2), 115−135. (29) Kanu, A. B.; Pajski, M.; Hartman, M.; Kimaru, I.; Marine, S.; Kaplan, L. J. Exploring Perspectives and Identifying Potential Challenges Encountered with Crime Scene Investigations when Developing Chemistry Curricula. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (8), 1353− 1358. (30) Kanu, A. B.; Kaplan, L. J. The Quest for Confirmatory Data in Crime Scene Investigations. Chem. Educ. 2016, 21, 231−239. (31) Elkins, K. M. Designing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primer multiplexes in the forensic laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (10), 1422−1427. (32) Caple, H.; Bogle, M. Making group assessment transparent: what wikis can contribute to collaborative projects. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2013, 38 (2), 198−210. (33) Furtak, E. M. The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90 (3), 453−467. (34) Sax, L. J.; Gilmartin, S. K.; Bryant, A. N. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res. Higher Educ. 2003, 44 (4), 409−432. (35) Krosnick, J. A.; Presser, S. Question and Questionnaire Design. In Handbook of Survey Research, 2nd ed.; Marsden, P. V., Wright, J. D., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Pty Ltd: United Kingdom, 2010; pp 263− 313. (36) QSR International. NVIVO for Windows: Getting started; 2014. http://download.qsrinternational.com/Document/NVivo10/ NVivo10-Getting-Started-Guide.pdf (accessed Apr 2017). (37) Bleske-Rechek, A. L. Obedience, conformity, and social roles: Active learning in a large introductory psychology class. Teach. Psychol. 2001, 28 (4), 260−262. (38) Ebert-May, D.; Derting, T. L.; Hodder, J.; Momsen, J. L.; Long, T. M.; Jardeleza, S. E. What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience 2011, 61 (7), 550−558. (39) Cicuto, C. A. T.; Torres, B. B. Implementing an active learning environment to influence students’ motivation in Biochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (6), 1020−1026. (40) Bonwell, C. C.; Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University: One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC, 1991.

(41) Clay, T. W.; Fox, J. B.; Grünbaum, D.; Jumars, P. A. How plankton swim: An interdisciplinary approach for using mathematics and physics to understand the biology of the natural world. Am. Biol. Teach. 2008, 70 (6), 363−370. (42) Bethel, C. M.; Lieberman, R. L. Protein structure and function: An interdisciplinary multimedia-based guided-inquiry education module for the high school science classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (1), 52−55. (43) Springer, L.; Stanne, M. E.; Donovan, S. S. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1999, 69 (1), 21−51. (44) Taylor, A. Top 10 reasons students dislike working in small groups··· and why I do it anyway. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2011, 39 (3), 219−220. (45) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (23), 8410−8415.

I


A Case-Based Scenario with Interdisciplinary ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents