Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ufpm20

Download by: [Trent University] Date: 12 October 2016, At: 06:54

Forensic Science Policy & Management: An InternationalJournal

ISSN: 1940-9044 (Print) 1940-9036 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufpm20

Novel Technological Approaches for Pedagogyin Forensic Science: A Case Study in BloodstainPattern Analysis

Mike Illes, Cathy Bruce, Theresa Stotesbury & Robyne Hanley-Dafoe

To cite this article: Mike Illes, Cathy Bruce, Theresa Stotesbury & Robyne Hanley-Dafoe (2016)Novel Technological Approaches for Pedagogy in Forensic Science: A Case Study in BloodstainPattern Analysis, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 7:3-4, 87-97,DOI: 10.1080/19409044.2016.1218573

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2016.1218573

Published online: 11 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Novel Technological Approaches for Pedagogy in Forensic Science: A Case Studyin Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

Mike Illesa,b, Cathy Brucec, Theresa Stotesburyb, and Robyne Hanley-Dafoed

aForensic Science Department, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; bMaterials Science Graduate Program, Trent University,Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; cSchool of Education, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; dCentre for Teaching and Learning, TrentUniversity, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 17 May 2016Accepted 26 July 2016

ABSTRACTThis article explores the integration of innovative technologies into forensic science traininginitiatives and their effect on student engagement and depth of learning. Novel situation-orientedteaching practices were researched and implemented with the goal of enhancing the quality ofpractitioner forensic science training. Specifically, a basic bloodstain pattern analysis course wasdesigned to provide and test technological-pedagogical innovations. University student surveyssuggest that a combination of technologies that disentangle the complications of a crime scene is areliable, engaging and effective approach for detailed training in bloodstain pattern analysis.

KEYWORDSForensic science; bloodstainpattern analysis; pedagogy;training; technology

Introduction

The shift in deploying new technological and pedagogicalapproaches in tertiary education is both exciting anddaunting. It is often difficult to keep up with the recentoverflow of knowledge and development of active learn-ing strategies to use in the classroom, including “flipped”learning (Hamdan et al. 2013; Weaver and Sturtevant2015) and experiential learning (Finch et al. 2015). Onething that has become abundantly clear is the potential ofthe integration of technology and active learning intocurriculum (Amirault 2015). The vast literature encom-passes a broad range of disciplines using multiple tech-nologies (Amutha 2016; Butler et al. 2014; Hagerman,Keller, and Spicer 2013; Liao et al. 2016; Montrieux et al.2015; Vlieghe 2014). In fact, some argue that increasedglobal integration and exchange is a main objective inhigher education (Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley 2009).

However, forensic scientists and other practitionerswho are essentially “guests” in the realm of academiamay not have the time nor the resources to research andimplement new teaching methods. Perhaps this is onereason why there is little research on pedagogy in foren-sic science: the current literature that is available focuseson academic institutional programs rather than practi-tioner driven courses (Samarji 2012; Fradella, Owen,

and Burke 2007; Jackson 2009; Kobus and Liddy 2009;Presley, Haas, and Quarino 2009; Siegel 2010; Tregarand Proni 2010; Weaver et al. 2012). In the bloodstainpattern analysis (BPA) literature there is one journalarticle that discusses training within this discipline, andit calls for more research on best practices (Illes et al.2010). This is likely related to the fact that, for the mostpart, forensic courses and BPA courses in particular aretaught by practitioners from the discipline with limitedconnection to academic institutions. One way ofenhancing the research on teaching in this field is topartner forensic practitioners and lawyers withresearchers of higher learning academic institutions tostudy areas of mutual interest (McCartney, Cassella,and Chin 2011; Bruce, Flynn, and Stagg-Peterson 2011).

The field of forensic science and more specificallyBPA (Illes et al. 2010) offers an illustrative example ofhow collaborative research on technology and pedagogycan intersect and lead to greater clarity on what consti-tutes engaging and effective learning contexts for stu-dents. The goal of this study was to evaluate the use oftechnologies and engaging pedagogies in one univer-sity-level BPA course, with a larger aim of mobilizingknowledge about research on practices that enhanceforensic science training. We hypothesized that (i) the

CONTACT Mike Illes mikeilles@trentu.ca Forensic Science Department, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8, Canada.

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ufpm.© 2016 Taylor & Francis

FORENSIC SCIENCE POLICY & MANAGEMENT2016, VOL. 7, NOS. 3–4, 87–97http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2016.1218573

introduction of content-relevant technology combinedwith (ii) hypothetico-deductive methods and (iii) stu-dent-directed and evidence-based analysis with the useof fluid dynamics (Zajac et al. 2015; Attinger et al. 2013;Lawson 2003), in a forensic practitioner course on BPAat a Canadian University would increase studentengagement and their depth of learning.

Course technologies

Background on the bloodstain patternanalysis course

The course was set up similar to many basic BPAcourses (Illes et al. 2010) and does comply with therecommended course training standards of the Inter-national Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts(IABPA) (IABPA 2015). The core learning objectiveswere developed under the standards of the HigherEducation Quality Council of Ontario, Canada (2015).The main learning outcomes are stipulated as follows:

1. A depth and breadth of knowledge of the basicprinciples of BPA and the most current scien-tific issues associated with the discipline.

2. The knowledge of methodologies that are usedwithin BPA such as; the use of hypothesis test-ing, the scientific method, scene and evidenceprocessing, fluid dynamics and mathematics.

3. The application of knowledge that will include;the history and advancement of BPA, the recog-nition of key bloodstain patterns and the under-standing of the mechanism by which they arecreated, how to determine impact angles for indi-vidual bloodstains, how to determine a probablepoint (area) of convergence for a group of blood-stains, the ability to combine point (area) of con-vergence with impact angle to locate the probablepoint of origin for a given blood spatter event,the recognition of proper protective measures tofollow in a bloodstained scene, the methods ofdocumenting bloodstain scenes, both photo-graphically and in written format and an abilityto evaluate a basic bloodstain pattern scene.

4. Communication skills in forensic science writ-ing, specifically writing and referencing accord-ing to the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

5. The awareness of limits to knowledge for BPAand the dynamic scientific paradigm shift that isoccurring within the discipline and forensic sci-ence as a whole.

6. The autonomy and professional capacity tounderstand basic BPA principles and eventuallyinfluence scientific change within the disciplinewhen considering the current issues (Harden2007; Goff et al. 2015; Illes 2015).

For this article, we report on 22 fourth-year forensicscience students who attended a 2-hr lecture and 3-hrlaboratory session each week. The total course hours,including online laboratory assignments, was approxi-mately seventy hours. All students were required tocomplete four prerequisite courses prior to participat-ing in this course including an introductory course toforensic science, introductory and advanced coursesin crime scene investigations, and a forensic physicscourse.

Enhanced technology use

In addition, five technologies were used to enhancelearnability within the BPA course. These technologieswere used in concert for the lecture and laboratorysessions. They consisted of: (i) resources and learningmaterials available on the university online learningmanagement system; (ii) a chemically produced syn-thetic blood substitute; (iii) a crime scene teaching lab-oratory; (iv) a GoPro video camera; and (v) scenario-based photographic imaging. We will describe each ofthese methods in detail and (vi) the types of pedagogyand assessment used in the course.

Online learning management systemOne notable difference between this course and thetypical 40-hr bloodstain class was the availability ofenhanced online resources through an online learningmanagement system (LMS). This online infrastructurewas focused on supporting extensive evidence-basedstudent enquiry. The university online LMS was usedon a weekly basis throughout the course. Social mediatools such as blogs were also made available for thestudents for online collaboration. Online researchquizzes provided the students with the opportunity tolocate peer reviewed journal articles based on a seriesof questions with clues that would lead to the articlewhich then had to be read and understood in order toanswer the questions. The final step was for the stu-dent to generate a full list of the articles used and ref-erenced according to the standards of the Journal ofForensic Science.

88 M. ILLES ET AL.

Synthetic blood substitute (SBS) – colored patternsHistorically, it has been difficult teaching sequencingand pattern recognition when analyzing complexbloodstain patterns because the blood is one color.The visual patterns can easily be conflated for begin-ner analysts. In this training course, we introduced theuse of a colored SBS where each pattern within agroup could be made with a distinct color (Stotesburyet al. 2015) with the aim of increasing understandingof and accuracy with evidence-based analysis. Thesynthetic blood technology led directly to unique situ-ation-oriented teaching practices that bridged theanalysis of simple single patterns and multi-complexpatterns in blood. An example of one image usedwithin the course can be found in Figure 1. For furtherinformation see Stotesbury et al. (forthcoming).

Crime scene house teaching laboratoryThe crime scene house was an old farm house locatedon the university property, where enactments of crimescene situations could be set up by instructors and/orstudents for analysis. This teaching laboratory pro-vided a real experimentation context for the BPAcourse. We recommend that the creation of single ormultiple patterns with blood on white surfaces (typicalto most basic courses) does not provide students withsufficient validity compared with the actuality of crimescene investigations. We used the crime scenehouse for all laboratory exercises including use of theinterior and exterior environments that incorporated

multi-surface types, and eventually complex patterncombinations. This approach provided an added layerof complexity that is not normally available in a basicbloodstain course. This realistic crime scene environ-ment provided students with the opportunity to expe-rience and compare patterns made on multipletextures, absorbencies, curved surfaces, angled surfa-ces, multiple distances, multiple weapons, and variedquantities of blood.

GoPro recording and debriefingA GoPro Hero 4 video camera was used at the crimescene house to video record students setting-up theirbloodletting scenes. The 22 students were divided intogroups of 3 or 4 to generate a crime situation. Thegroup enacted their crime scene in the house, with avideo record from multiple perspectives: (a) station-ary, (b) worn by the attacker, and (c) worn by a wit-ness or worn by a victim. Each group thenexperienced the crime scenes set up by their peerswithout seeing the captured GoPro footage. The objec-tive of this exercise was to first reconstruct the blood-letting with no knowledge of how the scene wascreated. Once the groups had reconstructed each othergroups’ scenes, each scene was then debriefed in the“lecture” period, using the students’ notes, the video,and photographic images of the scenes.

Photographic imaging of the bloodstainpatterns/scenesWhile creating the bloodletting scenes in the crimehouse, the student groups kept detailed records ofhow they had developed the scene by taking photo-graphic images. Each group used a Nikon D90 camerafor which they had received crime scene photographytraining in one of the prerequisite courses. Theseimages augmented the GoPro camera video by provid-ing extensive detail of the patterns for the debriefing.

Although a focus on technical interactivity can sup-port accelerated pacing of lectures, it can equally leadto transmission style teaching with a lack of sustaineddiscussion amongst learners (Higgins, Beauchamp,and Miller 2007). We believe that it is only when weintegrate the use of technologies with effective peda-gogy that students may benefit. As Smith et al. (2005)explain, “good teaching remains good teaching withor with- out the technology; ….the technology is notseen as an end in itself but as another pedagogicalmeans to achieve teaching and learning goals.” (p.

Figure 1. Example of the colored SBS used in the bloodstainpattern course indicating pattern type in yellow, blue, and redand their sequence made in time.

FORENSIC SCIENCE POLICY & MANAGEMENT 89

217). The use of the above five technologies, from thephysical low-technology environment of the crimescene house, to the high technology GoPro and syn-thetic blood, helped to leverage a range of student-directed and relevant pedagogical practices by theinstructors. For example, rather than lecturing stu-dents on basic information, the instructors used theLMS to prepare students for problem-based learningin the real-environment “labs,” and to deconstructstudent generated crimes scenes with the support oftechnology in the “lectures.” This interaction betweenpedagogy and technology is sometimes known as tech-nological-pedagogical interactivity (Bruce and Flynn2012) and it involves an essential three-way interac-tion between the students, the instructors and thetechnology in a flexible web of exchanges.

Course pedagogy and assessment

In addition to the technology enhancements in thecourse, we also integrated active learning and assess-ment pedagogies. Research has been conducted tosupport the use of active learning approaches includ-ing reverse or flipped learning and problem basedlearning, indicating that a student will retain moreknowledge using this technique (Nargundkar, Samad-dar, and Mukhopadhyay 2014; Shwu-Fen et al. 2015;Weaver and Sturtevant 2015; Loyens et al. 2015; Nar-gundkar, Samaddar, and Mukhopadhyay 2013). Nar-gundkar et al. (2014) suggested that individual finalexams and critical thinking scores along with teamproject performance improves with reverse learningmethods, sometimes called “flipped classes.” Consid-ering the applied nature of the forensic sciences, theuse of active learning and collaborative approachesseems relevant (Sockalingam, Rotgans, and Schmidt2010). Two specific strategies were used to implementthese active learning approaches in this BPA course.

In the first class, students were expected to discussbloodstain pattern types. The students received no the-oretical training from the instructor on BPA prior toclass, but were required to research the topic in advanceknowing that this would drive class discussions. Theassignment entitled “Pattern recognition exercise” (Sur-vey Question #7) involved researching three bloodstainpatterns and providing two scientific references foreach pattern. The students were therefore prepared tocritically discuss the pattern types and the peerreviewed research articles in the class “lecture.” This

strategy underpinned the principle of evidence-basedanalysis and led to rich class discussion.

A second approach to BPA that reinforced an evi-dence-based approach was to engage students in, whatwe have termed, “Research Treasure Hunts” and entitled“Online Laboratory” research exercises in Survey Ques-tion 7. These online research hunts were conducted inadvance of laboratory exercises providing the studentswith background information on a pattern type beinginvestigated in the exercise. The students were asked sev-eral precision questions within the online LMS that sup-ports flipped learning. The questions provideinformation that allowed for key word searching to locatethe article and then the article must be understood toanswer the question correctly. The following exampleillustrates a sample closed question for the treasure hunt:“Research has indicated that the object size from which ablood droplet is falling can affect the accompanying droppattern but _____________does not.” If the studentundertook a simple Google search for “object size fromwhich a blood droplet” they would find that the first arti-cle to appear (Kabaliuk et al. 2013) is the required article,however this article must be read to answer the questioncorrectly. This reinforced the need for practitioner evi-dence-based analysis and the importance of academic lit-erature reviews. In support of this technique, twostudents summarized the importance of these onlineexercises as follows: “It really gives you an appreciationfor the science behind some of things that we do espe-cially the online quizzes,” and, “The quizzes were infor-mative as they gave in depth knowledge into theemerging techniques currently being used in BPA.”Importantly, by having students prepare and learn someof the background information in advance of class, theinstructor was then able to engage students in muchmore situation-oriented and problem-based collaborativegroup work, with the instructor and teaching assistantacting as facilitators and guides for the learning.

Data collection and analysis

Survey dataA onetime survey was completed by all 22 fourth yearforensic science major students registered in the course.The survey questions covered a range of aspects of thecourse including student felt importance of the applica-tion of technology in forensic science, the course struc-ture, the pedagogy implemented in the BPA course, andstudent self-assessments of levels of engagement due to

90 M. ILLES ET AL.

these technological-pedagogical innovations. Qualita-tively the students assessed this fourth-year courseagainst other forensic science and non-forensic scienceuniversity courses that they had taken. Each studentwould have taken between 25 and 30 courses prior to thiscourse. The online survey was accomplished using Qual-trics (Qualtrics 2015) and in-class time was provided tothe students for completion, based on research ethicsprotocols and approvals. The survey was conducted nearthe end of the term so that all technologies introducedand used in the course could be assessed. The survey wasdesigned to collect both numeric data (8 ranking ques-tions) and open-ended qualitative responses (one openended question for comments), as outlined in Table 1.

Method of analysisAnalysis of the survey was twofold: first, frequency distri-butions were analyzed for the ranking questions that per-tained to the technology and pedagogic strategies. Thedistributions for Questions 4, 7, and 8 from the survey

can be located in Figures 2, 4, and 5. Second, the qualita-tive data were sorted and coded by several analysts usingNVivo 11 suite (NVivo 2016). Start codes were generatedto begin the analysis consisting of the types of technolo-gies and pedagogies implemented (including the use ofSBS). Word frequency queries were used to analyze keywords which provided word counts, weighted percentagesand families of similar words. The objective was to iden-tify dominant themes and generate insights into studentattitudes and opinions about the technology and peda-gogy of the course. The analysis included depicting thedata in aHorizontal Dendrogram to determine the hierar-chy and relationships amongst the themes. Finally, theranking data were then compared to the open responsedata to search for contradictions and confirmations.

Comparison of final exam marksA comparison was done between the final examina-tion marks of this treatment course and a controlcourse that was delivered at an earlier time. The earliercourse did not utilize the colored SBS or the GoProvideo technology and there was less implementationof pedagogic techniques. However, the two courseswere instructed by the same instructor. The frequencydistribution shown in Figure 3 depicts more studentsreceiving higher marks on the final exam in the treat-ment course. The class average was slightly higher byabout 2% for the treatment course and the medianhad a 3.5% increase from the control course. This gavea final examination mark average of CC for the con-trol group and B- for the treatment group.

Results and discussion

This article focused on the application of the technol-ogy in forensic science training and how it can amplifyand link to pedagogy through situation-oriented activelearning. Five of the survey questions in particular (4,5, 6, 7, and 8) probed this implementation of noveltechnologies and related pedagogy.

General attitudes on the value of using technologiesin the course

One of the most telling results from the survey relatesto student estimations of the importance of usingtechnology in the course to support their learning.When asked “how did the technology that was used inthis course impact your understanding of the theory

Table 1. Abbreviated forensic science pedagogy research ques-tionnaire used in this study.

4. Rank the following technology that was used within this course in orderof preference, with 1 being best and 3 being the worst.____ GoPro video____ Photographic imaging of the bloodstain patterns/scenes____ Online learning system

5. How did the technology that was used in this course impact yourunderstanding of the theory and practice of bloodstain patternanalysis?& No impact& Minor impact& Neutral& Moderate impact& Major impact

6. Reflecting upon this course how did the collaborative classroom culture(hands-on work, group work, integration of research projects etc.)impact on your learning.& No impact& Minor impact& Neutral& Moderate impact& Major impact

7. Rank the following assessment methods that were used within thiscourse in order of preference, with 1 being best and 4 being the worst.____ Pattern recognition exercise____ Hands on laboratory exercises____ Online Laboratory research exercises____ Practical examination of pattern types

8. Rank the teaching techniques that were used within this course in orderof preference, with 1 being best and 6 being the worst.____ Laboratory sessions____ Work groups in labs____ Core lecture material____ Debriefing of patterns and scenes____ The enactments of how patterns/scenes were created____ Case study examples

FORENSIC SCIENCE POLICY & MANAGEMENT 91

Figure 2. Frequency chart of ranking Question #4 data with 1 being the best, and 3 being the worst.

Figure 3. Distribution comparing the final examination results for the control and assessed courses.

Figure 4. Frequency chart of ranking Question #7 data with 1 being the best, and 4 being the worst.

92 M. ILLES ET AL.

and practice of bloodstain pattern analysis?,” 55% ofstudents indicated that it had a major impact on theirunderstanding and the remaining 45% indicated thatit had a moderate impact. That is, 100% of the stu-dents ranked the impact of technology on a scale from1–5 as 4 or 5. Open responses from student concurredwith this rating. For example, one student stated suc-cinctly: “Using technologies has definitely broadenedmy learning on bloodstain.”

Preferences related to GoPro video, photographicimages, and online learning opportunities

Question #4 from the survey was specific to the use oftechnology and the frequency distribution of the answerscan be observed in Figure 2. Intuitively there is no signifi-cant difference between the choices: GoPro video, photo-graphic images of the bloodstain patterns/scenes, and theonline learning system as there is a virtual tie. This sug-gests that the students found all three of these forms oftechnology to be useful within the course. The frequencydistribution for Question #4 and single select responseQuestion #5 supports this but also indicates that the pho-tographic imaging of the bloodstain patterns/scene wasslightly a more preferred method for learning. The quali-tative data analysis also supports the use of all three tech-nologies: three students commented on their difficultywith ranking the technology and related pedagogybecause they were all important and operated as a clusterto deepen student understanding. Four commentsshowed that the colored SBS was a technique that should

be used for learning about complex patterns. The NVivoword frequency and cluster analysis (Horizontal Dendro-gram) indicates that the word “technology” is significantwithin the student survey comments as observed inFigure 6. In support of the use of the technology and howthe technologywas usedwe provide the following validat-ing comments from the students.

Student responses to the types of pedagogy andassessment in the course

When assessing the active learning classroom peda-gogy including hands-on work, group work, integra-tion of research assignments and flipped classes(Question #6) 91% of the students indicated that ithad a major impact on their learning. The other 9%indicated that this had a moderate impact. That is,100% of the students ranked the impact of the activelearning pedagogy on a scale from 1–5 as 4 or 5.

On the other hand, assessment ratings were varied:When asked to rank assessment methods (Question #7),students ranked laboratory exercises with the crime scenehouse as the much preferred method of assessment.Online quizzes were clearly less preferred by students asshown in Figure 4. This response was not unexpected asthe online quizzes involved a greater concentration of“traditional” study work. We do not believe this to be anegative criticism, as these questions were considered tobe a robust evidence-based teaching strategy by theinstructor. In fact, this was further supported from theresponses from the teaching techniques ranking question

Figure 5. Frequency chart of ranking Question #8 data with 1 being the best, and 6 being the worst.

FORENSIC SCIENCE POLICY & MANAGEMENT 93

represented in Figure 5. The teaching techniques are themethods used to deliver the course curriculum. Theyconsist of traditional lecture and laboratory methods tothe discipline, specific debrief, or discussions of patternscreated in the labs, reenacting the creation of blood pat-terns, and reviewing actual BPA cases. Student responsesto the open response question included comments aboutthe use of novel technology and techniques that con-curred and are illustrated in the following excerpts:

“I found this course incredibly interesting. I think that the bestpart about it was the lab sessions as those were where most ofmy learning came from. I find that a lot of other coursesattempt to teach things and then have lab sessions, but wereby nomeans thorough enough to truly understand.”

“I believe this course was an excellent mix of practical andacademic learning. I enjoyed the laboratories as theyallowed me to experiment with blood and gave me a goodsense of how to make the stains I was seeing in the litera-ture. The quiz’s were informative as they gave in depthknowledge into the emerging techniques currently beingused in BPA. Overall this was my favourite course.”

When reviewing these comments several students hadindicated that the range of technologies and pedago-gies worked very well in concert and that it was diffi-cult to rank them separately.

“Although we had to rank some things in this survey, I foundthat everything offered in this course was effective in further-ingmy knowledge and understands of blood and BPA.”

“The lectures especially the case studies were very interest-ing and this by far is the only course I have ever takenwhere I thoroughly enjoyed the labs and I learnt a lotfrom them as well. It really gives you an appreciation forthe science behind some of things that we do especiallythe online quizzes. Those were helpful in showing thatnot everything you take see that is peer reviewed is right,and it should be scrutinized appropriately. Practicalaspect of it in the labs definitely helps in terms of experi-ence in identifying the different kinds of patterns in thefield. Also shows you not to make assumptions until youhave context. I do love this course.”

“…..Furthermore the actual creation and re-inactmentsof each complex pattern demonstrated how they were cre-ated, this helped better understand how weird/specific/miss-identifiable patterns were created. Finally the imple-mentation of technology with photography showed theprogression of complex patterns very well.”

We consider the challenge students faced in separatingthe effects of one technology from another, or one

Figure 6. Cluster analysis (Horizontal Dendrogram) of thewritten feedback from Question #9. Note that this analysisindicates that the word “technology” is significant within thestudent survey comments.

94 M. ILLES ET AL.

pedagogical strategy from another, a potential success.That is, the seamless integration of technologies andpedagogy that worked together in a cohesive activelearning framework was effective as an overallstructure for the course. As one student clearlysummarized:

“It was difficult to rank the teaching techniques and technol-ogy used in class because each aspect of the course brought anew angle of learning and all aspects worked really welltogether for a general understanding of the basics of blood-stain pattern analysis. The labs allowed us to make the stainsand see which variables have what affect on the creation ofbloodstains. The GoPro allowed us to see how other groupscreated their patterns, although it can be difficult to see smallstains without the ability to zoom in.”

This student response clearly aligns with the goalsof the course to use technology to amplify pedagogyand the depth of learning for students through techno-logical-pedagogical interactivity.

The final exam mark comparison between the con-trol course and the treatment course does indicate aslightly better mean and mark distribution supportingthe qualitative data from the student survey. Due tothe fact that only two courses have been investigated,further research is required.

The survey did not specifically consider the use ofthe SBS, however we believe it is important to reporton this as several students commented on the complexpattern analysis exercises where the SBS was used. Thecomments included:

“……the actual creation and re-inactments of each com-plex pattern demonstrated how they were created, thishelped better understand how weird/specific/miss-identifi-able patterns were created. Finally the implementation oftechnology with photography showed the progression ofcomplex patterns very well.”

“The activities that we did in lecture such as complex pat-terns and sequencing were very practical and I learned alot from them.”

“Labs were the perfect way to learn about the formationof blood stains, and examination of patterns was the bestway to demonstrate the complexity of BPA.”

Further research is required in this area (Stotesburyet al.).

Conclusion

This study sought to find a connection between increasedstudent engagement and their depth of learning with the

introduction of technological-pedagogical interactivity ina forensic science BPA practitioner course. Studentreports of benefits of this active learning approach werepowerful and clearly suggest that this approach was notonly novel for students but deepened their understandingof BPA. The study makes both theoretical and practicalcontributions. The main limitation to the study relates tothe use of a combination of active learning practices with-out applying each individually to assess the effects. Also,the prerequisite courses, having all forensic studentmajors and extended course hours (70 hr as compared tothe typical 40-hr course), may have contributed to thesuccess of engagement in this course. Further analysis ofstudent grades in a control group compared to a treat-ment group is a necessary next step for the researchers ofthis study. Nonetheless, our preliminary research pro-vides some guidance for those whowish to instruct foren-sic science courses.

Theoretical contributions

Currently, there is limited research on the pedagogy offorensic science training at the tertiary level. An extensiveliterature review was conducted utilizing advanced aca-demic search engines yielding one result that discussessome application of pedagogy in forensic science (Samarji2012). In a basic search of the term “pedagogy” with“forensic science” in the Google Scholar search engineyields no results. The term “training with bloodstain pat-tern analysis” does yield one hit (Illes et al. 2010). Withthe lack of evidence on how to train within forensic sci-ence and the knowledge that courses are taught by practi-tioners from the discipline with limited connection toacademic institutions, research that supports faculty andpractitioner trainers should be strongly pursued. Therecent reports calling for evidence-based research andtraining in forensic science (Pollanen et al. 2013; NAS2009; Technical Working Group on Education andTraining in Forensic Science 2004; McCartney, Cassella,and Chin 2011) speaks to this need for greater analysis ofwhich pedagogies and technologies support deep studentunderstanding and overall student engagement. Ourmixed methods research approach suggests that the useof the described technology and pedagogic practices mayprovide a superior learning environment for students.

Of particular interest in terms of research develop-ments was the use of the colored SBS. The colored SBSprovides a unique and simple technological developmentthat caused a paradigm shift in the teaching strategies for

FORENSIC SCIENCE POLICY & MANAGEMENT 95

BPA. This novel material now enables a visual and pow-erful technique for disentangling complex patterns forstudents to deepen their understanding of BPA. Previ-ously, this was a missing step in BPA education thatmade it difficult for students to conceptualize and identifypatterns in complex multi-pattern analysis, and as aresult, students struggled to sequence events. In thisstudy, we found that the investigation of single patternson complex surfaces along with complex multi-patternswas an area of essential understanding for students andthe colored SBS provided a tool for this evidence-basedapproach.

Practical contributions

On the surface it would seem simple for a forensic trainerto implement several of the teaching strategies and tech-nologies outlined in this study. The combination of peda-gogical practices such as flipped classes, blended learningand reverse-engineered assignments combined withsome of the suggested technology offers a practical set ofbuilding blocks for BPA courses. However, our researchto date suggests that the discussed pedagogical strategiesand technologies be implemented in unison. Weacknowledge that themethodswere not applied individu-ally to assess the effects of each; however, the student sur-vey results are a strong indicator of engagement andunderstanding because of this integration of strategies. Insummary, the findings from this research suggests thatthe combination of the introduction of content-relevanttechnology, the use of hypothetico-deductive methodsand a student-directed and evidence-based collaborativeenvironment will increase student engagement and theirdepth of learning. We believe collaboration betweenforensic practitioners and academics may be the key toaccomplishing the highest quality of forensic scienceeducation.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Trent University 2016 FRSC 4111Basic Bloodstain Pattern Analysis class for anonymously partici-pating in the survey and their frank assessment of the course.

References

Altbach, P. G., L. Reisberg, and L. E. Rumbley. 2009. Trends inGlobal Higher Education - Tracking an Academic Revolu-tion. In 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP: Unitednations Educational, Scienctifc and Cultural Organization.

Amirault, R. J. 2015. Technology transience and the challengesit poses to higher education. Quarterly Review of DistanceEducation 16(2): 1–18.

Amutha, S. 2016. Impact of e-content integration in science onthe learning of students at tertiary level. International Jour-nal of Information and Education Technology 6(8): 643–646. doi:10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.766.

Attinger, D., C. Moore, A. Donaldson, A. Jafari, and H. A.Stone. 2013. Fluid dynamics topics in bloodstain patternanalysis: Comparative review and research opportunities.Forensic Science International 231(1–3): 375–396. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.018.

Bruce, C. D., and T. Flynn. 2012. Exploring interactivity betweenstudents, teachers and the interactive whiteboard: Video anal-ysis of pedagogical-technological interactivity during mathe-matics lessons. RicercAzione Journal 4(2): 183–197.

Bruce, C. D., T. Flynn, and S. Stagg-Peterson. 2011. Examiningwhat we mean by collaboration in collaborative actionresearch: a cross-case analysis. Educational Action Research19(4): 433–452. doi:10.1080/09650792.2011.625667.

Butler, A. C., E. J. Marsh, J. P. Slavinsky, and R. G. Baraniuk.2014. Integrating cognitive science and technology improveslearning in a STEM classroom. Educational PsychologyReview 26(2): 331–340. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9256-4.

Finch, D., M. Peacock, D. Lazdowski, and M. Hwang. 2015. Man-aging emotions: A case study exploring the relationshipbetween experiential learning, emotions, and student perfor-mance. The International Journal of Management Education 13(1): 23–36. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.12.001.

Fradella, H. F., S. S. Owen, and T.W. Burke. 2007. Building bridgesbetween criminal justice and the forensic sciences to createforensic studies programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Educa-tion 18(2): 261–282. doi:10.1080/10511250701383376.

Goff, L., M. K. Potter, E. Pierre, T. Carey, A. Gullage, E. Kustra,R. Lee, et al. 2015. Learning Outcomes Assessment: A Practi-tioner’s Handbook. Ontario, Canada: Higher EducationQuality Council of Ontario.

Hagerman, M., A. Keller, and J. Spicer. 2013. The MSU educa-tional technology certificate courses and their impact onteachers’ growth as technology integrators. TechTrends 57(3): 26–33. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0659-8.

Hamdan, N., P. McKnight, K. McKnight, and K. M. Arfstrom.2013. The flipped learning model: A white paper based onthe literature review titled A Review of Flipped Learning.[Report.] Flipped Learning Network. Pp. 1–16.

Harden, R.M. 2007. Outcome-based education: the future is today.Med Teach 29(7): 625–629. doi:10.1080/01421590701729930.

Higgins, S., G. Beauchamp, and D. Miller. 2007. Reviewing the lit-erature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Tech-nology 32(3): 213–225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040.

IABPA. IABPA Training Course Standards. [Webpage]. http://www.iabpa.org/iabpa-training-course-standards (accessed2015).

Illes, M. B., I. Dalley, P. E. Kish, M. C. Taylor, and A. B. Yama-shita. 2010. Bloodstain pattern analysis Part 1. Training andeducational materials. Journal of the Canadian Society ofForensic Science 43(1): 31–37.

96 M. ILLES ET AL.

Illes, M. 2015. Syllabus: FRSC 4111H - Basic Bloodstain Pat-tern Analysis. 2015. Trent University.

Jackson, G. P. 2009. The status of forensic science degree pro-grams in the United States. Forensic Science Policy & Man-agement: An International Journal 1(1): 2–9. doi:10.1080/19409040802586936.

Kabaliuk, N., M. C. Jermy, E. Williams, T. L. Laber, and M. C.Taylor. 2013. Experimental validation of a numerical modelfor predicting the trajectory of blood drops in typical crimescene conditions, including droplet deformation andbreakup, with a study of the effect of indoor air currentsand wind on typical spatter drop trajectories. Forensic Sci-ence International 18: 107–20.

Kobus, H., and M. Liddy. 2009. University forensic scienceprograms: a student attraction strategy or a value-addingpartnership with industry? Forensic Science Policy & Man-agement 1(3): 125–129. doi:10.1080/19409040902990327.

Lawson, A. E. 2003. Allchin’s Shoehorn, or why science ishypothetico-deductive. Science & Education 12(3): 331–337. doi:10.1023/a:1024090727385.

Liao, Yu-C., C.-W. Liao, C.-H. Chen, and Y.-H. Liao. 2016. Astudy on learning effects of integrating information tech-nology into electronics curriculum teaching. InternationalJournal of Information and Education Technology 6(10):831–835. doi:10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.801.

Loyens, S. M. M., S. H. Jones, J. Mikkers, and T. van Gog. 2015.Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptualchange. Learning & Instruction 38: 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002.

McCartney, C., J. Cassella, and P. Chin. 2011. Lowering thedrawbridges: legal & forensic science education for the 21stcentury. In The Higher Education Academy [Report],pp. 1–43.

Montrieux, H., R. Vanderlinde, T. Schellens, and L. De Marez.2015. Teaching and learning with mobile technology: Aqualitative explorative study about the introduction of tab-let devices in secondary education. PLoS ONE 10(12): 1–17.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144008.

Nargundkar, S., S. Samaddar, and S. Mukhopadhyay. 2013. Aguided problem-based learning (PBL) approach using a reversedtextbook: An application to a core business analysis course.[Report]. Robinson College of Business Instructional Innova-tion Grant. Pp. 1–9.

Nargundkar, S., S. Samaddar, and S. Mukhopadhyay. 2014. Aguided problem-based learning (PBL) Approach: Impact oncritical thinking. Decision Sciences Journal of InnovativeEducation 12(2): 91–108. doi:10.1111/dsji.12030.

NAS. 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: APath Forward.Washington: National Academy of Sciences.

NVivo. 2016. QSR International Pty Ltd. http://www.qsrinternational.com/product/nvivo11-for-windows

Pollanen, M. S., M. J. Bowes, S. L. VanLaerhoven, and J. Wal-lace, Eds. 2013. Forensic science in Canada: A report of mul-tidisciplinary discussion. Toronto: Centre for ForensicScince and Medicine, University of Toronto.

Presley, L. A., M. Haas, and L. Quarino. 2009. The forensic sci-ence assessment test (FSAT): A potential tool for the

academic assessment of forensic science programs. ForensicScience Policy & Management: An International Journal 1(2): 74–84. doi:10.1080/19409040902791915.

Qualtrics. 2015. www.qualtrics.com.Samarji, A. 2012. Forensic science education: Inquiry into cur-

rent tertiary forensic science courses. Forensic Science Policy& Management: An International Journal 3(1): 24–36.doi:10.1080/19409044.2012.719580.

Shwu-Fen, C., H.-C. Su, K.-F. Liu, and H.-F. Hwang. 2015.Flipped classroom: A new teaching strategy for integratinginformation technology into nursing education. Journal ofNursing 62: 5–10. 6p. doi:10.6224/jn.62.3.5.

Siegel, J. A. 2010. Commentary on: Tregar KL, Proni G. Areview of forensic science education programs in the UnitedStates: bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Journal of ForensicScience 55(6): 1488–1493. Journal of Forensic Sciences 56(2):560. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01698.x.

Smith, H. J., S. Higgins, K. Wall, and J. Miller. 2005. Interactivewhiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of theliterature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21(2): 91–101. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x.

Sockalingam, N., J. Rotgans, and H. G. Schmidt. 2010. Studentand tutor perceptions on attributes of effective problems inproblem-based learning. Higher Education 62(1): 1–16.doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9361-3.

Stotesbury, T., M. Illes, P. Wilson, and A. Vreugdenhil. 2015. Acommentary on synthetic blood substitute research and devel-opment. Journal of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis 31(2): 3–6.

Stotesbury, T., C. Bruce, M. Illes, and R. Hanley-Dafoe. Designconsiderations for the implementation of artificial fluids asblood substitutes for educational and training use in theforensic sciences. Forensic Science Policy & Management:An International Journal, Forthcoming.

Technical Working Group on Education and Training inForensic Science. 2004. Education and Training in ForensicScience: A Guide for Forensic Science Laboratories, Educa-tional Institutions, and Students. [Report]. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Tregar, K. L., and G. Proni. 2010. A review of forensic sciencehigher education programs in the United States: Bachelor’sand Master’s degrees. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55(6):1488–1493. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01505.x.

Vlieghe, J. 2014. Education in an age of digital technologies.Philosophy & Technology 27(4): 519–537. doi:10.1007/s13347-013-0131-x.

Weaver, G. C., and H. G. Sturtevant. 2015. Design, implemen-tation, and evaluation of a flipped format general chemistrycourse. Journal of Chemical Education 92(9): 1437–1448.doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00316.

Weaver, R., Y. Salamonson, J. Koch, and G. Porter. 2012. TheCSI effect at university: forensic science students’ televisionviewing and perceptions of ethical issues. Australian Jour-nal of Forensic Sciences 44(4): 381–391. doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.691547.

Zajac, R., N. Osborne, L. Singley, and M. Taylor. 2015. Contex-tual bias: What bloodstain pattern analysts need to know.Journal of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis 31(2): 7–16.

FORENSIC SCIENCE POLICY & MANAGEMENT 97