Advertisement

Implementing PebblePad into Forensic Chemistry—A Whole of Program Approach

  • Sarah L. CresswellEmail author
  • Alexander S. Forrest
Chapter

Abstract

Forensic chemistry at Griffith is undertaken as part of a 3- or 4-year program and students study both mainstream chemistry courses and specialised forensic science courses. We have introduced reflective learning tasks, using PebblePad, into two first-year courses and again into a final-year capstone course with a view to encouraging students to engage more actively in learning reflection. The ultimate aim is for students to accrue a range of assets/resources that can be used to generate a portfolio to showcase their skills and which could be ultimately used to address job selection criteria. This chapter will discuss the preliminary results of this implementation and will identify where and how reflective learning tasks can be best used in particular courses within the forensic chemistry program to achieve these outcomes.

Keywords

PebblePad Portfolios Undergraduate program Reflective writing 

References

  1. Allan, C. N., & Green, D. M. (2018). Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model. Griffith University ExLNT Explore Learning and Teaching. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/exlnt/entry/6405/view.
  2. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in learning? In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Cresswell, S. L., & Loughlin, W. A. (2015). An interdisciplinary guided inquiry laboratory for first year undergraduate forensic science students. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1730–1735.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cresswell, S. L., & Loughlin, W. A. (2017). A case-based scenario with interdisciplinary guided-inquiry in chemistry and biology: Experiences of first year forensic science students. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 1074–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Domin, D. S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Embo, M. P., Driessen, E., Valcke, M., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. (2014). Scaffolding reflective learning in clinical practice: A comparison of two types of reflective activities. Medical Teacher, 36(7), 602–607.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.899686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fraser, J., & Williams, R. (2009). Handbook of forensic science. Collumpton, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Glazer, N. (2015). Student perceptions of learning data-creation and data-analysis skills in an introductory college-level chemistry course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 338–345.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00219A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grayling, A. (2003). Meditations for the humanist: Ethics for a secular age. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Horton, R., Kelly, T., Lennard, C., Lewis, S., Lim, K., Roux, C., & Southam, D. (2012). Assessing students’ attitudes toward forensic science: Collecting an expert consensus. Forensic Sciene Policy and Management: An International Journal, 3(4), 180–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2013.849780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirkup, L. (2013). Inquiry-oriented learning in science: Transforming practice through forging new partnerships and persectives. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from https://ltr.edu.au/resources/Kirkup_NTF_report_2013_2.pdf.
  12. Lee, V. S. (2012). What is inquiry-guided learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 129, 5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Connor, C., Seery, M., McDonnell, C., O’Donnell, C., Fox, J., Cullen, J., & Cresswell, S. (2008). Development of context-based forensic chemistry labs for chemistry undergraduates. Wavelength, 4(1), 10–11.Google Scholar
  14. Overton, T. (2001). Teaching chemists to think: From parrots to professionals. University Chemistry Education, 5, 62–68.Google Scholar
  15. Roberts, P., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2016). ePortfolio-based learning environments: Recommendations for effective scaffolding of reflective thinking in higher education. Educational Technology and Society, 19(4), 22–33.Google Scholar
  16. Sommerfield, S., Overton, T., & Belt, S. (2003). Problem-solving case studies. Analytical Chemistry, 75(7), 181A–182A.Google Scholar
  17. Vachon, B., Foucault, M., Giguere, C., Rochette, A., & Morel, M. (2018). Factors influencing acceptability and perceived impacts of a mandatory eportfolio implemented by an occupational therapy regulation organization. The Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professionals, 38(1), 25–31.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Welsh, C., & Hannis, M. (2011). Are UK undergraduate Forensic Science degrees fit for purpose? Science & Justice, 51(3), 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and ScienceGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations