Author: Joss Winn

Some analytics

Joss Winn News

Here are the last month’s analytics for the OERs that we published. The three sources correlate nicely with each other, showing 1-4 visits/day. The resources on EPrints rank 101 in the list of ‘top content’, out of around 3000 records. I must admit that I was expecting better results given that we’re inviting four sources of traffic (WordPress, EPrints, Slideshare, iTunes). We don’t have the Slideshare Pro account, so to measure the average views, I added up the ‘views’ for each resource, divided by the total number of resources, divided that by the number of months they’d been on Slideshare and then divided that by 30, to get the number of hits per resource per day: 1.75. Doing the same for the videos on YouTube, the average number of views for each video is 4.98/day.

What’s also worth highlighting is that the students enrolled on this course also use these same public facing resources, so these analytics include internal use of the resources.

EPrints Analytics – Forensic Chemistry OER Course site, Feb/March 2011

View more documents from ulcerd

Analytics for http://forensicchemistry.lincoln.ac.uk, Feb/March 2011

View more documents from ulcerd

Update on course content: EPrints -> WordPress -> FeedBurner -> iTunes

Joss Winn Resources

Much of the Introductory Chemistry course content has now been deposited in our repository, with the course website using slideshare, YouTube and the repository as storage for the OERs. Content was ‘uploaded’ to slideshare directly from the repository, using slideshare’s ‘web upload’ deposit feature. The radio programmes have been published to iTunes and a local RSS feed is also available. We intend to publish the videos to iTunes shortly, too. The MindMap has been updated and is now a novel, alternative way of navigating course content. Two sections of the course still need to be uploaded: the Skills in Chemistry and Biological Molecules sections. This will happen over the next month.

In addition, we intend to make all the raw interviews from the radio programmes available to download as these feature experts in forensic science. These will be available from the repository and linked to from the course website and published to iTunes, too. For audio and video, the workflow is basically: EPrints -> WordPress -> FeedBurner -> iTunes so that iTunes is being fed by EPrints, via an RSS feed from FeedBurner which pulls from WordPress.

The course website will be complete before students arrive in September to begin the course and will serve as the main resource for the course, with Blackboard simply linking to course content where necessary. Academic staff intend to discuss the use of the site and solicit feedback from new and second year students as soon as teaching begins. A second year course, modelled on this one, is in preparation and evaluation of Introductory Chemistry over the next academic year will feed into the development of the level two course.

An example resource

Joss Winn Resources , , ,

We’re still working on completing all the resources for the project. The way we have worked is to revise the teaching and learning materials as they are being taught and so it won’t be until classes are over that all the resources will be ready. About fifteen lectures are now more or less ready. We’ve run into some cross-platform problems as the original slides were created with Powerpoint for Windows, using actions which don’t convert to Powerpoint for OS X or to Open Office. For now, these have been removed, making the slides less interactive, but more widely compatible.

Anyway, here’s an example. Tom, a graduate student who’s been working with us on the project, has created all the illustrations. Although there will be around 20 lectures, each presentation is rich in models and other illustrations, totalling around 400 individual, re-usable resources for scientists. In addition to this are the videos and we’ll be adding autio to the slides over the summer.

Lecture 1: Atoms – the building blocks of matter

View more presentations from ulcerd.

Ideas for Chemistry FM radio programmes for science week 2010

Joss Winn Planning , , , , , , , , , ,

Nathan Gray, an MA student studying Science and Environmental Journalism, is funded by one of our project bursaries to help develop the radio programmes for Science Week. He’s decided upon five programmes and has drafted up the following for comment among the project team. It’s still under discussion but provides a good idea of what to expect. In his own words…

Introduction

There will be five radio programmes, each lasting roughly 15 minutes. Each programme will have a key theme that holds together the information within the programme.

  • Background information on the topic
  • interview(s) with figures of authority in the field
  • real life applications of the technology
  • case studies
  • finishing with a summary of key facts that can be related back to the intro/hook from the beginning of the programme.

The five programmes will give examples of famous cases from forensic science past. Using ‘case studies’ of:

Possibly famous murders (using different poisons to explain different bits of forensic chemistry), and even some cases of false cases/contamination (eg. Phantom of Heilbronn, or Barry George?). Each programme covers one case study in depth, introducing the problem, figures of authority to help solve the problem, background science, account of the real life case & conclusion.

1. Murder by Poison

Case Study(s): TWO CASES FROM MOLECULES OF MURDER: Litvienenko & Polonium, + 1 other – organic substance??

Order: What happened in each case, what chemical/drug/poison was used, the science bit, how case was solved.

Areas of Chem covered/explained Radiation, Isotopes, Structure of Organic Particles (depending on second example), Testing for chemicals/radiation in body (autopsy),

Key Contacts for Interview: John Emsley, Scotland Yard Counter Terroism (dealt with Litvinenko case initially), Health Protection Agency (HPA), Other people involved in recent cases?

How to commit the perfect murder

Litvinenko timeline

Possible Q’s for interviewees

  • What happened in the Litvinenko case?
  • Why were suspicions of poisoning raised?
  • Why did it take so long take so long to figure out Litvinenko was not poisoned by Thallium, but actually was suffering from radiation poisoning?
  • Explanation of what radiation poisoning actually is?

2. DNA Profiling

Case Study(s): Case where somebody was convicted of murder & later released when DNA evidence proved innocence. – There are several stories of this in the US, but cannot find anything in the UK as yet? The more local the better?

Areas of Chem covered/explained: DNA Profiling, Methods of testing, ?

Key Contacts for Interview: Prof. Sir Alec Jeffery’s (developed genetic fingerprinting techniques). Police Involved in case? Person that was wrongfully convicted? Coroner, ‘Expert witnesses’. Staff & research students @ university re: testing methodology. National DNA Database,

Possible Q’s for interviewees:

  • What happens when forensic evidence that is used to prosecute somebody turns out to be wrong. Misinterpreted or contaminated evidence.
  • What is contamination? Why might it happen? Is it a big problem?
  • The use of genetic information to ‘prove’ innocence or guilt in criminal investigations…
  • What is DNA profiling? How does it work? Is it reliable?
  • What does DNA profiling involve – Taking samples, DNA isolation, Amplification by PCR, Testing the DNA – matching?
  • How is the ‘match’ tested?
  • How hard/easy is it to get reliable, non-contaminated DNA evidence from a crime scene?
  • How the NDNAD is run, (possibly looking into the ethics/morals of DNA databases?).

Anecdotes of cases where people convicted? Also from cases of contaminated evidence etc E.G Birmingham 6 & ‘Phantom of Heilbronn’.

3. Life of a Forensic Toxicologist

Case Study(s): Follow a forensic toxicologist, what sort of cases do forensics deal with regularly? Is it all Glitz & glamour – talk about standard cases of dugs overdose testing, plus possibly other sorts of investigations, such as testing @ crime & fire scenes. Death’s from drug overdose/CO poisoning etc.

Areas of Chem covered/explained: Chemical Structure of drugs/fire accelerants/explosives etc – Organic Chem. Any other ideas to tie in?

Key Contacts for Interview: Gail Cooper

Possible Q’s for interviewees:

  • What would a ‘normal’ day in forensics involve?
  • What sort of cases are the most common in your experience?
  • Why are these sorts of chemicals so dangerous? (In response to common cases).
  • Stories/Anecdotes of cases (local of famous?)
  • How we can tell if somebody has been using drugs from trace evidence on them?
  • How we can test for signs of drug use by measuring secondary metabolites that are made in our bodies when we take drugs?
  • What are some of the techniques/procedures you use in day to day forensics (using anecdotes as an example to discuss various analytical tests – need some examples of these tests to get started!)

4. Forensic Entomology

Case Study(s): Example case where entomology was used to solve crime investigation Suggestions welcome! – Maybe Dorothy can suggest a good case study for this programme?

Areas of Chem covered/explained: Chemical attractants for incests? Signs of decay? Any other ideas to tie in?

Key Contacts for Interview: Dr. Dorothy Gennard

Possible Q’s for interviewees:

  • What is entomology?
  • Why is it important?
  • What can we tell about a body/scrime scene from the types of insects there?
  • How can you tell that sort of thing?

5. Canine Detection

Case Study(s): Drugs bust? Arson Story? Suggestions welcome!

Areas of Chem covered/explained: Structure of hydrocarbons and other chemicals, Any other ideas to tie in? Aromatic Compounds?

Key Contacts for Interview: Dave Coss

Possible Q’s for interviewees:

  • What are detection dogs mainly used for?
  • Why are they used?
  • Are there other methods of detection of chemicals that can be used at crime scenes?

General thoughts…

I’ve been having a think about ‘regular’ guests for each show; I think it would be very useful to have somebody (possibly staff or student from chem. Dept) as almost a resident expert / co presenter who can explain some of the more complicated bits of chemistry. –

I am happy to do the majority of presenting if needed, however would need assistance in fact/checking proof reading of my explanations for some of the more complicated areas, so it might make sense if anyone was willing? Again just an idea, your thoughts/input welcome.

A Possible Series introduction…

Every time we come into contact with something there is a trace; we are constantly leaving evidence of contact with other people, objects and substances.

However it is only recently that science has been able to accurately identify such small clues.

Science & Technology now provide the police and legal system with masses of information from forensic techniques.

In this programme, we will take a look at …

Notes on Structure of a Factual Science Programme

  • WOW! Fact. Something that will initially grab the attention of the audience.
  • Pose an interesting question, about something loosely related to the first fact.
  • Offer a brief answer to the question? An introduction to the ‘detail’ of the show.
  • Case Study 1 – Example that gives an intro to some detail
  • Relate back to Q
  • Interview?
  • Case Study 2 – Second example, that possibly builds on the first
  • Interview(s)
  • Relate back to subject
  • Summary

‘Three act structure in documentary’

Act 1 – Set Up – Inciting Incident – An Event upsets the world/somebody that sets them on some sort of ‘quest’ or desire. Offers a central Question

Act 2 – Conflict/Progressive Complication – Person involved faces obstacles in their ‘quest’. Pursuit of the central question.

Act 3 – Conclusion – ‘quests ’darkest hour @ a final obstacle, Ups the Suspense, Supreme effort helps them reach Goal. Highest emotional point, answers central question.

Communicating Chemistry

Joss Winn Background , , , ,

Although focused more on communicating research activities rather than teaching and learning, Alan Cann’s blog post on the ‘(Post)Digital Researcher‘ is worth flagging here. He links to an article in Nature Chemistry, titled ‘Communicating Chemistry’, which discusses the use of social networking and other web 2.0 tools to “disseminate results, collaborate, and share data and knowledge.” Apparently, Chemists are not, compared to other disciplines, keen to adopt new web-based models of scholarly communication and appear more reluctant to share the results of their work informally, through blogs, and formally, through Open Access repositories.