Fourth Annual DNA Grantees' Workshop
Monday, June 23, 2003
AFTERNOON SESSION
Model of an Academy
Julie Sutton
Biography
DR. SELAVKA: Thank you. Our last presenter is Julie Sutton. Julie has a 14-year career in the practice of forensic biology. She has now joined the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC)—another partner in the Forensic Resource Network. She has been overseeing the casework package and development of their Forensic Academy and has been developing model programs with potential applications in a variety of forensic subdisciplines.
Please join me in welcoming Julie to the stage. Sutton: Slide 1
DR. SUTTON: Thank you, Carl. Today I have been asked to discuss a model of an academy, and this is a solution but certainly not the solution. Sutton: Slide 2
I'm going to break down the talk into four sections: knowledge transfer (i.e., background), the lab methods that are typically used, academy development, and the DNA Academy 1, which is the pilot. Sutton: Slide 3
There are a number of methods of delivery with conventional knowledge transfer. The two predominantly used tend to be face-to-face and practical instruction. You generally have a set of desired outcomes with those. Hopefully, the message sent is the message received, and quite often that is not the case. You would hope that the theoretical basis is actually understood. If you're a forensic scientist who has encountered a problem, it is exceedingly difficult to resolve when you have not a clue where to start. Therefore, it's important that you understand theory. Sutton: Slide 4
With practical instruction, you would hope that theoretical methods are reinforced, as different people have different learning styles. If I surveyed those of you in this room on assembling a VCR or connecting it to your television, there probably would be a number of different answers. If you're like me, you like to read through the instructions. Other people may take a totally different approach. This is pretty much the same when you deal with forensic scientists. Some people like to read through the methods, others like to get in there and do it. For those who are methods based, it sends a shudder through our entire system when you see somebody fiddling with something and you're darn sure they don't know what they're doing.
There are certain advantages and disadvantages with conventional knowledge transfer. Hopefully, you've got one individual giving out the same message. Admittedly, however, not always the same message is received. Practical instruction provides reinforcement and the mixture of delivery methods and caters to different learning styles. Sutton: Slide 5
On the disadvantage side, there's always the time and cost of development, delivery, and revisions. When you're giving an oral presentation, the oral presentation inevitably will be different from week to week, month to month, and year to year. In my case, they may even be different back to back. With my head being like a chromatography column—where you load up the information at the front end and it runs out down to the bottom—I would be exceedingly lucky to give back-to-back presentations that were exactly alike. That makes your revisions more difficult; although you have an idea as to what was covered, you don't know exactly. You also have the cost of delivery. You have to pay for a lecturer to attend for the entire time that they're there. Sutton: Slide 6
An alternate method of knowledge transfer, which a number of universities are using at the moment, is either online instruction or placing information on CD–ROMs and distributing them to students. Sutton: Slide 7
Once again, there are some advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that it is self-paced. For those operational forensic biologists who have designed a training program, you get part way through the program, and inevitably the interruption comes. You just know that if you don't deal with it, the Earth's going to stop spinning and the people are going to drop off, so you better see what the person at the front counter actually wants. You then come back in what seems like a picosecond, but during that time, the critical information that you need for the rest of the lecture has escaped you. You then spend the next 3 or 4 hours trying to catch up. Online or CD instruction makes it very easy to go back and review. Sutton: Slide 8
Self-directed learning is also possible. You can include Web links on the CD–ROM or online, which allows students to explore different possibilities at different Web sites and obtain the information for themselves. Physical presence is not required, and, theoretically, you have a lower delivery cost. In some cases it may not necessarily be the lecturer who is answering the students' day-to-day questions; it could well be a postgraduate student.
Heavy reliance on technology is one of several disadvantages. If your computer skills are small, like mine, there may be a high level of frustration if a student tries to log on and can't. Therefore, you need good IT support if you're going to run with that method. Sutton: Slide 9
You can have high development costs in terms of the time that it takes to document the material that you are presenting, and it's less personal. You don't have the face-to-face interaction. As a student on the receiving end, I would much rather have a warm body in front of me that I could interact with rather than something on the end of a computer line.
With labs, the method of information transfer depends on a lot of things. It depends on the size of the lab, the number of new hires, the amount of funding, and who's in the culture of the organization. You typically tend to get transfer via mentoring from supervisors and peers. There is generally an evaluation of a mix of theoretical and practical instruction and competencies. Sutton: Slide 10
You hope that your forensic biologists would be evaluated on a regular basis. It is extremely important that they do have competency. It tends to be a bit of a career limiter for a forensic biologist if he or she cannot do the DNA technology and finds bits of his or her own DNA turning up in multiple cases.
The student knows how to do it the lab way. For any of you who have a good working rapport with someone, it is a great advantage when you're busy to tell him or her that your up to step five, and he or she knows exactly where to take over. Sutton: Slide 11
If the lab has a mature program and all the relevant elements are covered, you tend to get good quality instruction. It tends to be consistent because you've gone through a number of iterations to get to that point, and the development cost of the program is offset against the delivery cost, assuming that you deliver it a number of times.
The disadvantage of the lab method is the student may only know the lab way. For those of you who have worked in a number of different organizations, it tends to be a bit scary when you walk into a lab and ask the seemingly simple question, "Why do you do it that way," and the response you get is, "Oh, we've always done it that way." It is useful if forensic biologists are given the opportunity to learn how other labs actually do it. Sutton: Slide 12
The time taken to train an analyst consumes resources. Inevitably, the training would extend somewhere from 6 to 12 months. Usually the first 3 months, it takes you about time and a half or doubletime to do your work. By the time the person becomes vaguely useful (say at 6 months), the lab director has whisked him or her off to actually do their own casework. So you, as the trainer, tend not to get the benefit of having done all the work for the trainee, only to find that lurking in the wings is the next new hire, ready for you to train up.
The development cost of the training program may exceed the delivery cost. If you come from a small lab and you don't have that many new hires coming through, you don't tend to get the benefit.
When we developed the academy, we had a few guiding principles. One was to never reinvent the wheel. We Australians are particularly good at that. If you actually look at the ISO guidelines, you will see a remarkable similarity between it and the original DNA Advisory Board guidelines. The framework was actually based on the SWGDAM (Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods) training guidelines, because they were current for the United States and it was a framework designed by multiple users. The assumption was, then, that it would be what labs in the United States would want. Sutton: Slide 13
Coming from a service company, NFSTC, we keep trying to give customers what they want, and sometimes we succeed. The program actually covers the full range of DNA casework right from the front end through to the back end and from the exhibit receipt through to the court testimony. We decided to make it modular, as not all labs look at the same elements. For example, some labs have different groups that will actually deal with the exhibit control and the screening of exhibits and only concentrate on the DNA. By making it modular, it allows labs to pick up the modules that are useful for them and discard those that are not. Sutton: Slide 14
The other requirement that a lot of people requested was that the training be shorter. With this, we have people sitting at an academy, but we don't keep them offline for a number of months.
We wanted to include a mix of theory and practical instruction. The practical instruction will predominantly cover the STR (short tandem repeat) technology, because this is what most people did when we surveyed them for interest in attending the academy. The theoretical component, listed here, mirrors the SWGDAM training guidelines. Sutton: Slide 15
We were also asked to make it academically rigorous. For this, we looked to the University of Florida. We decided to split the DNA academy into two components: A 4-week, 5-graduate credit intensive theory program run through the University of Florida and a 12-week compressed practical instruction involving operational forensic scientists, particularly those from Illinois. Sutton: Slide 16
Regarding the development of the actual academy, we have a pilot that will commence in July of this year (2003). Among the 33 applicants who applied, 11 were accepted for the first class, and 11 were accepted for the second class, which will commence in January 2004. Sutton: Slide 17
The evaluation process will include employer feedback, student feedback, and student assessment throughout the duration of the academy. Sutton: Slide 18
As for delivering the product, we will be preparing a CD for NIJ to distribute. It will have a set of session plans, lesson plans, and laboratory exercises, and I hope that they will be of use to operational forensic labs. Sutton: Slide 19
I'd like to acknowledge NIJ for funding assistance; Illinois State Police, which has very kindly provided Andy Reese, their trainer, to assist with development of this academy; the Santa Clara DA Crime Lab; Marshall University DNA technical leaders who were crazy enough to stand still whenever I approached them and asked for some advice; the University of Florida; and the staff at NFSTC, particularly my two DNA cohorts, Mark Nelson and Lucy Davis Houck. Sutton: Slide 20
Thank you.
DR. SELAVKA: Any questions?
(No response.)
DR. SELAVKA: Are there any questions for any of the speakers that have provided you with their expertise this afternoon?
(No response.)
DR. SELAVKA: Hearing none, would you please join me in giving them a round of applause.