Adventures in After School Learning Blog

-By Mike DeBritz on Monday, May 14, 2012

The new version of the "Cookie Jar Mystery" for classroom is ready to order!

Here's a visual tour and introduction to each Module:

Module 1: Introduction - The Crime Scenario
Read how your students are introduced to the crime here!

Module 2: Always Leave a Note - Handwriting and Ink Analysis
The story continues here!

 

Module 3: Without a Trace - Examining Hair and Fiber Evidence
Now things are getting interesting...see why here!

Module 4: First Impressions - Fingerprints and Shoeprints
Students are now deep in analysis of the crime scene, read on here!

Module 5: One of a Kind - Blood Typing and DNA
Wow, the investigation is really heating up..follow along here!

Module 6: Law and Order - Conclusion and Mock Trial
It's time to conclude this who-dunnit and move to trial, here!

-By Mike DeBritz on Monday, May 07, 2012

Here's a quick video on how to break the cookie jar for the classroom version of the "Cookie Jar Mystery."  

In module 1, "The Crime Scenario" you'll start off by mocking up the crime scene to recreate the heinous crime that happened in Mrs. Johnson's classroom!   

-By Mike DeBritz on Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Now that all the evidence has been analyzed, your junior CSI’s will determine which suspect they believe is guilty of smashing Mrs. Johnson’s cookie jar and stealing her cookies.  In this final module, students analyze all the evidence and prepare their case for a mock trial.

            Mrs. Johnson consulted her lesson plan and counted to herself on her fingers, trying to estimate how long it would take to help her students finally bring the case of the Cookie Jar Mystery to a close. It had been a few weeks since she and her students had discovered her broken cookie jar lying on the floor of her classroom.

            She looked out across her class and smiled silently and proudly. Every student’s head was down and every pencil was moving, dutifully completing her “Quick Forensic Review Quiz.” The students had done some amazing work over the past several class periods, and the quiz was designed to help them remember how they had come to think about evidence, crime, investigations, and their classroom experiments.

            After a few moments, the students began to complete their quizzes, and quietly came up to her desk to leave their sheets to be graded. Each student then returned to his or her desk, and waited for their classmates to finish.

            After 15 minutes had passed, everyone had completed the test.

            “Very good, class,” began Mrs. Johnson. “I’ll grade your quizzes tonight.”

            Mark raised his hand and Mrs. Johnson called on him. “Mrs. J, now that we’ve identified the guilty party, how is the criminal going to be punished?”

            Mrs. Johnson knew that moving her students to the next level of understanding was not going to be easy. “Well, Mark, what do you think we should do with the perpetrator?”

            “How about bake cookies once a week for the rest of the year!” suggested Mark.

            “AND buy you a new cookie jar!” Ashley chimed in.

            “So you think we’ve proven that our suspect is guilty, is that it?” asked Mrs. Johnson.

            “Well, wasn’t that the point?” asked Marta, a thoughtful girl from the Chess Club. “We gathered the evidence that—at least from my point of view—makes it almost completely unlikely that anyone else could have committed the crime.”

            “I’m with Marta,” said George. “We found so much evidence, especially with the hair and fiber experiments.”

            “Yeah,” added Jennifer. “We even found the suspect’s blood type at the scene of the crime.”

            “You’re all correct,” continued Mrs. Johnson. “That is the evidence. But in our roles as crime scene technicians, our jobs are to collect, identify, catalog, and process evidence. That is what we have done. . .”

            Mrs. Johnson paused. “In fact, let’s imagine that that’s exactly what we have done. Imagine that we were working for a police department. After we’ve dealt with all of the evidence, we write up our results (just as we would do with any science experiment). In order to make sure that we’ve followed proper procedure, we need to test our conclusion. It sure looks like we have figured out who broke the cookie jar, but we are just technicians. What would happen in a real crime?”

            Ashley’s hand was in the air. “The police would come and arrest the suspect.”

            “Correct.”

            “And the police would put the suspect in jail!” exclaimed Jack. “For a long, long time!”

“Hold on, Jack. You’re right about the suspect going to jail. But the police cannot keep the person in jail forever.”                  

            “But we proved our suspect is guilty!”

            Mrs. Johnson chose her next words carefully. “I think it’s very tempting to think we have solved the crime and proven the suspect guilty. But to be fair, that’s not really our jobs as forensic scientists. Like I said, we had to collect and process the evidence, and we did. But now it’s up to someone else to punish the criminal. And the only people with the power to do that are a judge and jury.”

            “I know where you’re going with this, Mrs. Johnson. The suspect has rights, too,” said Marta suddenly. “The suspect can’t be sent to jail just because we say so. We’re not a judge and jury. The suspect has a right to a trial.”

            “And a lawyer,” added George.

            “But we’re not lawyers!” whined Ashley.

            “Well, a few weeks ago we weren’t forensic scientists, either,” said Jack. “But look at us now.”

            “I believe you can be anything you want to be,” said Mrs. Johnson.

            “I could be a judge!” volunteered Marta.

            “A lawyer for me!” exclaimed Mark.

            “Me, too!” said Jennifer. “Or maybe I could just be on the witness stand, you know, like an expert!”

            “What do you say, Mrs. Johnson?” asked George. “Do you think we could have a trial?”

            Mrs. Johnson turned on her heel and reached down to floor behind her desk. Suddenly she stood up with a thick pile of envelopes in her hand. She handed one to each student.

            “A trial,” she began mischievously, “...is exactly what I had in mind.”

-By Mike DeBritz on Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Now the investigation turns to the most unique evidence on the case...DNA.

Mrs. Johnson was late to class; all of her science students were already seated at their desks as she dumped her books and took off her long raincoat.

           “Sorry, everyone,” she began. “Take out your notes and let’s get right back into our crime scene investigation!”

            For several days, Mrs. Johnson’s students had been conducting experiments trying to determine who had broken their teacher’s cookie jar. Papers were shuffled and chairs scraped noisily along the floor as the students readied themselves. Mrs. Johnson took a quick glance around the room as she opened her attendance book.

            “Hey, Mrs. Johnson. What happened to your arm?”

            Mrs. Johnson was touched, but she kindly brushed off Jack’s concern. “Oh this?” she began, indicating the bandage in the crook of her right arm. “I was late because I was giving blood down at the firehouse.”

            “Ooooh, does it hurt to give blood?” asked Ashley anxiously.

            “There’s a little pinch when they put the needle in your arm, but giving blood is very important. It doesn’t take long. My blood type is AB+, and it’s a relatively rare type, so I am happy to be a blood donor. When you kids get older, I hope you’ll consider being blood donors, too!”

            “You know, Mrs. J, one of our suspects was sort of a ‘blood donor’--he (or she) must have cut himself on the cookie jar when it was broken. We collected a blood sample at the crime scene.”

            “Very good, Jack. That’s right.”

            “Well, if we test the blood and can figure out the type, maybe we can match it to one of our suspects,” said George.

            “That’s true,” replied Mrs. Johnson. “Luckily, I DO know the blood type of each of our suspects. Today, we’re going to ‘type’ our crime scene blood sample.”

            Emily spoke up quickly. She couldn’t keep the puzzled look off her face. “But if our suspects have the same blood type, that won’t help us figure out who the criminal is.”

            “Well, let’s consider the blood typing as a good place to start,” said Mrs. Johnson. “If we aren’t able to match the type to just one suspect, we’ll have to go one step further.”

            “But what else could we do?” asked Emily with exasperation. “I’m not sure we’re ever going to solve this case!”

            Mrs. Johnson lifted an amused eyebrow and looked out at her students. She was proud of the work they had done so far, but she knew they were capable of even more. “Today, we’re going to push our limits as forensic scientists,” she announced. “Has anyone here ever heard of DNA?”

Continue to the conclusion of this mystery in Law and Order here!

-By Mike DeBritz on Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The investigation is really getting interesting...

            Mark Mulvaney had been late to school again. Mr. Moriarty, the Principal of Crooked Creek Middle School knew Mark as a good student, but he also knew he couldn’t tolerate Mark’s persistent tardiness. As discipline, Mr. Moriarty assigned Mark to clean the windows in Mrs. Johnson’s science lab.

            Mark squirted and wiped with the cleaning solution, and was nearly finished when the students filed in for Mrs. Johnson’s next class.

            “Late again, Mark?” teased Ashley, his lab partner.

            Mark drew his finger down a pane of glass until it squeaked. Good enough. He tossed his roll of paper towels into his bucket, and headed for his seat. He was eager for the next installment of the class’s ongoing investigation into The Cookie Jar Mystery.

            Mrs. Johnson waited patiently for her students to take their seats and open their notebooks. “Good morning, everyone,” she began. “Is everyone ready to continue their detective work?”

            Many students had already made progress understanding how their science experiments could help to identify the “criminal” who had sneaked into Mrs. Johnson’s classroom and, in the process of snatching some her delicious cookies, had knocked the jar off her desk and broken it. Mrs. Johnson had discovered the mess and immediately set her students on the task of identifying the perpetrator.

            “Mrs. Johnson!” Ashley had her hand in the air. “I have a question about evidence.”

            “Go ahead, Ashley.”

            “Well, here’s what I’ve been thinking: the last time we met in class, we tried to match a fiber found at the crime scene to some fiber that belong to our suspects. But all of our suspects have been to your cookie jar many times. We have no way of knowing when the fiber was left.”

            Mrs. Johnson nodded. “That is one of the weaknesses of ‘class’ evidence. Even though we can match a sweater fiber at the crime scene to your sweater, Ashley, for example, that’s not ‘conclusive’ evidence. Lots of young women wear that sweater. In fact, I can think of three or four other girls who have a sweater like yours.”

            Mark rolled his eyes a little. He thought for a moment about how he might leave fibers from his blue jeans on his chair. But then again, lots of boys sat in his chair throughout the course of a day. Wouldn’t they all leave fibers behind? What they really needed was some kind of evidence that was unique to each person.

            Mrs. Johnson continued. She talked about class evidence, trace evidence, and evidence collection. And she acknowledged that finding evidence that pointed to just one person was sometimes very difficult.

            Mark sighed to himself; How were he and his classmates going to solve the mystery? He turned to the sparkling windows and looked outside. They had been dirty, marked up with streaks and fingerprints. Then it suddenly occurred to him: Fingerprints! Hadn’t he read somewhere that no two people had the same fingerprints? Maybe that would be the evidence they needed.

            He raised his hand. “Mrs. Johnson? I think I might have a new direction for our investigation…”

 Continue the story in the next module, One of a Kind, here!

-By Mike DeBritz on Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The story continues as your junior CSI's delve deeper into the evidence found at the classroom crime scene. 

As usual, the fascinating Mrs. Johnson, a science teacher at Crooked Creek Middle, began her lesson with a story. Because the students had been trying to solve the mystery of who had broken Mrs. Johnson’s cookie jar, they knew her story would be another step toward understanding crime-solving techniques. All of the students leaned forward in their seats and gave Mrs. Johnson their full attention.

            “In 1888, all of Europe was gripped by the grisly murders committed by a mysterious man named Jack the Ripper. Investigators from Scotland Yard (the headquarters of British detectives) did their best to apprehend the criminal, but the terrible killer was never identified.

            At the turn of the century, the interest in solving crimes continued, and the flames of this interest were fanned by the ever increasing popularity of a series of stories about Sherlock Holmes, a fictional detective who used his keen powers of observation to solve mysteries.

            But all investigative techniques were quite simple until about 1910, when a Frenchman named Edmond Locard approached the Lyons, France, police department and set up one of the world’s first forensic laboratories. Locard had an important theory.”

            Mrs. Johnson stopped for a moment and called on George, who had raised his hand.

            “We’re going to talk about Locard’s Principle, aren’t we, Mrs. Johnson.” It was more of a statement than a question.

            Mrs. Johnson was impressed. “You seem to have done your homework, George.”

            George flushed with genuine embarrassment, but he continued, “I guess you could say I’ve been investigating!”

            “What can you tell us about Monsieur Locard, George?”

            “Well, let me demonstrate.” George stood up, and as he did so, he nudged Jennifer, who was seated in front of him, and indicated that Jennifer should stand up. She did. “Locard believed that people who are in contact with each other—even casually—“(and here George shook hands with Jennifer quickly) “exchange something, some kind of evidence. It’s usually something we don’t even see, like skin cells, fibers, hair, or even germs. If I just brush past Jennifer, I might pick up some fibers from her sweater.”

            “And I might exchange some hairs from you!” said Jennifer to George. She sat back down in her seat, and so did George.

            “Exactement! Exactly!” laughed Mrs. Johnson. “Excuse my French!”

            “So that’s Locard’s Principle, Mrs. J.?” asked Mark. “What does that have to do with our mystery? I don’t think two people were involved in breaking your cookie jar!”

            “Maybe not, Mark. But Locard’s Principle isn’t only about people running into each other, it’s also about the contact between people and things.”       

            “So, you mean, whoever broke the cookie jar must have left something behind?” asked Jennifer.

            “Some evidence was collected,” Mrs. Johnson continued. “I put it in an envelope marked ‘crime scene fiber.’ Let’s try an experiment and see what we can learn from applying Locard’s Principle!”

Continue the story in the next module, First Impressions, here!

-By Mike DeBritz on Wednesday, February 15, 2012

In the module two of this version of the "Cookie Jar Mystery" students will begin to examine the evidence discovered at the crime scene discovered in module one.  The focus of this activity is analyzing the note left behind which is really two clues in one: the handwriting and the ink used to write the note.  As in the first module, the students are introduced to the module through a story:

In Mrs. Johnson’s science classroom, an awful crime has taken place: someone has broken her cookie jar! In an effort to solve the mystery of “whodunit,” Mrs. Johnson has decided to involve her students.

            “We’re not detectives,” began Ashley, shaking her ponytail doubtfully. “How can we solve the mystery?”

            “Well, this IS a science class,” said Mrs. Johnson. “We know how to do experiments. Investigating a crime is usually done by a team of technicians who’ve been trained in forensic science. Forensic science uses scientific tools and skills and experiments to solve crime-related puzzles.”

            “You know, just like they do on TV,” interjected Jack. “It’s just like CSI!”

            “You’re right, Jack. Forensic science is very popular right now, in television, books, and in movies. But it’s not entirely new! Some people think forensic science is new, but scientists have been using special techniques to solve crimes for hundreds of years.”

            “In our last class we examined the scene of the crime and took some statements from some of our suspects, but we weren’t able to determine who broke the cookie jar,” said Mark to his classmates. “What else can we do?”

            “Well, there was a note!” exclaimed Ashley. “That must be a clue!”

            Mrs. Johnson motioned for her students to take their seats. She crossed her arms in front of her and thought for a moment. “Ashley suggested that the note might be a clue, a kind of evidence. But evidence of what?”

            George, a normally quiet boy, spoke up. “Well, the note is evidence if it helps us figure out the truth.”

            “What do you think the note can tell us, George?” asked Mrs. Johnson.

            “Yeah,” said Mark. “It’s not like the criminal signed it!”      

             “If the paper was a special paper, too, like a certain color paper or graph paper, we might be able to connect it to a particular person.”

            “But this paper’s not special,” offered Jack glumly. “The note’s just on regular school paper, the same kind we all use.”

            “Well, maybe there’s something in the handwriting,” said George. “We don’t all write alike, so maybe we can figure out who the author is.”

            “Good, good thinking,” nodded Mrs. Johnson. “You’re on the right track. I’ve got two experiments for us today. First—as George suggested--we’ll tackle handwriting analysis. Then, we’ll use a special process called ink chromatography to see if we can match the ink on the paper to a particular pen.”

            Jack rubbed his hands together. “We’re hot on the criminal’s trail, Mrs. J!”

            Ms. Johnson laughed. “Let’s get started.”

Continue the story in the next module, Without a Trace, here!