Place-based education (PBE) provides authentic, robust ways to connect classroom students to their communities. Such lessons can leverage community resources and local experts to help students learn about unique characteristics of their community. PBE can be implemented as project-based learning that is learner-centered and inquiry-based, and also uses the community as the classroom (Getting Smart Staff 2017). Additionally, these lessons can be interdisciplinary as they often involve real-life contexts. PBE is sometimes referred to as experiential learning (Loveless n.d.), where students learn by doing or through an experience (McLeod 2017). Communities are often replete with organizations with which educators can collaborate, but there are also many barriers, including time constraints, experience, and expertise. However, when students engage deeply in their local history and place, they can learn valuable science content and critical thinking, while developing a strong sense of belonging.

Further, PBE can be adaptable to unique communities, each with a variety of organizations and educational resources, including museums (Getting Smart Staff 2017). PBE can also help students form a bridge between their schools and their community (Smith 2002). Thus, students find that their strong ties to their community’s histories and legacies matter and are intriguing. They learn that we can and should study our local history, wildlife, and ecosystems. By doing so, students can help make our communities stronger.

This article describes how high school teachers collaborated with a local museum curator to develop CSI cases that were written, solved, and taken to mock trial exclusively by students. The framework provided can serve as a starting point for educators to develop similar units by using local organizations and experts to engage their students in place-based learning.

Linda Rost, a high school science teacher from Montana; Brittany Hoversland, a history and government teacher at the same school; and Melissa Rost, curator of the local O’Fallon Historical Museum, have developed two CSI curriculum units in which students develop CSI cases from real events that have occurred in the county. A CSI curriculum unit involves students from three different courses: science research, chemistry, and government, as described below and in Table 1:

• First, by using artifacts from the museum and interviewing local knowledge holders, students in Rost’s science research class develop the cases over the course of approximately one month (Table 1). Using factual accounts and information, the students weave in fictional parts to embellish the cases. They also create physical evidence to analyze.
• Next, Rost’s chemistry class works in groups as CSI teams to evaluate and analyze the evidence and solve the case in about one week. Each CSI team recommends a suspect to Hoversland’s government class and they build an argument against one of the suspects.
• Each of Hoversland’s three class periods serve as either the prosecution, defense, or jury. Over the course of a week, they choose a suspect and prepare their argument. Finally, they bring the case to the local courthouse to be tried.

Unit Development Structure

Step 1: Case Development

To develop the unit, Rost’s science research class brainstorms about events that have occurred in the past. They talk with community members and find archived local newspapers and historical books from the library and internet. They begin a list of possible topics to use when building the CSI case. Curator Melissa Rost also frequently shares ideas of crimes or events she comes across in her research, as well as accompanying artifacts that are curated in the museum.

Examples of crimes or events that could be used include murder, arson or fires, robbery, or vandalism. We are careful to not consider events that are too recent or would paint current community members in a negative light. The topics chosen include unresolved mysteries with closed investigations. If students can’t find a topic, a crime could be fabricated around a specific event. The students solving the case know it was partially or completely written by the other class.

Once students decide on a topic for the case, they begin conducting research to learn more about the context of the event during class and after school. This begins with reading newspaper articles and going to the local courthouse to find public records, maps, or other information. They also visit the museum to look at artifacts. Additionally, they interview local knowledge holders who witnessed or are familiar with the event. Many community members become involved with helping students access information about the case, including the historical society, governmental entities, the sheriff and police department, and the fire department. During this process, they are careful to protect the reputation of any community members or their loved ones as they learn about the event.

Next, students work together to write the narrative for the case. They start by writing a narrative about the facts that they know about the case. Then, students collaborate to add the fiction part of the case, including made-up characters, evidence, and motives. This basically serves as the “answer key” to frame the case, and though it is based on facts, it is also heavily embellished. Students try to not incriminate any existing community members or their relatives, so they often make up new characters to serve as suspects. They develop a list of four suspects that they weave into the narrative.

Next, students create a table to summarize the four suspects, their role in the story, and their possible motive (Table 2, see Supplemental Resources). Students select one suspect to be guilty, which is kept secret from the other classes, but sometimes build in accomplices. Only one suspect can be tried, so this creates some red herrings. The next step is creating a table where they summarize the main information about each suspect (Table 3, see Supplemental Resources). Each suspect is represented by one of the science research class students. If they are called to stand trial or called as a witness, that student will serve in that role. Additionally, the fingerprints for those four students are also used. They also typically use suspect description forms, defense witness forms, and prosecution witness forms (Figure 1, see Supplemental Resources). Students fill out all of these forms for each suspect based on the main narrative. They also have to make up new characters to serve as the witnesses. Other forms or paperwork are made or used from the artifacts they collect as needed.

Science research students then develop an evidence table (Table 4, see Supplemental Resources). Here, they track the evidence they are making, how the CSI teams (chemistry class) will analyze it, the information it provides, and which suspect it incriminates. They try to ensure that each suspect has two or three pieces of evidence incriminating them to make it more challenging to solve. Using artifacts and photographs from the museum, newspaper articles, and the physical evidence they create themselves, students build and organize the case. The case can be built, for example, on evidence found through fingerprint analysis, ink chromatography, identification of solids or liquids, and handwriting analysis, along with information found in items such as photographs, videos, newspaper articles, and journal entries.

The entire case development process takes approximately one month. The science research class creates and prepares all of the evidence and carefully labels it for each of the CSI teams. The final step is to organize the information in files for the chemistry class to work through. They are given an evidence form to fill out and a PowerPoint template to record their information for their presentations to the government classes (Table 5, see Supplemental Resources; see also link to PowerPoint, Figure 2).

During the case development phase, students demonstrated that they could work together in collaborative groups on an open-ended project. Students chose the topic, interviewed and researched related information, and formed a case around that story. As they were writing the case, they divided the work based on their individual interests and strengths. They also set personal and group goals, and ensured that they were each progressing on their work in the proper sequence. Students commented that they had never completed a project of this scope that not only lent itself to research and science but also creativity and collaboration. There were really no rules and students could pursue any plot line they wanted to weave into the story. As they were creating the physical evidence, they enjoyed including twists and curve balls for the CSI scientists to solve.

Step 2: CSI Teams Solve the Case

All evidence, information, and files are given to the chemistry class, which is a separate group of students who act as CSI scientists. Over the course of approximately one week, these students form groups of two to four and begin processing the information and evidence, then prepare a presentation to share findings. They receive an overall case summary so they know basic information about the event from newspapers, interviews, and other resources. Once they read through that background, they read about the suspects and their witness statements. They are given a blank evidence table to summarize the information and make sense of it (Table 5). The groups fill it out together as they work through the evidence.

For the physical evidence, students receive information about how to conduct the tests. For example, they have step-by-step directions for fingerprint analysis, ink chromatography, gel electrophoresis, and other techniques, along with videos. Each group has its own set of equipment to conduct the tests. Students spend a week processing the evidence and conduct meetings to share their findings with each other. The CSI teams sometimes visit the museum to collect evidence if relevant. For example, with one crime, the event actually happened at the museum, which used to be a jailhouse. Students had to look through the museum to find physical evidence hidden there.

The goal for the CSI teams is to evaluate the evidence and information, conduct and use empirical evidence to form conclusions about each piece of evidence, develop a proposed storyline, and choose a suspect. Then, they prepare a presentation and provide justification for their conclusions. As with the science research teams, the CSI student groups divided up the work and decided which parts each group member would tackle. They also had frequent, peer-led meetings to share evidence and findings as the case developed. Students demonstrated that they could strategically tackle a large project with many moving parts and communicate with each other. During the presentation, they organized their information with the assumption that the government classes would not have any prior knowledge of the case. They provided the information efficiently and comprehensively to ensure that the prosecution and defense had adequate material to build the case. During the mock trial part of the project, some of the CSI team members were called to the stand. There, they demonstrated their deep knowledge of the case, especially during the cross-examination. Since the students on the CSI teams knew there was a storyline that was correct, they became very engaged in solving the case correctly. They guarded their information and conclusions carefully from the other CSI teams, and eagerly anticipated learning the “true” story at the end of the trial.

Step 3: Mock Trial

Once the CSI teams have completed their analysis, chosen a suspect and motive, and developed an explanation of the crime or event, they prepare a PowerPoint summarizing all of the evidence and information using a template (Figure 2). Each team can choose a different suspect and explanation. Three different government classes are then involved to serve as the prosecution, defense, and jury. They spend part of the week learning about the pre-trial and trial processes. The CSI teams present their PowerPoints to the prosecution and defense government classes. The jury class spends the time learning about the court and jury process and watching “12 Angry Men.” The prosecution government class chooses a suspect and identifies the legal code to try the suspect. They prepare subpoena documents and present them to different witnesses to testify on the witness stand. The defense team also prepares the defendant for cross-examination by the prosecution team. Then, the prosecution and defense government classes prepare their cases and their lines of questioning. Finally, the government classes bring the suspect to trial at the local courthouse.

The CSI team chemistry class and science research class also attend the trial. Members of the CSI teams are also called to the stand if explanations about evidence are needed. The mock trial begins with opening statements from prosecution and defense attorneys. Then, they call witnesses to the stand to present their case to the jury. They provide photographs of the evidence and findings for the jury. Following the closing statements from the prosecution and defense, the judge provides directions to the jury. The jury then moves to the jury room to review the evidence and deliberate to determine a verdict. Finally, the jury returns to the courtroom and the jury foreman delivers the verdict.

To conclude the trial, all of the students are then given a summary of the case that was actually developed by the science research class to determine if they tried and convicted the correct suspect. All of the evidence and information about each suspect is provided so students can identify how they evaluated all of the evidence and how accurately they solved the case. Students then discuss the case and court process together.

The mock trial was the place where the different groups of students had to demonstrate their knowledge of the case and the jury process. Table 6 in Supplemental Resources shows a series of rubrics used for all members of the trial. The government teacher assessed how the attorneys for the prosecution and defense demonstrated that they could support all of their claims with evidence and statistics. Full credit demonstrated that their line of reasoning and logic was organized and tied to their main premise. At times, the attorneys would overlook an important detail in the evidence or storyline, or an inconsistency presented by a witness. Attorneys were also expected to ensure that their witness and evidence lists were complete and accurate prior to the trial. During the trial, the jurors were expected to be attentive and take notes at all times during the case. Each student had to be engaged in the discussion, review the evidence during the jury deliberation, then submit a vote when called upon. They also completed a juror worksheet to demonstrate their learning. The witnesses that were called to the stand assumed their role by adhering to the witness statements and storyline, though at times they deviated by mistake. During the cross-examination, they were able to rebut any assertions that were contrary to the written profile. Finally, defense and prosecution team members helped develop the case, witness statements, and lines of questioning, and were attentive during the trial.

Student and Community Lesson Outcomes

In this unit, students in the science research class have an opportunity to choose a place-based event that has happened in their community and use their creativity to develop an entire case around it. Many community members become involved as students are conducting research and developing the case narrative. As a collaborative process, this part of the project can also be differentiated to each learner because each student can decide on which part they wish to work on. Some of the case development involves writing, research, artistic expression, creating physical evidence, and planning and organizing the content. Thus, students can divide up the work based on their interests and abilities, while collaboratively working together.

Students in the chemistry class work in CSI teams to evaluate the evidence and solve the case. This unit is completed at the end of the year, once the chemistry class has learned a lot of the chemistry content and has done some of the techniques used to analyze the evidence. The tests conducted on some of the evidence involve chemistry concepts, such as ink chromatography and identification of solids and liquids. Students also use critical-thinking skills as they solve the case.

The government classes learn about the trial process in a real-world context with a topic that is unique and place-based. As each class prepares for the mock trial in a different way, they can collaboratively see how the trial process progresses from start to finish. They also evaluate many different types of evidence to form their lines of questioning. The jury class has to understand the evidence and stories that the attorneys provide to come to a verdict.

All students also have the opportunity to engage in place-based learning and visit the local museum. They view the artifacts related to the case in a much more engaging and analytical way than just visiting a museum. Through this project students become more interested in local history and the community. Most of the students involved in this project are seniors, with the exception of a few juniors in the chemistry and science research classes.

Students look forward to this cross-curricular, community-based project every year. Months prior to the project, they often begin hypothesizing about and making suggestions for cases that could be used. Community members also make suggestions to the museum for cases to use. The museum curator also attends the mock trial and posts information about the case in the newspaper and social media. Community members also comment about details from the case and become more engaged with the museum.

Student Feedback

Many students shared that this is the most engaging project that they participated in during high school. They also commented that it is a very valuable learning experience and one that effectively combines three different classes. One student said, “It’s so cool to put yourself in the shoes of lawyers and investigators while also learning the functions of our legal system and applying aspects of science.” Students in younger grades often say they enroll in science research or chemistry so they can have a more central role in the case.

Program Evaluation

These two curriculum units were conducted in consecutive years and are summarized below. The two units were similarly structured, but we made improvements the second year to organize student learning. During the first unit, the students designing the case had some difficulty finding resources, so the curriculum unit for the following year had students using the museum and community to find more information. Students benefited from the teacher helping to organize their workload and collaborations. The teacher oversaw the whole design of the case, managing each student and ensuring the case was cohesive, especially as students made changes.

While it was challenging to fit in during a typical class schedule, the students designing the case visited the museum several times and collected necessary materials. Since the alleged crime actually happened at the museum, they even hid the evidence there. Later, when the chemistry class came to solve the case as the CSI team, physically finding the evidence in different parts of the museum really enhanced their engagement. As the CSI teams were solving the case, they identified holes in the storyline or incomplete information. At times, the science research students who designed the case had to meet and resolve problems. The CSI teams were reminded that the government classes would have only the information the CSI team provided in their presentation, so they had to ensure that it was comprehensive and understandable.

However, while the government class was preparing for the trial, they also often had questions for the CSI teams when the evidence was unclear. This showed the CSI teams where they should have been more descriptive in their presentation and served as an example for CSI teams the following year. Likewise, during the mock trial, it was challenging for government students to remember all the details of the case as it unfolded in court. Because of this challenge and also errors in the evaluation of the CSI team, sometimes claims made at the mock trial were incorrect. When the students were provided with the actual storyline at the end, they could fill in the gaps that they missed.

Case Examples

Who Shot the Sheriff?: The Andy Andolshek Case

This case was framed around a sheriff, Andy Andolshek, who was found dead in the old jailhouse in 1947. The jailhouse building is now part of the O’Fallon Historical Museum. He was found dead by his fiancée and sister, and at the time he was assumed to have died by suicide. The CSI teams chose his fiancée as the suspect, and she was found guilty of murder during the mock trial. For this case, the science research class hid evidence in the museum for the CSI team to find, including burned ballots from a botched election (see Appendix A in Supplemental Resources).

An Old Flame: The Baker High School Fire Case

The old high school burned down on February 18, 1967. It was always assumed to have been a malfunction of the electrical box by the gym. Students interviewed members of the fire department who fought the fire that day. Some of the interviewees had been students at the school, and they shared the mischief they engaged in. One gentleman provided a sketch of the school’s blueprint, and the museum had a cache of photographs of the building from different time periods. The bell from the school’s bell tower sits in front of the current high school. From all of this information, the science research class developed a case to incriminate four suspects. The CSI team found overwhelming evidence against the (fictitious) disgruntled school custodian who was tired of the students’ mischief and vandalism. He was brought to trial and found guilty of arson (see Appendix B in Supplemental Resources).

Conclusion

This article provides a framework that can be used to build cross-curricular CSI cases in collaboration with local organizations like museums. These cases are very engaging for students to write, solve, and bring to court, as they involve local historical events about community and/or family members. The cases are designed as fictitious embellishments of actual events, which creates a fun and creative environment for students to learn science, critical thinking, how forensics teams operate, and the process of a jury trial.

As these cases were built from local stories and history, this was an effective way to implement PBE and tether the learning to local events. For this project, the PBE was experiential and involved a number of stakeholders within the community. While the cases were rooted in intriguing local contexts, students also learned science concepts during the CSI investigation and used critical thinking to bring the case to trial. The mock trial was held in the iconic local courthouse where students could experience the entire trial process in their home community. Not only was the community brought into the classroom, but the classroom was brought out into the community in the local museum and courthouse. This project brought down the traditional walls of the classroom in a way that was interdisciplinary, learner-centered, authentic, and meaningful.

Video Resources

Andy Andolshek 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAiP29s_EEo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz_cfG-7Dlw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrlN982NIzM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FftuffGYg14

Baker High School Fire 2021

https://youtu.be/Q8wV3G9_LlQ

Linda Rost (rostl@baker.k12.mt.us) is a high school science teacher and Brittany Hoversland is a high school history and government teacher, both at Baker High School in Baker Montana, and Melissa Rost is the curator at O'Fallon Historical Museum in Baker, Montana.

citation: Rost, L., B. Hoversland, and M. Rost. 2022. Place-based cases: Museum collaboration develops mock trial CSI cases. Connected Science Learning 4 (1). https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-january-february-2022