I thought that this was interesting, but very complex. There was a lot of note-taking involved, and I think being a Highway Officer must be very, very hard work.
I thought it was very intriguing to learn about how to be a forensic scientist! I agree with Cooper, saying that there WAS a lot of note-taking involved! I thought it was interesting how, when tracking skid marks, you are supposed to backtrack from the crime scene to the expected hit point. I have read books about forensic scientists, and I think that in science-fiction books they really downplay the amount of work involved in analyzing a crime scene. I think that this activity was really interesting! They shouldn't downplay the actual steps in books because I think that people who would read the books would find it interesting! I know I did!
This was interesting, but very long and you had to print out the note-taking sheet and take A LOT OF NOTES!!! It was still very interesting and cool to learn about a forensic scientist's job. I liked this Ed-Heads interactive a lot more than the last one about weather.
I did the notes but at the end my fingers were hurting s badly. I didn't know that there is all of the factors to factor in. Overall I thought that this was a much more exciting thing than the weather.
After reading your comments I decided to run through this interactive with taking notes. Although I did not take notes, I learned a lot about forensic science.
I must also say that the What-Ifs were unorganized and a few other things as well. I did learn a lot about forensic science, however. This wasn't the best EdHeads activity, but it was decent.
I must also say that the What-Ifs were unorganized and a few other things as well. I did learn a lot about forensic science, however. This wasn't the best EdHeads activity, but it was decent.
I thought that what we learned in this game was really interesting, but I, not hated, but very much disliked the game itself. I didn't like how you had to print out the document. I think that they should have the questions on the game and you just type it down on your laptop. Also, there was a LOT of note-taking involved. On the other hand, this was really cool to learn about a forensic scientist's job. This was an okay EdHeads game, but there have been better ones for sure. Also, their voices kind of annoy me... :)
I did this without taking notes, but I still learned stuff. However, most of the things I couldn't do because of glitches and faults in the programming.
I think this was an okay Edheads video. I liked learning such as all the note-taking and the different units and all the data they collect. I agree with many people that I took notes and they were complex and required a lot of writing. It was interesting to see and the backtracking they take to find out the cause of accident and if one of the drivers was responsible for the accident. I never knew half as much as I do now about forensic science and I like how we can learn and still be interactive. This, overall was a pretty cool learning experience.
This was very interesting and fun to do this EdHeads CSI thing. I love the activities we could do on EdHeads. I also learn a lot of things doing this like this. This time I learned that logically, the best way to proceed with this investigation is to start from the final resting point then trace skids and marks to the point of the impact. If a car was rolling normally, it would not make skids and marks. When crashes occur, the policemen and women would round down and use the minimum post-collision speeds so the defense attorney can't complain that they increased the speed by rounding up. I also learned that it was important to ask these questions to the witness: 1. Where were you when the accident occurred? 2. What did you see? 3. Were there any obstructions in the road? 4. Was there anything that prevented you from seeing the cars? 5. What speed do you think the cars were going? 6. What happened after the crash? I also learned a formula thing. It was: Speed=the square root of: 30(distance)(drag factor)(percent braking)
I took a course on forensic science in the summer, so this interested me. It was pretty complicated, and there were a lot of notes that had to be taken. It was a pretty large waste of paper if you had printed it out. It was a very interesting game and I learned a lot of new things about how forensic scientists study car crashes. I agree with Ava about how authors who right books about detectives and whatnot under estimate the amount of work that is needed to solve a crime.
This was very interesting but I still don't understand a few things about CSI. Why didn't they check if the witness was bias and could be lying. Shouldn't they have also checked for wind velocity that could move the car. Why would they measure the things in the crime scene if it won't change the amount of time that the driver spends in prison. One of the things that they should have talked about in crime scene investigation is that doing measuring on the road means that they have to close down the street. We already have enough traffic. We don't need this.
This was interesting yet very boring at some times. It is so annoying that you have to take so many notes. It was great learning about forensic science. Even though in TV and movies they show the life of a detective, a detective requires a lot of note taking. I extremely disliked (not hated) the part where you have to print out your notes
14 comments:
I thought that this was interesting, but very complex. There was a lot of note-taking involved, and I think being a Highway Officer must be very, very hard work.
I thought it was very intriguing to learn about how to be a forensic scientist! I agree with Cooper, saying that there WAS a lot of note-taking involved! I thought it was interesting how, when tracking skid marks, you are supposed to backtrack from the crime scene to the expected hit point. I have read books about forensic scientists, and I think that in science-fiction books they really downplay the amount of work involved in analyzing a crime scene. I think that this activity was really interesting! They shouldn't downplay the actual steps in books because I think that people who would read the books would find it interesting! I know I did!
This was interesting, but very long and you had to print out the note-taking sheet and take A LOT OF NOTES!!! It was still very interesting and cool to learn about a forensic scientist's job. I liked this Ed-Heads interactive a lot more than the last one about weather.
I did the notes but at the end my fingers were hurting s badly. I didn't know that there is all of the factors to factor in. Overall I thought that this was a much more exciting thing than the weather.
After reading your comments I decided to run through this interactive with taking notes. Although I did not take notes, I learned a lot about forensic science.
I must also say that the What-Ifs were unorganized and a few other things as well. I did learn a lot about forensic science, however. This wasn't the best EdHeads activity, but it was decent.
I must also say that the What-Ifs were unorganized and a few other things as well. I did learn a lot about forensic science, however. This wasn't the best EdHeads activity, but it was decent.
I thought that what we learned in this game was really interesting, but I, not hated, but very much disliked the game itself. I didn't like how you had to print out the document. I think that they should have the questions on the game and you just type it down on your laptop. Also, there was a LOT of note-taking involved. On the other hand, this was really cool to learn about a forensic scientist's job. This was an okay EdHeads game, but there have been better ones for sure. Also, their voices kind of annoy me... :)
I did this without taking notes, but I still learned stuff. However, most of the things I couldn't do because of glitches and faults in the programming.
I think this was an okay Edheads video. I liked learning such as all the note-taking and the different units and all the data they collect. I agree with many people that I took notes and they were complex and required a lot of writing. It was interesting to see and the backtracking they take to find out the cause of accident and if one of the drivers was responsible for the accident. I never knew half as much as I do now about forensic science and I like how we can learn and still be interactive. This, overall was a pretty cool learning experience.
This was very interesting and fun to do this EdHeads CSI thing. I love the activities we could do on EdHeads. I also learn a lot of things doing this like this. This time I learned that logically, the best way to proceed with this investigation is to start from the final resting point then trace skids and marks to the point of the impact. If a car was rolling normally, it would not make skids and marks. When crashes occur, the policemen and women would round down and use the minimum post-collision speeds so the defense attorney can't complain that they increased the speed by rounding up. I also learned that it was important to ask these questions to the witness:
1. Where were you when the accident occurred?
2. What did you see?
3. Were there any obstructions in the road?
4. Was there anything that prevented you from seeing the cars?
5. What speed do you think the cars were going?
6. What happened after the crash?
I also learned a formula thing. It was: Speed=the square root of: 30(distance)(drag factor)(percent braking)
I took a course on forensic science in the summer, so this interested me. It was pretty complicated, and there were a lot of notes that had to be taken. It was a pretty large waste of paper if you had printed it out. It was a very interesting game and I learned a lot of new things about how forensic scientists study car crashes. I agree with Ava about how authors who right books about detectives and whatnot under estimate the amount of work that is needed to solve a crime.
This was very interesting but I still don't understand a few things about CSI. Why didn't they check if the witness was bias and could be lying. Shouldn't they have also checked for wind velocity that could move the car. Why would they measure the things in the crime scene if it won't change the amount of time that the driver spends in prison. One of the things that they should have talked about in crime scene investigation is that doing measuring on the road means that they have to close down the street. We already have enough traffic. We don't need this.
This was interesting yet very boring at some times. It is so annoying that you have to take so many notes. It was great learning about forensic science. Even though in TV and movies they show the life of a detective, a detective requires a lot of note taking. I extremely disliked (not hated) the part where you have to print out your notes
Post a Comment