An Approach to Enhance Understanding of Digital Forensics Technical Terms in the Presentation Phase of a Digital Investigation Using Multimedia Presentations

  • Niken Dwi Wahyu Cahyani
  • Ben Martini
  • Kim-Kwang Raymond ChooEmail author
  • Helen Ashman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 255)


This study examines the usage of multimedia presentations with a particular focus on the presentation phase within a trial context. The aim is to understand the extent to which multimedia presentations increase a lay person’s understanding of technical terms and concepts in digital forensics. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted in Japan with 25 participants attending the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) 160th international training course entitled “Contemporary Digital Forensic Investigations”. Multimedia presentations in the form of videos were played with the aim of explaining three concepts: cloud computing, botnet and forensic file recovery. The findings of our survey showed that 84% of the participants had a better understanding after watching the videos. These results both support and extend findings from our previous research studies. The discussion on material classification, background culture and language issues, video material, and other tools that would facilitate understanding and the needs of an expert provide guidance for the practical implementation of multimedia presentations for their usage in a courtroom setting.


Technical understanding Digital forensics Multimedia presentation Evidence presentation Judiciary training 


  1. 1.
    Plowman, J.K.: Multimedia in the courtroom: a valuable tool or smoke and mirrors. Rev. Litig. 15, 415–430 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayer, R.E.: The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learn. Instr. 13(2), 125–139 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cahyani, N.D.W., Martini, B., Choo, K.-K.R.: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations in improving understanding of technical terminologies and concepts: a pilot study. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 49, 1–17 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cahyani, N.D.W., Martini, B., Choo, K.-K.R.: Using multimedia presentations to improve digital forensic understanding: a pilot study. In: 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–10. University of South Australia, South Australia (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cahyani, N.D.W., Martini, B., Choo, K.-K.R.: Using multimedia presentations to enhance the judiciary’s technical understanding of digital forensic concepts: an Indonesian case study. In: 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5617–5626. IEEE Computer Society Press, Hawaii (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckett, J., Slay, J.: Scientific underpinnings and background to standards and accreditation in digital forensics. Digit. Invest. 8(2), 114–121 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKemmish, R.: What is forensic computing? Trends Issues Crime Crim. Justice 118, 1–6 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kessler, G., Fasulo, M.: The case for teaching network protocols to computer forensics examiners. In: Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, pp. 115–137. Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, United States (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reith, M., Carr, C., Gunsch, G.: An examination of digital forensic models. Int. J. Digit. Evid. 1(3), 1–12 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baryamureeba, V., Tushabe, F.: The enhanced digital investigation process model. In: Digital Forensic Research Conference, pp. 1–9. DFRWS, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Casey, E., Palmer, G.: The investigative process. In: Casey, E. (ed.) Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, 2nd edn, pp. 91–114. Academic Press, London (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yasinsac, A., Erbacher, R.F., Marks, D.G., Pollitt, M.M., Sommer, P.M.: Computer forensics education. IEEE Secur. Priv. Mag. 99(4), 15–23 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grispos, G., Storer, T., Glisson, W.: Calm before the storm: the challenges of cloud computing in digital forensics. Int. J. Digit. Crime Forensics 4(2), 28–48 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martini, B., Choo, K.-K.R.: An integrated conceptual digital forensic framework for cloud computing. Digit. Invest. 9(2), 71–80 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolthusen, S.D.: Overcast: forensic discovery in cloud environments. In: 5th International Conference on IT Security Incident Management and IT Forensics, pp. 3–9. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carney, B., Feigenson, N.: Visual persuasion in the Michael Skakel trial: enhancing advocacy through interactive media presentations. Crim. Justice 19, 22–36 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bloxham, S.: Marking and moderation in the UK: false assumptions and wasted resources. Assess. Eval. High Educ. 34(2), 209–220 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crook, C., Gross, H., Dymott, R.: Assessment relationships in higher education: the tension of process and practice. Brit. Educ. Res. J. 32(1), 95–114 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weigle, S.C.: Assessing Writing. Cambrigde University Press, Cambrigde (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barkaoui, K.: Variability in ESL essay rating processes: the role of the rating scale and rater experience. Lang. Assess. Q. 7(1), 54–74 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jongsma, E.A., Mellott, D.K.: Computerized system and method for teaching and assessing the holistic scoring of open-ended questions. IFI CLAIMS Patent Services (2004).
  22. 22.
    Schmitt, G.R.: Online DNA training targets lawyers, judges. NIJ J. 256, 16–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Varfi, T., Parmentier, S., Aertsen, I. (eds).: Developing judicial training for restorative justice: towards a European approach. European Forum for Restorative Justice, Leuven (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanrahan, S.J., Isaacs, G.: Assessing self-and peer-assessment: the students’ views. High Educ. Res. Dev. 20(1), 53–70 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Armytage, L.: Educating Judges: Towards a New Model of Continuing Judicial Learning, 1st edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ladyshewsky, R.: East meets west: the influence of language and culture in clinical education. Aust. J. Physiother. 42(4), 287–294 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morales, M.: Influence of culture and language sensitive physics on science attitude enhancement. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 10(4), 951–984 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hout, K., de Bodo, R.: Technologies for courtroom presentation (with technical terms explained!). Pract. Litigator 7(4), 61–76 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sainato, V.: Evidentiary presentations and forensic technologies in the courtroom, the director’s cut. J. Inst. Justice Int. Stud. 9, 38–52 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Unger, P.J.: Technology for courtroom presentations. GP Solo 31(5), 24–30 (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learn Instr. 12(1), 107–119 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prabhakaran, B.: Adaptive multimedia presentation strategies. Multimedia Tools Appl. 12(2), 281–298 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niken Dwi Wahyu Cahyani
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ben Martini
    • 1
  • Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Helen Ashman
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems and Cyber SecurityThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsTelkom UniversityBandungIndonesia

Personalised recommendations