Only after writing these reflections did I realise that five out of the six lesson I taught were either in the introductory Genetics Evolution and Ecology course or in one of the ‘Fundamentals’ courses for each of these topics that are taught in later years. BIOL 230 is the Fundamentals of Ecology course taught in second year.

I decided to teach a class on plant defense systems. This was an interesting class to take on, as it is not necessarily my area of expertise, but my research group has focused in the past on ecological plant biochemistry and so I had a lot of first-hand examples to draw from. This class felt a bit like a fact delivery class, which is not really my preferred way of teaching, but it was clear that this was a small part of a larger module in the course, and the purpose was to acquaint students with the variety of different ways that plants can defend themselves from herbivores and pathogens.

In general, I’ve felt that courses on evolutionary biology and ecology always benefit from a wealth of real-world examples. I’ve mentioned in the past that biology is a science of systems. Only by amassing many recurring examples of a phenomenon in nature can we support the theories by which the natural world appears to function. I brought up a number of topical and local examples of plant defense interactions in order to help the class better relate to the material, such as Mountain Pine Beetle or White Pine Weevil attacks on pine and spruce trees respectively here in British Columbia. I used a few iClicker questions to try to help the class understand some of the current hypotheses of how plants evolve specific defense mechanisms, and how there are resource trade-offs between survival and defense. I also included a section on the organism which I research, Western Redcedar, as there are a number of interesting ecological interactions in that system, as well as a good example of an evolutionary arms race, which may help explain why many organisms tend to evolve to specialise in preying on certain plant species.

I think the lesson went quite well, but it was a bit dry. I might have tried to improve it by including an activity of some sort, such as a worksheet, but there wasn’t quite enough time with the volume of information that needed to be passed on. Again, not my preferred method of teaching, but I don’t make the syllabus.

BIOL 336 is a ‘Fundamentals’ course in biology, this time focused on evolutionary biology. This was my first time teaching in an upper-year course. I was apprehensive at first, but I ended up teaching a lesson on quantitative genetics, which is a topic I am fairly specialised in. Quantitative genetics is a topic that always feels a little out of place in the courses in which it is taught. It often relies on principles and concepts that are disparate from the other concepts in the course. Thus, one of my goals in this lesson was to try to connect the topic with the broader objectives of the course so that students would be left feeling lost.

Quantitative genetics is a sub-field of population genetics. It specifically addresses the issue of biological traits that have quantitative characters, such as height and growth traits, agricultural yield, or milk yield and fat content in dairy cows. In fact, many of the principles of quantitative genetics were developed and elaborated upon by plant and animal breeders, making quantitative genetics a more applied field than the largely theoretical field of population genetics. Previously, when I taught the introductory population genetics class for BIOL 121 I remarked on how the unit by which evolution is measured is the population. Thus, I sought in this class to connect the principles of quantitative genetics back to population genetics and evolutionary biology as a whole.

I began by explaining that the origin of quantitative genetics came up from a long debate over the inheritance of traits. After Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1857, one element that still eluded him and other researchers at the time was the mechanism by which evolution could occur. The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s work in 1900 seemingly cleared the air: traits would be controlled by an allele, and you would get one copy from either parent. Dominance of certain alleles could ensure that certain phenotypes would be more prevalent in the population. However, some researchers were not content with this approach to explaining inheritance of quantitative traits. Eventually, the statistician Ronald Fisher proposed a model that would help bridge the two groups: traits are controlled by a theoretically infinite number of alleles, each with a varying level of effect on the trait. This model still largely holds true today, and can help us see how quantitative traits might evolve or be selected for.

I continued by explaining how phenotypic variation in traits, that is, the differences that we see, are a product of genetics and the organism’s environment. I used iClicker questions to help illustrate how the genetic component can be further broken down, but only the additive effects of each allele controlling the trait can be easily or reliably estimated.

Because quantitative genetics has largely been driven by breeding practice, one of the fundamental values measured is the breeding value. This is a metric of the genetic value of an individual, based on the average value of their offspring. This is a difficult concept to approach for beginners. This is fundamentally another one of those concepts that I find are difficult to properly teach in a classroom setting, as you don’t get a good idea of how researchers use them in a real world setting. I worked through a few basic examples in this case, but I also explained to the class how in reality, these predictions need to be made using thousands of individuals, and can only be accurately obtained using advanced statistical models.

Finally, I tied the topic back to evolutionary biology on a larger scale by demonstrating how we can use the information about genetic and environmental components of traits to understand how populations respond to selection, whether it be artificial or natural. Overall, students seemed comfortable with the concepts. It helped that this is a third year course and thus they already have some of the necessary background. I did feel that this class ended up being a little less interactive than some of the others I’ve done. I’m beginning to feel that having a large active learning component is easier in first year courses, where the primary motive is to engage students and to help spark their interest in the field, versus in later courses where it may be necessary to impart more technical and in-depth information. This is of course a generalisation, but it is a patter that has emerged to me, at least.

This was my second opportunity teaching in BIOL 121, although this time I was teaching course content rather than a guest lecture. I chose to take the introductory lesson on population genetics, as I enjoy the topic and also find that it can be challenging for first-year students. When I was in my first year, I remembered that I struggled a bit with the concepts. For this lesson, I took the time to sit and ponder what had made it difficult for me to understand – the material itself, or how it was taught? I suspect it was a mixture of both.

When Darwin and Wallace first compiled their thought on evolution by means of natural selection, it was not known what biological mechanism was allowing for selection to take place. It took a number of decades before it was discovered that there were certain elements within an organism that dictate certain traits, which we now call genes (it is important to realise that Darwin and Wallace completed their works in the mid-19^th century, whereas the discovery of DNA and its establishment as the material of our genetic code only occurred nearly 100 years later in the mid-20^th century). We now know that mutations in the genetic code are what generate the variation necessary for evolution to act upon. Thus, the prevailing logos: ‘Genes mutate, individuals are selected, populations evolve’. This was the message I wanted to clarify to the students, especially as they had just learned about mutation. I began with an example to clarify how changing environmental conditions led to a shift in frequencies of certain genes in a population of moths, as one type was selected for over time. I made sure to stress in this case how it was the population and not the individuals that was evolving. Because of the complexity of the topic, I chose to use the moth example throughout the lesson in order to keep a familiar aspect to new material as it was introduced.

I started the lesson with an iClicker question which was designed to assess the students’ understanding of some terminology. The idea was to see whether they would be comfortable with me using the terminology during the class. I think that this was useful and helped me avoid confusing the students with new terminology. I then introduced the Hardy-Weinberg model of genetic equilibrium which we would be working with in the class, which is one of the fundamental models of population genetics and evolutionary biology. This model essentially describes what we expect to see if evolution is not occurring at a specified location in the genome; in other words, it is a null model. This concept was a bit confusing but I was careful to work through it with a few examples, once again using the moth example to keep things simple. I then had the students try applying the model on their own using an iClicker question. At this point I was confident that they had a grasp of the concept and we moved on to a worksheet which the students worked on for the rest of the class.

I think this lesson went quite well, and there were only a few small issues. Namely, I may have still used too much jargon (this is the field that I do my research in, so it is easy to forget that students in first-year may have no background whatsoever). I also should have budgeted a few more minutes for a final question I wanted to ask at the end of the lesson, as students began packing up and leaving a few minutes before the end of class (this is always a problem, but it’s important to remember and try to work around it rather than fight it, mostly since students often leave early since it can take a long time for them to cross campus and arrive at another class). Now that I have taught a few full lessons, I am seeing the differences in designing lessons for 50 minute vs. 80 minute classes. The extra half-hour really impacts the lesson design and by extension the overall course design. It’s something that I will consider more when designing lessons in the future.

I have a special connection with the first year Genetics, Evolution and Ecology course. This is a course that I would probably take upon myself to design the curriculum for and teach if I were an instructor at UBC. It is at the same time both a broad and fairly deep course, just touching on each of the topics, but giving enough to engage the students and ‘hook’ them to try to learn more. It reminds me of why I wanted to get into biology in the first place, about a decade ago now. I’ve had the opportunity to teach in this class before, while serving as a teaching assistant, although not from my own lesson plan, and I will likely teach in this course again.

For this class, I was offered to take the ‘guest lecture’ slot, and so I agreed as I thought it would be a good opportunity to use topics that I was familiar with (forest biology and genetics) and try to use them to integrate some of the concepts the students have learned so far as well as preview some real world applications for these concepts. Due to the nature of the lesson (covering topics that are not within the overall examinable material), the lesson took on more of a lecture format, although I did make sure to ask questions and engage the class. Unfortunately, the nature of the class as a guest lecture also meant that attendance was somewhat low, although the instructor did clarify to the students beforehand that she would be putting one question on the exam relating to my lesson.

The focus of the lesson was forests, tree improvement and climate change. In my research, we are working on applying novel genomic methods to making better predictions for breeding and planting of Western Redcedar. Western Redcedar is an important climate change species in BC, as it tolerates a wide range of climates and conditions, and is thus projected to be well suited to the predicted climate changes over the next century. I explained how we use the principles of genetics to make predictions for how well trees will perform, and how well they will resist pests and pathogens, and how we must also be aware of the tree’s unique ecology and evolutionary history in order to succeed. I asked the students how they would tackle these issues using the elements they learned in the course. Overall, the feedback I received was very positive for this approach, and the students felt that the lesson covered a lot of what they had dealt with in the course, while giving them an idea of why the things they learn are important.

I used a few iClicker questions to assess how well students are aware of certain facts, but I also used the questions to try to refresh their knowledge on a topic that they had learned earlier in the course that they would need for the final exam and I felt that they might still be struggling with or had not dealt with in a while (since before the last midterm). The response to these questions was mixed: some students liked them but most students felt that they didn’t fit as well into the overall lesson. This lesson was one of the first where I felt I could really integrate pedagogical content knowledge. From the feedback I received, it was clear that my use of examples, questions, and the story on climate change, they were able to understand the importance of the concepts of forest management and using genetics and genomics for breeding, even if they were beyond the scope of the course itself. Students also expressed interest in the topic to me after class, which, for me, was the greatest reward in this lesson.

Overall, I felt that this was my best lesson so far. In the future, however, I will probably stick to teaching lessons within the course curriculum, as these tend to lend themselves better to experiential learning and activities, which I need to work on developing and implementing within my teaching.

This was my first lesson for a first year class. The feeling in the classroom was noticeably different; mainly, there was a clear lack of enthusiasm and participation when compared to the second year course I taught a few weeks ago. We are nearing the end of the term, and I can remember what it is like being an undergraduate student at this time of year, so this is not entirely unexpected. The use of a short video at the beginning of the lesson, together with an anecdote from my own experience seemed to open the students up more to the lesson.

I continued my approach to teaching biology as a system, rather than an assortment of processes. Photosynthesis is actually two reactions that occur in the chloroplast of photosynthetic organisms: light-dependent reactions (also called photophosphorylation, which generates chemical energy from light), which occur in the thylakoid membranes, and light-independent reactions (also called the Calvin cycle, where the energy from light-dependent reactions and carbon dioxide are used to make sugars), which occur in the stroma. It was important to me that the students be aware of the spatial localisation of these events in the cell. I also made a point of emphasising the flow of inputs and outputs through the system as a major learning outcome.

To finish up the lesson, I had the students write down their thoughts on the similarities and differences between the processes of photophosphorylation and oxidative phosphorylation, which takes place in the mitochondria. They had previously learned about oxidative phosphorylation, and there are many parallels to the two systems, largely because both chloroplasts and mitochondria are theorised to have arisen from an ancient symbiotic relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Thus, they were able to tie together some of the concepts they had learned in the course. I found this question a little more limiting than when previously trying out these integrative questions, mainly because this is the first term of the first year in university for most of these students, and I cannot assume very much prior knowledge. Developing insightful integrative concept questions is something I need to work on for future lessons that I teach in first year courses.

In addition to the concept question, I also used several iClicker questions, although the questions I asked were meant to assess whether the students had completed the required reading prior to coming to class. I think I have some room to improve with my iClicker questions, in terms of difficulty and in terms of clarity of questions and possible responses. I was surprised that in one of my questions an overwhelming majority of students gave the (same) wrong answer for one question, which I had initially thought was quite simple. It is possible that the selected responses were not clear enough.

If I were to do this course again, I would try to develop a worksheet for students to work on in groups. I would have them draw the flow of electrons through the process of photophosphorylation, since this is a key concept, and I’m not sure it came across very clearly through lecture. Overall, I thought the lecture went well, and I was able to refresh myself as well on some concepts in biology that I have not touched since my undergraduate program.

In this lesson, I taught the basic principles of gene duplication as part of a course that is supposed to serve as a broad introduction to genetics. Because of the structure of the course, I was actually able to give the same lecture both in the morning section and the afternoon section on the same day. This allowed me to discuss with the course coordinators between the lessons and improve upon my delivery of the lesson. The experience was overall quite positive. There were a few hiccups in the first lesson but the course coordinators were quite happy and thought that the second lesson went much better. This was my first time giving an hour long lesson so it was a learning experience for me.

One of the focal points of the lesson was an exercise in which the students had to draw an event occurring in the cell (unequal crossing over) which leads to gene duplication. I tried to frame this activity by first introducing the concept in a simple situation, and then having them try to draw it out with a slightly more complicated situation. I then repeated this more complicated situation in a more directed example as part of a clicker question later in the lesson. I think that the way I presented the problem could have been clearer, or the example could perhaps have been less difficult. Some of the students felt that it was confusing.

I have been including one or two questions in each of my lessons which are designed to make the students think back to concepts and ideas that they have learned previously in the course or in previous courses, and apply their knowledge to a specific problem. I am basing my Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) self-study project off of this, as I want to test whether these questions are effective in helping students better grasp concepts and content. Overall, the response I received using an online survey has been positive so far, although there has been some criticism that it took time away from some of the lecture concepts. This can be partially reconciled by better designing the lesson to fit within the time constraints of the lecture slot, although this also is something that comes with experience with the particular lesson. Designing these types of questions to both be useful to the students as well as insightful to previous knowledge that they might have is not trivial. This is something I aim to work on throughout the year. I am also curious to see how these questions will work in a first-year course, with students who have less university experience.

I tried to implement a few of the methods we’ve covered in the CATL program in this lesson. Unfortunately, I was too unfamiliar with the content of the lesson (i.e., I had learned about it at some point in the past, but have not dealt with it since) to do proper justice to a pedagogical content knowledge approach. I used real world examples (evolution of colour vision) to try to help the students understand how gene duplication works and why it is so important in evolution of new functions. I tried to use learning as transformation by consistently emphasising the reality of the situations that I was describing. In molecular biology, it can be very difficult to visualise all the internal mechanisms of the cell as anything but abstract concepts, while losing sight of the larger picture. I tried using a graphics approach to constantly remind the class that these situations are occurring in a three-dimensional space, and that nothing in the cell is happening independently of anything else. I believe that learning to approach biology as a system where almost nothing is independent is critical to actually understanding what is going on.

I spent roughly half the lesson presenting an example in which gene duplication has led to important evolutionary outcomes. The idea behind this was to show the students how these events occur and to give them a real world example of what they can lead to. In this case, the topic was evolution of trichromatic colour vision in primates. This is a particularly interesting example because it really only involves two different genes, and the duplication of one is what leads to old world primates, such as humans, having trichromacy. Furthermore, the duplication in question occurred in a gene on the X chromosome, which means that males are more likely to inherit certain problematic traits more than females (since they only have one X chromosome) – in this case, colour blindness. I liked this example, since many people know someone who has colour blindness, or may even have it themselves, but they might not know the origin of the trait.

Overall, I think this lesson went quite well and having the ability to do a ‘redo’ in the second section was really helpful in improving my delivery of the material and the activities. For my next lesson, I would like to focus on improving my timing for any activities, and remembering to repeat any questions asked in class to make sure everyone hears.