Last week I sat in on another lesson in BIOL 121, this time taught by Dr. Bridgette Clarkston. This lecture preceded the lesson I was going to teach in her class, and directly connected to it. The lesson included the introduction of the evolution unit of the course, which is always interesting. A few years ago, I was a teaching assistant for the course and the instructor at the time was very careful in introduction of the subject matter, as students (especially in first year) come into university with different belief systems and evolution can sometimes be a contentious topic. That instructor presented a concise summary of the history of evolutionary biology as a field and some examples of the volumes of evidence for evolutionary theory (including a discussion of the meaning of the term “theory” in science).

In this class, the instructor opted to skip over the more political aspects of the topic and went straight into sources of genetic variation, namely, mutation. I’m not sure which direction is really “best”. It might be better to skip all the debate and dive into the content, although you do run the risk of failing to include students with different belief systems, rather than trying to show them how their belief system can be compatible with the topic on hand.

The instructor used some contemporary examples from recent news to introduce the topic, which I thought was a nice touch. This makes the lesson feel new and fresh, and not as if it hasn’t been updated in a few years. It was also clear that the instructor was using weekly pre-class quizzes to make sure the students were completing the reading and coming prepared to class. Especially for this topic, and the topic that I taught in the following class, the concepts were new and a bit difficult, and I could tell that most of the students had completed the readings and were prepared for the activities.

The instructor used iClicker questions to run polls to gauge student understanding, which I thought was helpful and thus integrated into my own lesson plan. She also had students do some “think-pair-share” activities to follow up iClicker questions. Some of the iClicker questions involved a case study that the students had previously covered in the genetics module, now with new concepts introduced. I liked this approach, which is something that I try to do in my own lessons. It’s nice to have lots of exciting examples, but sometimes it’s best to explore a single example from multiple angles in order to decrease the complexity of a topic and demonstrate how most concepts in biology are interconnected as a system.

The final activity was one I had not seen before. The students were given “scratch cards” to work on in groups along with a sheet of multiple-choice questions. The purpose of this activity was to determine the extent of background knowledge in evolutionary theory students were coming into the course with. Students needed to read the questions, choose an answer, then scratch it off on the card. Behind the right answer was a star. If they got it right in the first guess, they would get four points. Otherwise, they would get a decreasing number of points for each successive guess. I worked with one group and overall it was a fun activity which also helped the instructor get a better understanding of where the students stood. The downside was that it was near the end of class and many students left without finishing or returning their scratch cards. I think I would improve this by giving it more time and following up with some iClicker questions to gauge student response to the activity.

For my first class observation I chose a course that I had an interest in teaching in, and knew the instructor fairly well. Dr. Chowrira is a tenured instructor at UBC and has a strong focus on pedagogy, cell biology, biochemistry, and plant biology. In this class the discussion was mostly centred on transporters and their role in the cell.

The first thing I noticed was that the lesson design was very flexible. The class didn’t have a clear beginning or ending, as some topics needed to be finished from an earlier class before a new topic was begun. This wasn’t a problem though, as the instructor clearly reviewed the content of the previous lecture to set the stage for the lesson. There was a strong emphasis on learning objectives, which seemed to be focused on exam preparation. This is likely unavoidable in such first-year courses, where outcomes need to be aligned between the different sections. However, exams in the course are conducted in a mixed individual/group exam format. I like this idea, as it both allows the assessment to give a grade to the students (again, somewhat of a necessity in first-year science courses), but also really drives the concept of using assessments for learning as transformation. By doing the group exam, the students get better immediate feedback on their own grasp of the content, and thus are able to adjust their learning outcomes and do better in the course.

There was a strong focus on experiential learning. In particular, the lecturing segments were broken up by activities which I think really helped to keep the students engaged in an 80 minute lesson, as well as summarise each topic. One worksheet had students drawing out curves on a chart individually, and then comparing with their peers. These were well timed and helped the students consolidate concepts from the lecture. I noticed that engagement was low among the students. I believe that setting students in pre-defined groups from the beginning of the course could be a good idea, as it somewhat “forces” students to at the very least contribute to these activities (and to their own learning). This “chunking” concept is something I would like to take into my own lessons.

I think that these types of introductory courses are excellent opportunities to really apply the instructor’s pedagogical content knowledge, as students may come in with little to no content knowledge, and from a wide range of experiences and perspectives. The instructor was able to bring in a strong focus on the “big picture”, i.e. having students think about how systems in biology connect, and about the applications of what they are learning both in other courses and in the real world. Certain important concepts, such as how structure affects function in biology, were reiterated multiple times throughout the lecture in different contexts, to really drive the idea home. The instructor also used clicker questions to gauge the class’s grasp of the material, but included some multi-stage questions which really required the students to apply their knowledge to different situations. These questions were well presented, clearly demonstrating the instructor’s strong content knowledge and pedagogical background.

I did not have a chance to meet with the instructor directly after the lesson, but my thoughts after this lesson were largely focused on student engagement, especially in introductory courses. This seems to be a real problem, throughout most courses I have observed or taken part in. Active learning is certainly a powerful method for teaching in these courses, but students on average seem to want the information fed to them and move on. This is somewhat understandable, as they are often taking many different courses simultaneously and are often overburdened by their workload and the anxiety of being in the first year of university. Clearly, this is something to consider and address.