Genetics Education
Innovations in Teaching and Learning Genetics
Edited by Patricia J. Pukkila
Teaching Advanced Genetics Without Lectures
Vicki L. Cameron
1Biology Department, Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York 14850
Manuscript received February 19, 2003 Accepted for publication July 2, 2003
ABSTRACT
In an effort to increase student engagement and therefore student learning, an advanced genetics course was developed in which traditional lectures were eliminated. Instead, students were required to complete reading assignments before each class meeting, and those readings were then the topic of group discussion. Assigned readings alternated between text assignments and articles from the primary literature. Students were made accountable for their own preparation by the administration of a quiz at the start of each class. Group discussion of the topics engaged students in the learning process and readministration of the quiz at the end of class allowed them to benefit from the group interaction and understanding. Interspersing text readings and primary literature led to student understanding of how genetic knowledge is acquired and interpreted and how experimental detail leads to the construction of general models.
I
N the fall of 2002, a new course in advanced molecu- dents) introductory biology course for majors and the second half of a required genetics course. The latter lar and biochemical genetics was offered in theBiol-ogy Department at Ithaca College. In the process of course is taken primarily by sophomores and juniors and usually enrollsⵑ40–45 students. A traditional ap-course development, the strategy of teaching genetics
without lecturing was explored. On the basis of these proach is used in both these courses, with lectures and lab exercises carried out once per week.
explorations, the course was designed and taught in the
fall of 2002 and demonstrated not only that one can Offering a new, upper level elective course presented the opportunity to design a course totally different from teach effectively without lecturing but also that student
learning may actually be improved by eliminating lec- those described above. Recent attention has focused on active learning approaches as a strategy to maximize tures in some courses. The resulting course is described
below, including student response, possible limitations student learning. In response to this attention, an upper division course in genetics and biochemistry using a to the use of this approach, and a discussion of potential
changes that might make it even more effective. nontraditional approach that placed primary responsi-bility on the student for her/his learning was designed. Features of the course that permitted this approach
BACKGROUND were (1) low enrollment,ⱕ10 students, and (2)
self-selected enrollment by motivated students prepared for Ithaca College is a comprehensive college of slightly
an advanced learning experience,i.e., juniors or seniors fewer than 6000 students with no graduate programs
who had taken at least one semester of genetics or bio-in the sciences. The Biology Department servesⵑ200
chemistry. majors, many of whom are interested in careers in the
health professions, although in recent years a larger fraction are enrolling in graduate programs. In 16 years
PEDAGOGICAL PRINCIPLES
at Ithaca College my most important teaching
responsi-bilities were the first semester of our large (⬎100 stu- The goals for this course were, first, to eliminate lec-tures and make the students more responsible for their own learning and, second, to use class time working 1Address for correspondence:Department of Biology, Center for Natural
as a group to facilitate the learning process, with the
Science, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY 14850.
E-mail: [email protected] students helping and reinforcing each other. These first
sample quiz is shown in Figure 2. Quizzes included Princeton University has been taught without lectures
(Bradleyet al.2002). Incorporation of group activities knowledge questions plus one or two questions that required students to apply their learning. The quizzes and learning has been utilized even in large
introduc-tory biology courses (Klionsky1998, 2001). A strong were handed in and each student was called on to answer one of the questions. Other members of the class then focus on teaching students the skills they need to read
the scientific literature is also evident in many courses elaborated on those answers and any other questions that they might have relative to the assigned reading. (Meunch 2000). However, this new course combines
all of these teaching strategies in the hope that student During the last 5 min of class, the students were allowed to retake the quiz, adding or amending any answers learning will be improved beyond the utilization of any
one of the strategies. This integrative teaching style they wished. Both quizzes were graded and both grades counted. The rationale for this approach was to ensure makes students more responsible for their own learning
and engages them more actively in the material, leading that students came to classprepared. The class discussion and the group dynamic would have suffered dramati-to better comprehension. The link between textbook
sources and primary literature requires students to con- cally if some subset of the students had not read the material before class, and it was important to hold stu-front the reality of how scientific information is acquired
and how small experimental details can lead to general dents accountable for that preparation (Michaelsen
and Black 1994). Retaking the quiz allowed the stu-principles and models.
dents to benefit from the group discussion and to broaden their understanding of the material they had
COURSE CONTENT
read upon exposure to the ideas of others.
For the first half of the semester, no quizzes were The syllabus for the first 6 weeks of Advanced
Bio-chemical and Molecular Genetics is shown in Figure 1 administered on the days that articles from the primary literature were assigned. As the semester continued, it (the complete syllabus can be found at: http://www.
ithaca.edu/hs/biology/303_40401syl.pdf). Two text- became obvious that it was also important to ensure that the students had read the literature articles ahead books were assigned for this course, Genes and Signals
byPtashneandGann(2002) andThe Human Genome of time. Therefore, during the second half of the semes-ter, a quiz covering very simple factual material was byHawleyandMori(1999). The first half of the course
focused onGenes and Signals while the second half fo- given on the literature articles at the start of class to ensure that students were prepared. These “literature” cused on human genetic diseases, following the basic
order inThe Human Genome. As shown in the syllabus, quizzes were not retaken. For each article one student would explain to the class the experiments shown in a each set of readings assigned in the texts was followed
by an assigned article from the primary literature. For specific figure of the article and the interpretation of the results. Initially, the students struggled with the liter-example, a section inGenes and Signalson the regulation
of transcription of the galactose genes in yeast was fol- ature articles. Many of the techniques were unfamiliar to them and it was necessary to help them understand lowed by an article directly related to that topic (see
Figure 1). The text provided the students with a brief the experimental protocols. As the semester continued, the students became more comfortable with the articles “big picture” explanation of a particular regulatory
mechanism or human genetic disease. The primary liter- and realized that they were capable of reading and un-derstanding this complicated material. Their confi-ature article served to reinforce the general material
and to introduce scientific experimental approaches dence grew and the class as a whole felt very positive about how “smart” they were. This positive attitude to-and data interpretation. When selecting the primary
Figure1.—Syllabus for advanced molecular genetics.
continued through the semester despite the fact that site with a personal story from a Turner syndrome woman (presumably XO) described her discovery that students felt that the text used in the second half of the
course was not nearly as effective as the one used in the she was, in fact, an XY/XO mosaic, with 91% of her cells XY and only 9% XO. This led to an interesting first half. In particular, the students felt that the second
text was too simple for students at their level. At the and spirited classroom discussion of sex and what deter-mines it and of mosaicism and how an individual with halfway point through the semester, given the increase
in student confidence and understanding of the mate- ⬎90% of her cells carrying both X and Y chromosomes could be female. The far-ranging discussion completely rial, a specific student was assigned to lead each
litera-ture article discussion. engaged the students and would probably not have oc-curred in the context of a traditional lecture on Turner The in-class discussion of the material was an essential
element in student learning. One student commented syndrome.
In another example, an assigned article presented that in lecture classes, note taking often detracted from
her ability to actually think about the material. On the evidence that X-inactivation was skewed in the same direction, but to different degrees, in two monozygotic other hand, during the class discussions, she took fewer
notes but found she was able to reflect on the concepts twins. The difference in skewing resulted in one twin with mild hemophilia, while the other exhibited severe and ideas under discussion. Occasionally, other bits of
information relevant to the topic at hand were included, hemophilia. Initially the class felt this was not possible, but group discussion led to the understanding that there and those items stirred considerable discussion. For
ex-ample, the brief section inThe Human Genomeon Turner are important differences between the timing of twin-ning and the timing of X-inactivation. In addition, the syndrome (XO) females discussed the fact that some
Figure2.—Sample daily quiz.
philia, identical genotypes may not result in identical National Academy of Sciences. On the basis of what they had learned previously in the course, the students phenotypes.
were confident and capable in their reading, under-In addition to the daily quizzes, student learning was
standing, and presenting these complex articles. evaluated by three in-class examinations and a final
Pow-erPoint presentation by each student of an article to the entire class. The exams were a combination of questions
COURSE EVALUATION
requiring the students to remember what they had read
Figure 3.—Course evaluation form.
mation and ideas (no. 11, 4.75), and that the group before, but now due to all the exposure to them, I don’t have nearly as much trouble with them”; “the reading discussion was an important part of the class format
(no. 6, 4.5 and no. 8, 4.75). When asked if they would of the primary literature”; “as much as I hate to admit it, the quizzes”; “the group discussions about each read-take another course in this format, eight of eight
stu-dents enthusiastically said “yes.” Comments included: ing”; “reading papers and talking through them”; and finally, “class discussion of the material helped a lot
“to be in a small group that can freely ask questions
and have the professor answer clearly issomuch more especially when it came to the papers.” conducive to learning than large lectures”; “although it
was atonof work, it was the one class I never slipped
SUCCESS AND SHORTCOMINGS OF THIS
behind in”; “I liked reading the journal papers, it helped
TEACHING APPROACH
to show us how what we learned in this class and other
biology classes is applied to research”; and “I feel this The structure of the course met the first goal, which was to eliminate lecturing altogether. However, signifi-is a good way to learn and using primary literature
papers gave the class more exposure to analyzing and cant preparation by the instructor was still required. Not only was it necessary to read the assigned material understanding these types of works.”
When asked what aspect of the course was most help- and write quiz questions that would promote thoughtful discussion, but also considerable background prepara-ful in their learning, students responded: “reading the
learning was significant and this approach to teaching that the group discussions significantly facilitated their
was highly successful. understanding of the material, particularly the difficult
literature readings, and that even more time could be My thanks go to the students who participated with me in this “experiment” about teaching and learning. Thanks also go to my
devoted to discussion. The before and after quizzes were
colleagues in the Biology Department for enduring endless discussions
used to make the students accountable for their
prepara-about the virtues of teaching without lecturing.
tion and learning.
The final goal was to teach the students modern
mo-lecular genetics in the context of human genetic disease. LITERATURE CITED Combining background information from textbooks
Bradley, A. Z., S. M. Ulrich, M. Jones, Jr. andS. M. Jones, 2002
and literature articles was very effective. However, when Teaching the sophomore organic course without a lecture. Are
you crazy? J. Chem. Educ.79:514–519.
the course is next offered,The Human Genometext, which
Glazer, F. S., 2000 Journal clubs—a successful vehicle to science
the students found too elementary, will be eliminated
literacy. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.29:320–324.
and replaced by review articles on specific human ge- Hawley, R. S., andC. A. Mori, 1999 The Human Genome: A User’s
Guide. Academic Press, San Diego.
netic diseases. Review articles are densely packed with
Klionsky, D. J., 1998 A cooperative learning approach to teaching
information and will provide a comprehensive survey introductory biology. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.27:334–338.
of the status of knowledge for any particular disease. Klionsky, D. J., 2001 Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.31:246–251.
Those review articles can then serve as a jumping-off
Leonard, W. H., 2000 How do college students best learn science?
point for the primary literature articles. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.29:385–388.
This course was taught to a group of eight juniors and Meunch, S. B., 2000 Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.29:255–260.
seniors, all of whom were well prepared and significantly
Michaelsen, L. K., andR. H. Black, 1994 Building learning teams:
motivated. Further, the course is an elective for biology the key to harnessing the power of small groups in higher educa-majors, meaning that no other courses depend on cover- tion, pp. 65–81 inCollaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, Vol. 2, edited by S.Kadeland J.Keehner. National
age of specific aspects of molecular genetics. Therefore,
Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, State College,
essentially any topic of interest can be explored without PA.
Ptashne, M., and A. Gann, 2002 Genes and Signals. Cold Spring
concern that important information is being omitted
Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
or covered inadequately. The approach described here