Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
I was in the class mentioned in the article.
Posted by AAubc
30 Jul 2012 at 00:43 GMT
I'm assuming the class mentioned in the article was BIOL 234: Fundamentals of genetics. I found the canon to be tedious and exceptionally vague and I believe the changes Dr. Redfield proposes would have been of great value to the course. The article makes little mention of the 2 hour tutorials accompanying the course, and that is where I think most of the enrichment should be directed. Most of the assigned problems were answering questions based on data given by the instructor. Part of why students don't understand is because they don't get why and how the data was collected. A better approach is to ask the students to design the experiment, and have them explain exactly how and why it would answer a question. A good example is the BIOL 201 tutorial where a biochemical assay was actually conducted in the class room and we had to study and characterize the enzyme rate. The course was still great and I did not find it too hard to achieve an A.