Advancing undergraduate synthetic biology education: insights from a Canadian iGEM student perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last two decades have seen vigorous activity in synthetic biology research and the ever-increasing applications of these technologies. However, pedagogical research pertaining to teaching synthetic biology is scarce, especially when compared to other science and engineering disciplines. Within Canada, there are only three universities that offer synthetic biology programs, two of which are at the undergraduate level. Rather than taking place in formal academic settings, many Canadian undergraduate students are introduced to synthetic biology through participation in the annual International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition. Although the iGEM competition has had a transformative impact on synthetic biology training in other nations, its impact in Canada has been relatively modest. Consequently, the iGEM competition remains a major setting for synthetic biology education in Canada. To promote further development of synthetic biology education, we surveyed undergraduate students from the Canadian iGEM design teams of 2019. We extracted insights from these data using qualitative analysis to provide recommendations for best teaching practices in synthetic biology undergraduate education, which we describe through our proposed Framework for Transdisciplinary Synthetic Biology Education (FTSBE).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".