*Corresponding author - myarcell@ucalgary.ca  

 

Mayall, R.M., & Arcellana-Panlilio, M. (2019). Vignettes of the iGEM experience: Student partnerships 

toward authentic learning. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching: Proceedings of the 

University of Calgary Conference on Learning and Teaching, 3, 137-143. 

VIGNETTES OF THE IGEM EXPERIENCE: STUDENT 

PARTNERSHIPS TOWARD AUTHENTIC LEARNING 
 

Robert M. Mayall and Mayi Arcellana-Panlilio* 

 

University of Calgary 

 

With the ever-increasing push towards authentic learning within post-secondary 

institutions, many approaches are being explored. One such method with a 

particular focus on real-world applications has been the International Genetically 

Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition program. At the University of Calgary, 

the iGEM program sees teams of undergraduate students tasked to develop a 

solution or product for an application of their choice in partnership with a faculty 

mentor. This paper presents the findings from an interactive workshop with post-

secondary educators and a subsequent thematic analysis on vignettes collected 

from alumni of the University of Calgary iGEM program, focusing on how 

authentic learning was pivotal in their experiences. It was found that teamwork and 

science were recurring themes in the vignettes, while post-graduate life and 

personal growth supported the presence of authentic learning. 

 

 The call for authentic learning requires institutions “to align university teaching and 

learning more substantially with the way learning is achieved in real-life settings….” (p. 3) and 

to design curricula accordingly (Herrington & Herrington, 2006). There is debate in the field 

with respect to what defines authenticity, and one school of thought holds that authentic learning 

should address real problems, where this is taken to mean problems and situations that could be 

encountered by the students in their careers (Rule, 2006).  

Herrington and Herrington (2006) suggest a more comprehensive definition that 

prioritizes cognitive authenticity over the actual task or problem itself, where the methods and 

approaches that are taught to students reflect those that they would employ in later practice. With 

‘authentic’ taken to mean real-world, Herrington and Herrington go on to define the key 

characteristics of authentic learning as: 

1. Providing authentic context. 
2. Using authentic activities. 
3. Access to role models. 
4. Utilizing multiple roles. 
5. Collaborating with others. 
6. Reflecting upon the experience. 
7. Articulating the outcomes. 
8. Coaching from mentors. 
9. Authentic assessment. 

This focus on teaching in an appropriately scaffolded situational context was also 

highlighted by Billet (2001), where he surmised that to gain expertise within a subject that an 

individual must participate within the setting of that subject rather than learning in isolation.  



Mayall & Arcellana-Panlilio (2019) 

138 

Billet goes on to describe how the various social practices of a workplace or discipline are key 

factors in his definition of expertise. Marton (1988) also commented on how the outcome of 

learning is directly tied to the context in which it was learnt, which highlights the importance for 

authentic education. 

Jaeger and Nesi (2014) argue that the “one-size-fits-all” approach currently used in most 

university classes is not an effective reflection of authentic situations and, as such, does a poor 

job of providing opportunities for effective and authentic knowledge transfer. An alternative to 

this approach is to include opportunities for independent research into curricula, especially those 

that are scaffolded in such a way as to create opportunities for peer mentorship (Westberg and 

Leppien, 2018). A recent case study from the University of Newcastle employed such an 

approach in a behavioural ecology course (MacFarlane et al., 2006). Their observations indicated 

stronger student engagement with the material and many of the characteristics of Harrington and 

Harrington’s hallmarks of authentic learning were included in their work. 

We have attempted to emulate such an environment in the iGEM (international 

Genetically Engineered Machines) program at our university. Students engage in scientific 

inquiry to solve a real-world problem in a team environment that is completely student-led, 

where students define, develop, execute, document, and disseminate their own project. All of this 

happens over the span of approximately 9 months, with paid full-time work over the spring and 

summer terms and volunteer work during the fall semester. Faculty members, research assistants, 

and graduate students are there to mentor and to support the iGEM students. To cap each iGEM 

season, the Jamboree gathers teams from all over the world to compete for medals and prizes by 

disseminating their work through collaborative websites, posters, and oral presentations. As for 

any competition, the objective is to perform well and win awards that are adjudicated by 

professionals within academia and industry.  

But what of the learning of these students? Is it authentic? To begin to answer those 

questions, we gathered short vignettes from former team members reflecting on their iGEM 

experience. A total of six vignettes, ranging from one to two pages in length, were collected in 

April of 2018 by asking students from the 2011, 2012 and 2013 University of Calgary iGEM 

teams to reflect on their experience in the iGEM program in terms of the conference theme of 

“Students as Creators, Drivers, Innovators and Collaborators in Postsecondary Education”. This 

paper describes and expands upon an interactive session where post-secondary educators at a 

recent conference read and discussed those essays.  

 

The specific objectives of this paper are: 

(1) To describe the interactive session and to review the themes identified by the session 
participants; 

(2) To define themes in each of the vignettes, using the scheme of Braun and Clarke 
(2006); and 

(3) To interpret these themes in terms of authentic learning, as characterized by 
Herrington and Herrington (2006). 

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERACTIVE SESSION  

After a brief introduction to iGEM and authentic learning principles was presented, the 

conference participants worked in pairs to read a vignette and to identify major themes related to 

teaching and learning. When the larger group re-convened, everyone listened to an audio 

recording of each vignette, and the pairs who had studied the text led its discussion, listing the 



Mayall & Arcellana-Panlilio (2019) 

139 

themes they had identified, and inviting comments or additions. Finally, the conference 

participants wrote a brief reflection, which was collected at the end of the session. 

The conference participants identified several themes in the vignettes during the 

relatively short time frame of the session. Chief among these were themes related to personal 

growth: confidence, self-awareness, independence, industry, motivation, ownership, and dealing 

with uncertainty. The reflections of the participants echoed these themes:  

“Giving students the chance to take ownership of their own projects leads to…confidence 

and very productive experiences…” 

“…promoting transformative experiences for undergraduate students…provide students 

with a platform for personal development.” 

“Creating a difficult and amazing challenge for students…not typical but something that 

will be remembered…a life-changing experience.” 

The conference participants also highlighted themes of multiple perspectives 

(multidisciplinary, new way of thinking), teamwork and collaboration, and future impact 

(transition/transferable skills, preparing for next step). Within tight time constraints, the 

conference participants had identified major themes which would later see confirmation, 

refinement, and further analysis through the lens of authentic learning.   

THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF VIGNETTES 

After the conference, we conducted a thematic analysis of the vignettes using the 

following general scheme (Braun & Clarke, 2006): 

(1) Knowing the data (i.e., reading and re-reading the vignettes);
 
(2) Generating initial codes (i.e., interesting features across the data)
 
(3) Searching for potential themes (i.e., patterns, combinations);
 
(4) Reviewing themes (i.e., in relation to the initial codes and the whole data set); 
(5) Defining and naming themes (i.e., identifying the essence of the theme); and 
(6) Producing the report. 

The vignettes were analyzed using this approach with the NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis 

program from QSR International (Victoria, Australia). A word frequency analysis (Figure 1) was 

performed to identify initial keywords that were used as the basis to begin coding the references 

within the data.  

 



Mayall & Arcellana-Panlilio (2019) 

140 

 
Figure 1. Word frequency analysis of iGEM vignettes by NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis 

program from QSR International (Victoria, Australia). 

 

This approach was performed in an iterative manner to more deeply explore the emerging themes 

in this dataset. In the thematic analysis below, we identified three major themes: teamwork, 

science, and post-grad life.   

Teamwork 

A theme that emerged in all of the narratives was that of teamwork. In comparison to 

traditional academic “silo” research, the students found that the team aspect of the iGEM 

program allowed them to create a project that was greater than any single scientist could have 

done on their own. It was also mentioned in half of the vignettes that the multidisciplinary nature 

of these teams helped to build towards what the team members felt was a stronger project. This 

theme was exemplified by quotes such as “It was an opportunity to work in a team, a team with 

dedicated people from various disciplines and backgrounds who were all trying to work together 

to solve a big problem that was plaguing humanity…”. Another commented on how the team 

worked together by saying that “To be able to achieve all that we did in 6 months required solid 

planning, strong communication, and collaboration…”.  

teams
w
o
rk
in
g

project

experiences

students

le
a
rn
in
g

id
e
a c
o
m
p
e
ti
ti
o
n

biology

way

yearfi
rs
t

newtime

engineers

c
o
ll
a
b
o
ra
ti
v
e
ly

p
re
s
e
n
t

th
in
k
in
g

g
e
t

c
a
lg
a
ry

one

people
s
o
m
e
th
in
g

research

different

synthetic

opportunity

problem

re
a
li
ze

2
0
13

n
o
w

summer

together
developed

s
k
il
ls

ended
final

started

c
re
a
ti
n
g

amazing
coli

helped
made

m
a
n
y

p
ro
fe
s
s
o
r

re
a
ll
y

make

products

science

wanted

achieve

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

in
d
u
s
tr
y

involved

using

b
e
s
t

found

goal

la
b

life

n
e
e
d
e
d

part
p
ro
te
in

solve

u
n
iv
e
rs
it
y

a
p
p
ro
a
c
h

aspects

exciting

lo
t

re
c
ru
it

success

also

awards

big

c
a
m
e

coming

d
e
s
ig
n

e
v
e
n

know

lead

le
a
d
e
r

m
a
n
a
g
e

mit

see
truly

b
e
tt
e
r

fr
e
d



Mayall & Arcellana-Panlilio (2019) 

141 

iGEM team members are mutually engaged with one another, coordinating their efforts to 

solve a problem or create a product. In their discussion of cross-disciplinary team learning and 

performance, Schaffer et al. (Schaffer, Lei, & Reyes Paulino, 2008) cite Vygotsky’s notion of 

how individuals learn through an iteration of ideas and construct new knowledge through 

collaboration and social interaction. One student highlighted this interaction by pointing out that 

“…we quickly started vetting and iterating upon each other’s ideas before coming to our 

professor with a more developed version.”. This collaborative construction of knowledge is a 

hallmark of authentic learning (Herrington and Herrington 2006).  

Here, the multidisciplinary nature of iGEM is seen as integral to teamwork, however, the 

consideration of multiple roles and perspectives that arise also characterizes authentic learning 

(Herrington and Herrington, 2006). These soft skills are often not explicitly taught in classes, 

which makes the iGEM program an excellent development opportunity for the students. One 

student succinctly summarized her experience leading a team by saying that “I was learning how 

to manage people, how to delegate, how to trouble shoot complex scientific problems and how to 

resolve conflict; all things I hadn’t learned in my courses.”. 

Science 

Another common theme was the chance to be involved in, as one put it, “…real cutting-

edge research…”. Two thirds commented on the scientific nature of the iGEM projects they 

were involved in, with most mentioning that the ability to pursue their own scientific ideas was 

rewarding. One vignette spoke about how students were “…given free rein to implement our 

plans…” and that the professor was “…a sounding board and a collaborator…” in the project 

with the students. Another student also touched on the independence of the student team, saying 

that “It was a place to come up with your own new ideas and solutions…”.  

iGEM team members engage in scientific inquiry towards solving a real-world problem, 

which provides an authentic rationale and motivation for their work. Their experimental 

strategies must be tested and developed iteratively, reflecting the complexity of real-world tasks. 

All of these provide instances of the cognitive authenticity so vital to authentic learning. 

The role of faculty as a mentor and collaborator speaks to the coaching and scaffolding of 

support found in an authentic learning environment (Herrington and Herrington, 2006). While 

student-driven, the iGEM experience happens in a learning environment that can provide 

expertise to bridge gaps in training and understanding. 

Post-grad Life 

Interestingly, almost every vignette commented on how the University of Calgary iGEM 

experience had prepared them for what they had gone on to do after graduation. Their next steps 

have ranged from pursuing higher education to founding startup companies. One student said 

that “What I didn’t realize at the time was that this philosophy for designing products was the 

way companies and other industries think about creating things and building this skillset was 

going to provide me a massive asset in the future”. Others commented on how the teamwork and 

interdisciplinary nature of iGEM helped them later on in their careers, with one student saying 

that “I learned to work collaboratively with a variety of people across disciplines. It is something 

that I apply daily to my present work in my PhD”. 

 This theme of the impact of the iGEM experience on one’s future hints at the fruits of 

authentic learning: how ways of thinking and skills sets were applicable and useful in the real 



Mayall & Arcellana-Panlilio (2019) 

142 

world; and how having worked in teams of individuals with different perspectives prepared them 

for teams in the workplace. 

 A sub-theme that ran through all of the major themes was the notion of personal growth, 

which the session participants had strongly identified in their brief encounter with the vignettes. 

We suggest that it is this personal growth, whether in confidence or creativity, or in self-

knowledge and the discovery of one’s passion, which is tied to the authentic learning experiences 

of these students and has had such a positive impact. 

SUMMARY 

To answer the question of whether the iGEM experience constitutes authentic learning, 

we conducted a thematic analysis of vignettes written by former iGEM team members and 

interpreted those themes through the lens of authentic learning. Of the major themes we 

identified, teamwork and science bore the cardinal characteristics of authentic learning, while 

post-grad life and personal growth supported the authenticity of learning. From these vignettes, 

as well as the results from the thematic analysis, we conclude that the team-based collaborative 

nature of the iGEM program provides a fertile ground for authentic learning experiences as 

defined by Harrington and Harrington (2006). Interestingly, two of the themes identified had 

little to do with the topics of the student research project, rather they focused on the environment 

and how it impacted the students (teamwork & personal growth). This bodes well for the transfer 

of such a process to other disciplines. While the iGEM program itself is geared solely towards 

genetic engineering projects, it is possible to expand this model to other disciplines by, for 

example, creating project teams within a larger class framework for intra-university events. 

Further study is currently underway at our university to determine the key hallmarks that enable 

the iGEM program to have such a large impact on the authentic learning of the program 

participants and to explore methods to translate this into other learning settings. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank the students from the previous University of Calgary 

iGEM teams for providing the vignettes for analysis, as well as the conference workshop 

participants for the thoughtful discussions and the conference organizers for the opportunity to 

present. The Bachelor of Health Sciences program at the University of Calgary was crucial in 

supporting the growth of this program over the years, with financial support from the Faculty of 

Medicine and the Vice-President (Research) from the University. 

REFERENCES 

Billet, S. (2001). Knowing in practice: Re-conceptualising vocational expertise. Learning and 

Instruction, 11, 431-452. 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 

Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment? In Authentic 

Learning Environments in Higher Education, 1-14. Idea Group Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-594-8.ch001 

Jaeger, P., & Nesi, O. M. (2014). Real-life research: Project runway makeover model. 

Knowledge Quest, 43(2), 60-63. 



Mayall & Arcellana-Panlilio (2019) 

143 

MacFarlane, G. R., Markwell, K. W., & Date-Huxtable, E. M., (2006). Modelling the research 

process as a deep learning strategy. Journal of Biological Education, 41(1), 13-20. 

Marton, F. (1988). Describing and improving learning. In Learning Strategies and Learning 

Styles, eds. Schmeck R. R. New York. Plenum Press. 

Rule, A. C. (2006). Editorial: The components authentic learning overview. Journal of Authentic 

Learning, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510500467866 

Schaffer, S. P., Lei, K., & Reyes Paulino, L. (2008). A framework for cross-disciplinary team 

learning and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 7–21. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20028 

Westberg, K. L., & Leppien, J. H., (2018). Student independent investigations for authentic 

learning. Gifted Child Today, 41(1), 13-18.