My Experiences Being a TA for a STEM Class in My Major (Intro to Biomedical Engineering Design)

 

During your time at Georgia Tech, as a STEM major, one of the things that you might choose to do is to TA a class. TAing a class can be extremely rewarding, despite being a lot of work and it can teach you a lot of concepts that you may not have understood when you took a class. It can also teach you how to communicate your understanding, and the insights that you have taken away/obtained from going through a specific class can also enable you to adapt to new and innovative ways of thinking about and solving a problem, based on the input that you obtain from other individuals. You may or may not TA during your time at Georgia Tech. However, just in case you do, I would like to provide my insight TAing for a core STEM class in my BME curriculum to provide insight into how I felt, what I learned about TA/teacher – student interaction, and how to make the most out of the experience. I am hoping that this inspires more people to become TAs for STEM classes, or just to understand how being a STEM TA is from a former STEM TA’s perspective.

Last year, specifically, I was a TA for an Introduction to Biomedical Engineering Design class. A lot of people have asked me what that experience was like, and what I learned and what kind of growth I experienced as a result, both personally and professionally. Thus, I would like to share some key takeaways and insights that I have gained and how I felt doing this TA job, as someone who had never previously done it before.

I was excited and nervous, as I surveyed the room around me. It was my first day as a BMED 2310 TA in Spring 2023 and a TA, in general, and I had no idea what to expect. I walked into a class full of unknown people, and it only became more daunting as it went from there. It was the first day of class, and everyone was staring at their phones, almost in boredom and a complete lack of interest in being there. We were beginning to do ice-breakers, and everyone was asked to name a fun fact about themselves, and the origins of their name. I was never a person who liked icebreakers. For a long time, I found them pointless, and talking comfortably in front of strangers was not my jam. However, I was here in this situation. I could not just not participate in an icebreaker. So, I told the students my name, and the origin of it, and tried to crack a joke and tell something funny about myself. However, I was just faced with blank stares. I did not know if I was just awkward, or if the students were not interested in what I had to say. Regardless, it was daunting, but I tried not to get discouraged. After all, it was just my first day. Leaving class, I tried to have more hope for the next day, but I was not sure that anything was going to improve.

Walking into class the next day, I tried to be more optimistic. Maybe the kids were just tired. Maybe they did not like the class, or maybe they did not like other classes they were taking this semester. Maybe it had nothing to do with me. So, I went ahead and started explaining the lesson plan for the second day. I explained to them how their lab notebooks should look, and what type of information was expected to be seen in that notebook. I also introduced them to their Fusion Assignment and explained what they should look into, and how they should seek help if they needed it. However, students still looked uninterested and were extremely quiet. Later on in the class, as students were working on their Fusion Assignments, one of them asked me a Fusion-related question. They were having trouble with a certain step involved in the conversion between the 2D schematic and the 3D creation of the structure, and they wanted my advice as to how I could help them. I told them that I unfortunately did not know the answer, as my Fusion skills were rusty, and I needed a refresher on it. I asked the other TA’s if they could help more effectively. The students looked at me in an annoyed manner, and I just felt more out of place. Why had I chosen to TA this class? Why did students think that I was such an ineffective TA if they did? How could I become a better TA? It was then that I thought of trying something else.

I decided that during the next class, I was not going to try to act like a professor or a person of higher authority. Rather, I was going to act more as a friend of the students. I was going to be more open, and try to be more relatable. From then on, during every class, I would ask the students how they were doing, how their semester was going and how their classes that semester were going, and what I could do to help them. From then on, I found that they slowly became more open and began to come out of their shells more. Suddenly, they were much more engaged in class and much more engaged in what I was saying, and I was still not necessarily able to explain everything nor did I know everything. However, things were generally off on a better track.

So, what were my key takeaways from this experience you ask? One of the largest takeaways was that one of the most rewarding parts of being a BME TA is the potential that you get to see, as to what students can innovate and create, and how the ideas that students have shape up into larger prototypes and physical and computational models. Another key takeaway was that BME design classes help prepare students for greater and larger challenges, ahead in industry and in the workplace, and being a TA is important as you can guide students through these experiences and help push them to take on new challenges, and push the envelope on the tasks that they pursue. TAing this class also deepened my understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of concepts, and how they all tie together to ultimately solve problems/issues. For example, when I talked to a group that was doing a Laparscopic surgery project, they told me how the physics of the Laparascopic stapler and the material properties behind the Laparoscopic staples tied into their decisions about how they designed the stapler and what parts they ultimately chose to utilize and what method they used to create it. This was really a eureka moment for me because I had done a project on improving Laprascopic surgery, but I had only looked at it from the vantage point of Biology and Biomedical Engineering. I had not done deep introspection into how multiple concepts could tie into the success of this Laparoscopic stapler. This was widely insightful for me, and it really got me to consider how multiple areas of science could converge and intersect to ultimately solve poorly-defined, and complicated problems.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.