> > And yet, people teach first-year algebra every year.
> Yes, but... should they? Why do we require students to take algebra? > Why would we (possibly) require students to take a class on data > analysis, or (possibly) require that they attend a carpentry workshop? > Recently I attended a teaching workshop where we were told that we > needed to communicate to students what they were supposed to be > learning in each class, and that there was a crisis of transparency > where students want to know why they are taking the classes they are > required to take. I think such instructor transparency is extremely > important, but I think there's also crisis where institutions aren't > transparent about why degrees requires such-and-such a course. And I > think part of that is because many academics don't contemplate why > courses are required or not. YESSSS (I will note that I asked a similar question at the ESA session on "Skills and Knowledge for Data-intensive Ecological Research across the Data Lifecycle", though I think I used calculus as the example.) The snarky part of me wants to say, because teaching algebra is what funds the math department and their TAs. That same snarky part of me wants to respond by asking why those same folks can't work with CS / stats people to make a data-centered class that is actually useful for students. Best, -- Hao Ye [email protected] On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:16 PM, David Bapst <[email protected]> wrote: > April, All, > > > And yet, people teach first-year algebra every year. > > Yes, but... should they? Why do we require students to take algebra? > Why would we (possibly) require students to take a class on data > analysis, or (possibly) require that they attend a carpentry workshop? > Recently I attended a teaching workshop where we were told that we > needed to communicate to students what they were supposed to be > learning in each class, and that there was a crisis of transparency > where students want to know why they are taking the classes they are > required to take. I think such instructor transparency is extremely > important, but I think there's also crisis where institutions aren't > transparent about why degrees requires such-and-such a course. And I > think part of that is because many academics don't contemplate why > courses are required or not. > > > To some extent, there has to be a shift in how you think about things > when you're teaching a university course, particularly for undergraduates. > I don't think every student who takes my genetics course is doing that > because of a deep and abiding love of genetics. My computational bio > classroom is mostly people who have some intrinsic motivation (MS students > with data, faculty with data, undergrads who are getting into research). > Some don't that motivation - maybe they took a class with me before, maybe > this was the only upper-division elective that fits in their schedule and > they need to graduate. That's fine! If you have a bunch of undergraduates, > the goal might not be that everyone leaves the semester having made some > pipeline more reproducible, and with a laptop of scientific software. With > undergraduates, the goal might be that they leave the semester thinking > about problems differently, or maybe they're able to explain something they > hear on the news better, or maybe they remember having fun chatting about > research and computation with a group of scientists. > > ...and this wonder essence is what I think undergrads should generally > be getting out of any course experience: there's a line of argument in > higher education pedagogy that the whole point of taking courses in > any subject in a liberal-arts program is to broaden a student's > understanding of how different fields think, and that discipline's > approach to investigating questions of importance. And, I think this > deeper comprehension and building of crticial thinking skills, is > actually much more tangible than students learning details of domain > knowledge, something which in my experience seem to be easily > forgotten after the final exam (because like most details of domain > knowledge, you can look it up in a book later...). In your case, > April, not every student comes out of your class able to program, but > but every student comes out knowing how a computational biologist > thinks. And that's... well, I think that's exactly what university > courses should do. > > But, to bring it back to Carpentry, I'm also not convinced that the > design of carpentry workshops (or any short-form workshops) is ideal > for transmitting that broader perspective. At least the modules I've > seen and the workshop I helped at, the focus really was on improving a > basic level of technical skill. Technical skill is something colleges > have always struggled with; I suspect that is why many prospective > employers often tell universities that specific skill sets aren't > valuable, because they would prefer to convey those technical skills > to their students. I think Carpentries have figured out a great model > for conveying the technical skill of using a computer, but I don't see > how to extend that to the deeper understanding. > > Partly, the reason I think for this is that the mental conceptual maps > involved for that critical thinking tends to take time and patience to > develop, regardless of motivation - I remember it taking years as a > grad student for me to finally understand something I'd been trying to > understand since day 1, and, in parallel, I've seen students initially > entirely disinterested in the material, find something to latch onto > that engages them in understanding the 'whys' of the subject matter. > Meanwhile, oddly, it seems technical skills can be gained quickly but > do depend a great deal on self motivation. > > So, I think classes that try to convey technical skills are ideal for > graduate students or senior undergraduates with an existing research > project that makes the skills relevant. What I've been doing, and what > I think many of us probably do, is the classes are still about gaining > the broader understanding of how different approaches get used in a > particular discipline, but we use individual tricks material from > Carpentry (or whole modules) as chunks within those longer-term > courses that require students to gain technical expertise with > software quickly, so that they can have direct interaction with > analyses that will help convey how we investigate questions as > scientists. > > I don't know, maybe I'm making up a dichotomy between the exploration > of a subject versus technical skills that doesn't exist? > > But if such a dichotomy is real, than it makes sense for different > approaches to be ideal for maximizing benefit to the learners -- that > one pedagogical environment would not be ideal for both. And I think > that whether that dichotomy exists, or not, has implications for how > we think about where Carpentries exists in context with longer-term > courses in higher education. > > > Admittedly, my perspective is really strongly influenced by being a > first-generation college student - I didn't know to do any of this. And my > students are heavily skewed towards being first generation, and often > "trying on" different ways of being scientists. We teach the students we > have, and that means meeting them where they are, not necessarily where we > want them to be. > > I'm not a first generation student (my dad took night classes to > become a licensed accountant, and my mom holds a BFA), but I think > what you're laying out is very much in agreement with my understanding > as well. > > Cheers, > -Dave > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:30 AM Gerard Capes < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Further to Greg's comment: > >> > >> > Regarding your > >> > second, I think you've set an impossible problem: if learners are > >> > extrinsically motivated (doing it because they have to), then we've > lost > >> > before we start playing [2]. > >> > >> > >> This matches my experience. I recently scheduled a few SWC lessons run > as one-day training courses for a Centre for Doctoral Training. Learners > were a mix of the CDT group for whom participation was compulsory, and > other PhD/Post-Doc researchers at the university who were there of their > own free will. At least half the CDT group didn't see the merit in learning > the material and disrupted the course for those who did want to learn. > >> > >> This isn't something I plan to repeat - I only want to teach people who > want to learn. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Gerard > >> -- > >> Gerard Capes > >> Research Applications, IT Services, University Of Manchester > > > > The Carpentries / discuss / see discussions + participants + delivery > options Permalink > > > > -- > David W. Bapst, PhD > Asst Research Professor, Geology & Geophysics, Texas A & M University > Postdoc, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Univ of Tenn Knoxville > https://github.com/dwbapst/paleotree > > ------------------------------------------ > The Carpentries: discuss > Permalink: https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/ > Tad9e416c2ec4742e-M27cd5065b69aea4ec6d24817 > Delivery options: https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/ > subscription > ------------------------------------------ The Carpentries: discuss Permalink: https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/Tad9e416c2ec4742e-M03cd72bc4a6daed9608d446c Delivery options: https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/subscription
