This started a storm of comment, boy howdy! I agree with Marianne that Trevor propounds a good strategy: Show them what you do and why the tools you're selling at your boot camp do a good job of that. I think that leads to more coherent programs, it provides a better demonstration of the tools, it shows how the pieces fit together, and it's about your work and conditions, about which you presumably know something and can credibly and enthusiastically expound. Seeing that the tools can be used effectively for your work will provide good motivation to them to explore more to see if they can be used effectively for theirs.
I am a big fan of presenting a bootcamp as a unified story of how work gets done, with several chapters of details. If there is an overall story to the weekend, it gives them a narrative from which to hang the myriad details that the material tries to present. Narrative is familiar, and it's a form people can easily remember. Those details need something from which to hang, or it's unlikely they'll be remembered in any coherent, useful way. These are beginners. Help them out. One question I think should always be on the evaluation form is: How well did the material presented match the course description? -- bennet On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bill Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, > > So, a student from a workshop a little while ago didn't have too great a > time, and asked if their feedback could be shared anonymously with > instructors. Feedback follows; be aware, this person is *angry* about what > happened, but nevertheless has many valid points; I'd like to put ire aside > enough to address the key points within. > > > **** begin student comments **** > > There was a [workshop] that was meant to introduce Luddites like myself to R > and the like. I will admit that R is intimidating, and the fanatical, > almost cult-like regard some have for it is more than a tad off-putting to > me, so I have put such a lesson off. Boy. I should have put it off longer. > The workshop was two days. I came only to the first, though I had planned > to go to the second, too. The first part was supposed to deal with the uses > of Excel, where it was weak, and how to use it better. Great, I thought. I > never had any formal instruction in Excel, and instead have clawed my way > into a decent working knowledge of it over the last almost two decades. I > am very proud of what I can do with it, and I have found it of great use, > but I know there is a ton I don't know, so I was looking forward to that > session. However, that session ended up being bitterly offensive. The > basic message being conveyed was "you are an idiot for using Excel to do > anything expect to put data into R, and an even worse idiot if you do things > to make data comprehensible to a human." There were snide cartoons, there > was condescension... It was infuriating. The second session was better, > but still lousy. That was the introduction to R. However, there was little > organization. The files we needed to download were not the ones they told > us to download, and this led to a lot of confusion at first. Then the > instructor was very disorganized in [their] teaching style, mumbling, not > explaining what [they were] doing, and so on. [They] refused to make any > handouts explaining the language of R, so we were to input commands based on > what [they] entered by following [their] projected screen. However, [they] > wouldn't stay in the part of the screen with the commands long enough for us > to easily enter the commands, and then [they] didn't explain how the > commands worked. By the end I was livid, tired, and very stressed. I was > in one of those moods in which I wish I could run through walls or do other > Hulk smash sorts of things. So I didn't go the next day, and decided to get > back into a better state of mind by going on a camping trip. > > **** end student comments **** > > So, there's a bunch of good content here, but the thing that really sticks > in my pipe is the line about 'There were snide cartoons, there was > condescension...' - I'm certain that there are more perspectives on whatever > was presented, and it all came from a place of good intention, but having > someone walk away from a workshop feeling like 'an idiot' is something we > need to examine whether it was intended or not. > > This is a complicated topic. There are a lot of problems with excel, and if > we can give researchers a better option, we should. But there is also huge > value in meeting researchers where they are with respect, and giving them > the opportunity to try something new that will empower them, rather than > denigrating what they have achieved on their own. I admire researchers who > are able to build an analysis framework out of the zero training they > receive on the topic, whether I like the tools they choose or not. And if we > truly want change, let's lead the charge with opportunity, rather than > trying to prod them from behind with aggression. > > Which is all very nice to say - but how to do it remains a question. I think > that we are prone to communication misfires like the one described above > when we don't really know how to brooch difficult topics. I propose that we > have a discussion about how to approach spreadsheet tools in our workshops > at the next Instructor Hangouts, one week from today (on Sept. 26); we can > chat about what we want to achieve surrounding spreadsheets, and how to > advertise different tools in a way that's going to resonate with students, > rather than get their shields up. We're moving to a Hangouts on Air setup > for this round, so if you would like to participate in the conversation at > 9AM PDT Sept. 26, let me know and I will be sure to save you a speaking spot > in the hangout; those that would like to just observe, may do so through the > youtube broadcast (links forthcoming). > > Phew! This is a tough one - but it's also an opportunity to reach even more > researchers. Looking forward to what we can come up with together! > > -- > Bill Mills > Community Manager, Mozilla Science Lab > @billdoesphysics > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
