I am reminded of the old teacher's adage: I teach for free, they pay me to grade (typed from under a stack of midterms). I suspect instructor enthusiasm (and probably students) would wane significantly if we had to spend the end of the workshop grading exams. Professional courses and certification exist, and they cost professional amounts of money.
---Jeramia Oryhttp://drlabratory.com Long-time lurker here, if I might add to the conversation. I organized a workshop February (2014) and one of our participants asked me if there was a certificate for R or Python. She mentioned how SAS has a well-known certification program. I explained how there wasn't an equivalent certification program. Historically, certification schema focus primarily on commercial software and the needs of businesses. In open-source and academic circles, my experience has been that software certificates are somewhat less common. That being said, I see pros and cons for software carpentry certificates. Pros: -Providing a post workshop assignment could help participants apply what they've learned. - It would also provide assessment and feedback on the impact of workshops. - Students could include certificates on their annual evaluation reports and on their CV's. -Certificates provide a sort of institutional legitimacy that could appeal to administrators and funding agencies. Cons - What if someone with no connection to SWC wanted a certificate? - Who would set the criteria and grade the submissions? - How would the possibility of plagiarism be handled? - What if this certificate grew beyond the scope of SWC? I like the idea and want it to succeed. My point is merely that we will want to think through the logistical aspects before committing to a course of action. John R. Moreau University of Missouri, Kansas City > On Nov 2, 2014, at 3:00 PM, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Send Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Targeting intermediate learners (Hsi-Kai (Kai) Yang) > 2. Re: Targeting intermediate learners (Katy Huff) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:50:44 -0800 > From: "Hsi-Kai (Kai) Yang" <[email protected]> > To: Daniel Chen <[email protected]> > Cc: Software Carpentry Discussion > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Targeting intermediate learners > Message-ID: > <CAK2WhKTueEcW2Q8obNz_=ekcs86skxwkf+c+cnhkp8dsctt...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> Greg wrote: I don't know how big a problem this is, but several > conversations in the past two years make me believe it's big enough that we > need to design for it. > > > I assume that ?intermediate? python classes have indeed been advertised as > ?intermediate.? However, the issue seems that we don?t want to discourage > people who may have thought the ?intermediate? course is too difficult to > them. At the same time we don?t want to encourage people who are not ready > for ?intermediate? level. I think using a ?certificate? system could be a > solution. At the end of each course, we can issue a ?certificate? to those > who pass a certain threshold. To attend level-2 course, a ?certificate? > from level-1 course, either on-site or on-line, is a pre-requisite. Then > both students and instructors can have a more objective method to make > judgment. > > > If a formal ?certificate? method has already been adopted by SWC, please > disregard my idea above. > > > Thanks. > > -kai > >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If it is actually a intermediate only workshop. can we give them an >> assignment to do? >> They're not novices, so a little more should be expected from them. >> >> One that comes to mind is the snap crackle pop hw. >> It goes along the lines of: >> "write a program that prints the numbers from 0 to 99 inclusive, for each >> multiple of 3 print 'snap' >> each multiple of 7 'crackle', and multiple of 11 'pop'" >> mention that if they cannot solve this in 20? minutes , they should opt to >> attend a beginner workshop >> >> let it be on their own merit in terms of doing and 'correctness'. >> >> This would avoid having that student who has never seems a list or loop >> from attending >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Greg Wilson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> On 2014-10-30 2:55 PM, Naupaka Zimmerman wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd love to hear if any other people have advice for improving the >>>> pre-course surveys to discriminate (make everyone write a fizz-buzz in >>>> their language of choice? bringing a printout of their favorite geeky >>>> meme?) between experience levels or more broadly about how folks have >>>> effectively/successfully engaged groups with heterogeneous experience >>>> levels. >>>> >>> >>> I'm strongly in favor of finding out more about our learners before our >>> workshops and/or making sure that people attend the right ones, but there's >>> a trap we need to avoid. Our educational system trains people to believe >>> that every test counts. Even if we tell them the pre-assessment isn't a >>> test, some will perceive it that way, and if they can't get the right >>> answers, they won't sign up for the workshop. Ironically, these are often >>> exactly the people we most want to help. I don't know how big a problem >>> this is (I don't even know what metric I'd use), but several conversations >>> in the past two years make me believe it's big enough that we need to >>> design for it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Greg Wilson >>> Software Carpentry | http://www.software-carpentry.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.software-carpentry.org/pipermail/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org/attachments/20141102/d91ab8be/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:59:37 -0800 > From: Katy Huff <[email protected]> > To: "Hsi-Kai (Kai) Yang" <[email protected]> > Cc: Software Carpentry Discussion > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Targeting intermediate learners > Message-ID: > <CAFoDED1PTdqnU4tdZ9AQf7qADdduLMuG5F=56hzpi5n03kz...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Kai, > While I fully understand where your suggestion is coming from, I think > there are many potential students who are sufficiently self-taught to just > entirely skip a level-1 course. Those people would be quite turned off by > being required to take a course too basic for their skill-set. > > I'm not sure what the alternative is, but I would definitely push back > against requiring that intermediate level people take our beginner level > course. In addition to being inconvenient for them, having advanced > students in a beginner course is often more disruptive to the whole room > than having a few beginner people falling behind in an advanced course. > > I know we've tried a few things. Questionairres ("do you know what a loop > is"), entrance exams ("what will this code produce"), and simple > self-assessment based on a clear decription of the course. They all have > weaknesses, of course. > > Katy > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Hsi-Kai (Kai) Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Greg wrote: I don't know how big a problem this is, but several >> conversations in the past two years make me believe it's big enough that we >> need to design for it. >> >> >> I assume that ?intermediate? python classes have indeed been advertised as >> ?intermediate.? However, the issue seems that we don?t want to discourage >> people who may have thought the ?intermediate? course is too difficult to >> them. At the same time we don?t want to encourage people who are not ready >> for ?intermediate? level. I think using a ?certificate? system could be a >> solution. At the end of each course, we can issue a ?certificate? to those >> who pass a certain threshold. To attend level-2 course, a ?certificate? >> from level-1 course, either on-site or on-line, is a pre-requisite. Then >> both students and instructors can have a more objective method to make >> judgment. >> >> >> If a formal ?certificate? method has already been adopted by SWC, please >> disregard my idea above. >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> -kai >> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If it is actually a intermediate only workshop. can we give them an >>> assignment to do? >>> They're not novices, so a little more should be expected from them. >>> >>> One that comes to mind is the snap crackle pop hw. >>> It goes along the lines of: >>> "write a program that prints the numbers from 0 to 99 inclusive, for each >>> multiple of 3 print 'snap' >>> each multiple of 7 'crackle', and multiple of 11 'pop'" >>> mention that if they cannot solve this in 20? minutes , they should opt >>> to attend a beginner workshop >>> >>> let it be on their own merit in terms of doing and 'correctness'. >>> >>> This would avoid having that student who has never seems a list or loop >>> from attending >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Greg Wilson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> On 2014-10-30 2:55 PM, Naupaka Zimmerman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd love to hear if any other people have advice for improving the >>>>> pre-course surveys to discriminate (make everyone write a fizz-buzz in >>>>> their language of choice? bringing a printout of their favorite geeky >>>>> meme?) between experience levels or more broadly about how folks have >>>>> effectively/successfully engaged groups with heterogeneous experience >>>>> levels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm strongly in favor of finding out more about our learners before our >>>> workshops and/or making sure that people attend the right ones, but there's >>>> a trap we need to avoid. Our educational system trains people to believe >>>> that every test counts. Even if we tell them the pre-assessment isn't a >>>> test, some will perceive it that way, and if they can't get the right >>>> answers, they won't sign up for the workshop. Ironically, these are often >>>> exactly the people we most want to help. I don't know how big a problem >>>> this is (I don't even know what metric I'd use), but several conversations >>>> in the past two years make me believe it's big enough that we need to >>>> design for it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Greg Wilson >>>> Software Carpentry | http://www.software-carpentry.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >> > > > > -- > http://katyhuff.github.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.software-carpentry.org/pipermail/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org/attachments/20141102/3a5ce3c2/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org > > ------------------------------ > > End of Discuss Digest, Vol 16, Issue 3 > ************************************** _______________________________________________ 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
