Hi All, I'm a newbie instructor, but this is hitting a nerve for me because last weekend I taught my first SWC workshop (after being a helper for DC three times over a few years, and teaching the DC R-Ecology Lesson "off-label") and it didn't go that well. I've been waffling about speaking up, but if Jonah is reinforcing that newbies can make a difference, and Bennet feels the same way I do, I guess I should do it.
I had a tough time stringing together lesson sections that didn't flow, and after a little poking around, it seems like veteran folks do a lot of "I don't teach that part" that's based on the lessons, not the learners. And I can't blame them! I had just read over Shell Genomics for DC for the issue bonanza, and I was wishing I could teach that. It's hard to say this because I know everyone is a volunteer, and lesson maintainers work very hard, but I think some SWC lessons suffer from having been changed "just a little" too many times. The Shell lesson for example, is a mix of one-off examples (Jamie has proteins, you have molecules, Nelle has samples, there are basilisks) that seemed to throw learners around (this was learner feedback). And when I went to open an unrelated issue, I found several folks agreeing that nobody ever finishes this lesson in the allotted time. (After writing all that, I found the top of a link tree sharing the sentiment, ( https://github.com/swcarpentry/shell-novice/issues/504) which makes me feel a little less like I'm walking into someone else's living room and insulting the curtains.) Obviously full lesson overhaul is a massive undertaking, but basically, I agree with Bennet's sentiment that paring down lessons by establishing a even-corier-core would be beneficial, both for consistency and time use, and possibly for increasing hands-on time. However, I am conflicted on whether I think this is the same discussion as the "Meeting criteria for brand use" one that was kicked off in the last few days and carried onto github. best, Marianna > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:28:44 -0400 > From: Bennet Fauber <[email protected]> > To: Jonah Duckles <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], Belinda Weaver > <[email protected]>, "C. Titus Brown" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] using the DC ecology Python lesson in place of > the SWC Python for SWC workshop > Message-ID: > <CAB2ovovNcCtQrwGRqaLyi-NyY53DRP4xYMQ3NEoT1zz5dYsiDw@ > mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Jonah and all, > > I've seen two presentations of the R workshop, both at Software Carpentry > workshops. They were a couple of years apart. Neither finished the > material in the SWC lesson. Both were quite different from each other. I > doubt that if an attendee from one described the workshop to an attendee > from the other that it would be recognizable. Further, I note that the R > for Reproducible Scientific Analysis lesson may differ less from the Data > Carpentry R lesson than it does from the R Inflammation lesson. > > Perhaps one avenue of discussion might be to pare down from the current > lesson(s) and define what constitutes the core concepts and competencies > that any language lesson _must_ cover during its actual offering to be > considered for inclusion in 'Software Carpentry'? That would then make > _how_ those concepts and competencies open to lesson planners, maintainers, > and to the judgement of the community. I think that might become > increasingly important. > > While I understand that there is a strong desire to keep the discussion on > this list focused on things that are truly and genuinely of general > interest, I suggest that it might be premature to shunt what constitutes a > legitimate lesson for SWC into an issue just yet. What makes a lesson > legitimate seems to me to be of pretty central interest and importance, and > I think that removing it from general and public discussion so early is not > in the best interest of the community. > > I urge you to encourage at least a bit more discussion here, so that > someone reading this later -- and possibly much later -- will be able to > get a general enough sense of the range of opinions to properly judge > whether to go to the issue or not. > > I am sure it is not your intention to stop discussion, but I think this > issue is important enough to remain on the main list for at least a little > while longer. I have had my say, and I will add anything further to the > issue. > > I hope that in stating my opinions here I have not violated any community > norms or offended anyone, and I apologize now if I have done so. That is > not my intent. > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss
