[thoughts specific to SWC, but can be generalized] What does it mean to learn "Software Carpentry?"
There is not one way to learn to woodwork. There are a few skills to know, a few useful tools (depending on your activity!), and everyone's got some personal advice. Our lessons are (1) under continuous improvement, (2) public and online, and (3) more numerous (and often more lengthy) than the session or workshop allows. Each of these contributes to the assertion: "Two Software Carpentry learners from workshops at two different points in time have different experiences." To some extent, that has to be ok. Don't we expect the same from a university course (e.g., "last year the professor used the same slides, but the homework is different"), or from any educational workshop? There will be updates to the toolset, drift in the exercises, improvements in the methods. It's important to hold brand (i.e. "This is what our workshops are like"); but most of us are neither lesson maintainers nor Greg. Every workshop we (at least I) teach is "inspired by Software Carpentry". We should be most focused on the intent --- "basic lab skills for research computing" + "get more done in less time and with less pain". With the flexibility of a one-time workshop (from the learner POV), we should cater to the learners (for me, that means "decide which modules to teach", and occasionally "write specific challenges for the learners"). I see the importance of the Steering Committee to recommend a set of lessons, but we cannot expect every lesson to be taught exactly the same way. Almost all the material I use is SWC or SWC-exploratory, but as Marianna mentioned, I have a few other tricks up my sleeve (for example, linking this self-paced tutorial <https://try-python.appspot.com> just before we start the Python lesson). I like the blog posts and reports on the success and quirks of particular workshops. I see the plethora/listing of lessons very much as self-serve (and have recommended them as online tutorials many times!), where one pick and choose what to learn based on what you need. When teaching, I think we should do the same --- but still teach core competencies (i.e. a language, version control, and using a CLI). Especially with the upcoming merger (as "Carpentries), we should be wary of walls between the Carpentry types --- as if we're confident that learners couldn't use some information from each. On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Ben Bolker <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is an analogous discussion here about how to fit all of the R > material into a single day (either standalone or in a 2-day git+shell+R > workshop): > https://github.com/swcarpentry/r-novice-gapminder/issues/104 > > My collaborator and I have started keeping a CSV file that documents > which episodes we meant to cover, and which we actually covered, in each > workshop we do. > > On the subject of "core competencies", though, I can imagine it might > be hard to agree on a one-size-fits-all (one of the ways we got to the > current overstuffed situation in the first place ...) > > On 17-10-22 10:30 PM, Marianna Foos wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > To: Jonah Duckles <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Cc: [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>, Belinda Weaver > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > > "C. Titus Brown" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] using the DC ecology Python lesson in place of > > the SWC Python for SWC workshop > > Message-ID: > > > > <cab2ovovncctqrwgrqalyi-nyy53drp4xymq3neot1zz5dys...@mail.gmail.com > > <mailto: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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/listinfo/discuss
