diff --git a/lesson_plans/day_5/20231113_reflection.md b/lesson_plans/day_5/20231113_reflection.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c3286b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/lesson_plans/day_5/20231113_reflection.md @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@ +# Reflection Day 5 + +I used the reflection of Day 3 +as a base for my preparation of Day 5. +These were the TODOs of Day 3: + + * [N1] Try to get 1 TA + * [N2] Do TDD + * [N3] Do live coding + +Before the lesson the TAs and me found +out how to have 1 TA. I am happy that +people could spend their time more productively. +Due to this, I was better able to monitor the +students too: a win-win-win! + +In the back, there was a person from The Training +Hub. I was unsure what he/she was doing there (I +was not informed) and I thought it would be nice +if he/she could write down an observation +(it is at the bottom of this document). +He/she did not write an observation yet, so I +checked multiple times at the start to +help him/her find his/her style in doing this, +including daring to give an opinion. +The observer seemed to enjoy this openness +in admitting being imperfect. + +In the lesson, we wrote actual Python code +more quickly, +as well as me discussing the answer in more +detail. This included copy-pasting code +and running it. + +I did have a detailed schedule in my preparation, +but I never looked at it. Instead, I followed +the students' pace and adapted on the fly. +I wanted to go slower and that worked. +After the main topic of that day (I +discussed only the core of it), +the students worked on a final quiz and +some exercises, having a last chance to ask +questions, after which there was a recap +and evaluation. + +I used the course material of last year +to save time preparing. There were more +exercises than time to do them. +I did not make YouTube videos for this day, +as on the only day I scheduled, I had no +good microphone. This may have been a blessing, +as I put my attention on other things instead. + +Similar to Day 3, I used a HackMD document, +which was rarely used in this case. + +I asked a person to do the anonymous evaluation. +We had 24 pieces of good quality feedback. +I asked two students if the person being +there helped, where two out of two state +that it increased the effort they put into +writing down something useful. + +The raw evaluation results are at the bottom of this +document. + +## Evaluation + +Here is a first digest, focused +on how the course and I can improve: + + * 1x HackMD dislike, 1x HackMD like + * 3x simplify course + * 1x keep showing examples consistent + * 1x ChatGPT helped + * 1x more real datasets + * 1x pluriform course + * 1x HackMD dislike, 1x HackMD like + * Use bio dataset over IMDB + * 'just google it' is not a good one to receive. + * More on functions and libraries + * 1x only Richel's ppts were well structured + * 1x welcoming environment, + however, 1 student felt treated blunt by me + +## Interpretation + +The consequences of me having scheduled +1 day to prepare each course day +come out clearly: it was not enough time +to get the course material into shape. +Although one learner states that +I was the only teacher with +well-structured presentations, +around five students +preferred the first two days (not taught +by me) and/or disliked the third day (which +was taught by me). + + * TODO: do schedule more than 1 day preparation + per 1 day of course teaching + +Five students mentioned they enjoyed +frequent breaks. +I assume it was I that did so, +i.e. I assume I took more breaks +than on Days 1, 2 and 4, +but maybe I am wrong. + +I think there is an interesting and +big gap between: + + * anonymous evaluation + * observation + * informal feedback + +For example, it was only after Day 5 that I +learned that students in Uppsala could not +read slides well, due to lighting conditions. +Of course, I checked if I could properly +read slides from the back at the start of Day 3, +but apparently it was too hard. I learned this +in the pub afterwards and one can read this +in the observer's report as well. +I -maybe naively- +expected this to be in the evaluation too. +This may also explain why the small font size +on Day 1 was never mentioned: all students were +reading from their screens anyway. + +My idea to include Umea by using +a HackMD did not make it into the evaluation. +No student in Umea stated he/she felt (more) +included by me. +I guess using a mic and asking 'Are there +more questions?' is enough. + +The HackMD, hence, seems only to be +neutrally useful. I did enjoy to be +able to see the answers on Day 3 +from *all* students, but there is no +evidence it made Umea feel more included. + +On student mentioned the 'welcoming environment' +of the course, which indeed is something +I put effort into. +However, there is also another student +with this experience: + +> Wed morning, I signed both morning and afternoon just [in case] of [forgetting to do so in the afternoon], and I was blamed so I felt uncomfortable even though I stayed everyday. +> And interesting part was, there was other people did this before me, so I got indication to do so. But, why I am so special to be picked up to be blamed? + +The first problem is, that I do not know who +this is, as there were two students that did +so and I told both (or maybe I overlooked +a third/fourth?). +This student must have been +the second of the two to come in. Or maybe +it was the first student that did not hear me +talk to the second, as I did not discuss this +plenary (and why would I? It was before the +lesson). + +The second problem is, that I had put in effort +to prevent making learners uncomfortable, among +others by making it into a joke. + +Still, I can imagine that, when you just walk in +and there is this new dude you do not know yet, +that it can give these feelings. Next time, +I will wait until a first break, +and asking students to do things plenarily. + + * TODO: wait until a first break, + and asking students to do things plenarily. + +Multiple students remarked on the +denseness/complexity of the course content. +I agree with the student and think +that the feedback to an 'Intro to +Python' should err on getting 'The course +was too simple!' instead. +On the other hand, using pandas, plotting +and regexes, was put in with the best +intentions. +For me, it was these topics that made +me understand we could not have used a regular +introductory Python book, +as these would not contain pandas, plotting, nor +regexes. +I think, however, that we should listen to the +students in this regard and simplify the course. +This would allow us to use a regular book then as +well. +Using a regular book would allow us to +prepare the lessons more easily too, +as books have a structure, explanations, exercises +and solutions. + + * TODO: suggest to base the course on a book + +Also, I am happy to read that an observer +states that I am 'very good at time management' +when I follow +a student-centered approach, hence only have a +coarse idea of a schedule. Taking a look +at the detailed schedule of Friday (for the +first time; I did not use it), I see I went +faster than scheduled, even though I took it +slow (note there was still 1 student that felt +I went too fast: I'd enjoy to find out +how to be even slower, as I have no idea). + +## Observation + +``` +Observer pointers + +Day started with greeting everyone. Before moving ahead with the conceptual topics, +It's time for a review quiz. Students have been given 10 minutes for the quiz. Richel is helping around and paying attention to each and every student so that students are attempting the quiz. +Curtains are open because he would want them to open. +Now if the students are not able to finish the quiz in 10 minutes, he is taking care of those minute details for increasing the timer for 2 more mins. +Most of the students were able to do it in the given time but then it helped to have all the students to be at the same pace. – Nice!! + +Now he is reviewing the answers. He is trying to practically demonstrate the answers of the questions which is a good idea as students can analyze their mistakes and learn from them. + +He is trying to encourage the students to google the answers. + +He didn’t double check with Umea students for the review answers. Why?? +Because He is interacting with the Umeå students through HackMD. + +He is explaining the concept by interacting with the students. + +Given 10 minutes to spend on the website regexone.com website so that students can better play with it and try to understand it better after the theory is being covered. + +He is roaming around and checking if everyone is able to do it. – great thing!! + +He lets students work in silence for 5 minutes. It’s his way of delivering things. +He observed that students are reading the questions more so he helped them while reviewing the answers by showing them how to do it. + + —->But then, how will he identify whether each student is on the same pace? Are they able to get the things whatever he is delivering? He needs to test them, maybe have some quiz questions and ask them orally the answer. This way he will allow students to interact more and will identify where the students are lacking behind. + +He greatly accepts if he doesn’t know the reason for anything. Good Point instead of giving false info, accepted that he needs to read more about it. + +He cross checked HackMD simultaneously to see if there are any questions for Umeå students. +Paying close attention to each and every one! + + +Break Time - It should be on time Good Time management!! + +Good Thing about him - He is very punctual and is very good at time management. +He is also connecting with the students and making them comfortable to ask doubts if there are any. + + +Observation form students: +We randomly went to a few students and asked if they were able to get the stuff whatever he was delivering. +Question: Why do we use Regex? What is regex? + +Their answer is: +They were able to answer it and got the stuff. They really loved the idea of doing some theory and then trying some hands on it. Proper break time is also helping participants to digest the concept. + +They were facing some issues in the font size presented on screen, dimming the lights. Suggestion:So, if the presenter keeps this in mind or makes a checklist (use it before the start of session) and asks the students if they could see the slides better and clearly hear him out then there will be less chances of forgetting to zoom out the screen a bit. After checking all these pointers, then start your lesson. +``` + + + + + +## Evaluation results + +``` +The course as a whole was great. The course material was easy to access and directions was clear. I learned a lot. The one thing I bothered me was the chaotic lecturing style of the teacher on day 3, it was really hard to follow along. +Maybe more biology, bioinformatics application to understand the power of the language in simplifying our work +Good Thing: Helpful TAs, Brainstorming and cute exercises. Yummy Cakes ;) In case of regression expression lecture, things went a little bit fast. It might be more better if first there is some understanding lecture regarding syntax instead of giving exercise to do by yourself. It's my opinion, could vary participant to participant. Rest is all good. +Good: an intensive course with teaching and practicing. Not so good: too dense for a totally beginner without previous programming experience. I fount it a big challenging to follow the course. This should be advertised, or the course become more basic for totally beginners. +The course exhibited a commendable level of organization, with particular emphasis on the initial two days and the fourth day. The instructional delivery by both instructors and teaching assistants was effective and readily comprehensible. It is my recommendation that there be a rearrangement of the course schedule to prioritize building a fundamental understanding of the functions, particularly for novice participants, before moving on to more advanced content on day four. My overall experience with the course was highly enjoyable. +All the instructors and assistants were very helpful in trying to explain things and make us feel welcome. That helped a lot in asking more questions and clarifying things. The content and the structure was well designed. The format of the first 2 days worked really well, since when a concept was introduced, we had an exercise on it. Then there was a new concept and an exercise on it etc so one could build on the info through the day. It would have been great if the same format was followed through the whole week. +Course material was good and very useful, quizzes and reviews are very nice and a good way to recap what we have learnt. Some lessons (Wednesday and Friday) were difficult to follow and grasp what the point of the lecture was. This particular lessons went in details, but on the other hand basic explanations, for examples what functions and body of the functions were missing. These lectures should have been structured better in the future. +I really liked the course. I learned a lot, even though I already had some knowledge about Python. It gave me a deeper understanding of what I am doing and why. I liked the variety in teaching styles, and was able to follow everything. The teachers were good, had a lot of knowledge, and experience and were able to transfer this knowledge in a good way. +Excellent course in terms of organization, teaching material, timing to complete the exercises, and one-to-one assistance. Having exercises at different levels makes the course feasible and flexible to all levels. Highly recommendable. +I really liked the first two lessons with a bit of theory and the practise to understand well what I was explained. Also the frequent breaks were very well appreciated. What I did not like was the lesson about functions and asserts because I could not follow well, everything was very abstract and there were no exercises and I felt it was a bit unorganized. Also the HackMD tool is a bit stressful, some people write on top of you and you miss your line, I didn't like it. I really liked the Pandas lesson, again theory+exercises. Some TAs (shoutout for Jonas) were very very helpful and it was a pleasure to work with them. But in summary I think it is a very adequate curse for beginners and you end up knowing how to use many things. +The TAs were very helpful to have in the course. All days ran pretty smoothly though days 3 and 5 felt a bit rushed and that we did not go over everything in the modules thoroughly. All in all, I think the course was very informative and I feel I now have a good starting base to start learning more python. +I think the course was good in terms of touching upon different areas of the programming language. Also, I enjoyed the variation of teachers having their different style and technique of teaching. Having breaks are also important which the course kept in mind. To provide some contructive feedback, I would suggest keeping in mind that some people (I included) do not have any prior programming background in computer science/programming and that many terms being used casually when explaining new concepts is very confusing. Also, when demonstrating examples, try to keep them consistent. Even if you can code something in different ways, to a new person it becomes very confusing after showing 3-4 ways that will output the same thing. I understand this can still be beneficial for more experienced bioinformaticians. +I think it is a wonderful course, as I didn't have any idea about python or programming before and I could relate to how I can use this knowledge in analyzing my sequencing data that I am aiming to do in the coming days. I didn't expect to be an expert after this course but at least I could develop a very basic understanding, thanks to this course and I can at least take help from ChatGPT or google or knowledgeable human colleagues to analyze my data rather than making collaborations and having no idea what my collaborators will do . :D The course material is also excellent. I would have appreciated if we could have practiced some more real and different types of datasets in the course. For me, a follow-up practice with a real RNA-seq or ChIP-se data and how we can follow a pipeline to make meaningful analyses would have been perfect. However, I can understand about time constraints. Thanks for such a wonderful course, and I would be happier to join similar type of courses in the future. PS: awesome food and fika.. :D Gave me extra few calories after 7 days of only eating and coding no no physical exercise. +The course was in general very good, personally I do not need to use python for my current work and I took it because I see the benefits of knowing programming. I have very little experience programmning and I overall managed to follow the course, I got a bit lost in some parts but I can probably work it out myself (also with ChatGPT). I think it would be more challenging to follow for people with NO experience at all as it was advertised. Changing teachers hindered my attention since I get adapted to one and then I need to readapt to another one, I think this was because all three had different teaching approches. So it might not be the teachers per se but their way to prepare the class. For the future, it can be benefitial if you can come up with a similar strategy, logistics, schedule, etc. I felt the enviroment was very nice and welcoming, encouraging, always happy to help us and that I really loved!! This might be the most important thing for me, programming feels fun because of this as well. Very nice to take breaks often since the span attention reduces over time. In a nutshell, I´m happy to have taken this course, I feel I have now a good starting point to keep developing the programing skills myself and I would for sure recommend it. Tack tack ;) +I think the course was very well organised and we had great help from the organisers. The use of HackMD was excellent, as then it gave opportunity to know what other participants think and what issues they may have. I learned from it. I already have some programing background, but I have leaned new approaches and new ideas specifically regarding testing. I have a suggestion - It would be nice to include some more real scientific data in the exercises, especially when the background and projects of the participants is already known, as we had filled up some information regarding this while registering. +The lectures have been immensely valuable in enhancing my grasp of Python coding. I found the exercises and project particularly beneficial for gaining a deeper understanding of each topic, as they provided a step-by-step approach to achieving the final output. To further enhance the learning experience, it might be advantageous to maintain a consistent format throughout all the lectures. I noticed some variations in teaching styles among different instructors, and having a uniform format similar to the initial two days of lectures would help streamline my learning process +I want to thank all the TAs. It's been a productive week. However, there are some improvements I'd suggest 1. It would be great to replace the IMDB dataset with something biology-related. 2. It would be great to give more time for all exercises (and not be so obsessed with the time schedule) 3. It would be great to get more feedback and help during the project, sometimes it's not obvious at all what and how we should write, and the answer "just google it" is not a good one to receive. 4. I would also like a clearer explanation of some topics such as functions and libraries. More illustrative examples of how they can be used. 5. It would be great to have more structured presentations (only Richel's ppts were well structured). 6. I would also like to be able to do some alternative type of project. Overall it was really nice to start learning python with you! +Maybe nicer and more kind for sign-in. Wed morning, I signed both morning and afternoon just incase of forgotten, and I was blamed so I felt uncomfortable even though I stayed everyday. And interesting part was, there was other people did this before me, so I got indication to do so. But, why I am so special to be picked up to be blamed? And for the exercises, the project is little bit of unread and not easy to find patients data (fasta files) in the end. +Good thing * Overall a very good and intense course * Help was always there if needed Can be improved * Have even more interactive things and discussions during the lectures * More explanations behind the solutions for the exercises :-) * To give some suggestions when the codes can be applicable in worklife Course material * A lot of basics covered * Good that there were step by step solutions to the exercises * Nice that there were easier and more difficult exercises depending on peoples background * Quizzes were very helpful to see were the struggles were Teachers *Very engaging and helpful +Good content, pacing can be tough for new programmers. I liked the first day in terms of pacing, the ratio of 20 minutes course and 30 minutes exercise to practice right away is nice. I also like it more when the quizz answers are available on canvas so we can check them whenever we want. When the answers are given orally it might be a bit hard not to listen because we have not finished the quizz yet! Richel in particular went too fast for me... but he is very good at keeping track of breaks, and I wish more people got the same program as his, that tells you when to stop! I cannot do an exercise in 5 minutes because I might take 4 minutes to figure out how to properly open the file :,) The hack MD is nice to see answers from everyone (we get influenced though!), but it can be very tricky to keep track of where our line is. Maybe it can be kept but with lots of space between each name? It also takes time to understand which question should be answered where in this document, because the first number we see might actually be the number of the slide or chapter. Good idea to use hack MD to chat anonymously with the teacher but hard to navigate it overall. I think it should only be kept for questions and spontaneous conversations. +The pre-course materials and prep were very clear and well-organized. A more detailed outline of study topics including key learning objectives and skills to be mastered (with sample scripts) and how they will be applied in writing programs would be helpful; for instance: many struggled with how to use regexp (which may be more advanced than needed). Use of dictionaries and sys.argv were only cursorily discussed. The two intro days were well structured. The use of statistical analysis was very interesting, and perhaps could be expanded. A more detailed summary discussion with key learnings would be useful. +Good things: - I learned the basic structure of Python and sort data in large documents. I will not remember all the details, but I will probably consult the course material later on to repeat some basic things and use chatGPT for help with solutions. - I liked the lecturing structure of the days that had review quiz/lecture/quiz, it helped my memory. - The teachers were nice, including and competent! Improvements: - I would have appreciated a small introduction to write the basics commands to open files in the terminal and how to use the notebook (very shortly). Alternatively to some (Youtube) videos/tutorials could be added to the precourse material to describe this. -The lecturing on wednesday became hard for me to follow since I am too new to programming, and I could not take part in the excersises as I wanted. +Something good about the course – I think that the course is well organized and I can honestly say I learned very much about coding in python even as a beginner. The lectures, exercises, and py quizzes were very good. Including lunch and fika everyday is very nice : ). The bonus dinner was also very nice : ). Something about the teachers – In general, all the teachers were very good and they all had their own teaching styles which I really appreciate. I can honestly say I learned something from every teacher. But maybe when we ask a question don’t just say “Google it!”. We as scientists use google and/or chatGTP on a daily basis but when we come to a classroom it’s nice to get some guidance or help with the questions that we have and not just “Google it!” as a response. +```