We are working on developing a 3-day tutorial for first years and we wanted to combine stats and biochem. This is for the course Science 3M03.

Science 3M03's goal is to design tutorials that could be used for a new course next year called Science 1A03. The goal of these tutorials are to get students excited about science and also to teach them some basic scientific skill they could use across all disciplines.

Our intended learning outcomes are:

1. Analyze,and summarize data (data from biochemistry): Can describe trends in dataand explain it well enough that a lay person with little background in science
2. Asking questions such as such as what "what are the applications of this data" or "how is this related to my other courses?"
3. Form a specific question and proposean answer (hypothesis): Students will apply question formulation to scientificresearch and search for application of finding in the real world. This will be done through the use of index cards
4. Presenting information effectively (projection of voice, eye contact, organized)

We will be doing the following in order:

-Have mythbusters session such as "True or false: Biochemistry only involves biochemist. False, biochemistry is interdisciplinary and involves kinesiologist, biologist, chemist, physicist etc.". The purpose is to hook them on and also to clear up some misconceptions that are generally present amongst first years. These myths were gathered from a disciplinary expert in biochemistry.
-Teaching basic graphs used in stats such as scatterplots and histograms
-Give students some data to make a sketch of a graph
-Provide students an index card for them to write a question based on a graph they sketch
-Collect and pass the cards to other students to propose a possible answer (which is similar to formulating a hypothesis)
-TA will discuss the data given and talk about the conclusions and applications

-On day 2, it will be similar to day 1 except students will be put into groups and will be asked to construct the graph, formulate questions, make applications, and possible conclusions.

-On day 3, students will present what they did to their peers and will be evaluated.

Please comment on:

If 1st years will actually learn something from this
Interest (would you be interested in this if you were in your 1st year)
Do you think the skills we are teaching are valuable?

I wouldn't be at all interested in this.
A lot of the stuff is taught already in various courses, and some things (like how to do graphs) differs from course to course so the information wouldn't really be useful. The basic concept of the type of graph doesn't change (you learn that stuff in grade 3) but formatting/appearance changes, and that's what's challenging.
The misconceptions could be cleared up in a poster or single email or biochem info session or something, there's no need for it to be incorporated into a course.
The part about making up questions and formulating hypotheses based on them doesn't seem useful or practical.
I hate presentations, so that alone makes it extremely unattractive to me.
I also find all of the material boring, so if anything, this would turn me off of science rather than get me excited about it.

Are these supposed to be a PART of science 1A03? What else is taught in the course? What is the reasoning behind having it? Is it mandatory?

How would your part be graded?
What is the size of groups?

The graphs are meant to help students build a visual representation of the data and we cannot have them make a graph without teaching them a little about it. We do not know what to expect from incoming first years so we wanted to have 1 slide to give them a quick review.

The mythbusters is only meant as a hook. It is meant to grab their attention and to get them thinking.

I do not see how question formulation is not practical in the sciences. Research aims to answer questions and you cannot do so without formulating one. Please explain why you do not find it practical/useful.

Presentations are quite important as a skill and we thought it would be a good idea to have them practice it. What other forms of assessment would you recommend that could help us check that they have learned what was taught?


Are these supposed to be a PART of science 1A03?
They could potentially be if the instructors want to use some of the ideas the students came up with.

What else is taught in the course?
There isn't a specific topic but the lectures are more TED talk style and the tutorials are just what I posted but the topics would vary greatly. Other students are working in psych, geography, physics etc.

What is the reasoning behind having it? Is it mandatory?
I am not sure if it would be mandatory. The reasoning is to provide some basic science skill and to get them learn about research at Mac and perhaps to get them to see where an undergraduate could lead to in terms of research.

How would your part be graded?
We chose to do presentations so far (this is only for my group)

What is the size of groups?
We are expecting roughly 25-30ish per tutorial. This is not confirmed yet.

What would you like to see more/changed in this module?

Also, there will be an exhibition of all these projects on March 24. It will be from 12:30-2:30. The room will be announced once it is confirmed.

Originally Posted by AnimeGamer31

The graphs are meant to help students build a visual representation of the data and we cannot have them make a graph without teaching them a little about it. We do not know what to expect from incoming first years so we wanted to have 1 slide to give them a quick review.

So what's the purpose of them making a graph or visual representation of the data? What data? This also does not address the issue where you need to learn how to format a graph differently in each course - this is just one more way of learning how to format a graph that won't be transferable.

The mythbusters is only meant as a hook. It is meant to grab their attention and to get them thinking.

So how much time would you spend on it? And I still don't really see the point.

I do not see how question formulation is not practical in the sciences. Research aims to answer questions and you cannot do so without formulating one. Please explain why you do not find it practical/useful.

For one, teaching HOW to ask questions has limited effectiveness. People ask questions all the time. Narrowing down a broad question to a specific research project/experiment is a bit harder, but there are entire courses that supposedly deal with that (such as the many inquiry courses - though I have to say, having taken an inquiry course specific to my program, I *still* didn't find it helpful with asking questions).
Also, the whole process seems to be backwards - you're giving the students data and telling them to graph it. Then they make up a question based on the graph, and then other students form a hypothesis based on the question. So, not only will these be irrelevant, made-up questions, but they're based off of the results/answer to the "question".

Presentations are quite important as a skill and we thought it would be a good idea to have them practice it. What other forms of assessment would you recommend that could help us check that they have learned what was taught?

That really depends on what exactly you're "teaching".
It's fine to practice presentations, but being marked on them means that it's not really "practice".

Also, if the course is in a sort of TED format and the goal is to get people excited about science and learning about research at Mac, I don't think your plan really fits with that. Like I said before, it seems really boring and in my opinion it would end up turning people off of science. I feel like you picked the most boring, repetitive topic possible.
Maybe taking a real research project that a grad student is doing at Mac, and going through the process of formulating the question and where it came from, and breaking it down into things that are testable, forming a series of experiments, and then displaying the results, would be more interesting. At least it has a "real" aspect to it, not made-up questions with no meaning or real relevance. Although, in my experience, analyzing/graphing the results tends to be people's least favourite part of the whole process, so maybe that wouldn't work either.

Originally Posted by starfish

So what's the purpose of them making a graph or visual representation of the data? What data? This also does not address the issue where you need to learn how to format a graph differently in each course - this is just one more way of learning how to format a graph that won't be transferable.


So how much time would you spend on it? And I still don't really see the point.

It's just a way to get them thinking. We would spend about 5 mins or so just going through these. We needed a way to hook students attention. Did you have any suggestion to an attention grabber?

For one, teaching HOW to ask questions has limited effectiveness. People ask questions all the time. Narrowing down a broad question to a specific research project/experiment is a bit harder, but there are entire courses that supposedly deal with that (such as the many inquiry courses - though I have to say, having taken an inquiry course specific to my program, I *still* didn't find it helpful with asking questions).
Also, the whole process seems to be backwards - you're giving the students data and telling them to graph it. Then they make up a question based on the graph, and then other students form a hypothesis based on the question. So, not only will these be irrelevant, made-up questions, but they're based off of the results/answer to the "question".

True but the goal is to have them realize that question formulation is important. It's not about teaching it so that they become experts, it's about exposing them. It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to teach it perfectly. As you said, a whole course did not cut it for you. It does not matter what the question is based on, the purpose to is to just question.


That really depends on what exactly you're "teaching".
It's fine to practice presentations, but being marked on them means that it's not really "practice".

To be honest, students will not take things seriously unless there is a mark beside it. Putting a mark on it makes students take it seriously. Of course, we try to not make it "threatening" which will depend on how the TA creates that atmosphere.

Also, if the course is in a sort of TED format and the goal is to get people excited about science and learning about research at Mac, I don't think your plan really fits with that. Like I said before, it seems really boring and in my opinion it would end up turning people off of science. I feel like you picked the most boring, repetitive topic possible.
Maybe taking a real research project that a grad student is doing at Mac, and going through the process of formulating the question and where it came from, and breaking it down into things that are testable, forming a series of experiments, and then displaying the results, would be more interesting. At least it has a "real" aspect to it, not made-up questions with no meaning or real relevance. Although, in my experience, analyzing/graphing the results tends to be people's least favourite part of the whole process, so maybe that wouldn't work either.

We only have 3 tutorials and that's a constraint on our part. It's not possible to do everything in a proper order because we do not have the time for that. I agree with the idea of research from a Mac grad. We will think about that. Thanks.

HAHA! LOL now that I think about it, it is pretty repetitive. I think that's the problem and we really try and aim to make it less boring. I think analysis could be interesting if it is relevant.

Was there anything in the inquiry course or any course that could trigger your curiosity to ask good questions? If not, what would you change about it to trigger it?