Cutting down Carpentries Episode to Avoid Duplication with Welcome Session

[sstevens2]

How could the content be improved?

@OscarSiba taught this today and I always take too long with it and have to cut. We discussed some places we agree that could be cut based on duplication in the welcome session. I'm happy to make a PR so the changes we are suggested could be more easily reviewed.

To cut:

• How to organize a workshop section - this is covered well in the Welcome session
• Exercise on signing up for connections - we think a mention of the ways to connect is still worthwhile to include but they do this exact exercise of signing up in in the welcome session.
• Carpentries Jargon Review - not covered in the welcome session but seems like it would be a good place to cut

Which part of the content does your suggestion apply to?

https://carpentries.github.io/instructor-training/instructor/15-carpentries.html

[brownsarahm]

Strategically, removing duplicate content makes sense, but we have to think about dependencies.

• How to organize a workshop section I expect okay, but want to check & I think there are downstream impacts: we need to re-think the homework and we need to also make sure that nothing else in the training relies on them knowing anything from that section. What common questions would be unaddressed after this change? (e.g. about what does the certification mean, etc)
• Exercise on signing up for connections I cannot think of any reasons not to
• Carpentries Jargon Review the jargon is used everywhere while we talk about lessons, so I am not sure it's good to cut. In particular the lesson vs episode is important for understanding the demo sign up instructions

[sstevens2]

Thanks @brownsarahm

Good point to think about the homework. We skipped the how to organize a workshop section last week and it didn't seem to cause any issues with other sections. If we leave the homework and the exercise where they ask a question when they return (in welcome back), I think they should get most of their questions answered. Seems like most of this section is actually covered by the homework, no?

I'm a bit undecided about the Jargon review exercise myself. I tried to make it engaging but this exercise left kinda slow and was like pulling teeth to get folks to participate. They didn't seem of as engaged in this exercise and that convinced me we should remove it. Maybe because they weren't confident in the definitions. Some other options - 1. We could have the trainers define all the terms as a jargon busing moment rather than an exercise and think about what other exercise would go here? 2. we have them look up definitions in the glossary so they get familiar with both the terms and using the glossary?

[brownsarahm]

I think you're right that it's okay to give the homework and then not really repeat it but only answer questions in writing. That works for me.

I think maybe we make the jargon activity more engaging? we could leave the jargon exercise in for now (primarily for the links) and then make a separate issue or add that to this PR.

some possible options for the replacement (those from @sstevens2 + an additional idea)

1. trainers define all the terms as a jargon busing moment rather than an exercise and think about what other exercise would go here?
2. trainees look up definitions in the glossary so they get familiar with both the terms and using the glossary and do a think/pair share type discussion maybe?
3. make a compare/contrast exercise? or a concept map edge-labeling exercise to focus on the relationships between the terms?

[sstevens2]

I'll put the jargon exercise back in the PR #1934 for now and we can separate that discussion into a new issue if that sounds good @brownsarahm?