skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on May 11, 2023

Title: Explicit Instruction of Scientific Uncertainty in an Undergraduate Geoscience Field-Based Course
Abstract Understanding and communicating uncertainty is a key skill needed in the practice of science. However, there has been little research on the instruction of uncertainty in undergraduate science education. Our team designed a module within an online geoscience field course which focused on explicit instruction around uncertainty and provided students with an uncertainty rating scale to record and communicate their uncertainty with a common language. Students then explored a complex, real-world geological problem about which expert scientists had previously made competing claims through geologic maps. Provided with data, expert uncertainty ratings, and the previous claims, students made new geologic maps of their own and presented arguments about their claims in written form. We analyzed these reports along with assessments of uncertainty. Most students explicitly requested geologists’ uncertainty judgments in a post-course assessment when asked why scientists might differ in their conclusions and/or utilized the rating scale unprompted in their written arguments. Through the examination of both pre- and post-course assessments of uncertainty and students’ course-based assessments, we argue that explicit instruction around uncertainty can be introduced during undergraduate coursework and could facilitate geoscience novices developing into practicing geoscientists.
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1839705
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10342137
Journal Name:
Science & Education
ISSN:
0926-7220
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The DeepLearningEpilepsyDetectionChallenge: design, implementation, andtestofanewcrowd-sourced AIchallengeecosystem Isabell Kiral*, Subhrajit Roy*, Todd Mummert*, Alan Braz*, Jason Tsay, Jianbin Tang, Umar Asif, Thomas Schaffter, Eren Mehmet, The IBM Epilepsy Consortium◊ , Joseph Picone, Iyad Obeid, Bruno De Assis Marques, Stefan Maetschke, Rania Khalaf†, Michal Rosen-Zvi† , Gustavo Stolovitzky† , Mahtab Mirmomeni† , Stefan Harrer† * These authors contributed equally to this work † Corresponding authors: rkhalaf@us.ibm.com, rosen@il.ibm.com, gustavo@us.ibm.com, mahtabm@au1.ibm.com, sharrer@au.ibm.com ◊ Members of the IBM Epilepsy Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgements section J. Picone and I. Obeid are with Temple University, USA. T. Schaffter is with Sage Bionetworks, USA. E. Mehmetmore »is with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. All other authors are with IBM Research in USA, Israel and Australia. Introduction This decade has seen an ever-growing number of scientific fields benefitting from the advances in machine learning technology and tooling. More recently, this trend reached the medical domain, with applications reaching from cancer diagnosis [1] to the development of brain-machine-interfaces [2]. While Kaggle has pioneered the crowd-sourcing of machine learning challenges to incentivise data scientists from around the world to advance algorithm and model design, the increasing complexity of problem statements demands of participants to be expert data scientists, deeply knowledgeable in at least one other scientific domain, and competent software engineers with access to large compute resources. People who match this description are few and far between, unfortunately leading to a shrinking pool of possible participants and a loss of experts dedicating their time to solving important problems. Participation is even further restricted in the context of any challenge run on confidential use cases or with sensitive data. Recently, we designed and ran a deep learning challenge to crowd-source the development of an automated labelling system for brain recordings, aiming to advance epilepsy research. A focus of this challenge, run internally in IBM, was the development of a platform that lowers the barrier of entry and therefore mitigates the risk of excluding interested parties from participating. The challenge: enabling wide participation With the goal to run a challenge that mobilises the largest possible pool of participants from IBM (global), we designed a use case around previous work in epileptic seizure prediction [3]. In this “Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge”, participants were asked to develop an automatic labelling system to reduce the time a clinician would need to diagnose patients with epilepsy. Labelled training and blind validation data for the challenge were generously provided by Temple University Hospital (TUH) [4]. TUH also devised a novel scoring metric for the detection of seizures that was used as basis for algorithm evaluation [5]. In order to provide an experience with a low barrier of entry, we designed a generalisable challenge platform under the following principles: 1. No participant should need to have in-depth knowledge of the specific domain. (i.e. no participant should need to be a neuroscientist or epileptologist.) 2. No participant should need to be an expert data scientist. 3. No participant should need more than basic programming knowledge. (i.e. no participant should need to learn how to process fringe data formats and stream data efficiently.) 4. No participant should need to provide their own computing resources. In addition to the above, our platform should further • guide participants through the entire process from sign-up to model submission, • facilitate collaboration, and • provide instant feedback to the participants through data visualisation and intermediate online leaderboards. The platform The architecture of the platform that was designed and developed is shown in Figure 1. The entire system consists of a number of interacting components. (1) A web portal serves as the entry point to challenge participation, providing challenge information, such as timelines and challenge rules, and scientific background. The portal also facilitated the formation of teams and provided participants with an intermediate leaderboard of submitted results and a final leaderboard at the end of the challenge. (2) IBM Watson Studio [6] is the umbrella term for a number of services offered by IBM. Upon creation of a user account through the web portal, an IBM Watson Studio account was automatically created for each participant that allowed users access to IBM's Data Science Experience (DSX), the analytics engine Watson Machine Learning (WML), and IBM's Cloud Object Storage (COS) [7], all of which will be described in more detail in further sections. (3) The user interface and starter kit were hosted on IBM's Data Science Experience platform (DSX) and formed the main component for designing and testing models during the challenge. DSX allows for real-time collaboration on shared notebooks between team members. A starter kit in the form of a Python notebook, supporting the popular deep learning libraries TensorFLow [8] and PyTorch [9], was provided to all teams to guide them through the challenge process. Upon instantiation, the starter kit loaded necessary python libraries and custom functions for the invisible integration with COS and WML. In dedicated spots in the notebook, participants could write custom pre-processing code, machine learning models, and post-processing algorithms. The starter kit provided instant feedback about participants' custom routines through data visualisations. Using the notebook only, teams were able to run the code on WML, making use of a compute cluster of IBM's resources. The starter kit also enabled submission of the final code to a data storage to which only the challenge team had access. (4) Watson Machine Learning provided access to shared compute resources (GPUs). Code was bundled up automatically in the starter kit and deployed to and run on WML. WML in turn had access to shared storage from which it requested recorded data and to which it stored the participant's code and trained models. (5) IBM's Cloud Object Storage held the data for this challenge. Using the starter kit, participants could investigate their results as well as data samples in order to better design custom algorithms. (6) Utility Functions were loaded into the starter kit at instantiation. This set of functions included code to pre-process data into a more common format, to optimise streaming through the use of the NutsFlow and NutsML libraries [10], and to provide seamless access to the all IBM services used. Not captured in the diagram is the final code evaluation, which was conducted in an automated way as soon as code was submitted though the starter kit, minimising the burden on the challenge organising team. Figure 1: High-level architecture of the challenge platform Measuring success The competitive phase of the "Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge" ran for 6 months. Twenty-five teams, with a total number of 87 scientists and software engineers from 14 global locations participated. All participants made use of the starter kit we provided and ran algorithms on IBM's infrastructure WML. Seven teams persisted until the end of the challenge and submitted final solutions. The best performing solutions reached seizure detection performances which allow to reduce hundred-fold the time eliptologists need to annotate continuous EEG recordings. Thus, we expect the developed algorithms to aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy by significantly shortening manual labelling time. Detailed results are currently in preparation for publication. Equally important to solving the scientific challenge, however, was to understand whether we managed to encourage participation from non-expert data scientists. Figure 2: Primary occupation as reported by challenge participants Out of the 40 participants for whom we have occupational information, 23 reported Data Science or AI as their main job description, 11 reported being a Software Engineer, and 2 people had expertise in Neuroscience. Figure 2 shows that participants had a variety of specialisations, including some that are in no way related to data science, software engineering, or neuroscience. No participant had deep knowledge and experience in data science, software engineering and neuroscience. Conclusion Given the growing complexity of data science problems and increasing dataset sizes, in order to solve these problems, it is imperative to enable collaboration between people with differences in expertise with a focus on inclusiveness and having a low barrier of entry. We designed, implemented, and tested a challenge platform to address exactly this. Using our platform, we ran a deep-learning challenge for epileptic seizure detection. 87 IBM employees from several business units including but not limited to IBM Research with a variety of skills, including sales and design, participated in this highly technical challenge.« less
  2. Generally, the focus of undergraduate engineering programs is on the development of technical skills and how they can be applied to design and problem solving. However, research has shown that there is also a need to expose students to business and society factors that influence design in context. This technical bias is reinforced by the available tools for use in engineering education, which are highly focused on ensuring technical feasibility, and a corresponding lack of tools for engineers to explore other design needs. One important contextual area is market systems, where design decisions are made while considering factors such asmore »consumer choice, competitor behavior, and pricing. This study examines student learning throughout a third-year design course that emphasizes market-driven design through project-based activities and assignments, including a custom-made, interactive market simulation tool. To bridge the gap between market-driven design and engineering education research, this paper explores how students think about and internally organize design concepts before and after learning and practicing market-driven design approaches and tools in the context of an engineering design course. The central research question is: In what ways do student conceptions of product design change after introducing a market-driven design curriculum? In line with the constructivism framework of learning, it is expected that student conceptions of design should evolve to include more market considerations as they learn about and apply market-driven design concepts and techniques to their term projects. Four different types of data instruments are included in the analysis: Concept maps generated by the students before and after the course, open-ended written reflection assignments at various points in the semester, surveys administered after learning the market simulation tool and at the end of the course, and final project reports in which student teams listed their top 3-5 lessons learned in the course. Using the changes between the pre- and post-course concept maps as the primary metric to represent evolving design conceptions, data from the reflections, surveys, and reports are evaluated to assess their influence on such learning. Because market-driven design is a multi-faceted topic, a market-driven design is hierarchically decomposed into specific sub-topics for these evaluations. These include profitability (which itself encompasses pricing and costs), modeling and simulation, and market research (which encompasses consumers and competition). For each topic, correlation analyses are performed and regression models are fit to assess the significance of different factors on learning. The findings provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of the course’s market-driven design curriculum and activities on influencing student conceptions of design.« less
  3. The College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology (ECST) at California State University, Los Angles, an Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) with over 60% Hispanic students, is committed to improving graduation rates through the Grad initiative 2025 (the California State University’s initiative to increase graduation rates for all CSU students while eliminating achievement gaps). The majority of our students are under-represented minorities, low-income, Pell-eligible and first generation. Currently, one quarter of the students leaving the major before the second year. Many that “survive” the first two years of math and science do not develop the knowledge and the skills that aremore »needed to succeed in upper division engineering courses, leading to more students unable to finish their engineering majors. Three years ago, we launched a pilot program for the First-Year Experience at ECST (FYrE@ECST) for incoming freshmen. The program focuses on providing academic support for math and physics courses while introducing students to the college community, and comprises a summer bridge program, a hands-on introductory course, cohorted math and science sections, and staff and faculty mentoring. Academic support is provided through peer-led supplemental instruction (SI) workshops. The workshops have led to a significant improvement in student performance in Math, but have had no significant impact in the student performance in physics. Our hypothesis is that students, in addition to having limited understanding of calculus, struggle to understand the fundamental principles of physics and thus cannot apply their knowledge of math to theories in physics to solve problems. This work-in-progress paper describes an inquiry-based hands-on pre-physics course for first-year students as part of the FYrE@ECST program. The course is intended to prepare students for the calculus-based mechanics course in physics and covers about half of the competencies of a classical mechanics course, with focuses on the fundamental concepts of mechanics (i.e. Newton’s Laws, Types of forces, vectors, free-body diagrams, position, velocity and acceleration). Equations are only introduced in the second half of the semester, while the first half is directed to help students develop a deep understanding of these fundamental concepts. During classes, students run simple experiments, watch segments of movies and cartoons and are asked questions (written and orally) which can guide them to think intuitively and critically. A think-pair-share mode of instruction is implemented to promote inquiry and discussion. Students work in groups of five to discuss and solve problems, carry out experiments to better understand processes and systems, and share what they learned with the whole class. The paper presents preliminary results on student achievement.« less
  4. Abstract Background The Learning Assistant (LA) model with its subsequent support and training has evidenced significant gains for undergraduate STEM learning and persistence, especially in high-stakes courses like Calculus. Yet, when a swift and unexpected transition occurs from face-to-face to online, remote learning of the LA environment, it is unknown how LAs are able to maintain their motivation (competence, autonomy, and relatedness), adapt to these new challenges, and sustain their student-centered efforts. This study used Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to model theoretical aspects of LAs’ motivations (persistence and performance) both before and after changes were made in delivery of a Calculusmore »II course at Texas Tech University due to COVID-19 interruptions. Results Analysis of weekly written reflections, a focus group session, and a post-course questionnaire of 13 Calculus II LAs throughout Spring semester of 2020 showed that LAs’ reports of competence proportionally decreased when they transitioned online, which was followed by a moderate proportional increase in reports of autonomy (actions they took to adapt to distance instruction) and a dramatic proportional increase in reports of relatedness (to build structures for maintaining communication and building community with undergraduate students). Conclusions Relatedness emerged as the most salient factor from SDT to maintain LA self-determination due to the COVID-19 facilitated interruption to course delivery in a high-stakes undergraduate STEM course. Given that online learning continues during the pandemic and is likely to continue after, this research provides an understanding to how LAs responded to this event and the mounting importance of relatedness when LAs are working with undergraduate STEM learners. Programmatic recommendations are given for enhancing LA preparation including selecting LAs for autonomy and relatedness factors (in addition to competence), modeling mentoring for remote learners, and coaching in best practices for online instruction.« less
  5. The emphasis on conceptual learning and the development of adaptive instructional design are both emerging areas in science and engineering education. Instructors are writing their own conceptual questions to promote active learning during class and utilizing pools of these questions in assessments. For adaptive assessment strategies, these questions need to be rated based on difficulty level (DL). Historically DL has been determined from the performance of a suitable number of students. The research study reported here investigates whether instructors can save time by predicting DL of newly made conceptual questions without the need for student data. In this paper, wemore »report on the development of one component in an adaptive learning module for materials science – specifically on the topic of crystallography. The summative assessment element consists of five DL scales and 15 conceptual questions This adaptive assessment directs students based on their previous performances and the DL of the questions. Our five expert participants are faculty members who have taught the introductory Materials Science course multiple times. They provided predictions for how many students would answer each question correctly during a two-step process. First, predictions were made individually without an answer key. Second, experts had the opportunity to revise their predictions after being provided an answer key in a group discussion. We compared expert predictions with actual student performance using results from over 400 students spanning multiple courses and terms. We found no clear correlation between expert predictions of the DL and the measured DL from students. Some evidence shows that discussion during the second step made expert predictions closer to student performance. We suggest that, in determining the DL for conceptual questions, using predictions of the DL by experts who have taught the course is not a valid route. The findings in this paper can be applied to assessments in both in-person, hybrid, and online settings and is applicable to subject matter beyond materials science.« less