Session Kit: Module 01: Scientific Curiosity and Motivation
Everything needed to run Module 01 as a taught session: prep, timing, materials, misconceptions, rubric.
Generated from modules/module01.md. Edit the module page, not this file.
At a glance
| Duration | 3-4 hours |
| Capability target | Write one connectomics study question with measurable structural outputs and one explicit non-claim. Articulate a personal motivation statement linking daily annotation work to a larger scientific mission. |
| Learners leave with | Question-to-hypothesis sheet: broad question, narrowed target, named structural measurement, named dataset, one non-claim, one falsification condition |
Before you walk in
- You can state the capability target in one sentence without reading it.
- You have one worked example you will narrate, including where you are unsure.
- Data access works — accounts, viewer, notebook — verified today, not last week.
- The rubric is visible to learners before they start, not after.
- You have decided what “uncertain” earns, and you will say so out loud.
Materials
Run of show
| Time | Segment | Your note |
|---|---|---|
| C. elegans (White et al., 1986) | the first complete connectome. 302 neurons. What it enabled, what it could not explain. | |
| FlyWire whole-brain (Dorkenwald et al., 2024) | 130,000+ neurons, 287 proofreaders, first whole-brain connectome of an adult animal with complex behavior. | |
| MouseConnects HI-MC (ongoing): scaling to mammalian cortex, the challenge of petascale data. |
The activity
Scenario: {: #studio-activity}
- State your broad curiosity question (1 sentence).
- Narrow to a specific circuit, region, or organism (1 sentence).
- Define the structural measurement you would need (e.g., synapse count between cell types X and Y).
- Specify the dataset you would use (e.g., FlyWire, MICrONS, FAFB).
- State one non-claim: what your structural data cannot tell you.
- Define a falsification condition: what result would disprove your hypothesis?
What learners hand in
- Question-to-hypothesis sheet: broad question, narrowed target, named structural measurement, named dataset, one non-claim, one falsification condition
- Motivation statement of 150-300 words, including a specific plan for sustaining effort through tedious stretches
- Written peer feedback on a partner’s statement, addressing specificity and sustainability
- One revision made to your own sheet or statement in response to that feedback
Misconceptions to target
These are the errors this session exists to prevent. Surface them in the debrief rather than pre-empting them in the lecture — a misconception a learner has voiced is far easier to correct than one they are holding silently.
- They may believe: Tools generate good questions automatically. In reality, tools like FlyWire or CAVE are powerful but directionless without a hypothesis.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Connectome equals full explanation. The C. elegans connectome was completed decades ago, yet behavior prediction from wiring alone remains an open problem.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Broad vision statements are sufficient project plans.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Excitement at the start is enough to carry you through a multi-month project.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: If the work feels tedious, you chose the wrong field.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Good annotators never make errors. In practice, even expert proofreaders disagree on 5-10% of decisions.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: My individual contribution is too small to matter.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
Naming the norm
Every session is a chance to make one piece of the hidden curriculum explicit. Pick a moment where you would normally just do the professional thing, and say out loud why you are doing it — then ask whether anyone was taught that.
For this session, the candidate is whichever norm the activity most depends on: stating an assumption in the same sentence as the claim, recording the version a number came from, or saying “uncertain” and having it count as a real answer. See the hidden curriculum for the collected set and why naming them is a fairness intervention rather than etiquette.
Assessment
- Minimum: question, metric, limitation all present; motivation statement addresses why and how.
- Strong: clear falsification condition, realistic scope, motivation statement includes specific sustainability strategies.
- Failure: motivational text without measurable outputs; motivation statement is generic (“I like brains”).
Grade the reasoning, not the answer. A correct call with no evidence chain should not outscore a well-reasoned incorrect one — and saying so publicly changes behaviour within one session.
Exit prompt
Write a 3-sentence hypothesis with one metric and one caveat. Then write 2 sentences explaining why this question matters to you personally.
If this session goes wrong
- Nobody talks in the debrief. You asked “any questions?” Ask instead: “Which cue would you drop first if the data got worse?”
- Everyone finishes early. They are pattern-matching, not judging. Give an ambiguous case where the answer is “uncertain” and see what happens.
- Nobody finishes. The scaffolding came off too fast. Work the next case together rather than pressing on.
- A learner is silently lost. The most likely cause is unstated vocabulary. Point them at the dictionary and check back.