Module 02 Activity Worksheet

Module: Module 02: Research Foundations and the Hidden Curriculum
Duration: 4 hours
Generated from the module page. Edit modules/module02.md, not this file.

Capability target

Create a personal research-navigation plan that includes role expectations, communication scripts, and mentor support pathways. Demonstrate understanding of research ethics norms specific to connectomics, including data attribution, responsible use of human tissue data, and collaborative proofreading etiquette.

You are done when you can demonstrate this, not when you have filled in every box below.

Before you start

Check that you have:

• Module 01

Bring one question you already have about this topic. Write it here so you can check at the end whether it was answered:

My question:

Questions this module answers

Keep these in view. At the end, answer each in one sentence.

1. What norms are assumed but rarely taught?
   • Your answer:
2. How do I ask for help effectively in research spaces?
   • Your answer:

The task

Scenario: Learners produce a one-page research navigation document that serves as a practical reference throughout the program. It is built in four parts: a norms inventory (15 minutes), communication scripts (20 minutes), a mentor and support map (15 minutes), and an ethics commitment (10 minutes).

1. Norms inventory (Part A, 15 minutes): list 5 unwritten norms you have encountered (or expect to encounter) in research settings.
2. For each norm, write: (a) what the norm is, (b) how you learned it (or how you think most people learn it), (c) what happens when someone violates it.
3. Star the 2 norms you find most challenging to follow.
4. Communication scripts (Part B, 20 minutes): write a customized script for asking for help: “I have been working on [X] for [time]. Here is what I have tried: [list]. I am stuck on [specific point]. Could you [specific request]?”
5. Write a customized script for giving feedback: “I noticed [specific observation] in [specific work]. I wanted to flag it because [reason]. Would it help to [proposed action]?”
6. Write a customized script for admitting uncertainty: “I am not confident about [specific decision] because [reason]. My best guess is [guess], but I would like to [verify/discuss/get a second opinion].”
7. Mentor and support map (Part C, 15 minutes): create a table with the columns Name, Role, What I can ask them, How to reach them, and Backup contact. Fill in at least 3 rows. Include at least one peer, one senior person, and one person outside your immediate team.
8. Ethics commitment (Part D, 10 minutes): write 3-5 sentences describing your commitments regarding how you will track data provenance in your work, how you will attribute contributions from collaborators, and how you will handle errors (your own and others’).

What you hand in

• Norms inventory of five unwritten norms, each with how it is learned and what violating it costs, with the two hardest starred
• Three written communication scripts, customized to your own situation: asking for help, giving feedback, admitting uncertainty
• Mentor and support map with at least three filled rows, including one peer, one senior person, and one contact outside your immediate team
• Ethics commitment of 3-5 sentences covering provenance, attribution, and error handling

Working checklist

Tick as you go. If you skip a step, write why — a skipped step with a stated reason is a decision; a skipped step without one is a gap.

• Decode one research setting’s unwritten rules.
• Map roles and communication paths.
• Practice help-seeking script.
• Define personal support network.
• Identify ethical considerations relevant to your dataset.
• Draft attribution and collaboration norms for your team.

Evidence and reasoning

Fill one row per claim you make in your artifact. A claim without a limitation is not finished.

Confidence. For your main claim, mark one and say why:

• High — two or more independent lines of evidence agree
• Medium — one strong line, or several that share a weakness
• Uncertain — the deciding evidence is not available to me

Why:

One alternative I considered and rejected, and the reason:

Misconception self-check

These are the errors this module is designed to prevent. Confirm you did not make them, or note where you nearly did:

• I did not assume: You will be taught everything you need to know.
• I did not assume: If the data is publicly available, there are no ethical considerations.
• I did not assume: Research is a solitary activity.
• I did not assume: Good researchers do not make mistakes.
• I did not assume: Scripted communication is inauthentic.

Session timing (facilitator reference)

Rubric

Score yourself before anyone else does. Where you fall short, name the specific next action rather than a general intention.

• Minimum: clear norms list, help-seeking plan, and at least one communication script.
• Strong: realistic escalation paths, reflection on barriers, ethics commitment with specific practices, mentor map with backup contacts.
• Failure: generic advice without actionable steps; no personalization to learner’s own context.

My self-assessment:

• Strongest part of my work, and the evidence for that:
• Weakest part, and the specific next action:

Exit prompt

Draft one email requesting clarification on an unclear lab expectation. Then write a 2-sentence ethics commitment explaining how you will handle attribution in a collaborative proofreading project.

Your answer:

Peer review (swap worksheets)

Reviewing someone else’s reasoning is the fastest way to see the gaps in your own. Assess the evidence quality, not whether you agree with the conclusion.

• Is every claim paired with specific evidence?
• Is at least one limitation stated, and is it a real one?
• Is the confidence level justified by the number of independent evidence lines?
• One thing this person did better than me:
• One question I would ask them:

Module page: /modules/module02/ · Slides: /modules/slides/module02/ · Facilitator guide