Session Kit: Module 02: Research Foundations and the Hidden Curriculum
Everything needed to run Module 02 as a taught session: prep, timing, materials, misconceptions, rubric.
Generated from modules/module02.md. Edit the module page, not this file.
At a glance
| Duration | 4 hours |
| 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. |
| Learners leave with | Norms inventory of five unwritten norms, each with how it is learned and what violating it costs, with the two hardest starred |
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.
Learners should arrive having covered:
- Module 01
Materials
Run of show
| Time | Segment | Your note |
|---|---|---|
| You disagree with a senior lab member’s interpretation at lab meeting. What do you do? | ||
| You find a bug in shared analysis code. How do you report it? | ||
| You need help but your mentor is busy. Who else can you ask? | ||
| You are asked to proofread neurons outside your assigned region. Should you? | ||
| A collaborator uses your annotation work in a paper without crediting you. How do you respond? | ||
| Data provenance: every analysis should reference a specific dataset version. Show how CAVE materialization versions work. | ||
| Attribution: the 287 FlyWire proofreaders were co-authors. Discuss what fair attribution looks like at scale. | ||
| Human tissue: discuss IRB requirements, de-identification, and the responsibility that comes with working on data derived from surgical patients. | ||
| Top 5 norms for their research setting. | ||
| Role-expectation map for their team. | ||
| Three communication scripts customized for their context. | ||
| Mentor/support map: at least 3 people they can go to for different types of help. | ||
| Ethical commitments: how they will handle attribution, data provenance, and error reporting. |
The activity
Scenario: {: #studio-activity}
- List 5 unwritten norms you have encountered (or expect to encounter) in research settings.
- 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.
- Star the 2 norms you find most challenging to follow.
- 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]?”
- Giving feedback: “I noticed [specific observation] in [specific work]. I wanted to flag it because [reason]. Would it help to [proposed action]?”
- 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].”
What learners 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
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: You will be taught everything you need to know. In practice, many critical skills (how to write a methods section, how to respond to a reviewer, how to push back on a senior colleague’s suggestion) are learned by watching others, making mistakes, or asking directly.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: If the data is publicly available, there are no ethical considerations. Public availability does not eliminate the need for proper attribution, version tracking, and responsible interpretation.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Research is a solitary activity. Modern connectomics is closer to open-source software development than to the lone-genius model.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Good researchers do not make mistakes. In practice, the best researchers make mistakes, document them, and learn from them systematically.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Scripted communication is inauthentic. In reality, scripts are scaffolds that build confidence until the language becomes natural.
- 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: 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.
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
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.
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.