Session Kit: Module 22: Scientific Writing and Presentation
Everything needed to run Module 22 as a taught session: prep, timing, materials, misconceptions, rubric.
Generated from modules/module22.md. Edit the module page, not this file.
At a glance
| Duration | 4 hours |
| Capability target | Deliver a 10-minute connectomics talk with evidence-linked claims, explicit uncertainty, and audience-appropriate language, then respond to questions without overclaiming. Operationally: every slide carries one claim and names the dataset version behind it, you can write down in advance the two questions you are most likely to be asked, and you have a rehearsed answer to each that ends in a next test rather than a defense. |
| Learners leave with | 4-slide deck |
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:
- Basic manuscript/figure familiarity
- Experience presenting at least one technical result
Materials
Run of show
| Time | Segment | Your note |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00-08:00 | Framing and exemplar | |
| 08:00-18:00 | Claim tree workshop | |
| 18:00-30:00 | Slide drafting sprint | |
| 30:00-42:00 | Peer critique round | |
| 42:00-54:00 | Q&A simulation | |
| 54:00-60:00 | Debrief and competency check |
The activity
Scenario: You are presenting one connectomics result to mixed audience members (domain experts + trainees). Use your own result if you have one. Otherwise: in a cortical EM volume, layer 4 excitatory neurons form 3.2x more synapses onto PV+ interneurons than a degree-preserving null model predicts, from 847 connections at a specific materialization version, with roughly a third of the relevant arbors proofread. Two people in the room work on segmentation; one is a physiologist who has never opened an EM volume.
- Create a 4-slide mini-talk with a provenance line on the method slide and a named uncertainty rung on the result slide.
- Deliver it in 3 minutes against a timer you can see.
- Answer two audience questions, naming the question type aloud before answering each.
- Revise one slide and one spoken claim from the feedback, recording what changed and why.
What learners hand in
- 4-slide deck
- Speaker notes with claim boundaries
- Revision log after Q&A
- Two prepared answers, each ending in a next test
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: A compelling narrative arc can carry a claim the evidence does not support.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Caveats can be dropped for a general audience because they would not understand them anyway.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Answering confidently is what makes an answer credible.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Speaking faster is a legitimate way to fit more material into a fixed slot.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Hedging weakens a talk and should be minimized.
- Surface it by asking: “What would have to be true for that to hold? What would change your mind?”
- They may believe: Every question in Q&A is an attack that must be rebutted.
- 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 pass: claims are evidence-linked and caveats visible; language is audience-appropriate without technical distortion; Q&A responses include limits and follow-up tests; the deck names dataset and version.
- Strong performance: anticipates likely critiques and addresses them proactively; balances accessibility with methodological precision; concedes the valid part of a challenge while defending the rest; keeps the same uncertainty rung in slide, speech, and answer.
- Common failure to flag: overcompressed methods leading to overclaiming, jargon-heavy explanation with missing context, and defensive Q&A that asserts authority instead of citing evidence. Flag over-conceding too: abandoning a supported result under mild challenge is a calibration failure, not modesty.
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 your 60-second talk opener with the core question, one evidence-backed finding, one explicit caveat, and one sentence pre-empting the challenge you most expect. Read it aloud against a timer; if it runs past 60 seconds, cut the background sentence first.
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.