Skip to content

2025-11-27

2025-11-24

I will have my colleague Sahar observing this day, so I will prepare are bit more explicitly.

However, first I start with items from the previous reflection:

  • [ ] Schedule at 4 hours to fix 'Hello little turtles'
  • [ ] Consider to schedule 4 hours to fix 'Graphics' instead
  • [ ] Add one of these to the morning sessions schedule
  • [x] Update goal: to be able to run a Python script on an HPC cluster, that runs a graphical library
  • [x] Make more explicit: when done, we go home. When working together, we will go home sooner
  • [x] Make goal of second half clearer: to be able to read/write a variable from/to a file
  • [ ] Merge sessions 'Variables, expressions and statements' into 1 page
  • [x] Put in non-goals: 'do complex Python'
  • [x] Refer to HPC Python course more
  • [ ] Think on how to implement this, i.e. work more independently instead of in a group
  • [ ] Think on how to implement to make exercises more collaborative, e.g. let them write their own code (as a group) based on the book?

Also:

  • [ ] Allow the faster learners to skip the simpler chapter(s) of the book

2025-11-25

Taking a look at the course content, the book seems to slow the learners down:

Lets update the schedule:

  • First session goal: run Python on HPC
  • Second session goal: run a Python script on HPC
  • Third session goal: run a Python script with something graphical on HPC

I note that this still follows all the same learning outcomes, except for using a book; but that one is used after 12:00. The things after 12:00 I delay preparing for now.

Status:

  • Introduction: needs to be checked
  • First session goal: good, has video
  • Second session goal: good, needs video
  • Third session goal: needs work, needs video

My goal is to focus on beginners. This means that if the evaluation results state that the course went too slow, I am happy. This means that if the evaluation results state that the course went too fast, I am unhappy.

To save time, I will only prepare videos for the HPC clusters that do have a registered learner:

  • 3x Unknown: I assume this is Dardel or Tetralith
  • 2x C3SE: I assume Alvis, as this is a NAISS HPC cluster
  • 5x HPC2N: 5x Kebnekaise
  • 7x LUNARC: 7x COSMOS
  • 1x COSMOS-SENS: I assume that the course coordinator has contacted this person
  • 4x NSC: 4x Tetralith
  • 1x PDC: 1x Dardel
  • 5x UPPMAX
  • 1x NSC and UPPMAX
  • 1x PDC and NSC

This means I can skip Bianca and LUMI :-)

Status update:

  • Introduction: done
  • First session goal: done
  • Second session goal: done, except for cropping the raw videos and uploading them
  • Third session goal: needs work, needs video

Time to work on the third session, on Pelle first.

Done! Now only the raw videos need to be cropped and the session before lunch is ready!

2025-11-26

Sessions before lunch are ready, except for videos that need cropping (maybe I use my PRAO student for that). I am caught off-balance by having a PRAO, so my preparation will suffer...

On the other hand, the second half of the day seems Good Enough...

Session Status
The Way of the Program Done
Variables, expressions and statements, variables Done
Variables, expressions and statements, operators Done
Variables, expressions and statements, user input Done
File IO Done
Command line arguments Done

Note that I do get tired of this book: it feels outdated.

Peer observation

1. Are my intentions achieved?

In general, my teaching is intended to be:

  • Learner-centered
  • Allows for working alone or in a small group
  • Beginners first, yet gives room for more experienced learners
  • Caring
  • Well prepared
  • Rewarding the right learners, e.g. learners that arrive on time

Does my teaching come across as such? Where do my intentions (seem to) mismatch my actions?

2. How much introduction?

In the first hour, there is a lot to be discussed.

  • Of what I discussed, was it useful enough? What could be considered to be removed?
  • Did I miss something that is relevant?

3. How did variable group sizes work out?

This day, I want to experiment using variable group sizes, where people are allowed to decide in a group of 1 or 2-3. How do you think that that worked out?

  • Was this setup clearly explained?
  • Did I do what I promised regarding this setup?
  • If I see that something can be improved, was this reasonable judgment that was communicated well enough?
  • Would you judge that this setup is to be preferred over random assignment of 2-3 people in each room?

4. How did letting learners pick a Python book chapter work out?

In the Python-first sessions, I want to experiment letting the more experienced Python users work on things at their level. How do you think that that worked out?

  • Was this setup clearly explained?
  • Did I do what I promised regarding this setup?
  • If I see that something can be improved, was this reasonable judgment that was communicated well enough?
  • Would you judge that this setup is to be preferred over all following the same basic theory?