What Is Hard about Teaching Machine Learning to Non-Majors? Insights from Classifying Instructors’ Learning Goals

Given its societal impacts and applications to numerous fields, machine learning (ML) is an important topic to understand for many students outside of computer science and statistics. However, machine-learning education research is nascent, and research on this subject for non-majors thus far has only focused on curricula and courseware. We interviewed 10 instructors of ML courses for non-majors, inquiring as to what their students find both easy and difficult about machine learning. While ML has a reputation for having algorithms that are difficult to understand, in practice our participating instructors reported that it was not the algorithms that were difficult to teach, but the higher-level design decisions. We found that the learning goals that participants described as hard to teach were consistent with higher levels of the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy, such as making design decisions and comparing/contrasting models. We also found that the learning goals that were described as easy to teach, such as following the steps of particular algorithms, were consistent with the lower levels of the SOLO taxonomy. Realizing that higher-SOLO learning goals are more difficult to teach is useful for informing course design, public outreach, and the design of educational tools for teaching ML.

[1]  G. Boulton‐Lewis Teaching for quality learning at university , 2008 .

[2]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Teaching Big Data Analytics Skills with Intelligent Workflow Systems , 2016, AAAI.

[3]  Gillian M. Boulton-Lewis,et al.  The SOLO Taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education , 1995 .

[4]  Judy Kay,et al.  Coming to terms with Bloom: an online tutorial for teachers of programming fundamentals , 2012, ACE 2012.

[5]  Claus Brabrand,et al.  Constructive alignment and the SOLO taxonomy: a comparative study of university competences in computer science vs. mathematics , 2007 .

[6]  B. Bloom Taxonomy of educational objectives , 1956 .

[7]  Rasch Analysis of Math SOLO Taxonomy Levels Using Hierarchical Items in Testlets. , 1996 .

[8]  Claudia Szabo,et al.  Neo-piagetian theory as a guide to curriculum analysis , 2014, SIGCSE '14.

[9]  Aziza Alsaadi A COMPARISON OF PRIMARY MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM IN ENGLAND AND QATAR: THE SOLO TAXONOMY , 2001 .

[10]  Kathi Fisler,et al.  Designing a multi-faceted SOLO taxonomy to track program design skills through an entire course , 2017, Koli Calling.

[11]  John B. Biggs,et al.  Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does , 1999 .

[12]  Bill Z. Manaris,et al.  Bloom's taxonomy revisited: specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science , 2008, SIGCSE '08.

[13]  Cruz Izu,et al.  A Study of Code Design Skills in Novice Programmers using the SOLO taxonomy , 2016, ICER.

[14]  Raymond Lister,et al.  Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy , 2006, ITICSE '06.

[15]  Tony Clear,et al.  An Australasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the bloom and SOLO taxonomies , 2006 .

[16]  Dave Oliver,et al.  This Course Has A Bloom Rating Of 3.9 , 2004, ACE.

[17]  Claus Brabrand,et al.  Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula , 2009 .

[18]  Thomas Way,et al.  Machine Learning Modules for All Disciplines , 2017, ITiCSE.

[19]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  Thomas Way,et al.  Broader and Earlier Access to Machine Learning , 2016, ITiCSE.

[21]  Judy Kay,et al.  On the reliability of classifying programming tasks using a neo-piagetian theory of cognitive development , 2012, ICER '12.

[22]  Niklas Lavesson,et al.  Learning Machine Learning: A Case Study , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[23]  Jane Watson,et al.  Longitudinal Development of Chance Measurement. , 1998 .

[24]  Abdul Rahman,et al.  Analysis of the Ability in Mathematical Problem-Solving Based on SOLO Taxonomy and Cognitive Style , 2017 .

[25]  L. Shulman Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[26]  Jeremy R. Cooperstock,et al.  Can You Teach Me To Machine Learn? , 2019, SIGCSE.

[27]  David Ginat,et al.  SOLO Taxonomy for Assessing Novices' Algorithmic Design , 2015, SIGCSE.

[28]  Angela Carbone,et al.  Going SOLO to assess novice programmers , 2008, ITiCSE.

[29]  Kevin F. Collis,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy , 1977 .

[30]  Helen Chick,et al.  Cognition in the formal modes: Research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy , 1998 .

[31]  John Cast,et al.  Music Genre Classification , 2014 .

[32]  Margaret Hamilton,et al.  A taxonomic study of novice programming summative assessment , 2009, ACE '09.

[33]  Ursula Fuller,et al.  Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy , 2007, ACM SIGCSE Bull..

[34]  Jane Watson,et al.  Erratum to: The development of chance measurement , 1998 .