What Is Hard about Teaching Machine Learning to Non-Majors? Insights from Classifying Instructors’ Learning Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".