Module 4 · Foundations
Teach and adapt Module 4
Link the entry page directly. Use Canvas linking guidance to choose a tested repository commit or a published site route.
Teach the core first
Start with a prediction or written decision, run the shared implementation, change one input or assumption, and explain the observed result. Use the foundation bridge as prerequisite support. The practice has public feedback; use these for formative learning. Optional depth is skippable. Pilot pacing with learners before setting deadlines.
The script/text route supports implementation and reasoning; it does not prove notebook-interface operation. If an interface skill is assessed, arrange an effective accessible route. Offer the solo discussion alternative. GenAI is optional; adopting instructors state disclosure and assessment rules.
Outcome evidence
| Repository outcome | Course-domain opportunity | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| M04.1 | CLO3 | Preprocessing choice with lost-information analysis |
| M04.2 | CLO8 | Labeled plot and matching numerical evidence |
| M04.3 | CLO3; CLO8 | Anomaly interpretation with uncertainty |
| M04.4 | CLO8 | Stakeholder memo and visual descriptions |
These CLO summaries follow the existing repository planning labels. The original master-course outcome wording is not reproduced or independently reverified here. Confirm it with the course owner before formal mapping. See alignment status. Advisory A1 analysis, A2 solution evaluation, A3 communication, and A4 ethical judgment are planning categories, not official ABET outcome numbers or attainment claims. Use only categories supported by the actual submitted artifact.
Adapt without removing evidence
Retain units, data-origin labels, raw-input preservation, and expected results. Early modules use explicitly labeled teaching fixtures; they are not real incident records. Changing data requires updating the contract, worked feedback, and checks together. Keep master Canvas assessments and private student work outside this repository.
Use the adaptable assessment guide for local criteria. A response should identify a decision, reproduce relevant evidence, and explain a limitation; running unchanged code alone is insufficient.
Accessibility and verification
Use readable code, named outputs, text explanations, and equivalent numerical evidence. Record direct-link reading, execution, modification, saving, and feedback tasks in the review log. Automated syntax/behavior/kernel checks do not establish keyboard, screen-reader, zoom, or interface usability.
Continue the learning route
Use the course review and pilot protocol. Review a changed-case explanation, not only passing visible checks. Preparation and activity times need observation with actual learners.