Skip to content

Reflection

I was ill this day. I think the teaching went well, but due to pain I did not enjoy it as much as I usually do.

The group was markedly slower than the previous one. This may be explained by this session being optional: it seems most experienced R users have skipped it, except for one.

Due to the group being slower, I could not even discuss the most basic of things. Due to this, the end was rushed :-/

Evaluation results

The feedback is clear: the pace was too high. Without the experts around, go slower next time

  • [ ] Go slower next time

Even though I felt bad, enough learners remarked my energy. I am happy to see that it does not show.

Conclusion

I would give my teaching a 6.5 out of 10, as I did not slow down enough.

KTH course evaluation

Here I keep all feedback relevant to R. Which is none :-)

16. Were there any parts of the course that were excellent?

Here I keep all feedback relevant to R. Which is none :-)

17. Do you have any recommendations as to how the course could be improved?

Here I keep all feedback relevant to R:

  • I think the way that the course is structured in the data viz part is a bit messy, meaning that we were required to start working on the code but with only few functions explained and how the language actually works. This led to some confusion and to rely on other tools to make the code work. It could be better to first give more background on how R functions and then make the students work on the coding.

I am unsure if this applies to my session. Assuming it applies to my session, then I can imagine that a learner want to learn the details of a language first before doing something useful with it. The book I used follows the idea that it is most useful to start with doing useful work.

I am unsure about the 'other tools to make the code work'.

Even though I understand the learner's preconception about what learning a programming language is all about, I should help alleviate this in my lesson

  • [ ] Discuss philosophy of the book

  • [...] The sections on R were not so well organized in my opinion. It seemed that the two different teachers for R did not talk to each other so some things were redundant - and some things that were explained later really should've come first. Especially regarding R there was a huge range of experiences within the group and I feel like most people were left out; either because it was too easy or because it was too complicated. [...]

It is true the two teachers never spoke (I was ill, so the other had to hop in on short notice). I infer the other teacher has the idea that learning how to program is about learning the details of the language, which is dissonant with the book I used.

I agree the group still had a wide range of experience. That is why we made the session optional.

  • I would suggest adjusting the order of the R lectures. It felt like some of the more advanced material came before the basics were properly introduced, which made it a bit hard to follow for some people. I think starting with the foundational concepts earlier would make the progression smoother and more accessible for everyone.

I inferred earlier the other teacher has the idea that learning how to program is about learning the details of the language, which is dissonant with the book I used. Here I infer that this learner has the preconception that learning a programming language is about learning data types.

I could go into more basic R, but I agree with the book's idea more: let's start with doing useful work!

  • I didn't enjoy group work in R. I think that when it comes to coding, individual work is the way to go. When it’s such diverse group there is always someone knowing a lot and someone knowing nothing and it ends up with one person coding and the rest not knowing what to do. I had similar sessions several times and it always ends like that, which means that most people learn nothing during it. But it was just one exercise, so no biggie.

I understand the perspective. And reading my reflection on the group, there were indeed enough beginners. I assume that this person was not a beginner and -indeed- helped out all beginners instead. I have seen group work work better in other courses, so there this person and I have different experiences. I do think I should try out groups of 1 next time

  • [ ] Try our breakout rooms of 1 person

  • Maybe the course could be divided in two: one for complete beginners, and one for users with some experience. Beginners could benefit from having more dedicated time to learn to use the software, and experienced users could focus on more advanced exercises and tools.

Interesting, as that was the idea me and Meike had: by making it optional, the experienced R programmers would not be in this session anymore. But I do remember that I should spend more time explaining RStudio. Let's do so next time

  • [ ] Spend time showing RStudio

  • [...] The one major thing that can be improved is to find a way to help complete beginners in more active way to avoid them having the anxiety out not understanding something and feeling the pressure because others are ahead with the task. Otherwise, they end up feeling left behind.

Me and the learners are on the same team here. As I try out breakout rooms of 1 next time, maybe that will solve this problem too.

  • Sessions regarding the use of R could be more wisely organized. [...] Also during Richel's sessions there was quite limited time to work through the exercises if you had not worked with R before. Maybe a similar tutorial session with self-study component that was now done with Illustrator could work better also with R.

As I try out breakout rooms of 1 next time, maybe that will solve this problem too.

  • Martin Jonsson had a accessible presentation about R, but fluency and structure could be improved (seemed confused with some examples). How do we use ggplot in concert with vector software to make a clear figure?

Not about me. Note that he was called in with short notice, so maybe this was something that could not have been prevented.

  • I can recommend some clarity in the syllabus, there is no mention there about R, however it still was a dominant part of the course. Based on the syllabus my expectations were a course predominant on the usage illustration software and not an introduction to using R and plotting with R.

I think this is an important point: it is an illustration course and not an R course. I maybe even agree that R was too dominant here. This is something for Meike to decide: to keep or remove R.

  • [ ] Suggest to Meike to remove R from the course

  • I think the r coding parts were the weakest part of the course. I luckily had prior knowledge of R, so for me it was good to follow. However, the coding that was shown was usually very fast without explaining every step. I can imagine this is not optimal for new learners.

I see point. Here too:

  • [ ] Discuss philosophy of the book