Turning to the ‘Guided instruction’ section. The content here, seemed to jar a little, particularly as this section immediately follows a sub-section on the value of letting students fail in a controlled manner. I don’t have a solution here – I understand what the authors are trying to say and why this is here – but I would recommend thinking about this page a little more and seeing if something might be re-written. For instance, part of the reason for this paper is that the tools of reproducibility are ‘not necessarily smooth or easy to learn’ and students have a ‘negative predisposition’ (from the introduction). But then this section is all about how we do have ‘best practices’, and (the Peng quote) ‘we don’t need to lead…. We can just tell them’. It’s not contradictory, I just found it a little jarring. Part of the reason that we let students fail for a month or two is so they develop the motivation that they don’t otherwise have. Again, I don’t have a solution for the authors here. Maybe it is the Peng quote that jars here more than anything else?
I also reacted to this quote being partly against (or at least not in strong support of) what we are saying initially so maybe we should skip it or reword the section around it?
I also reacted to this quote being partly against (or at least not in strong support of) what we are saying initially so maybe we should skip it or reword the section around it?