[Pilot workshop feedback]:

[JCSzamosi]

1. Workshop details

The lesson was hosted by the Farncombe Institute Trainee Association at McMaster University. It was taught by myself and two members of the association. Learners were graduate students, post docs, and faculty within the Institute. I'm filling out this form on my own behalf. Other instructors might as well.

2. What did the Instructors find worked well when teaching the lesson?

Starting with ggplot was very motivating for the learners. It is definitely a good change. Overall I think the lesson flows quite well and keeps people interested.

3. What did the Instructors find that could be improved in the lesson?

The step of downloading data in the middle of the lesson meant we had to stop to deal with substantial technical issues associated with downloading and correctly situating the data. I think it would be better if the setup instructions were clearer about downloading and saving the data to a given folder, and if all of the logistics about making sure the data are in the right folder was maybe in the opening episode with the directory structure setup.

When talking about looking at help documents and defining arguments, I think it would be better to choose something that isn't a generic method. The documentation of head() contains a lot of extraneous stuff that I think it out of scope for the workshop and gets in the way of explaining argument definitions, order, default values, etc.

4. Do the Instructors have any other feedback on the lesson?

I worry a bit that the focus on tidyverse syntax and some of the weird ways that tidyverse defines arguments will cause learners to build an incorrect mental model of R. But I understand that building an entire, functional mental model of R and then adding tidyverse on top of that would take a lot longer than a single workshop. I don't have any specific suggestions about it, but it does worry me.

5. Were the Instructors able to teach the whole lesson in the time available?

No

6. Tell us more about the lesson duration

The timings were pretty close. We spent more time on intro to R, and we skipped the lubridate section, but other than that it fit pretty well.

7. If the Instructors have also taught the official version of the Data Analysis and Visualization with R for Ecologists lesson, how do they think this redesigned version compares to it?

This version is an improvement on the current version.

8. Please share any feedback collected from Learners during the lesson pilot.

No response

9. How did the Instructors feel that this absence affected the overall usefulness of the lesson?

I have always chosen to skip the SQL section anyway in my institute because it is not very useful to us.

10. How important do you think it is that content about R and databases be added back into this redesigned lesson?

None

11. Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

No response

[tobyhodges]

Thanks so much for this feedback, @JCSzamosi. I will make sure the Curriculum Advisory Committee sees it.

[tobyhodges]

@datacarpentry/curriculum-advisors-ecology and @datacarpentry/r-ecology-lesson-maintainers: please review @JCSzamosi's feedback and consider opening individual issues based on comments here that you think should be followed up. When that is done, this issue can be closed in favour of the more granular tasks and contributions.