Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: A graduate student-led participatory live-coding quantitative methods course in R: Experiences on initiating, developing, and teaching #49

Open
whedon opened this issue Apr 23, 2019 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Apr 23, 2019

Submitting author: @lwjohnst86 (Luke W. Johnston)
Repository: https://github.com/UofTCoders/rcourse
Version: v2.1.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewer: @jhollist, @MattForshaw
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@jhollist & @MattForshaw, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @juanklopper know.

Review checklist for @jhollist

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
  • Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v2.1.0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lwjohnst86) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
  • Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

  • Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
  • Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
  • Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
  • Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
  • Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
  • Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
  • Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
  • Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @MattForshaw

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
  • Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v2.1.0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lwjohnst86) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
  • Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

  • Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
  • Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
  • Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
  • Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
  • Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
  • Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
  • Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
  • Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Apr 23, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jhollist, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Apr 23, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Apr 23, 2019

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 23, 2019

👋 @jhollist, @MattForshaw — This is where the action happens! You both have a review checklist at the top of this issue: work your way through it, and feel free to add your comments here and to open new issues on the submission repository if needed. Let us know if you have any questions … @juanklopper will be handling editor.

@juanklopper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 25, 2019

Many thanks @labarba. I'm happy to help out as handling editor. Thank you also @jhollist and @MattForshaw for reviewing this submission.

@jhollist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 1, 2019

This is a very well done submission. So well done in fact, that I feel odd in not providing more detailed suggestions on what to change. I have gone back through the materials, the paper and the repository to see if I missed anything major, but I haven't. The few things I did find and would like to see updated are listed in UofTCoders/rcourse#292. Biggest change that I suggest there is to provide more detailed installation instructions in the README. Once those are completed, I will update the checklist.

Kudos to all of the authors on a job very well done. Was a pleasure to review and I have been reading through these to learn some new tricks myself!

@juanklopper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 4, 2019

Thank you for the review @jhollist.

@MattForshaw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 14, 2019

I would like to echo the earlier comments of @jhollist. This is a fantastic submission, well done to everyone involved. The queries raised in UofTCoders/rcourse#292 cover all improvements I can suggest. I also raise a very small PR with a punctuation fix. Once this issue closes I will be very happy to review the submission, and all being well, complete the checklist.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.