Comments on the Workshop Plan
Closed this issue · 2 comments
Do you intend for them to do the reproduction in the second hour, or is this a place where we will show them these tools? I think it is always better if we can have them working along as we introduce them, but that creates the technical difficulties we will have to troubleshoot.
In H1, is the 15mins about R&R generally or R&R as a teaching strategy? From the abstract, I think we want to make the case for R&R, but the key focus will be on the benefit of linking research R&R with teaching (learning objectives). If we show how those map, we then have a convincing platform for their attention. I would take a break (B1) after that pitch (~40min mark) then come back and have them do the Charkraborty reproduction along with us.
We can break that into PAP (~30min) then a natural B2. The into the reproduction. There I think we are better served chunking it up if we can. Show them Git and compendium > have them do something (e.g., clone), show them Atom > have them do something (e.g., make something). I like the idea of a worksheet guiding this and perhaps we can give them a worksheet, but also built it into the repository. I think this is similar to what you have, but I think we will need to be careful on time and give them short breaks.
-
My thinking is to teach the tools at an executive function level-- i.e. how do you clone and fork a compendium, edit a readme, open an RMarkdown, run code chunks, etc. Essentially, teach enough tools/skills in order to access and execute completed studies, talk through some of the code & then give resources for learning spatial R. MAYBE, do something like copy a chunk of code for a map and change the variable, title, etc.
-
Agreed: we need to establish the main concepts of R&R, but do it in a way that we're making a pitch for integrating it into geog education.
-
Yes, integrating functional activities with introducing the tech. The sched is not part of the application and is my initial draft at thinking about what might be feasible to do.
The main concern today: do you think the abstract needs any revision?