Chevron Left
Retour à Advanced R Programming

Avis et commentaires pour d'étudiants pour Advanced R Programming par Université Johns-Hopkins

449 évaluations
111 avis

À propos du cours

This course covers advanced topics in R programming that are necessary for developing powerful, robust, and reusable data science tools. Topics covered include functional programming in R, robust error handling, object oriented programming, profiling and benchmarking, debugging, and proper design of functions. Upon completing this course you will be able to identify and abstract common data analysis tasks and to encapsulate them in user-facing functions. Because every data science environment encounters unique data challenges, there is always a need to develop custom software specific to your organization’s mission. You will also be able to define new data types in R and to develop a universe of functionality specific to those data types to enable cleaner execution of data science tasks and stronger reusability within a team....

Meilleurs avis


Feb 12, 2020

Brilliant course. Loved Week 4 for OOP. This was really new for me and would love to have been able to see its application in real world examples to better cement the concepts.


Jun 07, 2017

Very useful, I considered myself quite an advanced R user, but this class raised the level, especially with the R as OOB part. Good investment if you are not a beginner.

Filtrer par :

76 - 100 sur 107 Avis pour Advanced R Programming

par g s

Dec 02, 2017

Good course


Jun 02, 2017


par Ravi P

Mar 08, 2020

The forum for the final week has everyone asking each other to review their assignment because it doesn't get done. There might be something broken with the system here.

With regards to content, it would probably be better to just read Hadley Wickham's "Advanced R", and "R Packages", and "ggplot2" for this whole specialisation. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the material for the specialisation was just taken from these 3 and "R for Data Science", and then compressed to make it easier to digest in 4 week chunks.

It was ok, so I'll give it 3*. But there could've been more material here. It didn't feel "Advanced" to me.

par Matthew S

Nov 26, 2019

Instructions/learning material is informative, however, you should be prepared to put your google skills to work in order to complete some assignments. Overall I'm satisfied but I would appreciate a bit more attention to detail in the learning materials there are many typos and general grammar issues that break the concentration and some times require the reader to stop and guess what is being said from context.

I also believe the 4th week is lacking sufficient content for the learner to complete the assignment. There was a large amount of research required outside of the course materials in order to complete week 4.

par Jessica G

May 07, 2018

Like the first module in the specialty, this one is riddled with typos. Some of the examples could have been a little more detailed or just more examples given. Again, some of the swirl assignments were just walking through the readings. The topics covered here are more advanced, but I feel like I just read an online tutorial and didn't really take a "class".

par Chao G

May 25, 2019

The quality and the difficulty of this course is really good. It would even be better if more advanced topics are covered in details (e.g. AST, substitute function). However, the peer review assignment could be a pain since sometimes you do not get helpful feedback. Occasionally there are not even enough students to grade your assignment.

par Rebecca G

Jul 23, 2017

This course was not great. Almost all of the information is a screen scrape from a book and peer-evaluation, so you may be better off just getting the book and going through it. The mentors very occasionally participated, the authors never. The assignments are poorly written and missing too much detail.

par David C

Nov 27, 2016

This course has a very clear goal. However, the implementation of this goal needs significant improvement. The first three modules were very easy to master. However, the last module was disproportionately difficult, making it unreasonable for learners.

par Raw N

Mar 30, 2017

WIsh there were more assignments. The final project was the only assignment in the course. Object-oriented programming in R requires more than a single assignment to grasp- even at a superficial level.

par João G C

Feb 03, 2020

I was relatively disappointed with the course. Course material lacked dept and the final project was too complex relatively to the course material and examples shown.

par Pranav G G

Mar 21, 2017

To complete this course you have to go back and forth for the basic. Also the final assignment is bit ambiguous, more clarity is required.

par savinay s

May 29, 2018

It is a very good course but many a times the concepts which are used in assignments are not even taught properly in the course.

par Amir H V

Jan 09, 2018

In comparison with the first course, it was not so useful. The main reason in my mind is that there was no video.

par Landry N E

Aug 20, 2018

The style of these courses is not engaging. This is self study, similar to getting a book and reading.

par Damian S

Jun 01, 2018

Coverage of R Classes is good and helpful, but on the whole this class is a huge disappointment.

The ENTIRE course is text, apparently adapted from the creators' book. They also have the audacity to suggest you buy the book as well! Save yourself the trouble and just buy the book, or don't bother with either.

They also very much push the "tidyverse" school of R programming... it's useful to know and have in your toolkit, but there are many other approaches to R programming.

Also, support was very bad... Left a question on the forum about their code which didn't execute as expected. It has been two weeks since I left the question, and have since completed the course, but still no response.

Finally, there is no mention at all of vectorizing code, which is what R is optimized for. As one of the most basic tenets of R, it is surprising that an "advanced" course makes no mention of it at all.

par Trenton H

May 01, 2017

Lacking in content. The OOP portion of the final project was poorly constructed. The instructions were unclear and the exercise seemed futile. We took a data set and further complicated it by abstracting into various object classes. I think a better example could be used. Since there are already plenty of ways to do the things our objects were tasked with it seemed like a futile exercise. I think a different type of real world object should be used, perhaps one that is not easily stored in a data frame.

par Alvaro P R

Apr 30, 2017

This courses touches many interesing aspects about R programming but I did not like the structure , it does not seem to me that it adequates its difficulty coming from "The R programming enviornment".

Also I miss some swirl lessons for many of the readings from the book. There are not too many help from the mentors and the peer assigment in week 4 took me too much time and had to consult a lot of external resources. Readings in general are OK but too simple.

I have learnt many things but

par Arthur G

Jun 20, 2017

The topics are good, but very little practice of creating classes until the final quiz, which expects you to understand it completely without having done any practice.

par James M

Dec 12, 2017

The Object oriented programming section did not provide an adequate amount of support for the assignment, compared to any of the other parts of the Course.

par savvas s

Aug 28, 2017

just links to a webpage... no support from the mentors no support form coursera... you can use your money more wisely..

par Jessica K

Apr 03, 2019

A bit too tough with not good enough teaching to truly understand the course

par Mithesh R

Sep 14, 2019

difference was observed in final test and study material.

par Francesca O

Mar 07, 2018

I was really disappointed in this course. Most (if not all) of the materials are copy / pasted from a book that is free online. While I can get past that, my biggest concern is the actual content and assessments.

The content covers really basic examples and explains the concepts superficially, then the assessments expect students to be able to apply those concepts to a higher-level problem. As a university professor (and a cognitive psychologist), I completely understand the purpose of having students apply the information they've learned in a novel situation or environment. BUT that is only useful if the student has foundational knowledge on which to build. This course is akin to reading a dictionary definition, then being expected to apply it to an intermediate-level problem that resembles nothing you've ever seen. In the case of this course, the majority of my (and others', based on the forum discussions) learning was outside of the course. I have a hard time believing that any of which I "learned" searching for answers is going to stick with me long term.

The final assessment does not lay out the requirements (on which you are later graded). There are multiple things you get points for having in the code--even though a handful of them are not required for fully capable code--that are not specified as requirements in the final assignment. This isn't so much about the course per se, but something I find irritating and an impediment to learning in general.

That being said, I found the swirl assignments useful and engaging, and the course content was fairly easy to get through.

Overall I think more relevant examples would be useful, as would a more-detailed explanation of some of the concepts. If you take this course, I'd prepare to spend at LEAST a few days at the end of the course scouring the web for more relevant and detailed answers to your questions that were brushed over, if even addressed at all, in the course materials. It'd be better to go look for examples while you're learning instead of waiting until the assessment, though (if you're interested in decreasing the tax of the final assignment and increasing the potential for long-term learning).

par Randall M

Feb 28, 2019

"Advanced" is not really accurate. "Intermediate" is a better description. I would have given 4 stars for content alone. The faux testing and peer grading at scale doesn't work well enough, so the certificate is not worth paying for. If you need a credential, enroll in real school. If you need a decent intro to intermediate programming topics in R, this is pretty good. The text for the course is excellent and worth purchasing. The programming exercises via swirl() fail at times, and peer grading as an assessment approach is not viable at scale.

par Adam M

Mar 06, 2017

The first three weeks assigments were way too easy and the answers could be found in the material.

The last assignment was very poorly described and the material was very limited in explaining OOP. That meant it took a lot of time figuring out what exactly was needed to complete the assignment and how to do it.

Disappointing after a great first course. Hoping the next will be better.