Showing posts with label R. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R. Show all posts

Friday, 4 April 2014

Course Review: Data Analysis by Jeff Leek

I took Data Analysis on Coursera in the spring 2013. It was offered again in October 2013, but it may have been supplanted by the new Data Science specialisation, which starts in just a couple of days.

tl/dr: 5/5 don't miss out.

Overview:

This is a very well-run course that builds on Roger Peng's Computing for Statistical Analysis (in R) course. Professor Leek does a very good job of introducing tools and habits for 'reproducible research' including suggesting ways to organize the data munging problem for reproducibility. Professors Peng and Leek, both of John's Hopkins School of Medicine, are leaders in this area, and discuss the challenges and progress on their excellent blog, Simply Statistics. They are also at the core of the newly offered Data Science specialization on Coursera, which offers a nice series of courses that build on each other and give good detail in the various aspects of data analysis. It's also by far the most accessible data science study track available.

Reproducible research is very important for statistical science in general, and promises to be increasingly important over time. Consequently, this course is really a great opportunity. Professional programmers eventually learn the value of unit testing, documentation, and other approaches that make their code more useable. Professors Peng and Leek are at the forefront of developing the professional statistical analysis standards that will become the TDD+version control+issue tracking of data analysis. In other words: you must take this course if you are interested in professional level data analysis. Really. Well, actually, you could take all nine courses…

The Data Analysis course is 8 weeks long. In the first offering, it had weekly lectures of about 2 hours as well as weekly homework assignments that could add up to several hours. As usual, the Coursera recommendation of 3-5 hours / week is on the low side for most students with little experience. Additionally, there are two longer, data analysis assignments with real (web based) data. Additionally, the due date for the first analysis is just after many of the better statistical analysis tools are introduced in lecture. Both analyses are peer-graded by 5 other students and the mean of the central 3 scores is used. Peer grading may change in different offerings of the course as this is one area where Jeff Leek was not sure how the course should be organised. There's a full discussion of this in a Simply Statistics podcast. Also, as one might expect from statisticians, there's data! an interactive graph of completion rates for various online programs. This course had a completion rate of 5.4%, and many of the students active on the forums had done a lot of data analysis before.

Recommendations:

Make sure to set aside time for the data analysis assignments. These will easily take 8-10 hours and could take up to 20 depending on how obsessive you become. The data analysis grade is based on a peer-review, so your reviewers may not understand your analysis, even if it is perfectly correct. There was grousing about this on the forums, but I think the point is clear: the peer graders are not experts in data analysis, and you should never write a report aimed at experts in data analysis, so take it into account when you are writing the report. I had trouble with this on the second data analysis. It involved classifying accelerometer data by action performed (walk, run, walk up stairs, etc). The data had been expanded into a set of features including some filtering, Fourier analysis and other transformations. In my analysis, I used the language of signal processing and sampling to describe this feature set, but this language was not familiar to the peer reviewers, so they didn't realise that I was describing the spacing and number of data points very precisely.

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

UV reactive bead spectra

UV reactive bead spectra

Background

I was interested in designing some educational experiments using UV-reactive beads to teach about the presence/absence and intensity of UV light under different atmospheric conditions. The beads turn from clear or colorless to various bright colors when exposed to UV light. Unfortunately, these beads are just too sensitive – they even react strongly to the stray 400 nm light coming through glass windows. And reach full color intensity within a minute, even at 51° N in February! It's fun to watch, but not very useful for detecting physiological UV conditions for vitamin D synthesis.

I don't have a lot of scientific information abou these, so the range of UV light needed for the color change is not well characterized, and the resultant absorbance spectra of the beads (related to their aparent colors) is not readily available. I decided to study them with a reflectance spectrophotometer to see what I could learn.

It may not be useful for the educational project I had in mind, but I'll write it up here anyway, along with the R-code used to analyze the data….

Experimental

I ordered UV Reactive beads from UV gear, UK.

I used a table in the garden on a sunny day for the experiments. The sky was open directly above and direct sunlight came from the south. There were a few leafless tree branches in the way, and some buildings nearby, so it was not full sky exposure, but at least there was full direct sunlight. The table was covered with a small white blanket to provide a consistent background. The beads equibilbrated 10-15 min in direct sunlight before spectral measurements were made.

I used an Ocean Optics model USB2000+ spectrometer connected to a 1 meter UV-Vis fiber optic cable (part number QP400-1-UV-VIS from Ocean Optics) with a cosine correction filter at the end (Ocean Optics part CC-3-UV-S) to minimize stray light. The spectrometer was connected by USB to a MacBook Pro (OS X mountain lion 10.8.1) running SpectraSuite software for data collection. Spectra were measured with 30 averages in reflectance mode and saved as tab-delimited text files. The reflectance measurements required a 'reference spectrum' (light spectrum) of the white blanket and a second, 'dark' reference, which was obtained by blocking the end of the cosine correction filter. To collect the reflectance spectra, I pointed the fiber optic light pipe at individual beads from a distance of < 0.5 cm.

Spectral analysis can be done in the SpectraSuite software, however, many basic functions had not (yet?) been implemented in the OS X version of the software. Also, I wanted to practice my R skills, so I decided to load it into R and see what I could learn. R has multiple spectroscopy packages, and in fact a new one has come out since I started this project. I looked into using hyperspec, but the data structure seemed overly complicated for the simple analysis I had in mind. So what follows is my simple R analysis of reflectance data on sunlight-exposed UV beads.

Load in the Data

# change working directory
try(setwd("/Users/suz/Documents/vitD Schools/UV bead exp 19022013/spectrometer data/"))

# data is tab-separated, with a header. The end of file wasn't recognized
# by R automatically, but a read function can specify the number of rows
# to read.
spec.read <- function(spec.name) {
    read.table(spec.name, sep = "\t", skip = 17, nrows = 2048)
}

# the function can then read in all the files ending in '.txt', put them
# in a list.
spec.files <- list.files(pattern = ".txt")
df.list <- lapply(spec.files, spec.read)

# convert the list to a matrix: the first column is the wavelengths and
# the other columns are experimental data -- one reflectance measurement
# at each wavelength.
spec.mat <- matrix(df.list[[1]][, 1], nrow = 2048, ncol = (1 + length(spec.files)))
spec.mat[, 2:11] <- sapply(df.list, "[[", 2)

matplot(spec.mat[, 1], spec.mat[, 2:11], type = "l", lty = 1, lwd = 3, xlab = "wavelength (nm)", 
    ylab = "reflectance", main = "UV color changing beads, after UV exposure")
text(500, 25000, "Raw Data")

Looks like we need to do some clean-up!

Clean up the data

Baselines and edges

At the edges of the spectral range, the reflectance data is dominated by noise, so it isn't useful. The baselines for the different spectra also need aligning, and we'll scale them to the same intensity for comparison. The intensity range observed in the data depends somewhat on the angle of the probe, even with a cos filter in place.

# define terms for the processing:
nm.min <- 400
nm.max <- 800  # edges of the displayed spectrum
base.min <- 720
base.max <- 900  # define baseline correction range
peak.range.min <- 420
peak.range.max <- 680  # where to find peaks for scaling.

# remove ends of the data range that consist of noise
spec.mat <- spec.mat[(spec.mat[, 1] > nm.min) & (spec.mat[, 1] < nm.max), ]

# normalize baselines, set baseline range = 0.
spec.base <- colMeans(spec.mat[(spec.mat[, 1] > base.min) & (spec.mat[, 1] < 
    base.max), ])
spec.base[1] <- 0  # don't shift the wavelengths
spec.mat <- scale(spec.mat, center = spec.base, scale = FALSE)

Choose colors for the plot by relating the file names to R's built-in color names.

bead.col <- sapply(strsplit(spec.files, " bead"), "[[", 1)
# replace un-recognized colors with r-recognized colors (see 'colors()')
bead.col <- gsub("darker pink", "magenta", bead.col)
bead.col <- gsub("dk ", "dark", bead.col)
bead.col <- gsub("lt ", "light", bead.col)
bead.col <- gsub("lighter ", "light", bead.col)

# plot corrected data
matplot(spec.mat[, 1], spec.mat[, 2:11], type = "l", lty = 1, lwd = 3, col = bead.col, 
    xlab = "wavelength (nm)", ylab = "reflectance", main = "UV color changing beads, after UV exposure")
text(500, 10, "Baseline Corrected")

From this plot, we can see that the lighter colored beads have smaller peaks than the darker beads. The lighter color probably represents less dye in the beads. There seems to be a lot of variation in the peak intensity of some beads, particularly the yellow beads and the dark blue beads. Based on the width of the peaks, the purple and magenta beads appear to have mixtures of dyes for both pink and blue colors. The dark blue beads appear to be either a mixture of all the dye colors or a mixture of pink and blue, but much more dye is used than for the paler pink or blue beads. The yellow bead spectra is oddly shaped on the short wavelength side, probably due to instrument cutoffs around 400 nm.

Scaling and smoothing

Now I'll scale the data to the same range. It turns out that the R command 'scale' is perfect for this.

# scale the peaks based on the min reflected intensity
peak.range <- which((spec.mat[, 1] > peak.range.min) & (spec.mat[, 1] < peak.range.max))
spec.min <- apply(spec.mat[peak.range, ], 2, min)
spec.min[1] <- 1  # don't scale the wavelengths
spec.mat <- scale(spec.mat, center = FALSE, scale = abs(spec.min))

The spectra are also jittery due to noise. This can be removed by filtering. This filters over a range of 10 points.

data.mat <- spec.mat[, 2:11]
dataf.mat <- apply(data.mat, 2, filter, rep(1, 10))
dataf.mat <- dataf.mat/10
specf.mat <- matrix(c(spec.mat[, 1], dataf.mat), nrow = dim(spec.mat)[1], ncol = dim(spec.mat)[2], 
    byrow = FALSE)
matplot(specf.mat[, 1], specf.mat[, 2:11], type = "l", lty = 1, lwd = 3, col = bead.col, 
    xlab = "wavelength (nm)", ylab = "reflectance", main = "UV color changing beads, after UV exposure")
text(500, 0.2, "Scaled and Smoothed")

I could attempt to prettify the spectra further by using actual colors from pictures of the beads. It looks like the Bioconductor project has a package 'EBImage' that should be just what I want, but it looks like I need to update to R version 3.0.1 in order to run it. So I guess I get some spot colors from JImage.

bead.yellow <- rgb(185, 155, 85, maxColorValue = 255)
bead.orange <- rgb(208, 155, 82, maxColorValue = 255)
bead.purple <- rgb(110, 25, 125, maxColorValue = 255)
bead.pink <- rgb(190, 100, 120, maxColorValue = 255)
bead.dkblu <- rgb(22, 18, 120, maxColorValue = 255)
bead.ltblu <- rgb(130, 135, 157, maxColorValue = 255)
bead.dkpink <- rgb(200, 25, 140, maxColorValue = 255)

bead.col2 <- c(bead.dkpink, bead.dkblu, bead.dkblu, bead.pink, bead.ltblu, bead.orange, 
    bead.pink, bead.purple, bead.yellow, bead.yellow)

matplot(specf.mat[, 1], specf.mat[, 2:11], type = "l", lty = 1, lwd = 3, col = bead.col2, 
    xlab = "wavelength (nm)", ylab = "reflectance", main = "UV color changing beads, after UV exposure")
text(500, 0.2, "Colors from Photo")

Analysis

I can carry this anlaysis further by quantifying the wavelength of the peak absorbance and the peak width (usually Full Width at Half Maximum – FWHM) for each spectrum. This could be useful in further analyses, reports, or as a feature in a machine learning approach.

To extract this information, I could try to fit a series of gaussians to the peak, representing the fraction of pink, blue or yellow dye present, but the quality of the data doesn't really justify this, particularly as I don't have a good shape for the yellow absorbance peak or adequate reference data for each of the dyes. As a quick and dirty method, I'll take the median position of the data values that are at 95% of peak. That should give something in the center of the peak. Since the peaks have all been scaled, that corresponds to the center of the data values < -0.95.

Likewise, the usual peak width (FWHM) woud be the range of values < -0.5, however, the poor baseline at shorter wavelengths makes this range more or less unusable. For this reason, we can take a more well-behaved approaximate peak width measurement as the range of reflectance values < -0.8.

# approximate peak wavelength
indcs <- apply(specf.mat[, 2:11], 2, function(x) median(which(x <= (-0.95))))
pks <- specf.mat[indcs, 1]

# approximate peak width
lowidx <- apply(specf.mat[, 2:11], 2, function(x) min(which(x <= (-0.8))))
highidx <- apply(specf.mat[, 2:11], 2, function(x) max(which(x <= (-0.8))))

pkwidth80 <- (specf.mat[240, 1] - specf.mat[140, 1])/100 * (highidx - lowidx)

features <- data.frame(pks, pkwidth80, bead.col, bead.col2)
features <- features[order(pks), ]
features
##      pks pkwidth80  bead.col bead.col2
## 10 436.4     75.21    yellow   #B99B55
## 6  449.8     88.86    orange   #D09B52
## 9  451.7     98.07    yellow   #B99B55
## 7  529.3    111.35      pink   #BE6478
## 4  533.6     99.18 lightpink   #BE6478
## 1  549.8    110.61   magenta   #C8198C
## 8  568.7    133.10    purple   #6E197D
## 3  581.1    179.93  darkblue   #161278
## 2  585.4    136.79  darkblue   #161278
## 5  603.0     76.32 lightblue   #82879D

# save your work!
write.csv(features, "UVbead data features.csv", quote = TRUE)

One side effect of this is that we now have a small table of metrics that describe the relatively large original data set reasonably accurately and could be used to classify new data. In current data analytics parlance, this is known as 'feature extraction'. In traditional science, these characterizing features could be combined with others from different studies (crystallography, electrochemistry, UV-vis, IR, Raman, NMR, …) to help predict the effects of a chemical change or a different chemical environment on the behaviour of the molecule. Such studies are traditionally used to help direct synthetic chemists toward better products.

Conclusions

From this analysis, we can see that the blue beads are absorbing at longer wavelengths than the yellow, and the pink and purple beads have absorbances in between. The darker colors have broader absorbance peaks than the lighter colors, with the darkest blue having a range that appears to cover the purple, yellow and blue regions. These darker beads probably contain combinations of the dyes used for the different colors, and not just more of the dye used for the light blue beads.

The reflectance spectra are not as observant as our eyes. For instance, the yellow and orange beads are readily distinguished by eye, but not so clearly in the observed spectra or the extracted features. This may be due to the 400nm cutoff of the light pipe, which distorts the peak shapes for the yellow and orange beads. Ideally, we could observe the changes in the absorption spectra over the whole range 280-800 nm as a function of time. The current reflectance spectrometer setup, however, is only capable of capturing the 400-750 nm range. This means that we do not have access to the interesting behavior of these dyes at shorter wavelengths.

Chemically, I expect that absorption of the UV light in the 300-360 nm range causes a reversible conformation change in the dye molecules, as has long been known for the azo-benzenes and their derivatives. After the conformation change, the absorption maximum of the dye is shifted to a much longer wavelength. If the UV dyes in these beads are very closely related to each other, is likely that the yellow beads absorb at relatively short UV wavelengths and the blue beads at longer wavelengths before the transition, however, without measuring the UV absorption spectra we cannot know this. It is quite possible that their UV absorption spectra are nearly indistinguishable and the effects of their chemical differences are only apparent in the visible spectra. Without access to better hardware or more information about the molecules involved there is no way to know.

Next steps

We do have access to one thing that varies in the appropriate way. The experiments shown here were taken at relatively low UV light levels (February in England). During the summer, the angle of variaton of the sun is much larger. At dawn, it is at the horizon, while at noon, it is about 60° higher. Since light scattering in the atmosphere is a strong function of wavelength, the relative intensities of light at 300, 360, and 400 nm will vary with the angle of the sun. If the beads have different absorption peaks in the UV range, the time dependence of their color changes should vary by the time of day.

The simplest way to measure this is not with a spectrometer, but probably by following color changes in video images.

Saturday, 6 July 2013

Idiom in R: results you can C

Computing for Data Analysis was a pretty good introduction to R, but did not really talk about R idiom, which can make the difference between code that runs and code that runs quickly. Here is a basic example.

Using sprintf statements for formatting filenames: Consider a series of files. The goal is to read them all into R, but the filenames include a constant width variable: we're looking to load filenames such as ./data/001.csv and ./data/011.csv up to ./data/999.csv. How do we construct the name strings in R?

The numbers in the file names need to be padded and converted to the appropriate strings. Here are three ways of doing the padding.

The R way:

# setup
directory <- "data"
id = 1:999

# method 1
pad.R <- function(id) {
    num <- sprintf("%03d", as.integer(id))
    path <- paste("./", directory, "/", num, ".csv", sep = "")
    return(path)
}

A brute-force method:

# method 2
pad.brute <- function(id) {
    num <- rep("", length(id))
    for (n in 1:length(id)) {
        if (id[n] < 10)  num[n] <- paste("00", id[n], sep = "") 
  else if (id[n] < 100)  num[n] <- paste("0", id[n], sep = "") 
  else num[n] <- as.character(id[n])
    }

    path <- paste("./", directory, "/", num, ".csv", sep = "")
    return(path)
}

… but we know that for-loops are notoriously slow in R, so we could take a hybrid approach and define a function to take a single number as input and convert it. Then that function could be used with one of R's apply methods to convert the vector in one go.

A hybrid method:

# method 3
padder <- function(num) {
    if (num < 10) return(paste("00", num, sep = "")) 
 else if (num < 100) return(paste("0", num, sep = "")) 
 else return(as.character(num))
}

pad.hybrid <- function(id) {
    num <- sapply(id, padder)
    path <- paste("./", directory, "/", num, ".csv", sep = "")
    return(path)
}

Comparison

These approaches all give the same results, but they are noticeably different.

system.time(path <- pad.R(id))
##    user  system elapsed 
##   0.001   0.000   0.001
system.time(path <- pad.brute(id))
##    user  system elapsed 
##   0.007   0.000   0.008
system.time(path <- pad.hybrid(id))
##    user  system elapsed 
##   0.004   0.000   0.004
path[c(3, 13, 103)]
## [1] "./data/003.csv" "./data/013.csv" "./data/103.csv"

For speed, they are equivalent when run on 1 or two elements at a time. However, when run on the full 999 element vector as shown here, both the 'brute force' and 'hybrid' methods are significantly slower than sprintf.

The discussions on the course forums did give a different perspective. Several self-identified 'professional programmers' preferred the if, if-else, else approach I've used in both methods 2 and 3. They considered it more readable and thus more maintainable.

I don't think this is the best approach. If you are a professional programmer, you are familiar with idiom, in whatever language you work in. You know that there are readable, maintainable, ways of doing what needs to be done efficiently. At it's root, deep down underneath, R is in the C family of languages. The basic in/out is based on the C standard library <stdio.h>. The professional way to use R is to use that R idiom efficiently and in a way that other R programmers will understand.

So learn your sprintf formatting codes. They may look like magic numbers the first time you meet them, but they are systematic and ubiquitous. They will be useful in many other contexts, including modern languages like Python and Java and therefore even Scala and Clojure. They will also speed up your code, and don't worry, most other professionals will understand them.

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Coursera: Data Programming in R, post II

I've finished my course work for Computing for Data Analysis, on Coursera, so I thought I'd take the time do do a quick review.

Overall:
I'm glad I took the course. A structured learning timeline with specific targets and an active discussion board is very valuable. It's far better than learning in isolation through random web tutorials and linked resources. 

The course is not for everyone:
 If you haven't done any programming, R is not a good first language. This course will not be a friendly introduction to programming. In particular, R is quirky and the command syntax is difficult to read. Many commands have similar names, but subtly different behaviors.  The help files are opaque and the examples frequently esoteric. The R programming environment lacks some very basic coding tools such as code completion, although these are probably available in other environments such as R-Studio or ESS.  If you want to learn basic programming, take a course in Python.

R will be a lot easier to digest if you are comfortable with statistics or matrix algebra, can read mathematical notation without difficulty, and have done a bit of programming. If you want flexible data analysis and publication quality output from free software, you'll be very happy. Most of what you want to do can be done with the core functions of R. It's probably best to learn what they can do before reaching for a package. This may save a lot of time later on when the package gets superseded by another one. The core of R will still be there, unchanged. That said, R appears to have a pretty good package management system, so incorporating packages that rely on packages seems to work very well.

If you are coming from an object oriented language such as Java, Ruby or C++, the scoping rules are a leetle different. This seems to be very powerful when used well, but it's mind bending. I haven't really managed to bend my mind around this one enough yet.

Level of the course: 
It would definitely help to have some programming and problem solving background going in. Students needed good problem solving to do the exercises. The basics of the language were taught in Powerpoint slides. The information in the videos was enough to get through the quizzes, but the exercises required more: R-help, R-bloggers, stackoverflow were very useful. 
There was very little discussion of speed optimisation or the tradeoffs in using different programming approaches in R. The final exercise could be solved with for loops, and judging by the forums, many students resorted to them. There was no penalty for this in the grading. The exercises, however were thoughtfully put together, and did provide a good platform for learning to leverage the language, with a little creativity and perseverance. 

There was an introduction to the differences between S3 and S4 classes, but no discussion of more advanced technologies such as refactoring, unit testing, version control, or documentation. I saw one reference to software carpentry on the forums, but there was no reference to how to incorporate these methods in R specifically. Function prototypes were provided for the exercises, and these included useful comments, setting a good standard. However, there was no mention of Runit (testing, TDD), Git (version control), or .Rd files or Roxygen (creating documentation). So if you want to learn how to incorporate these into your work with R, don't look here.  

Time Commitment: 
The course website suggests 2-4 hours / week. I was able to fit the video viewing and exercises into that time frame, on the outside. I spent an extra couple of hours reading and commenting on the forums and looking further / honing more satisfying solutions to the exercises.

What next?
R is quirky. I won't remember much of what I learned beyond a month or two at most. There is clearly a steep learning curve here, and thus a big difference between introduction, competence, and mastery.  At this point, I've had an introduction. In order to progress, I'll need some projects to work on.  

Resources for the future:
... which is just a tiny tip of the iceberg. Let me know about more in the comments.


Sunday, 30 September 2012

Learning Some R

I'm following the free course: Programming for Data analysis, taught by Roger D. Peng of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Simply Statistics blog. It's offered through Coursera.org.

I should be over-prepared for this course. It's supposed to be completely introductory, with only limited programming or statistics background required, but I'm interested in learning R. So this provides an interesting introduction where I can find out about MOOC's and how they work. My latest app update is 'waiting for review' on iTunes, so I should be able to find a couple hours a week to put into it. 

The first week's lectures covered downloading and installing R, how to get help, some basic data types and selecting data from vectors, lists, etc. Data input and output. Although this is a programming class, the lectures were presented as slide-decks with voice-over. The slides could be downloaded as pdf, and translations were available as subtitles. Each slide had 2-5 sentences with some information about an R command, possibly including an example. I found this easy to follow, but low on information density. I listened to the lectures while making cupcakes for a bakesale. Then I increased the speed to 1.5x. I'll get more from referring to the pdf slides while doing the exercises.

There were no suggestions for outside materials, although some resources were referred to in the 'getting help' lecture video. 

Some 30,000+ students have apparently signed up for the course. The discussion board has several pages worth of questions. The introduce - yourself thread has the most views with nearly 5000. The other most popular threads have 1100 views or so at this point, so there is quite a bit of activity. Several of the "students" are already quite accomplished with R, and they are posting visualizations and code. This is a great learning resource. The rest of us are trying to share resources we find on the web:

Links to free R resources


It's not clear how many students will make it through the 1st quiz, much less the 1st assignment, but complaints on the discussion forum are significant, and are mostly coming from people without much programming background. Since the 1st assignment is not due until the end of week 2, the 1st week's lectures did not cover all the relevant material, many students feeling lost. The 'Not sure where to start…" thread has 2100 views. It would be nice if the 1st lectures were designed to allow you to get started writing code. That's not really necessary to get started using R, but it is necessary to do the course. Fortunately, the boards are monitored, and the lectures for the 2nd week were released a bit early to help with this. 

I do wish the lectures had a more theoretical founding. This is one of my pet peeves about unix world in general, although I don't think I'm alone. Nothing seems to ever be related to anything else. Although there is a full lecture on the history of R, it goes through where R was developed, who developed it, but not what it's theoretical bases were or why it was made the way it was. With every language there are underlying assumptions about what forms of data are important and how it should be saved and treated. Understanding these can make learning and using the language much easier. No such luck here. Is read.table fundamental? How does it relate to read in unix or C or other common languages of the early R days? This seems like arcane knowledge, but it is the kind of thing that forms an actual education. If programming languages aren't taught as isolated functions and control characters, but as a historical web of intellectual developments, students have a framework for learning. I'm not sure Professor Peng, as a statistician, has this framework himself (it isn't encouraged outside of liberal arts schools), so I'm probably just shouting into the wind. 

If you are used to learning in a classroom, the MOOC may seem very unusual. It is somewhere between independent learning and actually going to class. So far, the materials presented in the lecture have not been enough to even get full marks on the 1st quiz. (There's a gotcha about vector recycling in R which will not be apparent unless you either know it already, get lucky, or try it at the R command line.) The best way to learn is probably to have the R command line open and try things out during lecture. Even using the command line is not made easy, however, because the lectures are not structured as problem, discussion, resolution, but rather as a list of things you might find useful. You have to come up with the examples yourself, and most people will need outside help. 

So, many students are pooling expertise on the discussion forum to figure it out. This includes posts that benchmark possible solutions, and a lot of hints on how to get started. The great majority of answers are helpful and supportive. Perusing the forum will make the assignments doable. 

So overall, I'm not particularly impressed with the lecture style or structure of the teaching and information. On the other hand, I'm impressed with the breadth of the emerging student community. The assignments are challenging, and the outcome should be a reasonably good understanding. This learning won't come from the lectures, though. In other words, follow the excellent suggestions on how to succeed in a MOOC. 

And if you think that my complaints must be unique to this course, try looking at this blog post.