On the Usability of Codecademy

I was a complete beginner at coding a few months ago. I really really wanted to learn, so I've tried going to local meetups designed to teach newbies to code and I've tried Codecademy.

The problem I found was this tendency to start with the terminal as the teaching tool. The terminal is a black and intimidating hole to a beginner. Sure, I happily typed in 2+2 and got 4 as a result, and I understood how to store variables and even if statements and while loops, but honestly, I found this to be too abstract. I didn't understand what the terminal was and how typing in 2+2 was supposed to help me build a website, which is why I wanted to learn to code to begin with. I got frustrated and quit learning to code for a while as a result.

But then I decided to try out the free Stanford CS106A course. I was hooked from the very first lecture. Instead of starting at the terminal, Stanford had me download Eclipse (which is less intimidating than the terminal) and they started with a fun "Karel the Robot" language. In the first assignment, my goal was to make Karel the Robot run around the grid and drop / pick up diamond 'beepers'. I LOVED it. The excitement I got from actually getting Karel to do what I wanted was exhilarating and far more rewarding than getting a pretty badge from Codecademy. I completed the course in about a month and am now learning Ruby, which I absolutely love.

My point is, people want to learn to program so they can build something, so starting off with concrete and fun projects (versus typing random stuff into a Terminal) is the way to go.

One thing they might do: offer better feedback on an error by treating the input as a 'spelling correction' problem (like http://norvig.com/spell-correct.html). A useful implementation can be pretty naive when inputs are short -- e.g. my old numerical-expressions parser https://github.com/darius/expr/blob/master/expr/Parser.java)

Agree with you about Codecademy's assumption/expectation of a layperson's understanding is ambitious but your expectation of what needs to be explained kinda deviates from their aim. Yes, they should've expanded on some concepts but Codecademy should really concentrate on the 'what' and not the 'why' as that can be developed afterwards. Spending most teaching on the 'why' (like most adult learners would do) early on will put off some users off as they do not feel they are 'doing' much and quit/move onto something else.

It is obvious the users' background covers a wide spectrum so Codecademy would have to draw a line somewhere and say here's the pre-requisites prior to starting the intro coding course. They may need to provide this background knowledge via a pre-sessional/foundation/principles course (or pintpoint users where to go if they don't) covering the barebone basics of computer science and computing as a task.

Whether 'the hard way' is the best is really up to the learner - people learn in different styles so whatever gets their attention really. As a suggestion , Codecademy should provide a list of additional resources for eager learners who wants to understand the underlying concepts and/or provide links to other courses if this particular course is not useful for them.

Is there a link to this Karel the Robot exercise or is it a hand out?

We're in the amidst of creating something complimentary (different too) to Codecademy called http://CodePupil.com. We're eager to see different styles of teaching; especially examples where gaming is used!

As noted in the OP's article creating a new experience and especially one that teaches all the Elizabeth's how to code is a big challenge. We've been asking our friends like Elizabeths to test and then we reiterate. Also we've found Mechanical Turk to be helpful in re: to user testing feedback. There seems to be a lot of Liz's there.

I too tried my hand at it in a side project: iheartpy.com

See if there's anything you find useful in it. Although, I think this comment needs to be someplace else.