Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's obvious, and they should have known. In my experience the best people to educate the newbies are the people who were newbies a year ago. They know what the roadblocks were for them, and the don't know 'too much' as to complicate things.
It's funny because education is actually is backwards here. You're supposed to want to be taught by an expert in the field.
What We've Learned About Teaching Code
21–30 of 45 posts
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#22Since I know the codecademy team is always listening, I'll share my feedback through supporting my two friends through codecademy: Firstly they love it. The game mechanics and the reward cycle is a great motivation for them. I think nobody can argue that you've found a great way to get TONS of people to enjoy "learning to program". The second part is a bit tricky... are they really learning to program? IMO the proble…
That's not the worst thing in the world, since most pedagogy that works is of the basic format "You should know X. What should you know? Class repeats X. Good, because you should know X. Timmy, if I say Y, what do you say? Timmy repeats X. Good job Timmy, because you should know X. Susan, if I say Y, what do you say? Susan repeats X. Good job Susan, because you should know X. You should also know that if Y', X'. What…
I wholeheartedly agree.
As a person whose purpose in life is more and more "Free information in order to Free Education", all I'm saying is I think we can do better; a lot better.
Rote memorization certainly works. But I don't think anyone anywhere, has ever proved that it's an efficient or even particular good way to learn something. And yet modern civilization takes this for granted.
p.s. I never went to college so this is all outside-in.
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#23I've had a couple dozen students working through many of the CodeCademy programs this semester as an experiment. And most of the Javascript lessons currently on the site are just barely above mediocre.
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#24Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#25Since I know the codecademy team is always listening, I'll share my feedback through supporting my two friends through codecademy: Firstly they love it. The game mechanics and the reward cycle is a great motivation for them. I think nobody can argue that you've found a great way to get TONS of people to enjoy "learning to program". The second part is a bit tricky... are they really learning to program? IMO the proble…
Our tool is a new way to present information, and the course creator community is figuring out how best to take advantage of the format. You wouldn't write documentation in the same way that you present to a crowd of 2,000 people, and you won't write a Codecademy lesson the same way you write a textbook. It will take some time to use the platform to its full advantage.
I'm excited to see what innovative courses the community comes up with, and I would love to hear your suggestions about the product or curriculum. Feel free to reach out directly at sasha at codecademy dot com.
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#26Since I know the codecademy team is always listening, I'll share my feedback through supporting my two friends through codecademy: Firstly they love it. The game mechanics and the reward cycle is a great motivation for them. I think nobody can argue that you've found a great way to get TONS of people to enjoy "learning to program". The second part is a bit tricky... are they really learning to program? IMO the proble…
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#27At this point, after having many mediocre teachers and very few good ones, I've come to the conclusion that only a small percentage of "teachers" are actually worth learning from.
The only good teachers I've had were meticulous about their knowledge AND really loved teaching. Not one or the other.
It basically requires a full-time teacher. Anyone besides that is actually worse for me than no teacher because they are apt to ruin my interest in the subject. Maybe I'm spoiled, but most classes aren't much better than a textbook and a chat with a good friend.
Who does that leave as worthwhile teachers? Rare people like Feynman, a couple of instructors on Lynda.com, one or two from my undergraduate classes, and a couple from the new array of online classes. Again, you can be a grad student and be a great teacher, but you have to know your domain inside and out, and love teaching it. That means fielding questions with ease and, probably, being able to teach without notes if needed.
One of the reasons I like open online courses is that you get to experiment until you find an experienced professor who had enough initiative to start an online course in the first place. I really do mourn the downfall of the in-person class setting, but at least in my experience, a vast majority of them aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maybe at top 10 schools the situation changes?
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#28Right now I'm working through the classes nightly. 15 badges down...no clue how many to go.
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the worst thing in the world, since most pedagogy that works is of the basic format "You should know X. What should you know? Class repeats X. Good, because you should know X. Timmy, if I say Y, what do you say? Timmy repeats X. Good job Timmy, because you should know X. Susan, if I say Y, what do you say? Susan repeats X. Good job Susan, because you should know X. You should also know that if Y', X'. What…
Essentially you are saying something is better than nothing . I wholeheartedly agree. As a person whose purpose in life is more and more "Free information in order to Free Education", all I'm saying is I think we can do better; a lot better. Rote memorization certainly works. But I don't think anyone anywhere, has ever proved that it's an efficient or even particular good way to learn something. And yet modern civili…
Re: What We've Learned About Teaching Code
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excellent point. Not only that, but analogies always come along with extra bits that may lead them down the wrong path. It's very tricky to find just the right metaphor.
Richard Feynman answering the question "How do magnets work" in an informal pick-your-brain type interview: "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you. For example, if we said the magnets attract like rubber bands, I would be cheating you. Because they're not connected by rubber bands. I'd soon be in trouble. And secondly, if you were curious enough, you'd ask me why rubber band…