On
Codecademy, a person can learn to code for free, even
someone who knows absolutely nothing about programming. You'd have to be pretty dense or unmotivated, or think you are pretty dense or unmotivated, to not be able to learn how to code from this site. But, it's not without its drawbacks and straight-up flaws.
The quick, easy lessons
are broken down to the smallest parts, so you can spend as little as three
minutes a day or as much as all day every day building your skills. Like a video game, the curriculum uses
progressive complexity (levels), rewards and has a social element. It is kind
of like a Facebook game, except you get something of value out of it. (c.f.
James Paul Gee)
I personally used the site as an absolute novice to get a head
start on my first JavaScript class, then again to extend my knowledge after that quarter. And, I plan on returning for some of the other offerings.
Collective genius? Is that an oxymoron? Whatevs.
Etc. But, that model does cause problems. Like biological
evolution, things are constantly under development and change. This
can cause a track you are working on to become obsolete, which interrupts your badge
earning! Ugh. But, then you realize they replaced the track with a better one,
which makes you wish you would have been doing the better one the whole time.
I mean, as a user, you are like a guinea pig used to cull
out the not-so-great tracks generated by hacks who maybe are only like three
levels ahead of you in Codecademy, and who often don’t seem have a lot of knowledge
of pedagogy or even just writing in English. I came across a couple of these. But, look, they are learning too. We’re helping each other, right?
Easy, Whiskey. Wait, who's Whiskey here?
Anyway,
Belle Beth Cooper of
Attendly wrote
a critique of Codecademy.
Her main argument is that it is not very good for absolute beginners, because
there are too many basic assumptions about coding that are not explicitly
taught in the lessons. I think there are some basics left out, but this is not
really a problem, per se. I mean, I had a couple times when I felt kind of like I came to a wall because there was something I was not getting, but I did not know what it
was. But, I worked through it, either using the hints supplied, or using
Google or
w3schools (which I found through Google),
or
just plain thoughtful trial and error.
Admittedly, I did know that there was a difference between a web browser and the internet. But, look, if all you know is that you can use the code you're learning within the Codecademy framework, that is enough until you're ready to figure out how you're going to get it to work in the real world.
Here's the thing, Cooper. If a person arrived at the Codecademy site with the intention of learning to code, that person has enough prior knowledge. First of all, the person can navigate the web, knowing there are such things as web pages. Look, users have some reason for being there -- a website idea, or they want to be more useful at their job, or just plain curiosity. I mean simply picking a language to learn means that you have to know (or, to figure out) what each is used for and which would best meet your goals.
This all highlights the fact that they have some idea that there is something you can learn to do called coding, and it makes computers do stuff, maybe even the stuff you want computers to do. That's all you need to know. Codecademy's target audience is anyone who wants to "learn to code" not people who want to "learn about coding" or people who can not get to the site. You have to do the work...when you're ready.
I think a lot of people need to get in there doing stuff, trying
to accomplish things (even the silly tasks within Codecademy), in order to have an adequate interest in the kinds of basics Cooper says are necessary. You really do not need to understand anything other than how to follow directions and pay attention to language to start learning code on Codecademy.
Don't get me started on the countless wasted chapters read and hours spent in class during the first couple of weeks of classes, "learning background," "building foundations." These "basics" were either old hat to me, or not connected to my motivations for taking the class. And, they were not necessary to start doing the
stuff of it.
Learning a subject is not linear, so why should a course determine which angle you come into it at? Why not start in the middle and let the doing, the challenges, the frustration and confusion guide you in where you need to fill in the gaps and extend your knowledge?
These will fuel your motivation and curosity, hopefully.
Take the meaning of new words. Kids
acquire language and new vocabulary mainly by encountering them in
use and trying it out themselves. Only
later do we use dictionaries, which are totally useful, but not necessary. Think about it. How
and when do some people get intolerant of ambiguity, intolerant of not knowing
for sure whether they "know" a thing?
Anyway, someone who actually wants to learn
to code will be able to do it just fine on Codecademy, and encountering the
uncertainties will only prepare them better for real world coding, IMO.
That said, there are other resources I have found useful as
I learn to code, resources that supplement Codecademy and will get anyone
through the rough patches -- primarily
w3schools and Google. Perhaps Codecademy could refer people there
from the get-go?
Of course, some might
then find the lessons on w3schools better and give up on Codecademy. And, of
course, the ease of access to “answers” provided by Google is undoubtedly (to my born-in-1981 mind) a
factor in expanding the populace of people unaccustomed to figuring things
out. O, the irony. O, the humanity.
The bugs bug me, but not as much as...
Also, Cooper mentioned that Codecademy is buggy and hard to
navigate. It is totally buggy. There were times when I knew that my code
was right, that I followed the directions, and it even produced the right
result in the console log, but the lesson did not approve, didn’t pass me
along to the next lesson.
Cooper’s got to be kidding me about the site navigation
issue. The site is one of the most user-friendly
sites I have encountered. It uses the
same sort of mechanisms and structures as the most popular social media sites
and whatnot, so even if you have been living under a rock, you’ll be able to
find your way around – unless you’re
one of those people I mentioned earlier
who just don’t normally pay attention to the way things work. If that is the case, give up now. Actually, don’t give up now. Turn over a new leaf, and stop giving up so
easily!
Here's how it works. The evolution of semiotic domains as seen in typical web tech, and why I am not a teacher
The
home page is very simple and easy to read with
essentially three main options, in tabs: learn, teach, about. Smack in the
middle of the page, you can click “Get Started” or simply jump right into the
first exercise window and start without even clicking. You just follow the
directions and type your name. In this first lesson, you’re not programming, but you're getting acquainted with the structure of the lessons.
You create a user-profile. You have a dashboard to track
progress, select next actions, connect with users etc. You can share your
activity on Facebook, Twitter etc. You
earn points, pass levels, earn badges, complete projects etc. You know, there is everything a person
acquainted with using the web would expect, and someone not acquainted with
using the web would undoubtedly catch on if they wanted to, IMO.
These standard web features evolved in the environment of human
use. By now, they are pretty well
adapted to human intelligence. Forgive
my snark, but it really isn’t that hard to figure out. (And…this is why I’m not
a teacher.)