| This entire post utterly strains credulity. It has the vibe of a bad Facebook post that your relatives shares that makes you groan. Halfway through I find myself doubting not merely the authors thesis but wondering if it's meant to poke fun or entertain. Can statements like >The hardest thing to capture in this site is the trauma in some students’ eyes. > I have also seen first-hand the trauma that it has caused students. possibly be meant seriously? Was racket the wrong tool to teach programming or did it eat their dog and set fire to their dorm? I picture Michael Keaton appearing after Geena Davis says c++ c++ c++ saying wait until they get a load of me. Everything has a certain amount of cognitive overhead. Perceptively python and racket both have fairly low overhead and quick feedback and ought to be in the same ballpark insofar as learning basics. I wonder if discontent as described derives from dissimilarity with existing material. A person with some knowledge but not much may be disproportionately dissatisfied with not being able to use such. Speculating that the best students have no problem, the worst students blame the instructor or the materials, the bottom middling who know a little python or Javascript are frustrated that they cannot benefit from existing skills. Students perception of value of instruction may be a useful metric for the school insofar as attracting students but one questions if the students are the best qualified at the start of their education to access the value of individual components of their education. |