3 ms·
Umm...where's the research on the efficacy of the change on how skilled the kid becomes at programming? All I see is they self-assessed that it was easier with
by lostcolony 9y ago
Umm...where's the research on the efficacy of the change on how skilled the kid becomes at programming? All I see is they self-assessed that it was easier with pictures, and they were engaged longer. Great. But DID THEY LEARN TO CODE BETTER?
The algebra comparison is telling; "a study was done that showed that 92.9% of kids using the app achieved mastery of basic algebra after 1.5 hours of play" - where's the similar comparison?
And, how do we measure 'mastery'? Because the mathematical lexicon requires numbers, not pictures, and coding non-trivial things are done with languages that are text, not pictures, the way we test that is also important.
Note that fundamentally I agree with their conclusion that, pursuant to being marketable, they HAVE to use pictures, because people's impressions matter. But in terms of actual benefit, I'd want to know more details.
- wikwocket 9y agoThey did not do hard research, since they are still designing their game, but they did present it to playtesters. I think this is an appropriate level of diligence for a product early in the design phase, it's the equivalent of the "hallway usability testing" recommended for agile teams. It may be impossible to say right now whether this change helps kids get better at programming faster, but presumably, more kids will play a game that they feel is more approachable, similar to how the playtesters responded.
- lostcolony 9y agoLike I said, I don't fault their methods for what they're optimizing for: sales. I -do- fault them for implying that it will improve coding skills when they never tested for that.