This is the third part of a short series about my experience with online education.
I took two Udacity courses – Design of computer programs and Intro into statistics.
There are things I like about Udacity and things I don’t. Unfortunatelly, those that I don’t like are the important ones for a online education platform.
The good things are that there are wise people building the platform. Technically, it is very good. I like that they use the Youtube player or the smooth transition between video playback and in-lecuture quizes. In some programming courses, you have a Python interpreter directly embedded in the browser window. They also built relationships with potential employers of Udacity “graduates”. All of this is smart and helpful, yet it doesn’t help with the main problem.
Udacity is not a good place to learn.
In my opinion it is mainly because of the format of the “lectures” – 2 minute videos are just too short and, as crazy as it might sound, I had trouble keeping my attention focused exactly because of this. Two minutes is not enough to pass on any principle. You try to keep it them in your head but the constant video switching suck. It interupts your train of thought.
Also, it doesn’t help that you can’t easily see the code or examples written previously and so you get stuck thinking “Why is it this way? What did the lecturer mean? How is it supposed to work?”. If you are not thinking exactly the same way as the lecturer, you’re going to have trouble following him.
The 2 mintue videos are at the heart of Udacity as you can hear from Peter Norvig in this TED talk, yet I hope they change it, and also improve on the other problems I’ve encountered. Until they do, I’ll prefer sites like Coursera.