糖心vlog官网观看

Very basic

very good

generic

good <3

Not bad

superb

thanks

good

great

great

GOOD.

good

Good

Good

nice

good

nice

ok

.

t

F

If there had been a working autograder for the last final project this course would have been worth it somehow.

What does that mean?

- The lectures provided valuable information.

- The quizzes generally made sense (in relation to the lectures).

- Learning how to code wasn't really possible.

Why is that?

- There is only one programming assignment.

- The autograder doesn't give any feedback at all why resp. where things go wrong. That's everything but good style (for software as well as for learning).

- Code snippets can't be tested individually. That's very bad behavior in programming.

- At the end working code that meets the teached rules is marked as wrong. You are lost without any clue.

So probably you can learn something. Unfortunately you can't possibly finish the course with a feeling of success.

It needs updated and more structured lessons. The teaching is too all over the place, links broken, outdated sites and modules need to be taught on a better timeline that corresponds to lessons better in a corresponding way, i.e., learning the meaning, explanation, and lists of things before the coding and labwork, tests not after the lesson is finished. When the instructor said she was not a good teacher, she really was correct.

The lectures get you through the basics in a clear, understandable way.

But the auto-grader was really a bad idea, that got the lecturer into a lot of trouble for very little gain if any.

It seems to me that peer-reviewed assessments, with proper instructions, are better suited. Apart from being more reliable and less frustrating, I think the learner can really get more out of it.