Not a question: My primary complaint with this course

Another thought on the chance it helps improve future courses:

Regarding JavaScript I've now finished: Basics, Foundations, and Interactive Web Pages. JavaScript Basics is exceptionally well structured. The instructor teaches the material through clear explanations that leave even the most novice beginner capable of finishing the independent challenges like writing script to create a Mad Lib and a random number guessing game.

Interactive Web Pages on the other hand has been like watching over the shoulder of an expert while he simply narrates what he's doing. Useful I suppose from a certain perspective, but I wouldn't hardly call it "teaching", and, therefore, not a great format for learning.

Foundations - to make the final comparison - was most similar to Interactive Web Pages, but to me a more difficult quasi-abstract laundry list of things that can be done in JS with practically no connection to actual application.

Hopefully, Dave McFarland and/or the approach he brought to the JS Basics course can be expanded into the more complex applications of the language.

I'm just glad everyone else has made the above comments...I thought I was the only one who instantly found myself very lost and confused. I've followed all the previous courses easily and with no trouble at all, and with this course, I found myself just following the directions and having no idea why I was doing any of it. In no way, shape or form could I possibly go back and replicate any of this code on my own. I wish this course had been a little simpler, maybe? Maybe just show us how to code a form that allows a user to input data, and have that data be on a list. there are just too many elements in this program for me to follow along.

But until this course, I've loved everything about treehouse! ive learned a lot in general, so thanks!

I agree with the OP. Chalkley's courses (this one and jQuery) were nearly incomprehensible to me when I first started. Certainly someone who has only just gone over the Treehouse JavaScript material would not be able to follow at all. I had to work through lots of other JS material outside of Treehouse to get to a point where I could kind of follow what he was doing. The problem I think is that concepts are not introduced with any kind of structure, background, or explanation. Hopefully Treehouse will eventually come to acknowledge this and restructure their courses to help beginners get to the point where they can follow a course like this.

I have to agree with the OP: I understand what I'm doing, i.e. bind this, append that, but I've never been clear on why I'm doing these things ;_; which leads to errors and re-checking. It might be that I'm not ready for intermediate level JavaScript yet.

Perhaps this shouldn't be placed so early in the Web Developer track. I'll try reading Teacher Notes, Mozilla documentation etc. etc. before I give this another go.

Even I had problem following the code, what I did to check my "app.js" line by line in the final video by pausing and playing the video (i know it sounds stupid) and tried to check my code, but in the end whenever I added a new task instead of entering my entered string/text in the incomplete list it added "taskString" but I was able to edit my entered task using the edit button and it was fixed that way.

I believe that Andrew did a very good job in the JQuery course but here he was in a rush or something to finish this course.

Got to say that i agree with the OP. A lot of the courses are really good to follow since they are broken down into small sizes that have a certain logic in them.

This course, and the same cuold be said for the JQuery course, is going back and forth. Jumping all over the place. I was able to follow what was going on since i took some other JS courses before this one but now that the course is "done", i kinda feel like i should watch it again, since i'm certain not everything will stick.

The Code Challenges were scarce as well. For improvement of this course i would personally:

• Change the 3 different stages; stage 1 and 2 were really short with the focus primarily on the planning, once the actual programming began on stage 3, all had to be squeezed in one last, long stage
• Focus a bit more on the programming itself, rather then the planning etc. I understand that that is a really important part of the development process, but in my opinion, it would be better off in a different course.
• Like Jay Lacey said; it would've been nice if Andrew explained a bit more on what he had done once he finished coding a certain piece of the app. That would have made things a lot clearer.
• More code Challenges that are more diverse. After the end of a segment, do a code challenge where you actually have to build a small piece of the code. Or maybe even a whole different app. Instead of typing two smalls things that were literally just said in the video. Not much of a challenge.

Like i said, it's all my personal opinion.

Other than that, the course was pretty good. Andrew is a great teacher, who is generally pretty good to follow. As long as he keeps explaining what is actually going on.

Hey Zakry!

I felt the same way while taking this course. However I think it teaches the best way to tackle a new app. I couldn't follow it either but I've watched it two times now with different perspectives: 1. Follow along while copying the code to my own project and understanding 10% of what Andrew's saying. 2. Only watching and seeing what he's doing and taking notes with pen and paper. This clarified the picture a lot and I believe I understand now about 90% of what he says. I may not be able to write an app by my own yet but I certainly understand the methodology better now.

Keep it up and don't give up!

Hey hey,

I know that I have had times during my Rails track where I end up using the "back 10 seconds" button a lot in order to keep up! That said, I think of this like immersion training for programming--I might not get it all the first time through, but I am learning how to learn it, which is even more important!

Your mileage may vary, of course! Keep on keepin' on!

I liked the approach to taking on a real world problem and showing how an expert would tackle it.
Define the problem and solution (albeit vaguely). Build up a skeleton. Flesh out each part of the skeleton, then at the end refine.
I would have preferred a bit of a comparison of syntax or approach vs JQuery (perhaps at the end of each relevant section) but I'm sure this would have made the course less modular and more dependent on exposure to JQuery before.

Hi! I just finished this course, and I agree that it was a bit difficult to follow and learn from! I'd like to reiterate what Matthew said:

"Interactive Web Pages on the other hand has been like watching over the shoulder of an expert while he simply narrates what he's doing. Useful I suppose from a certain perspective, but I wouldn't hardly call it "teaching", and, therefore, not a great format for learning."

I personally benefit more when I am being taught something, rather than just watching someone else code. Both have their places, no doubt, but the former seems like a more efficient way to learn, whereas the latter often demands that one watch the video multiple times to fully grasp what's going on.

That being said, fellow learners, I think it's important that when we complete courses, we always attempt to create an application on our own - this will help us most to become programmers.

Cheers.

Someone should revise this course coz it's really difficult to follow. I have nothing else to add than what was already said above. My comment is here just to give an idea about how many people are dissatisfied with the course and hopefully, others will post comments like mine such that you'll start doing something about it.

Trying to learn from this course for a school class i'm taking. Lets just say I've failed the past two quizzes because I can't begin to comprehend all this new information being thrown at me so fast. He keeps skipping around, I can't follow his thought process at all.