>I've just found that most don't enjoy learning
>code using computers
Most of which group of people ?
It's not easy to understand what you're talking about here.
Did you split up some of your student groups and let half of them use a good computer program while the other half used your manual method ? Or are you saying that you are teaching a lot of people who tried a good computer program and didn't enjoy it prior to shacking up with you ?
>Also, all the "copying" practice in the world
>doesn't teach anyone how to send code, which of
>course is the other half of the formula for success.
While I agree that sending is important, I have yet to meet someone fluent in receiving that didn't pick up on sending with little effort. Mastering Morse code is what takes time, not the simple mechanics of operating one or two levers.
>The fact that it takes most people a long time to
>learn using these methods is why code has a
>reputation of being "hard to learn."
Most of which group of people ? Which methods ?
A lot of people were exposed to ineffecient methods before computers became available to everybody, many of them never came back to Morse code after they passed the test. However, these days more and more of those who earlier were put off by inefficient methods discover how easy it has become with the introduction of the computer and good programs, and they relearn their lost skills at productive speeds in no time at all.
>It's easy to learn, if you use the right method.
You're right about that.
>Nobody ever learned to ride a bicycle using a
Nobody learned to walk using a "take turns sending and receiving" method either. So what ?