| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | The course was good. I enjoyed it. The biggest problem was the un-moderated participation of at least one other student. This particular student drove the discussion of assignments, leaving little room for others to explore, ask, and answer questions. As far as I know the student was not a mentor/TA, but It would have been most helpful for staff to weigh in on some of the student's post. I really believe the student was feeding his/her ego. | others to explore, ask, and answer | Question | As far as I know the | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| -A_ToPNPEeSAEiIAC9TCSQ | I thought the course was a fantastic introduction to environmental law and policy. I especially enjoyed the structure of each lesson (reading -> video) and the entire course. I thought the Prof did a great job of being enthusiastic and was mostly clear when explaining, analyzing and discussing each case. Perhaps, an aspect that could be improved in the future is to ask more in-video question to challenge the student to think critically while watching the videos. However, where there is most room for improvement is to have much better management of the discussion section. There was no authority answering any questions whatsoever, not content related nor operational. | future is to ask more in-video | Question | to challenge the student to think | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| -A_ToPNPEeSAEiIAC9TCSQ | I thought the course was a fantastic introduction to environmental law and policy. I especially enjoyed the structure of each lesson (reading -> video) and the entire course. I thought the Prof did a great job of being enthusiastic and was mostly clear when explaining, analyzing and discussing each case. Perhaps, an aspect that could be improved in the future is to ask more in-video question to challenge the student to think critically while watching the videos. However, where there is most room for improvement is to have much better management of the discussion section. There was no authority answering any questions whatsoever, not content related nor operational. | There was no authority answering any | Question | whatsoever, not content related nor operational. | Negative | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | Very interesting information about dogs that's also a 'myth burster' of sorts for me. Dr. Hare 's video's were not only well made but also well spaced. I found a few quiz questions difficult to understand even though I paid close attention to all lessons. But hey- I passed the final quiz in first attempt so Its all good! Thanks Dr. Hare & Duke University for making this 'different' course available!! | spaced. I found a few quiz | Question | difficult to understand even though I | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | Thought provoking. Different cultural attitudes toward dogs a little unsettling - given number of bites and attacks, resources devoted to dogs rather than to humans, is a serious question. | than to humans, is a serious | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | Overall, I enjoyed this course, but it gave just a bit too much information on cognitive studies in other species, and it left me still wanting to learn more about dogs. The last 2 weeks were great! The professor was engaging and his work was very interesting, but he said ummm and ahhh so many times that it was a little distracting. The quizzes were good, but some of the questions were worded very oddly so I just couldn't get them right without several attempts. I didn't feel like he covered dog emotion at all. I thought there would be some discussion of facial expressions, the meaning of different tail wags, and the extent of dog emotion (for example, how they grieve and how long they grieve after a loss). | were good, but some of the | Question | were worded very oddly so I | Negative | 0.94 | 3.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | great course if you're a dog lover, dog trainer, dog walker, or just someone who's interested in the interface between canine human relationships. My only qualm is that some of the questions may have been written better, but all in all a capturing class! | qualm is that some of the | Question | may have been written better, but | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| -gcU5xn4EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The material is not mature yet. Some things were not tested by the teacher before being part of the course and do not actually work. Questions asked on the forums about it got no answers before the end of the course. | course and do not actually work. | Question | asked on the forums about it | Negative | 0.66 | 1.0 |
| -gcU5xn4EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | I took the initial offering of this courser. It is an excellent class that I am sure will only improve over time. Prof. Muppala is a wonderful instructor and I learned so much in this course. My only suggestion would be to clarify some of the grading details as there were some questions on certain items in the last assignment. I would definitely recommend this series of courses and I am looking forward to taking the final course in this Full Stack Web Development series. | grading details as there were some | Question | on certain items in the last | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The retrieval part of this course is great, it deserve five starts. The clustering part was going well until it reached LDA. The LDA module is very poorly covered, and also very hard to understand. I had to watch the videos more than two times to try to figure out what was LDA, and a Quora article posted in the Forum could explain it much better. Then we get to the Hierarchical Clustering module, which was the most poorly module in all this specialization. There is only one video talking about HMM models, and Markov Chains deserve at least one week to even get started with it. And to complete, there is just one Assignment with only 3 questions. The specialization was going perfect until now. I am very disappointed with this course. I hope the last two courses are much better covered and not just ran over like this this one was. | just one Assignment with only 3 | Question | The specialization was going perfect until | Negative | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Like all the courses in this specialization so far, the material has been good. The reason for only 4 stars rather than 5 is the difficulty in getting questions answered in a timely manner. There don't seem to be any active mentors for this class. | 5 is the difficulty in getting | Question | answered in a timely manner. There | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The specialization has a good quality on average. I started doing this course immediately after it went open. I had a feeling that the quality of the course went down (questions were often unclear and it took time to figure out what is expected as an answer). However, many problems were solved quite fast and teaching stuff is really helpful. I still would like to see more about MapReduce in-depth in this course. I did not have a feeling that it was covered sufficiently (only theory, no hands-on material). In general, hands-on material was great and useful. | quality of the course went down | Question | were often unclear and it took | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| -nRRAPmuEeSndSIAC7LTLQ | This is a great intro class, designed to be completed within the Ableton trial period. Ableton should pay Erin a commission on sales that come out of this course, because I imagine it's bringing them 100s of new sales! The materials (mostly videos) are excellent and easy to follow. I learned a lot in this short class and would love to see an "intermediate" Ableton class in the future. My only complaints are related to the collaboration software that you need to use for this course, blend.io. Site navigation in blend.io can be painfully slow, and the site is buggy. I would have preferred to simply share information via dropbox or some other file sharing method. The peer review process is a great idea, although I think it's really tricky to do this in a music/art, because there is so much subjectivity and not much of a rubric. (There are some quantitative questions just to verify that the student follows instructions, but the open feedback is totally open). But, overall, the peer review works pretty well and gives students an additional incentive to turn in a quality product. | a rubric. (There are some quantitative | Question | just to verify that the student | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| -zH9iof2EeWGBwqGAoUFww | I highly recommend this course for anyone who wants to understand what epigenetics is all about, how the discoveries were made, and what are the open questions in the area. I wanted to give a big shout out to Dr. Marnie Blewitt for her great teaching skills. Her pace, and the amount of information and details provided are just perfect. Loved it from A to Z. | made, and what are the open | Question | in the area. I wanted to | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | Test for module 2 had questions that weren't part of the course (about programming). I think it was a kind of error in coursera configuration. | Test for module 2 had | Question | that weren't part of the course | Negative | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | Please include exercises for computing the ratios and the valuation methods. In-video questions would have helped more. The quiz does not actually test the understanding of the topic in-depth. There can be some external readings suggested - resources that help us get more understanding on the subjects discussed. | ratios and the valuation methods. In-video | Question | would have helped more. The quiz | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | This course was quick and simple. I enjoyed the definitions and monetary examples. I would have more quizzes and harder questions. | would have more quizzes and harder | Question | | Negative | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| 0ayiYtaOEeWvEArBkQ8C9Q | Useful course for exposure to debates that animate the common law, with some bits about the relationship of English and European law, pre-Brexit. It's probably fair to say this course offers some experience in the elusive skill of how to think like a lawyer. The legal debates might seem a bit pedantic to all but the specialist. For example, the course attempts to sketch in the debates about proper use of precedent, with frequent reminders that the task of fully developing such debates is beyond the scope of the course--I'll bet some students were thinking, thank goodness it's beyond the scope. It's all clear enough, and delivered pretty much exclusively in traditional lecture format--there's even a lectern. Each of these lessons about the legal debates outlines and develops the opposing sides but doesn't give you a whole lot of new content to be tested. Thus, many of the quiz questions are on comprehending passages from cases, statutes, or commentary. Such quiz questions sometimes feel like those reading comprehension questions from a standardized test, rather than tests of the material covered in the lesson. | tested. Thus, many of the quiz | Question | are on comprehending passages from cases, | Positive | 0.73 | 3.0 |
| 0ayiYtaOEeWvEArBkQ8C9Q | Useful course for exposure to debates that animate the common law, with some bits about the relationship of English and European law, pre-Brexit. It's probably fair to say this course offers some experience in the elusive skill of how to think like a lawyer. The legal debates might seem a bit pedantic to all but the specialist. For example, the course attempts to sketch in the debates about proper use of precedent, with frequent reminders that the task of fully developing such debates is beyond the scope of the course--I'll bet some students were thinking, thank goodness it's beyond the scope. It's all clear enough, and delivered pretty much exclusively in traditional lecture format--there's even a lectern. Each of these lessons about the legal debates outlines and develops the opposing sides but doesn't give you a whole lot of new content to be tested. Thus, many of the quiz questions are on comprehending passages from cases, statutes, or commentary. Such quiz questions sometimes feel like those reading comprehension questions from a standardized test, rather than tests of the material covered in the lesson. | cases, statutes, or commentary. Such quiz | Question | sometimes feel like those reading comprehension | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 0ayiYtaOEeWvEArBkQ8C9Q | Useful course for exposure to debates that animate the common law, with some bits about the relationship of English and European law, pre-Brexit. It's probably fair to say this course offers some experience in the elusive skill of how to think like a lawyer. The legal debates might seem a bit pedantic to all but the specialist. For example, the course attempts to sketch in the debates about proper use of precedent, with frequent reminders that the task of fully developing such debates is beyond the scope of the course--I'll bet some students were thinking, thank goodness it's beyond the scope. It's all clear enough, and delivered pretty much exclusively in traditional lecture format--there's even a lectern. Each of these lessons about the legal debates outlines and develops the opposing sides but doesn't give you a whole lot of new content to be tested. Thus, many of the quiz questions are on comprehending passages from cases, statutes, or commentary. Such quiz questions sometimes feel like those reading comprehension questions from a standardized test, rather than tests of the material covered in the lesson. | sometimes feel like those reading comprehension | Question | from a standardized test, rather than | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 0HiU7Oe4EeWTAQ4yevf_oQ | Aside from a little hiccup with one of the quiz questions during week 1, this course was worth my time. | hiccup with one of the quiz | Question | during week 1, this course was | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 0SYC5bspEeScJSIAC0aWWQ | Excellent cours, très intéressant que je recommande à tout le monde. Manque un peu de questions dans les QCM. | le monde. Manque un peu de | Question | dans les QCM. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | This course will be a good revision if you have known the models before taking it. But if you are new to the models, you may not really understand them. This course tells you which models to use and how to implement, but does not tell you the rationale behind (maybe the theories are too difficult). The teaching staff are really helpful and answer every question you raise in the discussion forum. | are really helpful and answer every | Question | you raise in the discussion forum. | Positive | 0.71 | 3.0 |
| 1cz3WSsXEeWccAqzeA4VPw | Good introductory course. I felt the wording of some of the quiz questions to be uneccessarily ambigous. | wording of some of the quiz | Question | to be uneccessarily ambigous. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | I do not recommend you to waste your time. Planned course activities for a week - just 13 minute speech of the lecturer, telling absolutely banal things and a few questions. Absolutely useless. | absolutely banal things and a few | Question | Absolutely useless. | Negative | 0.94 | 1.0 |
| 1oJb3Q_bEeWMFBICvJtBuQ | Programme très bien structuré avec une richesse d'interventions et d'idées qui nous incitent à prendre du recul sur ce que nous voulons réaliser en nous posant les bonnes questions. Très structurant, il aide à passer de l'intention à la réalisation. Je le conseille à toute personne voulant se lancer dans l'entrepreneuriat ou l'intrapreneuriat du changement. | réaliser en nous posant les bonnes | Question | Très structurant, il aide à passer | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 1oJb3Q_bEeWMFBICvJtBuQ | Excellent support pour tous ceux qui se posent des questions sur leurs actions et leur impact dans la société ! Axé très positif, avec la participation de nombreuses personnes qui sont actuellement entrepreneurs du changement et qui vous donnent envie de se lancer ! | tous ceux qui se posent des | Question | sur leurs actions et leur impact | Positive | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Great videos and testing structure. Great feedback to all of my questions in the forums too. 7 hours a week seems about right for me, with the recommended reading and watching the videos. However the course got continually harder and harder and by the time I was at the final exam I was really worried. In the end it got a bit difficult and stressful but I do feel it was valuable, and like I said, getting the feedback, even on weekends in the forums, helped a lot. | Great feedback to all of my | Question | in the forums too. 7 hours | Positive | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | concepts are used in the quiz | Question | (either directly in the questions and | Positive | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | quiz questions (either directly in the | Question | and answer choices, or indirectly in | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | gap between course content and quiz | Question | was on a quiz question about | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | quiz questions was on a quiz | Question | about inference. I failed the question, | Negative | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | question about inference. I failed the | Question | and understood why I failed based | Negative | 0.84 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | content litterally minutes after failing the | Question | (and one mentor actually rightly corrected | Negative | 0.75 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | actually rightly corrected me). But the | Question | " correction" (the explanation text you | Negative | 0.81 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | But in one of the quiz | Question | there was one of the possible | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | in calculating one figure per research | Question | without any attempt at deriving trends | Negative | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | the course contents. Most of the | Question | in the peer review assignment have | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | Does the narrative address the research | Question | . But when the research question | Positive | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | question" . But when the research | Question | is a question of the type | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | when the research question is a | Question | of the type " What it | Positive | 0.69 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | narrative, it does address the research | Question | and it does correctly interpret the | Positive | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | A very nice intro to the topic! The course is problem-oriented and introduces important concepts in relation to questions that will interest the student. It also gradually introduces R and its use for statistics analysis. I recommend it. | introduces important concepts in relation to | Question | that will interest the student. It | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | This is a brilliant course that makes statistics and probability as approachable, engaging and clear as humanely possible. Prof. Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel explains every subject very clearly, and has included some very effective quizzes and lab exercises. I first encountered R markdown files in this course and have used them constantly ever since. My only tiny point of criticism is that the non-graded exercise quizzes are way easier than the real quizzes, and do not really prepare you at all to the more complex questions in the actual quizzes. It's a petty and unimportant kind of criticism in an otherwise wonderful course. If everyone taught stats like Prof. Cetinkaya-Rundel, this important subject would have been a whole lot better understood and utilized globally. | at all to the more complex | Question | in the actual quizzes. It's a | Positive | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| 2g7bdO-KEeWTgg7cwVeSqQ | This course is extremely basic. It took me about four hours to complete the entire course (minus the peer reviewed assignment since I audited). This wouldn't be an issue in and of itself, but there were quite a number of issues with the presentation, from questions appearing in the wrong video, to badly worded and misleading questions. It's as if the course material was quickly thrown together and not reviewed or tested. Overall, there is some good info in it if you have no background in accounting and no idea what a balance sheet is, but if you're looking for insight into interpreting balance sheets, this is not the class for you. | of issues with the presentation, from | Question | appearing in the wrong video, to | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2g7bdO-KEeWTgg7cwVeSqQ | This course is extremely basic. It took me about four hours to complete the entire course (minus the peer reviewed assignment since I audited). This wouldn't be an issue in and of itself, but there were quite a number of issues with the presentation, from questions appearing in the wrong video, to badly worded and misleading questions. It's as if the course material was quickly thrown together and not reviewed or tested. Overall, there is some good info in it if you have no background in accounting and no idea what a balance sheet is, but if you're looking for insight into interpreting balance sheets, this is not the class for you. | video, to badly worded and misleading | Question | It's as if the course material | Negative | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| 2UHGXkNtEeSfwCIACxeXRw | Really interesting, good questions,great topic. | Really interesting, good | Question | great topic. | Positive | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| 2UHGXkNtEeSfwCIACxeXRw | This course is quite interesting for people who want to understand the development of the biggest network in the world - the Internet, understand the basics of network-related technology, and security techniques for digital transaction. However, the review questions are fairly easy. | for digital transaction. However, the review | Question | are fairly easy. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 2y_2_3REEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | As a capstone to a series of courses that covered data science and R, I found this one to be a bit lacking. There was no involvement from the professors at JHU or the folks at SwiftKey. As was mentioned in another review, the course feels abandoned. All you get a few short (two minutes or so) videos that give you little in the way of instruction or direction. Basically, they just say, "Go do this. Good luck!" There were also no Mentors or TAs to guide students or answer questions. It was the students helping each other through the forums. Sometimes it was helpful and everyone involved learned something. Other times, it was the blind trying to lead the visually-impaired. On a positive note, you will use all of the skills from the previous courses: writing R functions, performing exploratory analysis and publishing it via RPubs. Your final product will be displayed for everyone via ShinyApps and a presentation using R Presentation (also published via RPubs). On a(nother) negative note, the topic of Natural Language Processing is not an easy one to just walk into and feel confident in providing a working next-word prediction algorithm in about eight (8) weeks. You're reading academic journal articles, watching multiple videos from another Coursera course (which actually focuses on the topic of NLP, and takes place over several courses and several months!). Supposedly, there is work going on to update the course, so hopefully future students will get a better experience. I did take a bit away from this course, especially since I made more than one attempt to complete it. However, it was definitely a shock to find myself missing those things that one typically finds in a learning environment -- descriptive background, assistance to problems, etc. -- and seeing that I was for all intents and purposes on my own. Even in the professional world of data analysis, I have never experienced the lack of support that I found in this course. With that, I am giving it three (3) stars. As I said, I did learn a bit, but it was a bit of a struggle that required multiple attempts to complete. This would have been better off as a stand alone topic (which it already is by another Coursera affiliated school), or having a capstone course that builds on a topic more in the wheelhouse of the JHU professors: a capstone project focusing on bioinformatics or biostatistics would have been amazing in comparison to this. | TAs to guide students or answer | Question | It was the students helping each | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | This is the best course if you want to learn the Fundamentals of Management. Dave keeps it very simple and explains the topics lucidly. I have trained in some topics as part of my job which made it easy for me to get certified in this course. Some of the questions on the quiz have real world scenario's which are pretty fun to work on. | in this course. Some of the | Question | on the quiz have real world | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | A Very Good overview of the "Fundamentals". One feels like they have all the information they need to start managing after completion. The Questions are fairly simple but the Content is Meaningful. Overall, I got a lot out of it, it's an enjoyable introduction to management. | to start managing after completion. The | Question | are fairly simple but the Content | Positive | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The questions are hard to understand and ambiguous though their answers are easy. | The | Question | are hard to understand and ambiguous | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | I was pretty disappointed with this course. Firstly, the course did not seem well balanced meaning that some weeks--particularly week 2--had A LOT of materials to watch and really felt like it was two weeks crammed into one, and then other weeks barely had anything. Secondly, the exercises seemed unclear, poorly thought out and not really helpful. There were many errata that really should have been fixed in the beta iterations of this course. Thirdly, I really would like to see more application and less discussion of implementing algorithms. Fourthly, the "scaling" section was also a major disappointment. While it is mildly interesting to learn about stochastic gradient descent, I think it would have been more interesting to have a discussion about how classifiers work in a parallelized computing environment or actually to try one out using Spark. Finally, given that GraphLab/Dato/Turi was just acquired by Apple, I question whether it is worthwhile to take this course as ALL the materials are taught using a library that in all likelihood will cease to exist. | was just acquired by Apple, I | Question | whether it is worthwhile to take | Negative | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| 3EPZVpSGEeSb9SIACzCJlg | I have taken many courses by now, however this course brings to mind the fantastic "A brief history of time". Both go above and beyond my wildest dreams, leaving my expectations so far as to be unable to recall them. I learned not only about Beethoven the composer; but developed a greater appreciation for him and his music, for his predecessors and those who followed his footsteps, the sonata form and many other forms, and perhaps more important to ponder about the nature of music itself and it's relevance in our life. His presentation of the musical question, quotation, program music, and the notion of "jokes" exposed and explained a musical paradigm far broader than affective or cerebral qualities. It stems from these observations that there is a very rich and capable language with its own strengths and weaknesses. In this case, the history of Beethoven's sonatas is then a very close look at a critical point in the life of this language that binds multiple stages into a consistent whole. This subjects quasi universal nature, spans multiple cultures and allows us to look into snapshots of the experience of life. And this presentation has provided me with the necessary training to be aware of this and also to slowly delve further into this subject. And I find this in itself to be a very significant reason why to study music in the first place. My deepest thanks to all who made this great work possible Wither music? Most certainly :) | life. His presentation of the musical | Question | quotation, program music, and the notion | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I feel that Teacher Kang is really good with visual aids. I love how varied the tests are! I can feel the different parts of my mind lighting up with information because of the wide variety of questions. She seems kind and very passionate about her work. Because of this course, I started looking into Yonsei University. 감사합니다, 성생님! | because of the wide variety of | Question | She seems kind and very passionate | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | This really is a great course, it has a lot of content to learn, is concise, easy, and practical. Also the staff does his best at explaining doubts and questions. If you like Korean, or want to start learning Korean this is a must. | his best at explaining doubts and | Question | If you like Korean, or want | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I learned Korean nearly 20 years ago and decided to work through this course as a refresher. The course is fairly well done. The pace is a little aggressive, which is fine if you take your time to learn each lesson before moving on. Language courses are not the kind where you can just listen and then take the quiz. Slow down. Practice. By week four the speakers in the audio files were speaking on a level where I was having difficulty distinguishing some of the words. In particular, the differences between the 20th and 21st of the month can be somewhat challenging for a beginning speaker of Korean. On the quizzes, I slowed down and repeated some of the audio. Even so, I missed a few questions. I think the course should take more care in producing the audio files and planning the questions. Some of those my be nearly impossible for beginners to get correct. | Even so, I missed a few | Question | I think the course should take | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I learned Korean nearly 20 years ago and decided to work through this course as a refresher. The course is fairly well done. The pace is a little aggressive, which is fine if you take your time to learn each lesson before moving on. Language courses are not the kind where you can just listen and then take the quiz. Slow down. Practice. By week four the speakers in the audio files were speaking on a level where I was having difficulty distinguishing some of the words. In particular, the differences between the 20th and 21st of the month can be somewhat challenging for a beginning speaker of Korean. On the quizzes, I slowed down and repeated some of the audio. Even so, I missed a few questions. I think the course should take more care in producing the audio files and planning the questions. Some of those my be nearly impossible for beginners to get correct. | the audio files and planning the | Question | Some of those my be nearly | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | Pretty good class; good information. The classmates are engaged and have good feedback to give. I'm frustrated at the lack of instructor (or even staff presence) until at least week 3, when finally a staff member answered *one* of the many student questions that have been piling up. Students are a great resource for critiquing work, but we can't help each other with technical questions, or with assignment clarifications. So there *definitely* needs to be staff on hand for that. | answered *one* of the many student | Question | that have been piling up. Students | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 3KNgoXgcEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | Pretty good class; good information. The classmates are engaged and have good feedback to give. I'm frustrated at the lack of instructor (or even staff presence) until at least week 3, when finally a staff member answered *one* of the many student questions that have been piling up. Students are a great resource for critiquing work, but we can't help each other with technical questions, or with assignment clarifications. So there *definitely* needs to be staff on hand for that. | can't help each other with technical | Question | or with assignment clarifications. So there | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | A nice and informative course. The only negative side were the problems with the automatic evaluation of the R assignment. In my opinion, the question should have been automatically removed and/or all submittions reevaluated, or all students should have been notified about the need for manual resubmission. As it was, some (like myself) were left with fewer points that they should have received just because they did not check the discussion forums every day (mainly because of other obligations). | R assignment. In my opinion, the | Question | should have been automatically removed and/or | Negative | 0.7 | 4.0 |
| 3UY0FCmGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | A great course on predominantly the western course of history from 1760 to 1910; one that focuses on ideas and movements that shaped the world, not a course that focuses on western history for reasons of eurocentrism alone. Where the course is eurocentric, it is so by necessity, a symptom of a well-balanced, well-structured course that strives for an approach that poses questions in an earnest and truthful manner. The professor who runs this course is a highlight. His voice and presentation style makes the course that much easier to enjoy. I hope to later follow him and pay attention to his external writings and insights, even in my time beyond studying this online course. | strives for an approach that poses | Question | in an earnest and truthful manner. | Positive | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| 3UY0FCmGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | Excellent Professor!!! Not the same old boring history course! Prof. Zelikow really digs into history and poses the fundamental question "Why?" | into history and poses the fundamental | Question | " Why? " | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| 3UY0FCmGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | Interesting and well presented. Why questions are so much more important than what. | Interesting and well presented. Why | Question | are so much more important than | Positive | 0.88 | 5.0 |
| 3UY0FCmGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | I think Professor Philip Zelikow is a charismatic speaker. I enjoy listening such an eloquent teacher. The content of the lesson is compact, complete, enlightening and inspiring. I find some of the quiz questions ambiguous. Thank you very much. | I find some of the quiz | Question | ambiguous. Thank you very much. | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| 3UY0FCmGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | I love this course. History is my nemesis, but right now I hold my breath in every lecture and my mind winds up with thousands of questions! Thanks. | mind winds up with thousands of | Question | Thanks. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | After several back to back dense, high paced, steep learning courses in the specialization, this course is a welcome break. Its light, interactive and has a certain calmness about it. It touches several topics like shiny, manipulate, googlevis and plotly. As someone who has taken all courses in the specialization, I always wondered, how do I show my analysis to someone in an enterprise production environment and not as offline pdfs generated from rmd files. This course attempts to answer that question. | This course attempts to answer that | Question | | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The new platform is very versatile and easy to navigate. The page layout is much more clear. It is easy to navigate from course material to discussion boards. I like the Quiz format, including expanding the number of choices for the multiple choice selections, but the grading was confusing. For Quiz 3, some questions came back with multiple "Well Done" comments, even when I had not selected the answer for which I was being praised. I also was told I made errors on the same question.... and this was after I answered the question (Question 2, on R generic functions) the exact same as I had answered it when I took the course earlier this year. I was not a fan of not having to take a picture to submit work, so I am pleased that is no longer a requirement. I hope the typing pattern match is sufficient to affirm identity. I have one comment on content specific to this class. Week 3 content lacks relevancy to the project and data products in general. I agree that knowledge of R packages, classes, and methods is an important part of understanding R. I am not sure where that fits in the Data Science curriculum as a whole, though. Maybe expanding the curriculum to include a second, more advanced R class, with a project to write our own methods, build an R package, or do something with yhat. That would assign relevant work to reinforce the lectures. I would be happy to do further beta testing. DCP | was confusing. For Quiz 3, some | Question | came back with multiple " Well | Negative | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The new platform is very versatile and easy to navigate. The page layout is much more clear. It is easy to navigate from course material to discussion boards. I like the Quiz format, including expanding the number of choices for the multiple choice selections, but the grading was confusing. For Quiz 3, some questions came back with multiple "Well Done" comments, even when I had not selected the answer for which I was being praised. I also was told I made errors on the same question.... and this was after I answered the question (Question 2, on R generic functions) the exact same as I had answered it when I took the course earlier this year. I was not a fan of not having to take a picture to submit work, so I am pleased that is no longer a requirement. I hope the typing pattern match is sufficient to affirm identity. I have one comment on content specific to this class. Week 3 content lacks relevancy to the project and data products in general. I agree that knowledge of R packages, classes, and methods is an important part of understanding R. I am not sure where that fits in the Data Science curriculum as a whole, though. Maybe expanding the curriculum to include a second, more advanced R class, with a project to write our own methods, build an R package, or do something with yhat. That would assign relevant work to reinforce the lectures. I would be happy to do further beta testing. DCP | I made errors on the same | Question | . . . and this was | Negative | 0.82 | 5.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The new platform is very versatile and easy to navigate. The page layout is much more clear. It is easy to navigate from course material to discussion boards. I like the Quiz format, including expanding the number of choices for the multiple choice selections, but the grading was confusing. For Quiz 3, some questions came back with multiple "Well Done" comments, even when I had not selected the answer for which I was being praised. I also was told I made errors on the same question.... and this was after I answered the question (Question 2, on R generic functions) the exact same as I had answered it when I took the course earlier this year. I was not a fan of not having to take a picture to submit work, so I am pleased that is no longer a requirement. I hope the typing pattern match is sufficient to affirm identity. I have one comment on content specific to this class. Week 3 content lacks relevancy to the project and data products in general. I agree that knowledge of R packages, classes, and methods is an important part of understanding R. I am not sure where that fits in the Data Science curriculum as a whole, though. Maybe expanding the curriculum to include a second, more advanced R class, with a project to write our own methods, build an R package, or do something with yhat. That would assign relevant work to reinforce the lectures. I would be happy to do further beta testing. DCP | this was after I answered the | Question | (Question 2, on R generic functions) | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The new platform is very versatile and easy to navigate. The page layout is much more clear. It is easy to navigate from course material to discussion boards. I like the Quiz format, including expanding the number of choices for the multiple choice selections, but the grading was confusing. For Quiz 3, some questions came back with multiple "Well Done" comments, even when I had not selected the answer for which I was being praised. I also was told I made errors on the same question.... and this was after I answered the question (Question 2, on R generic functions) the exact same as I had answered it when I took the course earlier this year. I was not a fan of not having to take a picture to submit work, so I am pleased that is no longer a requirement. I hope the typing pattern match is sufficient to affirm identity. I have one comment on content specific to this class. Week 3 content lacks relevancy to the project and data products in general. I agree that knowledge of R packages, classes, and methods is an important part of understanding R. I am not sure where that fits in the Data Science curriculum as a whole, though. Maybe expanding the curriculum to include a second, more advanced R class, with a project to write our own methods, build an R package, or do something with yhat. That would assign relevant work to reinforce the lectures. I would be happy to do further beta testing. DCP | was after I answered the question | Question | 2, on R generic functions) the | Negative | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | Taken this course in its old fashion style. Now reviewing the new design was a little bit displacing, but I ascribe this to the fact I've done all the specialization courses in the old design. However the structure of the course is quite good. Some typos were reported, as well as a bug on the unanswered questions in quiz 3. Main worst point was the missing format of several text boxes. I would have appreciated paragraphs, bold and italic, some links, picture, not only raw plain text. Overall review is nonetheless over the average. | as a bug on the unanswered | Question | in quiz 3. Main worst point | Negative | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| 3vTfVlUsEeWaMw4b4yEpbw | This is a very good course. The material is formatted in a way that is very digestible even for those without a strong science background. Some of the quiz questions are harder than they should be, and challenging to locate the correct answer to. And it is not immediately clear that in order to pass the course a student must read the book the course is based upon. There are some spelling errors that should be corrected, and a few errors in the filmed dialogue. But the information contained in the course is good. | science background. Some of the quiz | Question | are harder than they should be, | Negative | 0.78 | 4.0 |
| 41f7CjlXEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | The course overall provided me with useful ideas and methods for understanding my organization better and the psychology of the workplace. What drives individuals in an organization is a question that permeates the course, and ... how can leaders tap into common organizational behaviors to improve their management? Some of the examples are a bit tired if you've taken just about any psychology course, but the kernels of advice are worth the time if you want to understand your workplace better. | individuals in an organization is a | Question | that permeates the course, and . | Positive | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | This is a fabulous copyright course for academic professionals! If you've ever had questions about copyright law in an academic context, take this course! | academic professionals! If you've ever had | Question | about copyright law in an academic | Negative | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | is, that the quizzes display the | Question | that were asked, instead of just | Negative | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | next to the number and the | Question | that was asked, once the quiz | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | and flexible. Aside from including the | Question | asked for each quiz after submission | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | very interesting course, with a tricky questions sometimes, but with ones that makes you think carefully. Very interesting interview videos. Thanks! | very interesting course, with a tricky | Question | sometimes, but with ones that makes | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| 4tHoAq3EEeSk9iIAC49U6w | Thank you for a great course! This information is so valuable! But I would like to see the final test more distinctive, the questions are in some terms very vague. But all in all, I had a great time, thank you! | the final test more distinctive, the | Question | are in some terms very vague. | Positive | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | There are steps that are missing at times which require you to scour for help. There are also quirks that aren't mentioned that other students have to point out. Unaddressed questions in the discussion board required escalation. Feels rushed and it's hard to learn for a beginner. Feels like you're just going through the motions and copy and pasting code. | students have to point out. Unaddressed | Question | in the discussion board required escalation. | Negative | 0.69 | 2.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | A whole lot of information to absorb, that I will definitely agree with! If there was anything I wish went into more detail, there would be two things. 1) Yo / Yeoman: This part of the course was more of an "Obligatory" lecture, just to say it's mentioned. I watched that one video many times over, but still ended up going to YouTube for actual "training" on the ins and outs. I know time is constrained in MOOC's and you don't get the full load of knowledge you would in a traditional school. However, my thoughts are that either give us an exercise so we can at least have that as experience in using it, or just remove it completely. The lecture was put together as a sort of "Follow Along", but it really felt rushed and more of an "Obligatory" thing than an actual lesson. 2) Give us more detail on the difference between Services and Factories. Keep in mind that I still have Multi-Platform Mobile App Development, and Server Side Development with Node.js still to go, so I don't know if these are explained more in those courses. As it stands right now, I -still- don't know the difference between a factory and a service, or even what a provider is. When should I use a factory? When should I use a service? Which is better suited for what task? All those questions I do not have an answer for after this course, which feels a bit short for me. | suited for what task? All those | Question | I do not have an answer | Negative | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Angular JS is a crucial component of all of the internet. Hardly a website exists without it and it's clear that Angular will go places. However, this course fails on a few crucial levels. As such, my review might look scathing and I'll detail why in a minute, but I want you to know that this course is quite possibly invaluable when it comes to web development. Besides, the fixes that would need to be made on the instructor's side are minor, but when working without those fixes, things get infuriatingly frustrating rather quickly. There are errors in the code supplied by the instructor that need to be pointed out by students, scripts sometimes don't work, explanations are sub-par when explaining things such as $scope. There are parts that are seemingly there to pad out the lessons such as Task Runners. Sometimes, doing things exactly the way shown in the video with additional fixes by both the professor and students, it still doesn't work. Some exercises are an hour long for something that won't be quizzed in the end. Understanding that this review was made about a new course that covers something rapidly changing and not persistent, I still did learn a lot of valuable things and I would recommend this course to everyone involved in web development. However, be prepared to question your own sanity, your skills, the software you use, software in general and just despair at times. All in all, it is a price worth paying for the amazing knowledge you gain. | web development. However, be prepared to | Question | your own sanity, your skills, the | Positive | 0.67 | 2.0 |
| 58H3s7ZHEeW2iwpbOuagWQ | While there is some interesting content, particuarly in the last week on design thinking, some of the course topics don't seem to hold together well, and the videos include a lot of monotonous talking heads. While this conveys the benefit of being able to listen to some of the videos without consistently watching, the interview questions asked of speakers are sometimes printed on the screen and not asked verbally. If you're not watching, you miss the questions. I would like to see this course refocused on design thinking for 3D printing, with other applications interspersed as examples rather than constituting the lion's share of the course. I believe that format would both be more engaging and do a better job of delivering skills with more opportunity for practice. | videos without consistently watching, the interview | Question | asked of speakers are sometimes printed | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 58H3s7ZHEeW2iwpbOuagWQ | While there is some interesting content, particuarly in the last week on design thinking, some of the course topics don't seem to hold together well, and the videos include a lot of monotonous talking heads. While this conveys the benefit of being able to listen to some of the videos without consistently watching, the interview questions asked of speakers are sometimes printed on the screen and not asked verbally. If you're not watching, you miss the questions. I would like to see this course refocused on design thinking for 3D printing, with other applications interspersed as examples rather than constituting the lion's share of the course. I believe that format would both be more engaging and do a better job of delivering skills with more opportunity for practice. | you're not watching, you miss the | Question | I would like to see this | Negative | 0.67 | 2.0 |
| 5c9BeiTUEeW3AhKilvRZ0Q | The course is fine as far as content. My complaint is that there is no one to contact regarding papers or questions. You are left to the other students for your grading and assignment completion, meaning that some of your assignments can hang there for weeks before ever getting reviewed. | one to contact regarding papers or | Question | You are left to the other | Negative | 0.69 | 3.0 |
| 5c9BeiTUEeW3AhKilvRZ0Q | It has good content, but there were missing classes to give more advices or clear any question students have, when grading peer review homeworks there were plenty of mistakes that would have been avoided if there were more video lectures or forums with teachers. | give more advices or clear any | Question | students have, when grading peer review | Negative | 0.82 | 3.0 |
| 5g_hAYo4EeWTzg6WBWinhQ | While the content and the curriculum of the course is ok, the course is not moderated enough in terms of answering the questions the participants have | enough in terms of answering the | Question | the participants have | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 5g_hAYo4EeWTzg6WBWinhQ | Classes are ok, but there is no support at all, no advisors to answer your questions, even if you pay for the course. | all, no advisors to answer your | Question | even if you pay for the | Negative | 0.73 | 2.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Very confusing course, unclear example, too theoretical (very limited relevancy to business questions) Also, presentation format could be improved (tables are not intuitive to read/understand) | theoretical (very limited relevancy to business | Question | Also, presentation format could be improved | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | web exprience and how the final | Question | were set up. It gave a | Positive | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | was to " get you" vusrses | Question | that were more to see if | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | differently on the same set of | Question | (this needs to be really looked | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | the first time I answered the | Question | a certain way, it marked me | Positive | 0.97 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I liked the course, it opened my eyes to new ways of thinking, and I'm continuing the advanced competitive strategy course. The approach of making models and calculations to see what the best strategy for a given company is, can help greatly with making sense of a chaotic world. Minor points to better the course: The lectures are sometimes too simple, especially the examples given can be sped up, up the ante ;)!. In the quiz one whole answer is false if one of the sub-answers is false, especially with 10 answers to give, I sometimes had a hard time to pass a question due to this reason, can this be resolved a bit? Say for example, a question is passed if 80% of the sub-answers are correct? Overall... thanks dear Tobias for having me in your class! Greetz Floor | a hard time to pass a | Question | due to this reason, can this | Negative | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I liked the course, it opened my eyes to new ways of thinking, and I'm continuing the advanced competitive strategy course. The approach of making models and calculations to see what the best strategy for a given company is, can help greatly with making sense of a chaotic world. Minor points to better the course: The lectures are sometimes too simple, especially the examples given can be sped up, up the ante ;)!. In the quiz one whole answer is false if one of the sub-answers is false, especially with 10 answers to give, I sometimes had a hard time to pass a question due to this reason, can this be resolved a bit? Say for example, a question is passed if 80% of the sub-answers are correct? Overall... thanks dear Tobias for having me in your class! Greetz Floor | a bit? Say for example, a | Question | is passed if 80% of the | Negative | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Fantastic course except for the quiz questions. Many of them can be interpreted in a way that an answer different from the intended one can work too. | Fantastic course except for the quiz | Question | Many of them can be interpreted | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| 5uXCfFu2EeSU0SIACxCMgg | quiz questions are well explained so much that I could follow easily! Good examples for learning! | quiz | Question | are well explained so much that | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | all video lectures feel like they are just read from a paper and it takes a lot of effort to follow and engage. It is the 4th course I'm taking to get ma digital marketing specialisation and is far off the poorest. The slides don't make much sense and a lot of times I have to research stuff again on other websites to actually get the point. The quiz questions are sometimes not related to the topic. It seems like, the professor does not know enough about the subject to speak freely and engaging about the topics. I'm quite disappointed about this course and can not recommend it. I think the course should be worked over. A great example of how to do it right is Aric Rindfleischs lecture, which was engaging, challenging and very well structured | actually get the point. The quiz | Question | are sometimes not related to the | Negative | 0.77 | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Not up to my expectations. Compared to the previous modules in this specialisation, the lectures are dry, the presenter is not focused and slides are sometimes mixed up. The reading material is great and a definite plus is that it is free. But the lectures should be more practical (not just the bullet points of the book), and the weekly assignment should not be a chapter summary question. The course developers should have taken the time to develop a case study for each topic, like in the first module in this spec. I highly recommend reviewing and improving the content. | should not be a chapter summary | Question | The course developers should have taken | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I enjoyed the difficulty of this course, however at times the questions seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find the information that the questions referred to. I believe some refinement is due here, but the difficulty was satisfying difficult compared to previous courses! | this course, however at times the | Question | seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I enjoyed the difficulty of this course, however at times the questions seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find the information that the questions referred to. I believe some refinement is due here, but the difficulty was satisfying difficult compared to previous courses! | to find the information that the | Question | referred to. I believe some refinement | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | This was my least favorite of the course. The questions were out of order, the videos and lectures were terrible and dry | least favorite of the course. The | Question | were out of order, the videos | Positive | 0.9 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | For multiple modules, the questions were out of order. Some of the videos didn't seem polished to the point that it made me think it was not the final edits? Also, from other Coursera courses, I really valued interviews and summaries that highlighted the key points (vs a summary of the topics convered). Finally, the module quizzes didn't seem to highlight the key points, but instead had questions specific to not-so-important details (e.g., which agency created the MB campaign). | For multiple modules, the | Question | were out of order. Some of | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | For multiple modules, the questions were out of order. Some of the videos didn't seem polished to the point that it made me think it was not the final edits? Also, from other Coursera courses, I really valued interviews and summaries that highlighted the key points (vs a summary of the topics convered). Finally, the module quizzes didn't seem to highlight the key points, but instead had questions specific to not-so-important details (e.g., which agency created the MB campaign). | the key points, but instead had | Question | specific to not-so-important details (e. g. | Negative | 0.76 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | based on impressions after module 1: -quality of lectures: just dry material from books. not engaging - repetitions (videos in reading materials and in lecture) sometimes feeling that it is waste of time -quizz questions are hardly connected to lectures disappointed and discouraged. give a try to module 2 and will see. | it is waste of time -quizz | Question | are hardly connected to lectures disappointed | Negative | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Incorrect references, subtitles that do not follow the video. Questions in the questionnaires that have not been studied and which one does not even know where to find references. The worst course of this certificate. | that do not follow the video. | Question | in the questionnaires that have not | Negative | 0.83 | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Some times the questions in the test were in my opinion irrelevant to the material. | Some times the | Question | in the test were in my | Positive | 0.86 | 3.0 |
| 6DwzaCw7EeWGvAojQA48rw | It's a great introduction. Even if you never try to develop something, this course allows you to make your first game and think about important questions around game design that can improve your projects. The videos are very fun and easy to understand. | first game and think about important | Question | around game design that can improve | Positive | 0.82 | 5.0 |
| 6DwzaCw7EeWGvAojQA48rw | I really enjoyed this course! The videos were fun and informational, the assignments were enjoyable, and reviewing other student work was helpful. I also liked hearing from my fellow students and their ideas about my work and improvements I could make. I would give the course five stars except for one thing - there was no one from the university to interact with. No one answered our questions on the forums, so questions went unanswered, ambiguities remained, and some issues grew as we progressed. Someone, even just a grad student or two, needs to be involved with the course in my opinion. | interact with. No one answered our | Question | on the forums, so questions went | Positive | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| 6DwzaCw7EeWGvAojQA48rw | I really enjoyed this course! The videos were fun and informational, the assignments were enjoyable, and reviewing other student work was helpful. I also liked hearing from my fellow students and their ideas about my work and improvements I could make. I would give the course five stars except for one thing - there was no one from the university to interact with. No one answered our questions on the forums, so questions went unanswered, ambiguities remained, and some issues grew as we progressed. Someone, even just a grad student or two, needs to be involved with the course in my opinion. | our questions on the forums, so | Question | went unanswered, ambiguities remained, and some | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | Good: The video lectures cover a nice variety of topics giving you a good introduction of journalism, ethics, and other important considerations for becoming a journalist. Bad: The entire course feels hastily put together. Some of the videos have summarizing points, which is helpful when taking notes, but they flash on the screen briefly, then cut to a closeup of the lecturer, then cut back to the summery points so quickly that you can't copy them down and it becomes super distracting. The quizzes are a joke. They usually consist of 1-3 questions with two answers each and once choice so outrageous that they don't take any thought at all to complete. You could just skip to the quizzes without watching a single lecture and "ace" them easily. The assignments are also a joke. They ask for 1-2 sentence answers max! Some of them ask you to "use more than one word" to respond. I've taken free courses on here than involve 1000 word essays and then at least you're forced to process the information in the lectures. You can pass this course without watching a single lecture and that's a travesty to Michigan State. It is full of typos and oversights that could have been avoided if they had once person run through the course as a quality control. One of the quizzes has the answer included right beneath the question as a typo! The simple assignments are described in 3 different places, sometimes with conflicting instructions. They tell you what to do and how to review your peers in one section and then the actually assignment has different instructions on what to do than the page prior so you end up unsure of what the assignment actually wants you to do. For example: the final assignment at firsts asks you how to engage with your audience, and then you click next and the SAME question is now asking you how you distribute content. Did they even try?? In Summery: The content in the lectures are a good but shallow overview of journalism, but don't expect to be challenged to do anything but fill in ovals and regurgitate questions. Not too much to learn here. | joke. They usually consist of 1-3 | Question | with two answers each and once | Negative | 0.91 | 2.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | Good: The video lectures cover a nice variety of topics giving you a good introduction of journalism, ethics, and other important considerations for becoming a journalist. Bad: The entire course feels hastily put together. Some of the videos have summarizing points, which is helpful when taking notes, but they flash on the screen briefly, then cut to a closeup of the lecturer, then cut back to the summery points so quickly that you can't copy them down and it becomes super distracting. The quizzes are a joke. They usually consist of 1-3 questions with two answers each and once choice so outrageous that they don't take any thought at all to complete. You could just skip to the quizzes without watching a single lecture and "ace" them easily. The assignments are also a joke. They ask for 1-2 sentence answers max! Some of them ask you to "use more than one word" to respond. I've taken free courses on here than involve 1000 word essays and then at least you're forced to process the information in the lectures. You can pass this course without watching a single lecture and that's a travesty to Michigan State. It is full of typos and oversights that could have been avoided if they had once person run through the course as a quality control. One of the quizzes has the answer included right beneath the question as a typo! The simple assignments are described in 3 different places, sometimes with conflicting instructions. They tell you what to do and how to review your peers in one section and then the actually assignment has different instructions on what to do than the page prior so you end up unsure of what the assignment actually wants you to do. For example: the final assignment at firsts asks you how to engage with your audience, and then you click next and the SAME question is now asking you how you distribute content. Did they even try?? In Summery: The content in the lectures are a good but shallow overview of journalism, but don't expect to be challenged to do anything but fill in ovals and regurgitate questions. Not too much to learn here. | the answer included right beneath the | Question | as a typo! The simple assignments | Positive | 0.88 | 2.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | Good: The video lectures cover a nice variety of topics giving you a good introduction of journalism, ethics, and other important considerations for becoming a journalist. Bad: The entire course feels hastily put together. Some of the videos have summarizing points, which is helpful when taking notes, but they flash on the screen briefly, then cut to a closeup of the lecturer, then cut back to the summery points so quickly that you can't copy them down and it becomes super distracting. The quizzes are a joke. They usually consist of 1-3 questions with two answers each and once choice so outrageous that they don't take any thought at all to complete. You could just skip to the quizzes without watching a single lecture and "ace" them easily. The assignments are also a joke. They ask for 1-2 sentence answers max! Some of them ask you to "use more than one word" to respond. I've taken free courses on here than involve 1000 word essays and then at least you're forced to process the information in the lectures. You can pass this course without watching a single lecture and that's a travesty to Michigan State. It is full of typos and oversights that could have been avoided if they had once person run through the course as a quality control. One of the quizzes has the answer included right beneath the question as a typo! The simple assignments are described in 3 different places, sometimes with conflicting instructions. They tell you what to do and how to review your peers in one section and then the actually assignment has different instructions on what to do than the page prior so you end up unsure of what the assignment actually wants you to do. For example: the final assignment at firsts asks you how to engage with your audience, and then you click next and the SAME question is now asking you how you distribute content. Did they even try?? In Summery: The content in the lectures are a good but shallow overview of journalism, but don't expect to be challenged to do anything but fill in ovals and regurgitate questions. Not too much to learn here. | you click next and the SAME | Question | is now asking you how you | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | Good: The video lectures cover a nice variety of topics giving you a good introduction of journalism, ethics, and other important considerations for becoming a journalist. Bad: The entire course feels hastily put together. Some of the videos have summarizing points, which is helpful when taking notes, but they flash on the screen briefly, then cut to a closeup of the lecturer, then cut back to the summery points so quickly that you can't copy them down and it becomes super distracting. The quizzes are a joke. They usually consist of 1-3 questions with two answers each and once choice so outrageous that they don't take any thought at all to complete. You could just skip to the quizzes without watching a single lecture and "ace" them easily. The assignments are also a joke. They ask for 1-2 sentence answers max! Some of them ask you to "use more than one word" to respond. I've taken free courses on here than involve 1000 word essays and then at least you're forced to process the information in the lectures. You can pass this course without watching a single lecture and that's a travesty to Michigan State. It is full of typos and oversights that could have been avoided if they had once person run through the course as a quality control. One of the quizzes has the answer included right beneath the question as a typo! The simple assignments are described in 3 different places, sometimes with conflicting instructions. They tell you what to do and how to review your peers in one section and then the actually assignment has different instructions on what to do than the page prior so you end up unsure of what the assignment actually wants you to do. For example: the final assignment at firsts asks you how to engage with your audience, and then you click next and the SAME question is now asking you how you distribute content. Did they even try?? In Summery: The content in the lectures are a good but shallow overview of journalism, but don't expect to be challenged to do anything but fill in ovals and regurgitate questions. Not too much to learn here. | but fill in ovals and regurgitate | Question | Not too much to learn here. | Negative | 0.76 | 2.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | I appreciate the fact that this course doesn't go into the fine detail on how to code everything, I believe there is still more information on the coding and data management practices that could be included in the course content. In addition to that, I feel the course could use the following adjustments to make it better: 1 - Have Python students grade other Python students and SAS students grade other SAS students. While it is nice to get exposure to another language, it is more than enough to learn one at a time. 2 - Add quizes and/or other well formed questions that are graded (automatically, not peer graded) to help enforce the concepts being taught. 3 - Make the assignment instructions/expectations more clear. I feel there are times when the grading criteria don't exactly match the requested assignment. While people follow the spirit of the assignment, the grading questions may ask for slightly different or additional items. 4 - Certain aspects of statistical analysis are glossed over and should be covered in more depth in the training videos. While I like the short videos for brevity, I would prefer to watch 10-15 minutes more content and really feel like the material was well covered. | Add quizes and/or other well formed | Question | that are graded (automatically, not peer | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | I appreciate the fact that this course doesn't go into the fine detail on how to code everything, I believe there is still more information on the coding and data management practices that could be included in the course content. In addition to that, I feel the course could use the following adjustments to make it better: 1 - Have Python students grade other Python students and SAS students grade other SAS students. While it is nice to get exposure to another language, it is more than enough to learn one at a time. 2 - Add quizes and/or other well formed questions that are graded (automatically, not peer graded) to help enforce the concepts being taught. 3 - Make the assignment instructions/expectations more clear. I feel there are times when the grading criteria don't exactly match the requested assignment. While people follow the spirit of the assignment, the grading questions may ask for slightly different or additional items. 4 - Certain aspects of statistical analysis are glossed over and should be covered in more depth in the training videos. While I like the short videos for brevity, I would prefer to watch 10-15 minutes more content and really feel like the material was well covered. | spirit of the assignment, the grading | Question | may ask for slightly different or | Positive | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Choosing an actual research question allows you to find a topic of interest. This makes the content more meaningful and accelerates understanding of the concepts. | Choosing an actual research | Question | allows you to find a topic | Positive | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | There is a lot of self-teaching with these courses because there are no professors present to reach out to with questions. In addition, the course staff do not always respond promptly nor are they fully knowledgeable about all aspects of error messages that may arise out of coding. At times the code that were provided in the lecture videos were out of date and a lot of time was spent on googling to find the updated code. This is definitely not a beginner coder course and I do not recommend it to anyone who has not coded before. | present to reach out to with | Question | In addition, the course staff do | Positive | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Simple and powerful Course. If you are a beginner. Just follow the instructions and Assignment Schedule. The course may seem a bit easy, if you are good at math and have some prior programming experience, yet you can be surprised with what new you learned by the end of the Course, considering the time you spend. Also you develop sound reasoning to answer your own questions regarding handling and presenting Data. The clarity you develop is worth it. | sound reasoning to answer your own | Question | regarding handling and presenting Data. The | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | The course has its positives, but overall does not perform well instructing on the use of the two statistical software offered (SAS & Python). At the beginning they offer multiple data sets to use and formulate a research question, but all the examples utilize only one data set and do not cover the differences you might face with the other data sets - leading to a lot of missed opportunities. Additionally, the tutorials for using the statistical software do not lend themselves towards a thorough understanding and more to a route learning. | to use and formulate a research | Question | but all the examples utilize only | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc questions in videos. More hype content than a course. This is not the way to learn Python, seriously don't take this one | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc | Question | in videos. More hype content than | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | I like the clear explanation provided in the lectures by Morgan and Bradley. Morgan also answered my questions pretty promptly and gave great practical solutions. | and Bradley. Morgan also answered my | Question | pretty promptly and gave great practical | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | The lectures were done well. The tests should have more "Real world scenario" questions, then just asking about specifics terms used in a given process | have more " Real world scenario" | Question | then just asking about specifics terms | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Great production values and more "meat" to it than the intro course. I like the scenario based questions. It still seems a little light on content, but the content that is present is good. | course. I like the scenario based | Question | It still seems a little light | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | The course way OK, but it had some flaws. It was very general and could have gone into more detail, but that was intentional, I guess. No big deal. Then again, the difficulty was way too easy and the quiz questions should be tested for test wiseness. What I disliked the most: The way Scrum was introduced and mapped to the role of a "product manager" was very confusing. Still, not a bad course though. | way too easy and the quiz | Question | should be tested for test wiseness. | Negative | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Very informative and cleared up a lot of questions I had about processes, agile, scrum, kanban and how they work together. | and cleared up a lot of | Question | I had about processes, agile, scrum, | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Amazing Course. So very enlightening and so very well taught. The quizzes help to reinforce the material learnt in the Lectures. The quiz question made it so that you had to constantly think critically to answer real world problem scenarios. Would recommend it to anyone to gain a good understanding of Software Processes and Agile Practices. | learnt in the Lectures. The quiz | Question | made it so that you had | Negative | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| 76FVnKNaEeWHXAr1OpR7HQ | Very informative and rewarding. Professor is very energetic and shows he is totally involved in the course. The major problem with this course is that, as complex as it is, coupled with the lack of access to the instructors to ask questions, perhaps the assistants could be more responsive and helpful with problems students are having problems with. It makes no sense to learn without knowing where one is making mistakes and how to correct them. | access to the instructors to ask | Question | perhaps the assistants could be more | Positive | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great instructor, made the course really fun. I'm a beginner programmer but Dr. Severance explained things really well. Also, the Mentors and community of students in the forums were super helpful when I had questions. Looking forward to the next course! | were super helpful when I had | Question | Looking forward to the next course! | Negative | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I had some issues to display some questions in quizzes | had some issues to display some | Question | in quizzes | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The lectures are very good. But the Discussion forum became a "hidden question - mistic answer" panel lately. Could we get some non-scored assignments to discuss them openly with mentors and to learn more ? | Discussion forum became a " hidden | Question | - mistic answer" panel lately. Could | Positive | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I think sometimes it got very confusing some of the examples being the exact same from chapter to chapter. It was nice having a ground for it but i started to question why would you use this method instead of the one we used before for hours and rate specifically. | for it but i started to | Question | why would you use this method | Negative | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course is not that much helpful for those who want to do work for coding. I mean the level of toughness of questions is not too good to compete any coding competition. | mean the level of toughness of | Question | is not too good to compete | Negative | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I struggled with some of the instruction as I couldn't get the exercises/quizes to work right; even with multiple views of the videos, posting questions, etc. | multiple views of the videos, posting | Question | etc. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Thanks Chuck. It was really nice classes. I have enjoyed a lot. Specially you are asked me a question to answer :) . I am from Bangladesh. I wonder if there is anybody from completed the same course from here! | Specially you are asked me a | Question | to answer :) . I am | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Everything was great but I wish there was more exercise questions to solve, at least as a homework. could've been in the book at the end of each chapter as a chapter questions /projects. Because I believe more exercise help to understand concept better. | I wish there was more exercise | Question | to solve, at least as a | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Everything was great but I wish there was more exercise questions to solve, at least as a homework. could've been in the book at the end of each chapter as a chapter questions /projects. Because I believe more exercise help to understand concept better. | of each chapter as a chapter | Question | /projects. Because I believe more exercise | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great way to learn the basics. Much better than the book on its own. Nice style, simple explanations, and helpful coursemates to answer questions and discuss topics with. Highly recommend. | explanations, and helpful coursemates to answer | Question | and discuss topics with. Highly recommend. | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | All of the review I've read were that the course was great, so maybe it is me that was the problem. However, as I would go through the written material, I would try to work the problems given as examples, and when they did not work, I was confused and wondered why the example given to teach us would not work. I asked for help a number of times, providing screen shots of the results I got trying to duplicate what the example was supposed to show, and page numbers of where the example was presented in the course materials. One former student basically said that I should not be trying to duplicate the examples, but just accept the concept they were trying to show. Another did a good job of explaining one of my questions, but then all replies to my question ceased. I decide to drop out of the class and try teaching myself, as I have done on everything I have learned about computers since my 1st computer in 1983. I have been very impressed with other courses given by Coursera members, but this one was not one of them. All of the other submissions praise the course, so maybe it is just me, but none of the other submissions mentioned any actual things the course had done - just that it was great. | job of explaining one of my | Question | but then all replies to my | Positive | 0.95 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | All of the review I've read were that the course was great, so maybe it is me that was the problem. However, as I would go through the written material, I would try to work the problems given as examples, and when they did not work, I was confused and wondered why the example given to teach us would not work. I asked for help a number of times, providing screen shots of the results I got trying to duplicate what the example was supposed to show, and page numbers of where the example was presented in the course materials. One former student basically said that I should not be trying to duplicate the examples, but just accept the concept they were trying to show. Another did a good job of explaining one of my questions, but then all replies to my question ceased. I decide to drop out of the class and try teaching myself, as I have done on everything I have learned about computers since my 1st computer in 1983. I have been very impressed with other courses given by Coursera members, but this one was not one of them. All of the other submissions praise the course, so maybe it is just me, but none of the other submissions mentioned any actual things the course had done - just that it was great. | but then all replies to my | Question | ceased. I decide to drop out | Negative | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed this course and felt like I actually learned the material. The only reason I didn't give this course 5 stars, is that due to the issue of giving away the answers to quiz questions, there were a couple of quiz questions that I couldn't understand and unfortunately still don't. I think this is an area that could be improved. | giving away the answers to quiz | Question | there were a couple of quiz | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed this course and felt like I actually learned the material. The only reason I didn't give this course 5 stars, is that due to the issue of giving away the answers to quiz questions, there were a couple of quiz questions that I couldn't understand and unfortunately still don't. I think this is an area that could be improved. | there were a couple of quiz | Question | that I couldn't understand and unfortunately | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed my time with this online experience. Though I managed to get thru most of the course without having to post a question, I did realize in the end how easy and responsive the course TA's are in follow up. And there is also the community of other students whom I was able to learn from in seeing their questions and answer sessions. You have no idea how important it was for me to be able to review the material in snippets in my day and then review it again and again so that I could comprehend the nuances of the lessons. Amazing, I wish I had this when I was in my undergrad days. | course without having to post a | Question | I did realize in the end | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed my time with this online experience. Though I managed to get thru most of the course without having to post a question, I did realize in the end how easy and responsive the course TA's are in follow up. And there is also the community of other students whom I was able to learn from in seeing their questions and answer sessions. You have no idea how important it was for me to be able to review the material in snippets in my day and then review it again and again so that I could comprehend the nuances of the lessons. Amazing, I wish I had this when I was in my undergrad days. | to learn from in seeing their | Question | and answer sessions. You have no | Negative | 0.67 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The content inside this course is well tought through. Questions and asignments holds high quality. If you haven't been in contact with Python before, this might be the first step for you, and when I say first step, then I really mean first step. | this course is well tought through. | Question | and asignments holds high quality. If | Positive | 0.98 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Dr. Chuck is da man! Awesome class. Dr. Chuck touched upon all the nuances of basic Python that most students are too embarrassed to ask about but which are nevertheless mission-critical to effective programming. This capacity to address unspoken concerns both in presentations and assignments is one of the secrets of a good MOOC professor since students can't ask questions. This class is especially useful for those students who just completed codecademy.com's Python class since it explicitly addresses several issues that weren't addressed there. Finally, no one can rival Dr. Chuck's ability to access celebrity programmers whose presence adds an important dimension of context and helps students feel like they already belong to the international community of coders. Job well done. | MOOC professor since students can't ask | Question | This class is especially useful for | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Just finished the course "a little bit" ahead of February. Would have been a resounding five-star review but some "mentor" thought it necessary to hijack a thread by a student asking about the necessity of more than one "break" in a while loop to lecture about what constitutes pseudo-code and what does not on a non-assignment question. This didn't contribute to the original posters question. Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are always a real pleasure! | what does not on a non-assignment | Question | This didn't contribute to the original | Negative | 0.97 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Just finished the course "a little bit" ahead of February. Would have been a resounding five-star review but some "mentor" thought it necessary to hijack a thread by a student asking about the necessity of more than one "break" in a while loop to lecture about what constitutes pseudo-code and what does not on a non-assignment question. This didn't contribute to the original posters question. Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are always a real pleasure! | didn't contribute to the original posters | Question | Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are | Negative | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course is fantastic! Even though you have never heard about programming. The professor is awesome and really clear in his explanations. It seems to me like a real time lecture: whatever is my question, he answers it on the very next minute! :) | real time lecture: whatever is my | Question | he answers it on the very | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I enjoyed this course. Thank you, Mr. Charles Severance for elaborate teaching and for making the sessions interesting with all the questions asked and time given for students to pause - think and continue. Since I had prior experience in programming I found it easy to clear this course. I will be enrolling for the next course in Python offered by you. This is my first Coursera course and I am impressed! | the sessions interesting with all the | Question | asked and time given for students | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | It is just amazing course for student who want to start learning. The content of this course is arranged such that student is completely understand why you study this course? and all those type of questions.. | course? and all those type of | Question | . | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | There should be section for more challenging and difficult questions , so that we can improve our problem solving ability without breaking the flow. | section for more challenging and difficult | Question | , so that we can improve | Negative | 0.62 | 5.0 |
| 7gLccRnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Content of the course is very good, useful and interesting, I greatly appreciate the knowledge delivered. But assignments could improve: -All module assignments seems mostly focalize on using Microstrategy tool. In assignments, i would like to see more exercises so that students learn through practice of business cases. For example, I prefer the way modules are organized in courses 1,2, and 3: concepts with examples, practice exercise, then assignment through similar exercise + a quiz. -In last assignment, there was no suggested solution(s) for the last question, i think this is missing for a good understanding. | no suggested solution(s) for the last | Question | i think this is missing for | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 7O843CBJEeWcQw5YiljpGw | Fantastic course, I enjoyed every module and the assignments. My only comment is for there to be full working answers to Assignments available afterwards so that people can understand where they went wrong if they did not get a question correct. I really enjoyed the aerodynamic section and look forward to more advance modules if any do happen to put out. Also from doing this module I defiantly want to learn much more about the wind Industry. | if they did not get a | Question | correct. I really enjoyed the aerodynamic | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| 7wfVmobsEeWgjA5cAvYgmw | Historically the basic background have been discussed. Effort was to make it nationalistic and emotional. Significance of Menorah as a symbol is absolutely missing. All the emphasis was on the Arch but the Arch looses its very significance without the menorah. So this should be covered or shared properly. For example Questions like why 7 hands needs to be replied. Why 3 legs needs to be replied Why painting ? This learning was not supposed to be in it. Someone might or might not like painting as a concept to learn and the course title also gave no indication towards that.. Wrong to make it a mandatory part as an assignment. | covered or shared properly. For example | Question | like why 7 hands needs to | Positive | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| 7wfVmobsEeWgjA5cAvYgmw | The last assignment is a time-waster and really poorly designed. Not all adults are into coloring; this is not elementary school and what's the point of coloring a picture of the Arch for you? Frankly I can't be bothered to look up sources for the descriptions of Roman soldiers' attire, and especially to figure what each number is pointing to. It wasn't even always clear what the numbers on the template referred to and two of the numbers were missing. In addition, there were a lot of glitches with the grading software. Finally our questions were almost never answered. Otherwise I found this to be an interesting course and I learned quite a bit from it, although it could have been condensed into three or four classes at the very most. The video lectures were videotaped a bit strangely, with Professor Fine often seeming to talk to an invisible person on the right or the left of the camera, instead of at the viewer. The videos I liked were mostly the office hours ones and the one with the interview with Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove at Park Avenue Synagogue. I could have gotten a very good grade on this course, but the last assignment ruined that. No, I will not be recommending this course or any others by this Professor. | with the grading software. Finally our | Question | were almost never answered. Otherwise I | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | It was a great primer if you are not familiar with this area. Especially topics like the DCF and different PE vehicles from a legal perspective can be hard to summarize into something tangible and short. The only recommendation I would make is a bit of brushing up on the wording, as it is sometimes hard in the quizzes to understand what exactly the question is (does the question relate to the previous question vs overall, etc) | quizzes to understand what exactly the | Question | is (does the question relate to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | It was a great primer if you are not familiar with this area. Especially topics like the DCF and different PE vehicles from a legal perspective can be hard to summarize into something tangible and short. The only recommendation I would make is a bit of brushing up on the wording, as it is sometimes hard in the quizzes to understand what exactly the question is (does the question relate to the previous question vs overall, etc) | exactly the question is (does the | Question | relate to the previous question vs | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | It was a great primer if you are not familiar with this area. Especially topics like the DCF and different PE vehicles from a legal perspective can be hard to summarize into something tangible and short. The only recommendation I would make is a bit of brushing up on the wording, as it is sometimes hard in the quizzes to understand what exactly the question is (does the question relate to the previous question vs overall, etc) | the question relate to the previous | Question | vs overall, etc) | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| 8GTGgDxOEeWdUgozVKt3nw | This is a rather pleasant course with a mix of advantages and disadvantages. For me, the advantages outweigh the negative sides. It slides on the surface of things, though, so don't expect to get too much 'in the know' after it. What I liked (and you might too) -> Short, visually engaging, clear in their purpose videos -> Interesting recommended/required literature/video content to solidify the concepts presented in the videos -> Comfortable layout of the transcripts so you can DL them and check them out as PDFs -> The course is focused on a very interesting, dynamic topic -- and lives up with a dynamic, fun and engaging approach What I didn't like that much -> Quizzes had some rather easy questions and as a whole weren't that serious. You can retake them -- you need to rely on your honesty to assess how much you've learned. -> The brisk nature of the videos is nice, but sometimes the narrative would jump from one point to another too abruptly. I still recommend the course for those who want to get their feet a little bit wet when it comes to innovation, digital affairs and basic entrepreneurship concepts. | -> Quizzes had some rather easy | Question | and as a whole weren't that | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 8GTGgDxOEeWdUgozVKt3nw | One of the best organized courses I have taken at Coursera. The videos set the stage for concepts in the course, this is followed by reading material which again comprises of public videos and articles. And the finally the test is not just on videos but also on the reading material and the beauty of how the questions are framed to test if you have really "understood" (not just crammed) the concepts. | and the beauty of how the | Question | are framed to test if you | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| 8GTGgDxOEeWdUgozVKt3nw | My suggestions: ** videos: pace is way too fast, and without much visuals and a clear structure/plan, hard to fully grab in one view. I don't think your 5mn max duration really makes sense. When the content is of interest, better to make it longer to improve clarity. Positive: you provide written/text versions of your videos. ** support documents: way too many and not always relevant ** quizzes: i don't think that asking us the name of a founder etc. really test anything about our understanding of our lesson. Too many irrelevant questions. All in all, it seems you applied one of the rules you discuss in this course: release fast, and adjust later on based on customers' feedback.. Unsure this is the right approach when it comes to online learning. I had higher expectations vs. Mines Telecom. | of our lesson. Too many irrelevant | Question | All in all, it seems you | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | be learned, is not diluted where | Question | are left in the students head | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | have to present results and projects, | Question | and answers to higher ups and | Positive | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | to me, than a flawed test | Question | and a reduction in my 100 | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | I think the questions in this course do not map as well as they could to the lectures. But, overall it's very helpful. | I think the | Question | in this course do not map | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | I really enjoyed this course and I have found a lot of similarities with issues and challenges that I face every day at work. This has been very useful to me bot as a way to get inspired on new ideas and techniques, and as a way to confirm what I am already doing. However, there were few occasions where I found the quizzes not to be clear enough. In some instances this was due to the fact that the question asked required some extra knowledge that couldn't possibly be achieved only by reading the course material or listening to the class. I was lucky I new the answers because of my personal experience but it seemed quite unfair in my opinion. Also lectures materials are very short and don;t provide any extra information. In other cases, the answers, especially when there were multiple answers didn't seem to be clear enough and sometimes contradicting what I had listened in the class. I don't remember specific cases at the moment, however I have left feedbacks throughout the course. You should have my feedbacks where I mentioned specific questions that in my opinion were confusing. Hope this helps, Giacomo | due to the fact that the | Question | asked required some extra knowledge that | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | I really enjoyed this course and I have found a lot of similarities with issues and challenges that I face every day at work. This has been very useful to me bot as a way to get inspired on new ideas and techniques, and as a way to confirm what I am already doing. However, there were few occasions where I found the quizzes not to be clear enough. In some instances this was due to the fact that the question asked required some extra knowledge that couldn't possibly be achieved only by reading the course material or listening to the class. I was lucky I new the answers because of my personal experience but it seemed quite unfair in my opinion. Also lectures materials are very short and don;t provide any extra information. In other cases, the answers, especially when there were multiple answers didn't seem to be clear enough and sometimes contradicting what I had listened in the class. I don't remember specific cases at the moment, however I have left feedbacks throughout the course. You should have my feedbacks where I mentioned specific questions that in my opinion were confusing. Hope this helps, Giacomo | my feedbacks where I mentioned specific | Question | that in my opinion were confusing. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | Course was ok. However, some of questions were not clear based on excerpt from support video. For example, quiz #1 question 7. Course was "general" overview of very important subject matter of Cyber Conflicts. Looking forward to a more specific and detailed course structure. PS: A course concerning Cyberwar in Space would be quite interesting. | Course was ok. However, some of | Question | were not clear based on excerpt | Negative | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | Course was ok. However, some of questions were not clear based on excerpt from support video. For example, quiz #1 question 7. Course was "general" overview of very important subject matter of Cyber Conflicts. Looking forward to a more specific and detailed course structure. PS: A course concerning Cyberwar in Space would be quite interesting. | support video. For example, quiz #1 | Question | 7. Course was " general" overview | Positive | 0.71 | 4.0 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | On the positive side I emphasise the importance of bringing this topic to a Coursera course. Also the readings were important and added value to the learning experience. On the other hand there are - in my opinion some aspects that made this course a not so rich experience. First, there are some audio issues in the videos. Second, the quizzes are excessively easy and the in video quizzes should not appear in the weekly assignments. If there are required readings, some of the quiz questions should relate to those readings. This way students had an incentive to go over those readings. But the most salient thing that made my experience very limited was the fact that one of the instructors - the one that presented most of the videos, was excessively nervous and all that he did was read the slides, in most cases not doing so naturally and committing errors, rephrasing, stopping, changing speed. I found it very, very difficult to follow along what he was saying. I had to focus only on the slides, otherwise I would get distracted. I think it is ok to be nervous or at ease, but the team should alerted him to this, and shoot the videos again and again until they had acceptable and balanced quality. A minor thing, I would like to had available the weekly slides to further reflection. I think the video issues that I've mentioned should been carefully planned before this course made it mainstream. This is my opinion. Hope it will help you for future improvements of the course and/or other offerings. Ricardo Oliveira | required readings, some of the quiz | Question | should relate to those readings. This | Positive | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Now that I have completed the course I'd like to give some feedback on how I think it was. 1. Quizzes are horrible. The fact we get no feedback on incorrect answers is not very helpful. There are only 3 quizzes where I missed just one question but no matter what, I can't get them correct. It would be helpful if there was some explanation why an answer your selected was wrong, a hint or something. Also while some of the quiz answers are obvious from watching the lessons, some are totally not and if someone doesn't have ANY programming experience I think they would find some questions almost impossible to answer. I have a programming background and out of all the quizzes I just missed 1 question on 3 of them, but I've been trying to answer them again, and again, and again and I just can't get them right. If there was feedback after taking a quiz I'm sure it would of helped. For those 3 quizzes, I took them so many times all the other answers are memorized and I just keep trying to get that one right. It's not helpful and then it turns into a "just keep selecting different things until it's right" thing instead of understanding it. 2. The course says it's for beginners to programming but I beg to differ. I think the way the material is presented and how the assignments are laid out I do not think someone(or not many people) would have gotten through that Week two ascii assignment. I thought they assignments in some cases were harder than the lessons. Maybe it's because they way they were explained in the lessons which brings me to #3 3. I do not think the instructors use the best/most clear examples to present the material to students. There are many easier examples to teach about looping than showing an Ascii art example. Because not only does the student have to grasp the concept of loops, then also have to think about ascii print logic. I think to someone with no experience would get pretty lost pretty quickly in this course. Some of the things explained in the lessons I would actually look up other videos of other people explaining it to get a clearer picture. 4. Some material is not consistent. Like in some assignments the text is wrong, for the Account code example, you never really mention the mOut or the interface the class uses which are in the example files and what to do with them when you write the other constructors (The course goes over this later when talking about the constructors and calling a constructor from another constructor but not that early on when you're working with the Account example files 5. It seems this course really isn't fully developed yet and is still going through it's growing pains Overall, I would say there are many other courses that are far better at teaching the basics of Java. For me, since I do have some Java experience and a programming background it wasn't too bad, But I'm thinking of the guy who has never touched a line of code before. I just don't think the course does a good enough job at explaining things to someone like that. I really hope the next courses in the specialization are better organized than this because starting with the next course because the next ones are more important to me than this course was only because of my prior background | quizzes where I missed just one | Question | but no matter what, I can't | Negative | 0.94 | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Now that I have completed the course I'd like to give some feedback on how I think it was. 1. Quizzes are horrible. The fact we get no feedback on incorrect answers is not very helpful. There are only 3 quizzes where I missed just one question but no matter what, I can't get them correct. It would be helpful if there was some explanation why an answer your selected was wrong, a hint or something. Also while some of the quiz answers are obvious from watching the lessons, some are totally not and if someone doesn't have ANY programming experience I think they would find some questions almost impossible to answer. I have a programming background and out of all the quizzes I just missed 1 question on 3 of them, but I've been trying to answer them again, and again, and again and I just can't get them right. If there was feedback after taking a quiz I'm sure it would of helped. For those 3 quizzes, I took them so many times all the other answers are memorized and I just keep trying to get that one right. It's not helpful and then it turns into a "just keep selecting different things until it's right" thing instead of understanding it. 2. The course says it's for beginners to programming but I beg to differ. I think the way the material is presented and how the assignments are laid out I do not think someone(or not many people) would have gotten through that Week two ascii assignment. I thought they assignments in some cases were harder than the lessons. Maybe it's because they way they were explained in the lessons which brings me to #3 3. I do not think the instructors use the best/most clear examples to present the material to students. There are many easier examples to teach about looping than showing an Ascii art example. Because not only does the student have to grasp the concept of loops, then also have to think about ascii print logic. I think to someone with no experience would get pretty lost pretty quickly in this course. Some of the things explained in the lessons I would actually look up other videos of other people explaining it to get a clearer picture. 4. Some material is not consistent. Like in some assignments the text is wrong, for the Account code example, you never really mention the mOut or the interface the class uses which are in the example files and what to do with them when you write the other constructors (The course goes over this later when talking about the constructors and calling a constructor from another constructor but not that early on when you're working with the Account example files 5. It seems this course really isn't fully developed yet and is still going through it's growing pains Overall, I would say there are many other courses that are far better at teaching the basics of Java. For me, since I do have some Java experience and a programming background it wasn't too bad, But I'm thinking of the guy who has never touched a line of code before. I just don't think the course does a good enough job at explaining things to someone like that. I really hope the next courses in the specialization are better organized than this because starting with the next course because the next ones are more important to me than this course was only because of my prior background | I think they would find some | Question | almost impossible to answer. I have | Negative | 0.69 | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Now that I have completed the course I'd like to give some feedback on how I think it was. 1. Quizzes are horrible. The fact we get no feedback on incorrect answers is not very helpful. There are only 3 quizzes where I missed just one question but no matter what, I can't get them correct. It would be helpful if there was some explanation why an answer your selected was wrong, a hint or something. Also while some of the quiz answers are obvious from watching the lessons, some are totally not and if someone doesn't have ANY programming experience I think they would find some questions almost impossible to answer. I have a programming background and out of all the quizzes I just missed 1 question on 3 of them, but I've been trying to answer them again, and again, and again and I just can't get them right. If there was feedback after taking a quiz I'm sure it would of helped. For those 3 quizzes, I took them so many times all the other answers are memorized and I just keep trying to get that one right. It's not helpful and then it turns into a "just keep selecting different things until it's right" thing instead of understanding it. 2. The course says it's for beginners to programming but I beg to differ. I think the way the material is presented and how the assignments are laid out I do not think someone(or not many people) would have gotten through that Week two ascii assignment. I thought they assignments in some cases were harder than the lessons. Maybe it's because they way they were explained in the lessons which brings me to #3 3. I do not think the instructors use the best/most clear examples to present the material to students. There are many easier examples to teach about looping than showing an Ascii art example. Because not only does the student have to grasp the concept of loops, then also have to think about ascii print logic. I think to someone with no experience would get pretty lost pretty quickly in this course. Some of the things explained in the lessons I would actually look up other videos of other people explaining it to get a clearer picture. 4. Some material is not consistent. Like in some assignments the text is wrong, for the Account code example, you never really mention the mOut or the interface the class uses which are in the example files and what to do with them when you write the other constructors (The course goes over this later when talking about the constructors and calling a constructor from another constructor but not that early on when you're working with the Account example files 5. It seems this course really isn't fully developed yet and is still going through it's growing pains Overall, I would say there are many other courses that are far better at teaching the basics of Java. For me, since I do have some Java experience and a programming background it wasn't too bad, But I'm thinking of the guy who has never touched a line of code before. I just don't think the course does a good enough job at explaining things to someone like that. I really hope the next courses in the specialization are better organized than this because starting with the next course because the next ones are more important to me than this course was only because of my prior background | the quizzes I just missed 1 | Question | on 3 of them, but I've | Negative | 0.9 | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | The Assignment questions are unclear due to which a lot of time has to be invested. | The Assignment | Question | are unclear due to which a | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | the course is very interesting, but the questions in tests are a bit too detailed and thus, too difficult; overall, during the course I learned a lot of new things, discovered new possibilites behind the gut flora and deepened my overall knowledge; if only the certificates were a bit cheaper... | course is very interesting, but the | Question | in tests are a bit too | Positive | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| 93w6xNzBEeSvjyIAC3jXcg | Excellent course. Very informative yet I finished the course with so many new many questions that only a deeper study would answer! Kudos to all involved! | course with so many new many | Question | that only a deeper study would | Positive | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| 94jQ-3EnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Videos are helpful and well done. Though I don't like the questions in the middle of a video, they interrupted the flow too much. | done. Though I don't like the | Question | in the middle of a video, | Negative | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 94jQ-3EnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I gave the first course a very bad review and the second course an ok review. Now I am very impressed about how they are constantly working to improve all aspects of the course. For example: Now you can download the assignments on word (before you had to copy item by item from a pdf) and the test are not so ambiguous as they used to be. I remember, in the past, to continuously have the feeling that questions in test were too open to interpretation and that the right answer will be defined by some random detail, now they are definitely more straight forward. I also happened to have to log-in in the Online University where I got my Master's Degree years ago and saw their interface is still the same 0 user friendly and a very bad feeling of impossible communication so it really helped me appreciate the effort in improving the course. I really appreciate how they are willing to apply agile methodology to the course and with each iteration they make it better! | to continuously have the feeling that | Question | in test were too open to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | Excellent On-line Course in Creative Writing developing Character. Amy Bloom was an exceptional Instructor, both in her lesson planning and video lectures and interviews, as well as in her caring monitoring of the class involvement, progress and questions. Thank you, Amy, for offering us your knowledge in such an interesting and engaging form! | of the class involvement, progress and | Question | Thank you, Amy, for offering us | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | The material is interesting and relevant. I found the assignments challenging and the review questions slightly lengthy. | the assignments challenging and the review | Question | slightly lengthy. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | This was a great course...so much detail and she asked to many questions that it really makes you think and then helps you to determine how to apply it to your story. Amy Bloom was very easy to listen to and learn from. The assignments were thought provoking and definitely helped me to hone my writing skills. | detail and she asked to many | Question | that it really makes you think | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | I didn't find this module very helpful and some of the assignments were truly confusing. I wish there was more "meat" in the sessions and more availability to access the lecturers more readily when there was confusion. I don't like the fact I pay money for other people to "assess" my work when half of them don't even read my submissions properly. Or the question. Or both. So if the lectures don't stretch me, I find my money spent unwisely. | read my submissions properly. Or the | Question | Or both. So if the lectures | Negative | 0.66 | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | A very poor course. The teacher just ask questions in order to stimulate students, but doesn't teach anything. Incorrect terminology (Ah-ah? Please, study Aaron Allston works before inventing other words). Test are cool. | poor course. The teacher just ask | Question | in order to stimulate students, but | Negative | 0.85 | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | Unlike the other two lecturers in this course, this module's lecture is very very bad. I always felt like coming back and learning more with the other two lectures but with this one I had to force myself to complete the lessons. First of all his English is bad, sometimes you cant understand what he means even with subtitles. He repeats many things through out the course and he tries to teach by asking questions all the time. As a guy who takes and make his own notes, I found it really difficult to put together a sentence he was saying. It seems that nobody proof read his lectures before posting it on coursera. I feel that it was done blindly and in a rushed way. If possible can you please change the videos and also the script. Please make it more understandable. | he tries to teach by asking | Question | all the time. As a guy | Negative | 0.78 | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I learned next to nothing from this course; the professor just rambles on and on jumping schizophrenically from aspect of aspect. One moment he's talking about physics, and in the same sentence he's suddenly talking about whether the game should have a crafting system. Some of the information even seems out of touch. He doesn't state any information with certainty because he always tends to add "or not!" or "...maybe!" after sentences, leaving you to wonder if there's anything left to take away from the lessons. The entire course could be condensed down into a "list of questions to think about while designing your game world" - it really doesn't contain anything more than that. Sometimes entire segments are dedicated to trivial things (such as "your game could have invisible walls!"), whereas in other segments he works through a hundred different questions without going in-depth to any of them. Speaker is hard to understand due to his lack of proficiency with the English language and the subtitles are often incorrect. On the plus side, you will learn what a "ha-ha" is. | down into a " list of | Question | to think about while designing your | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I learned next to nothing from this course; the professor just rambles on and on jumping schizophrenically from aspect of aspect. One moment he's talking about physics, and in the same sentence he's suddenly talking about whether the game should have a crafting system. Some of the information even seems out of touch. He doesn't state any information with certainty because he always tends to add "or not!" or "...maybe!" after sentences, leaving you to wonder if there's anything left to take away from the lessons. The entire course could be condensed down into a "list of questions to think about while designing your game world" - it really doesn't contain anything more than that. Sometimes entire segments are dedicated to trivial things (such as "your game could have invisible walls!"), whereas in other segments he works through a hundred different questions without going in-depth to any of them. Speaker is hard to understand due to his lack of proficiency with the English language and the subtitles are often incorrect. On the plus side, you will learn what a "ha-ha" is. | he works through a hundred different | Question | without going in-depth to any of | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I was a little bit dissapointed with this course because, in my opinion, it is not structured well, it is just an amount of questions we need to think about. It has ended but I have the feeling I still have no good idea about what is world design for video games... | it is just an amount of | Question | we need to think about. It | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | It's often not clear the point the professor of this course is trying to make. Instead he often seems to ramble pointing out a 100 little questions that a world designer might ask himself/herself during the process without ever focusing on any. The reader is left not knowing what the key take aways were | ramble pointing out a 100 little | Question | that a world designer might ask | Positive | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| 9zXfqf2IEeSnBSIACi-PoQ | Professor use very understandable language and focus on the sense/rationale of the question rather than on the formulas. | focus on the sense/rationale of the | Question | rather than on the formulas. | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| a0fzUULWEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The course is very complete on it's subjects and points, but should have more slides and some times be more grafic about some examples, this makes the lessons boring and harder to follow because there is a massive amount of informations. Also have too much questions on the quizzes. | of informations. Also have too much | Question | on the quizzes. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| a0fzUULWEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very well designed and implemented course. Practical and pragmatic. Videos interesting and easy to watch. Smart questions and quizzes that promote learning. The work load is not too demanding, but leaves you feeling like you earned the passing scores. Just right. Highly recommended. | interesting and easy to watch. Smart | Question | and quizzes that promote learning. The | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | This is a great overview of terrorism and counter-terrorism, and identifies the many flaws due to lack of knowledge policymakers still make in dealing with this phenomena. The rigor of the course is challenging but not impossible. I like that a section on Foreign Fighters has now been added to further enhance the course. I will use this knowledge to apply to another topic I am researching - gang dynamics and gang violence, which I believe shares many similarities. My only criticism is of the final, which I found to ask several questions about some obscure facts and did not truly test for the body of knowledge in my opinion, hence the 4 not 5 stars. | which I found to ask several | Question | about some obscure facts and did | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | Good fist MOOC experience. Pity the google hangout wasn't up but never mind. Would prefer more questions in the videos to check I'm listening attentively. Would also like to see a list of all the reading material in one place rather than per lectiure. Then I can go to each web page and save as epub usiing the crhome dotepub extension and copy to my ereader. Anyway you can streamline that kind of admin task would be appreciated. You ought to spruke ways to read the web pages, because reading it on a laptop or even tablet is a bit tedious. Also with the PDFs, some info on saving them as resizable PDFs would be appreciated. Course content was good and I like the coursera front end. Need someway to manage tthe growing library of reading material that accumalates not just with this one course but if you do multiple MOOCs over time, Thank! | but never mind. Would prefer more | Question | in the videos to check I'm | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | This will answer many questions you have about what is going on these days regarding terrorism. | This will answer many | Question | you have about what is going | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | It is a great theme, but at many points the course focuses on "who said what", regarding authors and papers, and emphasizes this type of question throughout all the tests. I think a longer course where these statements and papers could be properly discussed and explained would easily be a 5-star rating. The instructor clearly knows a lot on the subject and the material is top quality. | papers, and emphasizes this type of | Question | throughout all the tests. I think | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| a0OJ1ha4EeWKlgqs7LdhRw | This is a five week course. While it was very informative, I would have preferred longer lectures and more material to read. I finished the 5 week course in 5 days - hence making me question the value of it. In saying that, I really did enjoy it and the professor was great! | 5 days - hence making me | Question | the value of it. In saying | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| a3f86i8hEeWv_w7cMMH1Uw | May be there is a technical glitch in answering the Questions of daily assignments while selecting options of the question type 'select all that apply '. | a technical glitch in answering the | Question | of daily assignments while selecting options | Positive | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| a3f86i8hEeWv_w7cMMH1Uw | May be there is a technical glitch in answering the Questions of daily assignments while selecting options of the question type 'select all that apply '. | assignments while selecting options of the | Question | type 'select all that apply '. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| a3f86i8hEeWv_w7cMMH1Uw | Very clear ideia about strategy and it so well design (and taught) that you think you are dealing and learning a basic and simple thing but as soon as you start doing the exercises you see how challenging are the questions and reasoning behind it. | you see how challenging are the | Question | and reasoning behind it. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very well structured and extremely clear videos and also helpful staff and mentors to our questions. Assignments were very diverse and challenges us to fully understand the concept and functions of the program. | helpful staff and mentors to our | Question | Assignments were very diverse and challenges | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very well done, I loved the lectures and enjoyed the assignments. I had no previous experience of programming and I found the explanation of the concepts very clear. The main critique for me is that ,for some of the problems, not having a background in physics might be..well..too challenging! It took me hours only to read about the theory behind the question, to find out the appropriate formula to use in the code, whilst writing the actual program was pretty quick. Other than that, I would certainly recommend the course. | read about the theory behind the | Question | to find out the appropriate formula | Positive | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | This course was ultimately frustrating to take. There is a gap in the material presented and the skill set needed to complete the assignments. Using optional methods to complete this course, such as to use the textbook and forums, is too time consuming (deciphering a text book) or insulting (forum mentor responses). To to solve the assignments, it usually involved trying to 1. refreshing yourself in math concepts not used by a beginner or non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the poorly written questions were asking, 3. scouring the textbook or internet for functions or strategies never covered in the lecture, 4. having snarky and unhelpful remarks by mentors. The unprofessional behavior of the mentors was especially hard to handle. Even from the early week's lectures we learned about semantics, and how simple mistyping could lead to programming errors, so I wrongly assumed the mentors would understand that some of us would probably make simple errors. For example, in the final homework I had a simple mistake, but since we cannot show code, it led to more frustration and a mentor basically just saying "we covered this already." I'm well aware of what we covered, but if someone is stuck on a problem, there needs to be a much better way of helping that person. I did not want to write in the forums after my initial foray in the forum led one mentor to just tell me "your logic is wrong", and the spout the same simple strategies of the lecture that could not help on the complex assignment. There probably will not be anything fixed with this course since it seems like it has been the same for years now. Please fix the questions, stop using Project Euler, and let people directly message code to mentors. Will probably save time rather than try to blindly (and frustratingly) explain code over and over again. Ultimately, I felt that unless someone either has previous experience in coding, or has no work to do other than to do this course, it still is not worth it to just obtain a certificate. | deciphering what exactly the poorly written | Question | were asking, 3. scouring the textbook | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | This course was ultimately frustrating to take. There is a gap in the material presented and the skill set needed to complete the assignments. Using optional methods to complete this course, such as to use the textbook and forums, is too time consuming (deciphering a text book) or insulting (forum mentor responses). To to solve the assignments, it usually involved trying to 1. refreshing yourself in math concepts not used by a beginner or non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the poorly written questions were asking, 3. scouring the textbook or internet for functions or strategies never covered in the lecture, 4. having snarky and unhelpful remarks by mentors. The unprofessional behavior of the mentors was especially hard to handle. Even from the early week's lectures we learned about semantics, and how simple mistyping could lead to programming errors, so I wrongly assumed the mentors would understand that some of us would probably make simple errors. For example, in the final homework I had a simple mistake, but since we cannot show code, it led to more frustration and a mentor basically just saying "we covered this already." I'm well aware of what we covered, but if someone is stuck on a problem, there needs to be a much better way of helping that person. I did not want to write in the forums after my initial foray in the forum led one mentor to just tell me "your logic is wrong", and the spout the same simple strategies of the lecture that could not help on the complex assignment. There probably will not be anything fixed with this course since it seems like it has been the same for years now. Please fix the questions, stop using Project Euler, and let people directly message code to mentors. Will probably save time rather than try to blindly (and frustratingly) explain code over and over again. Ultimately, I felt that unless someone either has previous experience in coding, or has no work to do other than to do this course, it still is not worth it to just obtain a certificate. | for years now. Please fix the | Question | stop using Project Euler, and let | Negative | 0.82 | 1.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Homework assignments are much more difficult and time-consuming than the contents of the lectures, especially for the last three weeks. Fortunately, the tutors are very patient and respond to your questions quickly. | very patient and respond to your | Question | quickly. | Positive | 0.97 | 4.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | The teachers and TAs are really helpful when you asked questions online. | are really helpful when you asked | Question | online. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Excellent course, it makes programming look easy. The lessons are very clear and the tutors are always ready to help with any question one may have. | always ready to help with any | Question | one may have. | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very good course, with clear explanations of the key concepts. However, I felt hindered in being able to complete all tasks in the homeworks each week as many questions alienate someone like me with little mathematics/physics background. I feel if the questions were more general I would have been able to perform better each week. Very good lecture content though. | the homeworks each week as many | Question | alienate someone like me with little | Positive | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very good course, with clear explanations of the key concepts. However, I felt hindered in being able to complete all tasks in the homeworks each week as many questions alienate someone like me with little mathematics/physics background. I feel if the questions were more general I would have been able to perform better each week. Very good lecture content though. | mathematics/physics background. I feel if the | Question | were more general I would have | Negative | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| A97cQkR4EeawVwo82dylKw | +: I reached my goal for the course and now I understand a bit about R. I succeeded to pass within much shorter time than anticipated course duration. The course certificate is posted to my Linkedin profile. -: No human mentors on the course discussion forum - all questions answered by other students. Automatic tests in swirl are too restrictive and do not accept perfectly correct student solutions slightly different to those anticipated by the authors. Week 2 assignment is much different from the reading material. Nothing taught about charting in R. Overall comment: I think it is good value for money. | the course discussion forum - all | Question | answered by other students. Automatic tests | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| A9OckSDZEeWXzxJxfIL00w | This course is extraordinary. The 2 professors who present the material are both experts in their respective areas: Holocaust history and Comparative Literature. They present the material not only from a profound academic understanding, they are both children of the Holocaust. And so they convey the material in a deeply personal and human way as well. Using the Holocaust as a momentous backdrop, the professors challenge the students to examine important philosophical questions throughout the course. The books and movies discussed are absolutely wonderful. Finally, the relationship between Murray and Peter, that of deep trust and respect, contrast so powerfully with the inhumanity of the topic they present. This is one of the best courses that I have ever taken in my life, including my time during college. | the students to examine important philosophical | Question | throughout the course. The books and | Positive | 0.72 | 5.0 |
| A9OckSDZEeWXzxJxfIL00w | The presentations raise vital questions , dis-aggregates historical experience and has generated interest in me to study the issues further . Many thanks to the Professors. | The presentations raise vital | Question | , dis-aggregates historical experience and has | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course was one of the most useful of my undergraduate and graduate career. I have been a long time Buddhist practitioner, primarily in the Zen tradition and found it difficult to integrate, both in my own practice and through understanding popular literature. This course provided much of the intellectual background that I have wanted for a long time. I am particularly interested in the discussion of Buddhist Meditation as a religious vs. secular practice, and the cultural content of the various practices one encounters. David Germano's lectures are incredibly information dense. I learned to download the transcript and outline and highlight them as well as listen to the audio. Now I wouldn't cut out a thing. I particularly appreciate the many guest lectures, interviews and guided meditation sessions. All of my questions are not yet answered but I have some clearer understanding and ideas for moving forward. | guided meditation sessions. All of my | Question | are not yet answered but I | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Excellent guided meditations and a very well organized and well presented overview of the Lesser Vehicle of Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. The layout of the course was particularly good; with a theme each week and a set of lectures exploring the practice in question from a cultural and spiritual viewpoint, a set touching on the scientific aspect of the practice, a set outlining the history of the practice, and a series of guided meditations. | of lectures exploring the practice in | Question | from a cultural and spiritual viewpoint, | Positive | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Most of the interviews were very interesting and useful addition to the lectures. Prof. David Francis Germano questions were of good standard. | the lectures. Prof. David Francis Germano | Question | were of good standard. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| afay6xVFEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | I'm several months into this specialization. It seems to practice little of what it preaches in its design and pedagogy. I've paused repeatedly because I find the whole experience needlessly clunky and frustrating, and I rarely feel like I've learned much at the end of the assignments. I often wonder if anyone on the UCSD/Coursera side ever actually tries to complete the assignments. The quiz is missing key links and the questions read as if they were written by someone who's first language is not English. Pretty sloppy effort. | is missing key links and the | Question | read as if they were written | Negative | 0.98 | 2.0 |
| AMBr8zelEeWJaxK5AT4frw | This course had too much content in one-run and some of the topic-assignments had too much confusing questions and answers which were hard to figure out made this course a bit a bad experience. The same goes for the end-assignment project where much functionality was required within a short time -- and the course was delayed so many of the students could not fit it into their schedule. | the topic-assignments had too much confusing | Question | and answers which were hard to | Negative | 0.81 | 2.0 |
| aPM0Nx7iEea8agoSdQeRvQ | The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems : -little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums -the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures -the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content). In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse. | final exam has severe problems with | Question | (form not content). In more detail, | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| aPM0Nx7iEea8agoSdQeRvQ | The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems : -little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums -the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures -the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content). In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse. | the final exam, some of the | Question | don't even contain all the content | Negative | 0.83 | 2.0 |
| aPM0Nx7iEea8agoSdQeRvQ | The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems : -little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums -the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures -the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content). In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse. | request multiple answers but have single | Question | boxes and/or the reverse. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I would suggest this really very good introductory course as a starting point to everyone interested in different philosophical questions. | to everyone interested in different philosophical | Question | | Positive | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | very interesting course, it provides several question and relative theory in history. And it would make you to think. So i like this course. | very interesting course, it provides several | Question | and relative theory in history. And | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Great course, excellent topics... they are about interesting themes and questions in the world. Thanks | they are about interesting themes and | Question | in the world. Thanks | Positive | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | very nice introductory course looking at questions of | very nice introductory course looking at | Question | of | Positive | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | From an engineer perspective this was hard to see obvious value in but i enjoyed the thought provoking topics. Some of the tests were very hard and the questions were not directly form the lectures while others were. Some presenters were hard to understand due to accent. | tests were very hard and the | Question | were not directly form the lectures | Negative | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I have really enjoyed this course and it has motivated me to learn more. I particularly liked the course as it showed us philosophy itself rather than a reiterated history of philosophy which is usual. It gave us hands on experience of problems and questions being asked. The accompanying book has also been of great value to me. It enabled me to read the lectures before listening to them and will be a useful handbook to keep me in touch with the issues covered. The questions and further reading at the end of each chapter is also of great value to me. A big thank you to all the team. I have been totally absorbed by the course. | hands on experience of problems and | Question | being asked. The accompanying book has | Positive | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I have really enjoyed this course and it has motivated me to learn more. I particularly liked the course as it showed us philosophy itself rather than a reiterated history of philosophy which is usual. It gave us hands on experience of problems and questions being asked. The accompanying book has also been of great value to me. It enabled me to read the lectures before listening to them and will be a useful handbook to keep me in touch with the issues covered. The questions and further reading at the end of each chapter is also of great value to me. A big thank you to all the team. I have been totally absorbed by the course. | touch with the issues covered. The | Question | and further reading at the end | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | In as much as I enjoyed the course at times the dialect was difficult. However, the reason for 4 stars as opposed to 5 stars is due to a lack of ability to have receive an answer to a difficult question answered by an instructor as opposed to another class participant who necessarily did not have any better grasp of the question than myself. Given that I certainly enjoyed the course overall. | receive an answer to a difficult | Question | answered by an instructor as opposed | Positive | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | In as much as I enjoyed the course at times the dialect was difficult. However, the reason for 4 stars as opposed to 5 stars is due to a lack of ability to have receive an answer to a difficult question answered by an instructor as opposed to another class participant who necessarily did not have any better grasp of the question than myself. Given that I certainly enjoyed the course overall. | have any better grasp of the | Question | than myself. Given that I certainly | Negative | 0.71 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I almost gave this two stars, but the content of the course is excellent, and I didn't want to take away from that. To start off, for an introductory class, this covers a large amount and variety of material. It might be better served to break it up into even smaller sections over the course of something like ten weeks or even twelve instead of cramming it all into seven weeks. The lectures are enjoyable, but often they consist of nothing but the professor speaking. There are so many new terms, definitions, and ideas being introduced that it would help if these lectures also included slides or graphs with some of these ideas being broken down, as you would have in a regular class on a projector or on a chalkboard. Frequently, the practice quizzes are just the same questions from the video lectures repeated over again, and offer very little prep for the actual quizzes, which are painfully pedantic for a non-credit course. Every section has a different style of quiz, which is hard to prepare for. I am someone who usually tests well and have been struggling with most of these, even when I read all of the handouts and take notes. So, if this same course could be broken up over a slightly longer time and the quizzes could be more uniform, the lectures contained some slides, the course would be a brilliant introduction to philosophy overall. It's got all of the meat there, the presentation just makes it tough to digest. | practice quizzes are just the same | Question | from the video lectures repeated over | Negative | 0.81 | 3.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | A very good introduction to major branches of Philosophy. While some questions on assignments were rather vague, and some lectures rather dull (I don't think I bothered watching the videos from the third week on... just relied on the- excellently put together!- handouts). Overall, a great course to take for a beginner to the world of Philosophy :D | major branches of Philosophy. While some | Question | on assignments were rather vague, and | Negative | 0.7 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | course because Philosophy asks and points | Question | that are really interesting. These questions | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | questions that are really interesting. These | Question | make you view and question life | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | These questions make you view and | Question | life with different points of view. | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I gave this course 5 stars because the content does match the description, a general overview of the topic of Philosophy. It introduces the student to the concepts involved with the study of and the approach to Philosophy from various topics. It does not go into any specific philosophers very deeply, and instead focuses on the general study or overview of what is going on in the "philosophical world" as of 2013. The course has not been updated, from what I can tell from that time. The Forums are "there" and the class is "supposed" to be live, but it did not have that feel to it. It was more of a "study on your own" experience and yes, we have a forum area. i found it not to be very active after the first week, (introductions were encouraged) but perhaps taking this course over the Christmas holiday (that fell in the middle of the course) was not the best time. I am near the end of the course and have put a lot of time effort and extra reading into it, but it does not seem this will be rewarded i.e by a certificate with distinction, at least there does not seem to be active involvement to that extent. 2-3 of the lectures had "extra"videos" of the professors addressing forum questions, but I do think these were outdated or from the first run of the course (?) as they seems to be talking about topics that were not necessarily in the forums at the time. I cannot determine that for certain, but, it was my impression. I would HIGHLY suggest purchase of the book that goes with this course, due to week 6, when clearly the topic is not entirely covered in the notes nor the lecture (my opinion only) and the book was needed to get thru the quiz. The professor that week had an accent and spoke very fast, and even listening in a slower speed did not seem to help much. The book is a worthy purchase, look for it on EBAY, or Amazon or a Used Book website. The book does go deeper on all topics and again, especially for week 6 and it is looking like possibly week 7 as well are best studied with the book as well as notes provided by the course. Again, this is an overview course, and it is interesting. If you are looking to study specific philosophers in depth - this is not the course. It is the course however to take before taking others or to review or learn what is going on in the area this area of study and it did hold my interest. As others have commented the final week touches upon time travel and the professor has introduced interesting aspects that involve the philosophical in this unit. Each week a different instructor presents information so you are switching learning styles weekly which is, I think made a more smooth transition if you actually have the book and the chapter that the instructor wrote. I would recommend it for at least another 6 mo to a year - after that (say 2017 perhaps the lectures should be freshened up, as new information may be out there, or at least they should tape something that says, "yes this was originally taped in 2013, however the info is still on target" or if not then add a lecture that updates the course to the latest in that area of philosophy. Overall, this being my second Coursera class I have found it to be of high quality, and worthy of my investment to obtain the certificate that is offered. And I do thank all of the professors who participated in this collaboration, it is again, a very interesting course that I think is a "must take" course if one is to really understand what is "going on" with Philosophy. | videos" of the professors addressing forum | Question | but I do think these were | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Very interesting but the video ended abruptly when I was expecting a question. There appears to be no link to the next part of the course. I would have found a facility to rewind helpful. | abruptly when I was expecting a | Question | There appears to be no link | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It was very informative and interesting. Provided some very intriguing questions for reflective thinking. | and interesting. Provided some very intriguing | Question | for reflective thinking. | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | An excellent course that makes you ask and answer really important questions about life. | you ask and answer really important | Question | about life. | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Very good teaching strategy. Takes you through ideas and gives you examples. Has a couple of questions each video to keep your attention. It is a very interesting subject, even if the teaching was bad, but the lectures add even more by taking their time with concepts. Keep doing what you're doing. I would take other courses by this school if they were similarly designed. Thank you. | you examples. Has a couple of | Question | each video to keep your attention. | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Such a eye-opener. Philosophy was a hobby until I ran into this course. It structure my thinking. It made me realize the schools of thought that have tackled the questions I've dived into are as many angles to view a given issue. | of thought that have tackled the | Question | I've dived into are as many | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Amazing introduction to the basics of philosophy - I wish I had such in university or at some other early point. It shows you breadth, scope and problems philosophy deals with. Course tries to maintain simplicity and clarity of explanations even for very complex things and this is exactly what you need for a subject which is normally deemed too complex for beginners or gives an explanations which for uninitiated do not add clarity and rather raise even more questions. Loads of fun and topics which may make you think more and induce your curiosity. | clarity and rather raise even more | Question | Loads of fun and topics which | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It seems I have failed at week three without having to ask for the answers for three questions. | ask for the answers for three | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | An absolute delight to understand Philosophy in such creative manner.I recommend this course to anyone who questions -existence, our knowledge, and to everyone looking for a better understanding within their respective fields. | recommend this course to anyone who | Question | -existence, our knowledge, and to everyone | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | The course content is very superficial. The pass mark is very high for a course I had taken because of a mild interest. You have to get 80% to pass. One unit in particular was very confusing. It took me 7 attempts to pass it as I had no idea what the first question was about and there was no guidance as to what I was doing wrong. | had no idea what the first | Question | was about and there was no | Negative | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I enjoyed this course very much. Like many survey courses that are well-conceived, this one stimulated enthusiasm for learning more about some of the topics. So much so in my case that I have enrolled in another course from the University of Edinburgh relating to philosophy and science. I expect it will be equally thought provoking as its delivery involves some of the same faculty. I believe this course would be improved if there was a mechanism for constructive feedback on missed exam questions that illustrate how the questions at hand are integral and in context to the presentations and supplemental readings (some of which I pursued). Simply referring a student back to the course outline does not assist learning when a student does not understand why a chosen answer is incorrect in context. I realize this is a tall ask for an online course. In my own experience as a university faculty member having developed computer assisted instruction and simulations (physiology and anesthesiology) there is no replacement for contact and conversation with an engaged teacher whose interest lies in helping people learn. That said, I reflect that my constructive comments are made in light of my overall satisfaction that this course has succeeded in stimulating interest in learning more about the interface and complementary nature of science and philosophy. Borrowing a phrase from the course itself, "well done". | for constructive feedback on missed exam | Question | that illustrate how the questions at | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I enjoyed this course very much. Like many survey courses that are well-conceived, this one stimulated enthusiasm for learning more about some of the topics. So much so in my case that I have enrolled in another course from the University of Edinburgh relating to philosophy and science. I expect it will be equally thought provoking as its delivery involves some of the same faculty. I believe this course would be improved if there was a mechanism for constructive feedback on missed exam questions that illustrate how the questions at hand are integral and in context to the presentations and supplemental readings (some of which I pursued). Simply referring a student back to the course outline does not assist learning when a student does not understand why a chosen answer is incorrect in context. I realize this is a tall ask for an online course. In my own experience as a university faculty member having developed computer assisted instruction and simulations (physiology and anesthesiology) there is no replacement for contact and conversation with an engaged teacher whose interest lies in helping people learn. That said, I reflect that my constructive comments are made in light of my overall satisfaction that this course has succeeded in stimulating interest in learning more about the interface and complementary nature of science and philosophy. Borrowing a phrase from the course itself, "well done". | exam questions that illustrate how the | Question | at hand are integral and in | Positive | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | A great introduction to many philosophical areas, well planned, well tested and with very good professors. The only downsides were a couple of slightly ambiguous questions (which, having just watched an hour of philosophical teaching one could easily start wondering what they technically meant) and, to utter frustration, lack of a statement of accomplishment. Nevertheless, if philosophy is of it's own right your target, it is a course well worth taking. | were a couple of slightly ambiguous | Question | (which, having just watched an hour | Negative | 0.88 | 4.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It is a very entertaining broad introduction to the topic of philosophy in general. The lecturers are very knowledgeable and are very good teachers. However, I wish there would be a more detailed treatment of the topics in question. I look forward to their future course on Philosophy of Science, as I believe that by focusing on a more narrow topic, they will be able to go a bit more in depth. | detailed treatment of the topics in | Question | I look forward to their future | Positive | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Raise some philosophical questions for brain storming. However, not much direction of exploring further where philosophy should go. | Raise some philosophical | Question | for brain storming. However, not much | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| awHMl_57EeSmPCIACyqGBw | Very interesting lessons. The teachers are very nice and humorous. A lot of examples and invoking questions are presented in class. | A lot of examples and invoking | Question | are presented in class. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Data, our “raw” material, becomes plentiful. Let’s learn form it. Thanks to constant progress in information technologies, this increasing production of data is an outstanding opportunity to improve our knowledge of subject matters we care about, e.g. environment, health, markets… Properly analyzing these data in the scope of addressing specific questions is not trivial. But it can be learn. And if there were one place where one could acquire these skills and become anxious to grow in that field, this would be the Coursera Regression Models course. Data analysts, like any professionals, need her/his set of tools. Good tools make good patricians. The Coursera Data Science Specialization that includes this Regression Models class is where one can learn how to use the right tools and reduce them into practice. Passionate instructors who obviously take great care in communicating effectively the knowledge they master teach these courses admirably. Highly recommended course and specialization, There are so many unanswered questions, so many new relationships to uncover. Learn how. | in the scope of addressing specific | Question | is not trivial. But it can | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Data, our “raw” material, becomes plentiful. Let’s learn form it. Thanks to constant progress in information technologies, this increasing production of data is an outstanding opportunity to improve our knowledge of subject matters we care about, e.g. environment, health, markets… Properly analyzing these data in the scope of addressing specific questions is not trivial. But it can be learn. And if there were one place where one could acquire these skills and become anxious to grow in that field, this would be the Coursera Regression Models course. Data analysts, like any professionals, need her/his set of tools. Good tools make good patricians. The Coursera Data Science Specialization that includes this Regression Models class is where one can learn how to use the right tools and reduce them into practice. Passionate instructors who obviously take great care in communicating effectively the knowledge they master teach these courses admirably. Highly recommended course and specialization, There are so many unanswered questions, so many new relationships to uncover. Learn how. | specialization, There are so many unanswered | Question | so many new relationships to uncover. | Positive | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | This course goes on a very fast pace and simply does not have the charm of all the other courses in the specialization. I understand that a lot of content is covered within a month, but there should be supplementary course material available. Moreover, TAs should be more active on the forums. I have seen most of the questions just being discussed among the students. A little disappointed. Will probably have to watch all the material again to have confidence with it. | I have seen most of the | Question | just being discussed among the students. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Better than Stat Inference, and gave some reasonable intuition, but could be improved I think by focussing on more understanding and less maths and formulas. Some of it did seem to be - here' s a formula, plug the numbers in to get the quiz question right, whereas in reality (in the world of work) that question is completely unrealistic - you have raw data and you need to do the regression and understand what it means. | numbers in to get the quiz | Question | right, whereas in reality (in the | Positive | 0.67 | 3.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Better than Stat Inference, and gave some reasonable intuition, but could be improved I think by focussing on more understanding and less maths and formulas. Some of it did seem to be - here' s a formula, plug the numbers in to get the quiz question right, whereas in reality (in the world of work) that question is completely unrealistic - you have raw data and you need to do the regression and understand what it means. | (in the world of work) that | Question | is completely unrealistic - you have | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| B07TSjljEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | I loved the assignment but getting answers to questions was hard. I think overall the course was terrific and I would recommend it to my coworkers. | the assignment but getting answers to | Question | was hard. I think overall the | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Great course with useful tips and organized materials. However, some of the materials (recommended tools, hyperlinks, etc) are outdated so it would be great if they can refresh them. Also, the in-course quizzes are too easy to the point it seemed quite stupid - please include more meaningful questions in the in-video quizzes. | stupid - please include more meaningful | Question | in the in-video quizzes. | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Even though the theoretical part was well put together, case study questions were too vague and should have been better thought out. This part of the specialization did not meet my expectation. | was well put together, case study | Question | were too vague and should have | Positive | 0.83 | 3.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Extremely well designed course in my opinion. Very clear and to the point information delivered well. Great introduction to the subject. Assignments were not too daunting and enough resources were offered that directly related to the questions asked. | offered that directly related to the | Question | asked. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | I am not impressed with this course so far. The quizzes and assignments are out of order with the materials being presented - the questions on each come from readings and lecture content that have not been introduced to the audience at that particular point in the course. The first module was a very, very basic outline of a generic analysis process, and really has nothing to do with digital marketing analytics in particular. | the materials being presented - the | Question | on each come from readings and | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Great course. Like the slides and the way it structured. It could be broader if not so Google centralized and more international. For example in Russia there is Yandex.ru (ya.com) which controls 75% of search market and in China there is Baidu and others and no Google and Facebook. These questions is not highlighted in the course. | and no Google and Facebook. These | Question | is not highlighted in the course. | Negative | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| BkWivH6zEeSXPiIACxeBkA | Interesting course - good topics and novel angles used in approaching the topics. Plus intellectually engaging way of discussing over management issues. However - really annoying quiz questions. And good portion of the right and wrong answers were highly debatable - you had to know exactly what was the angle during this specific course. I still graded with 5 stars, hoping they will make some changes in grading. | issues. However - really annoying quiz | Question | And good portion of the right | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| BkWivH6zEeSXPiIACxeBkA | The videos were ok, reading materials added some value, although about three years have passed since the launch of the original course and the materials are all the same. I expected that something new would be introduced to give it a bit more value. But what is very questionable is the architecture of the quizzes. On one hand it goes way beyond the simplicity of the lenght of the course, assume a mindset that extends well beyond this course, and on the other hand after doing the quizzes some times and observing the considered right and wrong answers, some of them - to say the least, are highly ambiguous and express a personal point of view of the instructor in what is right or wrong (what by itself is not very reasonable), and lack ultimately in objectivity regarding the materials covered. I am not by any means saying that the quizzes are hard or simple, I am saying that they lack objectivity and go beyond the scope of the materials and try to put the student on a state of trying to guess what the instructor's opinion is regarding the question at hand. In some cases the 'best' answer chosen is absurd. Highly questionable this approach. Again, I believe that evaluations should be challeging, but these quizzes are a bit esoteric, they lack objectivity. Nonetheless, it is important to say thank you for being present in this platform and having the will to put it together. I wish you luck for the future. | the instructor's opinion is regarding the | Question | at hand. In some cases the | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | covers the basics of finance, compounding, NPV, IRR, questions are practical. | basics of finance, compounding, NPV, IRR, | Question | are practical. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | One of the more challenging courses I believe because it requires a background in accounting and proficiency in Excel. The questions really challenge you and your mastery of the lectures. | accounting and proficiency in Excel. The | Question | really challenge you and your mastery | Positive | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | course material or teaching. 5- All | Question | were boring and calculation-intensive, and I | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | the whole boring set of 10 | Question | just to tell me that it | Negative | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | While Professor Kaul's enthusiasm and passion for finance is inspiring, his lectures are not entirely helpful come time to face assignments. He often rambles through the material, spending more time talking about his life rather than the material at hand. When he decides to finally talk about the material, it presented in a disorganized and confusing fashion. If he developed a disciplined schedule with material that was on par with the assignments, this course would not have been nearly as frustrating; challenging assignments, I agree, are crucial for learning the material well. I just wish I didn't have to spend more time browsing the internet finding material pertinent to answering his arbitrarily open-ended questions. | pertinent to answering his arbitrarily open-ended | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| bT0Wwd7yEeWlNQ4GEaPmcw | Great idea but unprofessional design and programming. Looks like nobody double-checked it before starts to offer it, especially for money. Almost every Quiz and separate questions has programming bugs. Waiting for ver 2 ASAP. | money. Almost every Quiz and separate | Question | has programming bugs. Waiting for ver | Negative | 0.66 | 2.0 |
| bu-bs9_HEeSNQCIAC2-J5Q | Very informative course. Teaches all the fundamentals till they're painfully obvious. It has helped me understand the skeletal structure of the music I listen to and has helped answer many questions. Thank you. | to and has helped answer many | Question | Thank you. | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| bu-bs9_HEeSNQCIAC2-J5Q | Generally this course has good subjects and syllabus. In some parts of course they teach reasons of the subjects and it becomes more logical for me. The only reason that I gave four stars is lecture videos are not enough for the final exam. Especially for part 2 of final exam, some questions are more detailed for given lectures. However, it was a good introduction for music theory. | part 2 of final exam, some | Question | are more detailed for given lectures. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Nice simple course with simple questions | Nice simple course with simple | Question | | Positive | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A bit too much math in the questions, although it seemed (in the videos) that we could skip it. I'm very visually oriented (and also a MENSA member), and I would have explained more with graphics. Or at least not have to much 'equations' in the questions. | bit too much math in the | Question | although it seemed (in the videos) | Negative | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A bit too much math in the questions, although it seemed (in the videos) that we could skip it. I'm very visually oriented (and also a MENSA member), and I would have explained more with graphics. Or at least not have to much 'equations' in the questions. | have to much 'equations' in the | Question | | Negative | 0.71 | 4.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Immensely enjoyed a highly technical course diligently presented in a very comprehensive way. It answered many questions I had in my mind but had not been answered | very comprehensive way. It answered many | Question | I had in my mind but | Positive | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | An exciting adventure through the most recent discoveries in the worlds of astronomy, astrophysics and related sciences. Without requiring any mathematics or physics skills, the course is useful for amateurs like myself trying to understand the fundamental questions and possible answers about the origin of our universe, its laws and structure as well as its fate. It is a pleasure to follow professor Murayama clarify these wonderful subjects. | myself trying to understand the fundamental | Question | and possible answers about the origin | Negative | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | While the course materials themselves were very useful, the quizzes didn't feel like an effective test of the material and consisted of very few questions, which didn't leave room for error (especially problematic because some questions were subjective). | material and consisted of very few | Question | which didn't leave room for error | Negative | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | While the course materials themselves were very useful, the quizzes didn't feel like an effective test of the material and consisted of very few questions, which didn't leave room for error (especially problematic because some questions were subjective). | for error (especially problematic because some | Question | were subjective). | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The extra/outside content provided is great. As others have stated, but clearly not adjusted, some of the quiz questions aren't clear items covered in the material (which is frustrating). | not adjusted, some of the quiz | Question | aren't clear items covered in the | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Overly-remedial information, but that is not what earns this course such a poor evaluation from me. The poor evaluation comes from the composition of the review quizzes: The end-of-section quizzes ask questions to which there can be more than one correct answer, yet only a single response will receive credit. Example: "A recommended solution to a problem is valued by an executive because..." Followed by four possible answers: One of which is clearly incorrect while one makes an awful assumption. These two choices can be eliminated easily. However, the final two options are BOTH UNARGUABLY CORRECT, but only one was briefly mentioned in the material (reading or video), and thus only that one receives credit. Unfortunately, this demonstrates the course creators' desire to value a student's memorization of the instructor's own unique words over the student's assimilation of the course content and ideas. Course-takers beware, this course seems more tailored to stroking Ms. Bravo's ego than to you actually learning anything of commercial value. | review quizzes: The end-of-section quizzes ask | Question | to which there can be more | Negative | 0.62 | 1.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | I think the teacher was very welcoming, but the content was less than enough to answer the quizzes. In the quizzes, every answer choice was correct and there wasn't any possible way to discern. What the teacher said and complemented with the lectures didn't match with the question answers. So, my score is "2". | the lectures didn't match with the | Question | answers. So, my score is " | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | There wasn't a lot of information inside the video and the test's questions hade multiple possible answer. However, the links to ressources such as HarvardReview or Inc.com were pretty good and usefull. | inside the video and the test's | Question | hade multiple possible answer. However, the | Negative | 0.72 | 2.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The teacher of this course talks toooo fast ! I`m for example a french educated student, so I prefer to take courses with a teacher who talks in a comprehensive way in which I can understand everything he says in order to proceed in my work and then to benefit everything in this course. Concerning the quiz, in the all of the quiz there is questions not related to what already said from the teacher or in the articles required to read. I red the articles coupes of time but in a specific questions, the answers, it seems, that we should answer from our own memory because badly it`s not mentioned in any article or in the video of the teacher. Thanks | all of the quiz there is | Question | not related to what already said | Negative | 0.66 | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The teacher of this course talks toooo fast ! I`m for example a french educated student, so I prefer to take courses with a teacher who talks in a comprehensive way in which I can understand everything he says in order to proceed in my work and then to benefit everything in this course. Concerning the quiz, in the all of the quiz there is questions not related to what already said from the teacher or in the articles required to read. I red the articles coupes of time but in a specific questions, the answers, it seems, that we should answer from our own memory because badly it`s not mentioned in any article or in the video of the teacher. Thanks | of time but in a specific | Question | the answers, it seems, that we | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Less required reading and more targeted lectures would make it great. It often seemed that the questions in the quiz weren't properly covered in the material provided. | great. It often seemed that the | Question | in the quiz weren't properly covered | Positive | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The test questions are abysmal. | The test | Question | are abysmal. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| C-Eq4BUkEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | The lecturer was excellent and not only expounded in depth, Soren Kierkegaard's thinking and ideas, he put them into there relevant context in addition to delving into the differences he had with his contemporary thinkers. Furthermore the Professor asked thought provoking questions that allowed the viewer to think and reflect how Kierkegaard's ideas are relevant in our time and our lives. | Furthermore the Professor asked thought provoking | Question | that allowed the viewer to think | Positive | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| c8dPVxUQEeWpKw4zIcjkHw | The quality of videos was pretty poor. The question and answer format of discussion was not a great idea (might have been great for kids videos). Doesn't enthuse us to continue the course. Thanks however for putting the effort and making this available to everyone for free. Really appreciate that. | of videos was pretty poor. The | Question | and answer format of discussion was | Negative | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| c9w_wD0cEeS9XCIAC0GF3g | Really enjoy the energy of the professor. More practice questions would take this to the next level. | energy of the professor. More practice | Question | would take this to the next | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| CEwR00UZEeWb8RJf7Z1H0w | This will probably be the worst course in the specialization and for good reason. The entire course is designed to overload you with terminology to get you up to speed for the follow courses. As a result this is a pretty bland and boring 4 weeks. The assignments feel like tedious filler an a lot of the questions in them are very poorly worded. The saving grace is that the course is just 4 weeks and can be completed in a fairly short amount of time. | filler an a lot of the | Question | in them are very poorly worded. | Negative | 0.97 | 2.0 |
| CJs0DTk_EeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Great start on Javascript functionality and numerous questions every lesson, so you see where you lack information. | start on Javascript functionality and numerous | Question | every lesson, so you see where | Negative | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| cKvqIUXWEeSAFiIACyyIrg | Some course content are not updated (links not working). Very few people in discussions. Didn't see TAs. I had some questions on the forum but not answered. | Didn't see TAs. I had some | Question | on the forum but not answered. | Negative | 0.73 | 3.0 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | Great course! My only complaint is that on the last quiz, the information given in the lesson and the quiz questions do not match up, making it a guessing game between two answers on some questions. Such as, the lesson might say something happens between the 1940's and 60's, but then possible answers on the quiz might be 1940-50's or 1950-60's. You get many chances on the quizzes though, so it's really not a big deal, just a nuisance. The heart and lung anatomy section was explained better in the videos than in my university lectures! | in the lesson and the quiz | Question | do not match up, making it | Negative | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | Great course! My only complaint is that on the last quiz, the information given in the lesson and the quiz questions do not match up, making it a guessing game between two answers on some questions. Such as, the lesson might say something happens between the 1940's and 60's, but then possible answers on the quiz might be 1940-50's or 1950-60's. You get many chances on the quizzes though, so it's really not a big deal, just a nuisance. The heart and lung anatomy section was explained better in the videos than in my university lectures! | game between two answers on some | Question | Such as, the lesson might say | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | a brief list of summaries on historical events of veterinarian and Dick college would help in learning the 5th session. Putting questions like those in the final quiz doesn't make as much sense... other quizes are wonderfully set. great entry course to be a veterinarian. | in learning the 5th session. Putting | Question | like those in the final quiz | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | This course is excellent. It uses lecture, practice and question effectively to let learners master in Grammar and Punctuation. Greetings Mubashar Rehman | excellent. It uses lecture, practice and | Question | effectively to let learners master in | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good course, although no proctor or supervision at all. No place to go for questions or help. Please be aware this is primarily designed for non-native english speakers. This was not clear to me when I joined. And although the content is thorough, it is dull and the assignments uninspiring. If you want to know more about grammar, good (be sure to bone up through, because she assumes a lot about what you might remember from high school and for those of us over 40 ... hmmm). If you want to feel inspired to write something of value and interest to yourself or others, not so good. Over all I would not recommend this course or series of courses. And would suggest seeking out a course that has some kind of proctor or supervisory help available. | all. No place to go for | Question | or help. Please be aware this | Negative | 0.83 | 3.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good one , some parts was even useful for what I was seeking for - IELTS General Writing Flash Practices and in-Video Questions was interesting too | General Writing Flash Practices and in-Video | Question | was interesting too | Negative | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good contents and practise question to help understand the knowledge and concept. | Good contents and practise | Question | to help understand the knowledge and | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | A great course, put together in a manner to make learning easy. A lot of practice questions not only made the courmade the concepts very clear | learning easy. A lot of practice | Question | not only made the courmade the | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | This course is helpful and I have learned quite a bit about punctuation and sentence structures. However, while things like tense are important, to be able to differentiate 12 tenses contributes relatively little to typical academic writing. Rather, I have had trouble with seemingly simple questions such as when to use past tense and when to use present tense in a literature review. But these aspects are probably the most useful when it comes to pracital writing. It would be helpful if these issues are addressed. Also, the use of articles is a common weakness for a lot of students (to "the" or not to "the"). It is helpful to include this component too. | have had trouble with seemingly simple | Question | such as when to use past | Positive | 0.73 | 3.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Great course, with extensive exercises and relevant questions and follow up. | course, with extensive exercises and relevant | Question | and follow up. | Positive | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| c_rkuRoBEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The most terrible course I have ever seen in my life and on this site. For some of quiz questions, you feel like you are dumb because you can not make connection between lectures and quizzes. I really wanted to learn java on coursera but It seems impossible to me. Focusing on rbg values and image thingies too much and making me feel uncomfortable at quizzes after watching all those lectures are the main reasons of giving 1 star. | this site. For some of quiz | Question | you feel like you are dumb | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| d086Bc9YEeSS_CIACzcAUg | Thank you for the opportunity to have a better life through many understandings found in the Rutgers State University course Soul Beliefs: Causes and Consequences. The information was refreshing, enlightening and cut to the quick on many questions I had about soul beliefs. | cut to the quick on many | Question | I had about soul beliefs. | Positive | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| d0bq5PkAEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | Excellent but need more challenging questions both in theory and programming part. | Excellent but need more challenging | Question | both in theory and programming part. | Positive | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| d1D5SCmGEeWEOhKP8F7imw | The quality of the lectures is very good but the material of the course has some little deficiencies, at least compared to the previous courses of the specialization: -Some slides are not completed. Dr. Khurram Afridi completes these slides in the lecture, but there are not the slides with the final result. I had to take screen captures to save this final result. -Subtitles impede to watch correctly the video when explaining in the subtitles area. I had to switch off the subtitles to be able to watch the video correctly. -I missed the pdfs of the homework assignments. I like to work on them off line, so I had to enter into the assignments to be able to see them. -I also missed the questions alternated during the videos as in previous courses. For these reasons I only give 4 stars instead of 5. | see them. -I also missed the | Question | alternated during the videos as in | Positive | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| d1WkxNf4EeSFEiIAC0CpYw | I can't stop watching the lessons. Lovely demonstrations with a real quartet. So organized, the actual teachers respond to our questions. | the actual teachers respond to our | Question | | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| D5GKj_UHEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | i found this a great overview of animal welfare, i enjoyed the videos, and found the questions relevant to the content. | enjoyed the videos, and found the | Question | relevant to the content. | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| D5GKj_UHEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | The course was very concise and accessible. I enjoyed the fact that there was a lot of people involved in the course, each one of them presenting their field of expertise. Sometimes a quiz-based course can be a bit dull, but the hangouts and comments let you question certain topics or practices and add depth to the discussion. I would recommend it to anyone interested in a brief, general introduction to animal behaviour and welfare (do keep in mind that it is not an animal ethics course, but the information provided can help you question or strengthen ethical positions). | the hangouts and comments let you | Question | certain topics or practices and add | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| D5GKj_UHEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | The course was very concise and accessible. I enjoyed the fact that there was a lot of people involved in the course, each one of them presenting their field of expertise. Sometimes a quiz-based course can be a bit dull, but the hangouts and comments let you question certain topics or practices and add depth to the discussion. I would recommend it to anyone interested in a brief, general introduction to animal behaviour and welfare (do keep in mind that it is not an animal ethics course, but the information provided can help you question or strengthen ethical positions). | the information provided can help you | Question | or strengthen ethical positions). | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | After teaching English for many years, I found answers to old questions and new challenges to work on. The course was worth every minute I invested in it. | years, I found answers to old | Question | and new challenges to work on. | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Some of test questions are vague and create a kind of misunderstanding. I hope this will be considered as a frienly advice, not a claim. | Some of test | Question | are vague and create a kind | Negative | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions (especially the one in the final tests like "who inspired the angel and devil debate ":) Thanks for your work!!! | I didn't enjoy much are some | Question | in the tests because sometimes they | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions (especially the one in the final tests like "who inspired the angel and devil debate ":) Thanks for your work!!! | point and reducing the amount of | Question | (especially the one in the final | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| dB1qehnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | i liked everything except some of the quizzes since some questions were unclear or wrong (but still, I was a beta tester, so all great) - thank you! | some of the quizzes since some | Question | were unclear or wrong (but still, | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | has way many blank gaps and | Question | and all these questions are clarified | Negative | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | gaps and question, and all these | Question | are clarified by students - each | Negative | 0.7 | 4.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | a person to answer all the | Question | about the course. Thanks. | Positive | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | I think the course covers pretty good range of topics and gives you a good information. I really liked the peer review assignments and I think they put pressure on you to achieve the goals and learn from them. I definitely did not like the multiple answer questions or the last assessment. The questions are not well presented and there is a clear violation of the help and error recovery heuristic for me. I also did not like the video set-up. The quality of the course material is really poor and disappointing. I would like to believe that on a UI course people would have come up with a better and more intuitive set-up. Finally, I would like to have a document in the course resources that students can download and keep that contains all the information we taught like quick reference guide. Again we can download the videos but when you are looking to fins something specific searching in 2-3 videos is not fun at all. | did not like the multiple answer | Question | or the last assessment. The questions | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | I think the course covers pretty good range of topics and gives you a good information. I really liked the peer review assignments and I think they put pressure on you to achieve the goals and learn from them. I definitely did not like the multiple answer questions or the last assessment. The questions are not well presented and there is a clear violation of the help and error recovery heuristic for me. I also did not like the video set-up. The quality of the course material is really poor and disappointing. I would like to believe that on a UI course people would have come up with a better and more intuitive set-up. Finally, I would like to have a document in the course resources that students can download and keep that contains all the information we taught like quick reference guide. Again we can download the videos but when you are looking to fins something specific searching in 2-3 videos is not fun at all. | questions or the last assessment. The | Question | are not well presented and there | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Great course! the final exam is very odd though, the "correct" answers didn't fit easily in what was taught. several subjective questions | in what was taught. several subjective | Question | | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| Ddn-hlfcEeWTbwotamPtlQ | This course should retrieved from Coursera. It is plenty of mistakes. One of the quiz is repeated. Questions do not have relation with lectures. | One of the quiz is repeated. | Question | do not have relation with lectures. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| dh3wTQZNEeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This was a really fun few weeks. I truely enjoyed the assignments of doing something different. I have to think about something. And firstly I always came up with 'normal' stuff. But just before the due date I had great ideas. I 'wasted' a lot of paper. Cutting, glueing, folding, writing questions, instructions. For the assignments I used the towns forest, which starts behind my place. I had not been there for years. And I liked, to have 'connected' with it again as a result of this course. I learnt many techniques. So I can choose one, that suits me and my problems-to-be-solved most. Thank you so very much for this course. | of paper. Cutting, glueing, folding, writing | Question | instructions. For the assignments I used | Negative | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| DJfupMVPEeWLqBIulHpzDw | Course has not been updated. Wrong answers in quiz (eg week 3 quiz on progressivity), videos getting blocked at review question point, etc. I am checking out. | progressivity), videos getting blocked at review | Question | point, etc. I am checking out. | Negative | 0.83 | 1.0 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | Excellent!! I love the organization of the themes, the professor and his calm voice, the passion that he showed for education... everything. I have a master's in Education, most of the concepts were known by me but they were presented i such way that I not only enjoyed, I expanded what I knew. The evaluation process was great. Different than other course I have been taking, the questions were actually well thought out aiming to assess my understanding of the subject as a whole, not my attention to details of the lecture. | course I have been taking, the | Question | were actually well thought out aiming | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | This course is very interesting . It provides clarity on fundamental questions about learning. Must watch for teach | . It provides clarity on fundamental | Question | about learning. Must watch for teach | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | This course was very boring and very frustrating. Long long slow lectures with lots, and lots, and lots of questions, and no answers. The briefest of comments on potentially interesting people or topics, but no links to enable those to be followed up. Quizzes on concepts not covered in the material. Conflicting descriptions of assessment requirements. Discussion moderators who continually referred you back to the course material which did not contain the information that people were looking for. Before taking this course I could find only one negative review, which I dismissed as probably being a minority. Having taken the course, I agree with that review wholeheartedly. I did learn a couple of things, despite everything, but I would not recommend this course. Please upgrade it substantially. | lots, and lots, and lots of | Question | and no answers. The briefest of | Negative | 0.81 | 1.0 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | The course changed my perception on education and now I do ask questions on why, how and what in relation to teaching. Many a times we remain silent and this is seen as acceptance of the system as it exists. | education and now I do ask | Question | on why, how and what in | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | Many great thought-provoking concepts of learning theory introduced here. The course is easy to follow, although the the quizzes sometimes contained questions that didn't seem connected to anything discussed in the videos - but I could have missed something, I suppose. I recommend listening at x1.25 speed because the professor has a very ponderous style of speaking. | although the the quizzes sometimes contained | Question | that didn't seem connected to anything | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | Was a better course than the other reviewers tended to complain about. Taking the examples literally might not be the best actionable route to completing a lot of the quizzes and final exam, its mostly theory on how to build sustainable and efficient systems while at the same time ensuring the security of them has the least effect on the usability of the information system or applications in mind. Some of the videos were somewhat off topic and seemed to not actually be related to what was on the quizzes at the end of the weeks topic. Some questions on quizzes weren't explained or only hinted at in the videos only to be the main topic in the next week. Other than that, a solid course. | end of the weeks topic. Some | Question | on quizzes weren't explained or only | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | I think this was a very well-thought out course. In my opinion, it was well presented, contained very useful information, was accessible to someone with a limited background in cybersecurity, and used plenty of real examples to back-up its claims. An area that could use improvement is testing: some of the quizzes provided questions that seemed hard to follow, particularly the "choose | testing: some of the quizzes provided | Question | that seemed hard to follow, particularly | Positive | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | Videos with guest speakers were unhelpful. Also, quizzes were not accurate and poorly written questions. | were not accurate and poorly written | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| dQ2zhQ_-EeWkZg42h4yEYQ | Best teachers, they are very responsible for questions. | teachers, they are very responsible for | Question | | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| Dv10gNfIEeSALyIAC9SBuw | Great course. The classes and teacher are very qualified. The only flaw that I found was the tests, specially the last one. Seems that the questions in Portuguese weren't translated correctly. | the last one. Seems that the | Question | in Portuguese weren't translated correctly. | Negative | 0.7 | 4.0 |
| Dvgs4iAXEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Besides Songwriting from Berklee this was the most practical and useful course I have taken so far. It answered so many questions I had and gave so valuable tipps for the modern musician. Thanks a lot! | so far. It answered so many | Question | I had and gave so valuable | Negative | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| DYv7azSfEeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | A bit too basic and quiz questions did not reflect the real value of what was being learnt but was just poised at encouraging us to memorize sequences of facts more than anything. | A bit too basic and quiz | Question | did not reflect the real value | Positive | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| DYv7azSfEeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | The course is helpful for covering many aspects of project and product management, still it seems to be to basic which put in question whole specialization. | be to basic which put in | Question | whole specialization. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| DzPiWTeDEeWCYBKNeFwojw | The content of the course is basically on how hotels distribute their contents (their rooms to sale). The different channels are explained, such as the OTA, brand.com, meta search, and direct channels. The course also includes a very interesting point of view from OTA where Expedia and Booking.com explains their offers to hotels. I would love to have the views from hotel too, which are missing here. The suggested readings are quite a lot, basically from the online sites, many from the hotel and travel industry (skift, for example). Those readings are very useful in digging deeper on the subject. The assignments, are, on the other hand, quite weak. It consists of 4 peer review assignments. The first week contains a pretty quantitative analysis, but the other 3 assignments are basically conversational and just repeating what you have learnt in the class. The non-noted quizzes were pretty easy, you almost no need to think deeper to answer those questions. | to think deeper to answer those | Question | | Positive | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| DzPiWTeDEeWCYBKNeFwojw | In my humble opinion it is necessary to review some points in this module: 1) Video Content: Making more dynamic, switch between explanations and slides in full screen. Only explanations, it is very tiring to attend the classes. The video would be ideal as shown in week 4 of this Mooc: How the hotel shouldnt work with Expedia? or video: How to hotel shouldnt work with Booking.com? 2) Analysis requested: In the first week the requested analysis was of a very high level, it required knowledge of financial analysis and hotel area. In my case, I felt much difficulty because I do not have any knowledge in the hotel industry. And analyzing the exercise, I realized it was necessary to have knowledge of financial ratios of profitability and a certain familiarity in the hotel industry. I left a comment on the discussion board stating that I was not feeling safe to do the exercise. However, there was no demonstration by the teachers of the course. In short, I was not feeling prepared, let alone analyze colleagues. The first time, did not get the minimum score. The second time, with the longest time, I could better perform the exercise. But rather it was the result of review of financial ratios and other other accessories. I realized that those who examined me in the first and second time, had little or no idea about financial analysis. And another point that struck me was that one of the people who fell for me to analyze, was all in white and the person apologized for failing to do. With nothing to analyze, I did not think fair to give a low rating, so I preferred not to analyze. If the person left blank, something needs to be revised. When mounting a course, you have to take into consideration that there are different levels of students: beginner, intermediate and advanced in the subject matter. The first week was not to have been given is analysis. It could have been the third or fourth week of this Mooc, so it would have time for a further deepening of the matter addressed. 3) Amount of content: Adding the video, quiz and analysis, are about 30 content. It is very tiring and little time for such content. Could decrease the amount of video and quiz, relocating to another week course or Mooc. 4) Feedback: Teachers need to leave a contact way (facebook, twitter, etc.) and be active in Coursera forum or leave a wizard to ask questions when needed. 5) Notes: He missed the weight of the notes. I found a little confusing the allocation of notes. 6) Curriculum: Missed curriculum (biography) of teachers. No contact information. 7) Books: Missed suggestions of books in the hotel industry. Anyway, these are only observed points in order to contribute to development of course. Thanks for listening. | or leave a wizard to ask | Question | when needed. 5) Notes: He missed | Negative | 0.91 | 3.0 |
| d_71NKdPEeSOWCIAC2iDyw | I appreciated the professor's clear and articulate lectures, together with the use of in-lecture questions to reinforce the main concepts. I may not completely agree with all of the points raised by the good professor, but the perspective he offered on historical events was greatly appreciated. I also appreciated that approaching the methods of war within different cultures would have required a much larger and longer course and so I am grateful to the professor for placing his focus where he did. It is unfortunate that my timing in participating in this class reduced my ability to properly interact with other students during the progress of the lessons, but I have to accept responsibility for that aspect. Still, I consider this to be one of the more exceptional courses offered by Coursera and credit that largely to the presentation skills of the good professor. I thank him for sharing his knowledge and this opportunity to consider a topic I would not ordinarily study in such detail. | together with the use of in-lecture | Question | to reinforce the main concepts. I | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| d_71NKdPEeSOWCIAC2iDyw | Very interesting course. The first few weeks are little beat boring, discussing some features that are obvious, but as the course continues the questions become more untresting, especially those which concern war with politics. As a whole it is a very good course, which gives the student a broad understandung of the issue. recommended!! | but as the course continues the | Question | become more untresting, especially those which | Positive | 0.91 | 4.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | The instructor kept referring to different authors and books as if she wasn't sure what she was saying was true. She was just reading off a screen and not actually teaching. Might have been easier, and a bit more beneficial, to just read a well prepared set of slides on my own. The first set of quiz questions also weren't really relevant to what was in the actual lesson. Quite disappointed in this part of the specialization as the other sections had in depth presentations, clear information, lots of examples and great slides. | own. The first set of quiz | Question | also weren't really relevant to what | Positive | 0.66 | 2.0 |
| e4SzF9c1EeS-LCIAC3icWw | The answers to the test questions can be improved significantly. Most of them can be both justified or refuted. | The answers to the test | Question | can be improved significantly. Most of | Positive | 0.94 | 2.0 |
| EA0hyTUGEeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Best course in the specialization so far. Well thought out and explained. The course still has the same problem with quiz questions being at times obtuse, but overall it's a really good course. | has the same problem with quiz | Question | being at times obtuse, but overall | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Thank you very much for the course - it was really interesting and I've found some useful techniques to be used in my work. However, there are some moments to be improved to make course better: correct questions statements and lack of communication between partipants (there were a lot of interesting topics to discuss but only very few users were involved in discussions, thus, discussion were very poor). But still thank you very much again!!!:)) | improved to make course better: correct | Question | statements and lack of communication between | Negative | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It is pretty solid. I can see that issues with quiz question ambiguity and under-checking of learning criteria are getting better. Problems were not serious, they are better in this course than in the last, and they are better in the next one, and they are better in the next one than this one. | can see that issues with quiz | Question | ambiguity and under-checking of learning criteria | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Amazing course introducing real and workable concepts. I will be applying this to my workflow immediately. Only downfalls being a little ambiguity in some questions and some `multiple choice` questions only allow one answer (radio buttons). Thank you! | being a little ambiguity in some | Question | and some `multiple choice` questions only | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Amazing course introducing real and workable concepts. I will be applying this to my workflow immediately. Only downfalls being a little ambiguity in some questions and some `multiple choice` questions only allow one answer (radio buttons). Thank you! | some questions and some `multiple choice` | Question | only allow one answer (radio buttons). | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Eeb34jesEeWXuQopUhAqaw | I posted a question on the last week on the forum and never received an answer from a mentor. I had one response from another student which did not actually address the issue of my question and I had several views. And it wasn't as if there were a lot of questions posted. One course mentor could have easily answered all of them. | I posted a | Question | on the last week on the | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Eeb34jesEeWXuQopUhAqaw | I posted a question on the last week on the forum and never received an answer from a mentor. I had one response from another student which did not actually address the issue of my question and I had several views. And it wasn't as if there were a lot of questions posted. One course mentor could have easily answered all of them. | actually address the issue of my | Question | and I had several views. And | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Eeb34jesEeWXuQopUhAqaw | I posted a question on the last week on the forum and never received an answer from a mentor. I had one response from another student which did not actually address the issue of my question and I had several views. And it wasn't as if there were a lot of questions posted. One course mentor could have easily answered all of them. | if there were a lot of | Question | posted. One course mentor could have | Negative | 0.87 | 3.0 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | Overall a great beginning to the course. It does comes across as a systematic dive into the rather complex world of health care in US. My only concern is related to some of the questions in the quizzes. Sometimes they are too literal, like year of XYZ etc, which comes across as test of memory rather than an evaluation of knowledge. Else I am enjoying. Am on speed. And keen to continue. | is related to some of the | Question | in the quizzes. Sometimes they are | Positive | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| eL9HZ2ItEeWpHwqwM9Gg0w | Very bad course. No videos, just an interactive textbook. The course states all you need is "high school level biology" yet you require coding knowledge for the very first quiz. there are side questions on the first week like does this algorithm runs in O(k * l * x^2) or O(xllogk) without ANY explanation. I guess you can find much much better book about bioinformatics, and as this course is nothing more then a book i recommend a better one. | very first quiz. there are side | Question | on the first week like does | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Really nice course to clear the concepts regarding the new existing technologies and all the related terms. The tests and mid lecture questions really helped in testing the grasp of the course. | terms. The tests and mid lecture | Question | really helped in testing the grasp | Positive | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | very high level syllabuses, limited application description of BD, poor quiz and questions designed | description of BD, poor quiz and | Question | designed | Negative | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | While testing the questions should be increased. | While testing the | Question | should be increased. | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | The material itself isn't bad, but the course instructors never respond to questions. What's the point of the class if I can't get my questions answered? | the course instructors never respond to | Question | What's the point of the class | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | The material itself isn't bad, but the course instructors never respond to questions. What's the point of the class if I can't get my questions answered? | class if I can't get my | Question | answered? | Negative | 0.86 | 1.0 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | There is a lot of self-teaching with these courses because there are no professors present to reach out to with questions. In addition, the course staff do not always respond promptly nor are they fully knowledgeable about all aspects of error messages that may arise out of coding. At times the code that were provided in the lecture videos were out of date and a lot of time was spent on googling to find the updated code. This is definitely not a beginner coder course and I do not recommend it to anyone who has not coded before. | present to reach out to with | Question | In addition, the course staff do | Positive | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| eo6NBCQPEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | I haven't quite completed this course yet (the end is in sight!) but I want to report how challenging and worthwhile it has been. I have had a lot of my questions answered and I am inspired to read and review the content again as I am sure I will understand a lot more. Thank you. | have had a lot of my | Question | answered and I am inspired to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| eo6NBCQPEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | A very very helpful course that gives practical solutions in a classroom and school-wide setting. It was structured well and easy to follow. If I had one comment, it would be that some of the quizzes did not line up with the course so well (you had to study ahead to answer questions). Other than this, really worth the amount of time spent studying! | had to study ahead to answer | Question | Other than this, really worth the | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | on the forums to help with | Question | which is disappointing since it is | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | quiz alone with 10 or less | Question | is not enough. The course ramps | Negative | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very disappointed. Having coding assignments weekly would have been very helpful. The quizzes often asked for information that was never presented in the lessons. The instructors were never present in the forums to answer questions. The final project asked us to do things that hadn't even been mentioned in the course materials. I would not recommend this course to anyone. The only reason it got 2 stars instead of 1 was because I did learn some Swift. | present in the forums to answer | Question | The final project asked us to | Positive | 0.84 | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | a web based course since the | Question | often are exactly what i want | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | ? (2) Some of the quiz | Question | I don't find useful. For this | Negative | 0.74 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | in order to answer the quiz | Question | since they are really in depth. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | the way to learn. But some | Question | are quite artificial, for example, there's | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice | Question | about " what are the different | Positive | 0.69 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Was pretty good overall. I feel there was a lack of in-lecture questions in the first few videos. That aside, great course. | there was a lack of in-lecture | Question | in the first few videos. That | Negative | 0.97 | 4.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I'm dropping this course because it's just SO poorly conceived. Three weeks in, and I can't really articulate what I've actually learned (which leads me to believe that the answer is "not very much"). The major problem is that this course has no clear objective. And I don't mean that the individual lessons don't have objectives - I actually mean that the entire course doesn't know what it wants to be and the instructors seem to have bypassed this critical question. I have a background in Python, and I was under the impression that this course would teach me how to program in Swift (seems like a fairly straightforward goal). But it isn't that at all. If I were to summarize this course (perhaps a little uncharitably, because I'm annoyed at the time I wasted) it would be: some dudes with a computer talk about some cool features of a programming language. I'm fairly baffled by the fact that there was no thought put into which examples might best illustrate the features they were trying to teach. Which-examples-might-best-illustrate-the-feature-I-am-trying-to-teach is pedagogy 101. They would regularly work through examples just to conclude "actually that's a bad example". This is pretty strong evidence that there was no lesson planning involved. There were also no practice exercises, no posting of pieces of illustrative code, and hence, no way to actually get good at programming in Swift (unless it's self directed, in which case - why bother with the formality of taking a course on Coursera?). | seem to have bypassed this critical | Question | I have a background in Python, | Negative | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Unfortunately the course is not very well thought out. The lecture videos are poorly organized, concepts are not presented in the proper context and lack sufficient detail/depth, little thought or effort was put into designing the examples in the videos, there are no actual coding exercises until the last week, there are no examples of elegant code, nor thoughtful examples of good vs. bad code, the quizzes contain questions that are poorly worded and ambiguous (and I think some actually have the wrong answers and are contradicted by other online resources). It's very high level, and they hand-wave important concepts. I really don't see how this class can actually teach you to build a robust high-quality app. You're probably better off just reading some of the official documentation online. | vs. bad code, the quizzes contain | Question | that are poorly worded and ambiguous | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | poorly planned, irrelevant to the subject test questions. | planned, irrelevant to the subject test | Question | | Negative | 0.63 | 1.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The lectures for this course seem unorganized and often had poor audio. The content covered in many lectures seemed off topic. Quiz questions would then focus on the off topic information making it confusing with regard to what material to focus on during a lecture. Do I focus on the proposed subject of the video or the many tangents about other topics. This combined with the unorganized nature of videos(just winging it) made the lectures distracting. The lecture videos are full of code that simply does not work in the real world and help from staff takes literally days to get(and not just over the weekend). | many lectures seemed off topic. Quiz | Question | would then focus on the off | Positive | 0.85 | 2.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course is poorly designed. What course on a programming language jumps first into how to use the debugger and what went wrong with a program? You are not introducing Swift, you are introducing xcode (and doing a terrible job of it). Also, I have been using xcode and Swift for 8 months now and producing some really good work, but I could only get 3/7 on your quiz because you have written questions with the purpose of tricking people instead of reinforcing or checking knowledge of the content. When you teach a new application, consider introducing the interface first. Explain what the various areas are, what they are needed for, and how to control them. This orients the user in the application and helps them to find their way around when they are trying to reinforce your teachings later. The presentation for this course is so unprofessional. It's like a running commentary on a movie instead of an educational presentation. I felt like I was listening to two geeks stuffing around and having a good time, instead of people who are professional teachers! I'm so incredibly disappointed with this course. Back to the wonderful work of Paul Hegarty from Stanford University on iTunes University and YouTube for me. University of Toronto - you should really consider what your teaching staff are doing before you unleash them on the world. | your quiz because you have written | Question | with the purpose of tricking people | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Very interesting course, isn't too geeky and mathematical, unlike many other astronomy courses. The only thing bothering me was the inability to learn the correct answers and explanations to quiz questions. Some of those were rather mindboggling. | correct answers and explanations to quiz | Question | Some of those were rather mindboggling. | Positive | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Thank you!! Very organized and easy to follow. The questions at the end of the week encouraged me to explore more about the subject matter. | organized and easy to follow. The | Question | at the end of the week | Positive | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | As a quick overview to modern astronomy and cosmology this is a very worthwhile course. Highly informative and well presented. Material is detailed enough to provide an understanding of the topics covered and hints at more complexity to encourage further exploration. Marked down to four stars solely on the basis of the review questions. Some of these are ambiguous or have a lack of clarity. Otherwise this course, given the level and time allocation, would rate 5 stars. | on the basis of the review | Question | Some of these are ambiguous or | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | The course lives up to its title. We indeed confront the "big questions" of modern astronomy: where did the universe come from, what is it made of, what is its future. The presentation is lively and engaging. Relevant topics are touched upon just enough to understand how to approach each question, without any feeling that dense physics is being discussed, as befitting the "highlights" term in the course title. The course structure is very enjoyable and illuminating, and the weekly exercises are superb. Highly recommended. | We indeed confront the " big | Question | of modern astronomy: where did the | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | The course lives up to its title. We indeed confront the "big questions" of modern astronomy: where did the universe come from, what is it made of, what is its future. The presentation is lively and engaging. Relevant topics are touched upon just enough to understand how to approach each question, without any feeling that dense physics is being discussed, as befitting the "highlights" term in the course title. The course structure is very enjoyable and illuminating, and the weekly exercises are superb. Highly recommended. | to understand how to approach each | Question | without any feeling that dense physics | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Too much time required. The first Quiz had almost nothing covered in the video lectures. I saved all transcripts and was unable to answer the questions. The Sim's... I have never seen anything like that and again - it most certainly wasn't covered in the lectures. Disappointed in this course. It took 3 hours for each segment of the first week... not 3 to 4 as was stated. Leaving this course. | and was unable to answer the | Question | The Sim's. . . I have | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| eV-OTCTuEeWCGRL6mLoB5w | I'm a big fan of Classical music specially of the classical and romantic eras (I listen and practice on piano - my ultimate instrument - too) since many years ago, there were always questions rolling on my head regarding these eras and their most important composers but i never got the guts to search deeply for my answers among the scattered information every where, all this happened before i participated in this course. On this introductory course, i gained a lot of information and my perceptions of the music generally is expanded hugely in a way i never expected :) :) :) Before this course i was an ordinary listener, now i'm a much way better listener; and i'm sure this will have a positive effect on my piano practicing too. Thank you very much Craig Wright, you really did a great job and efforts on simplifying a lot of information and display it in a very easy, organized, and pleasant way, and thank you very much Yale University and every one who participated, supported, and made available any information during the time of this course...you all really made a difference in my life. | many years ago, there were always | Question | rolling on my head regarding these | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| eWC74yvREeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | Introduction course to other courses, not much to learn here. And also some quizzes question were never addressed on the content. | learn here. And also some quizzes | Question | were never addressed on the content. | Positive | 0.75 | 3.0 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | This is a fantastic and comprehensive course. If I had to nit-pick, it would be questioning the particular coverage placed upon China in the sub-topic of "How did Modernity evolve after the Industrial Revolution?" and the seemingly critical view taken towards its modernisation. One point in particular was "We've achieved a war over nature. Where we've done it, there's a cost to ourselves, as the intensifying flooding in Shanghai often illustrates. Early in October 2013, Shanghai was hit by two typhoons which came together and saturated Shanghai with the heaviest rainfall ever recorded." I'm not a Chinese citizen, but it sounded to me like China received her due comeuppance, which I felt was a little uncalled for. While China's trade opening may be significant in world trade, I'm not sure if the particular in-depth coverage on China in relevance to the question, is a stretch. | on China in relevance to the | Question | is a stretch. | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Very good for everyone who want to know about Big Questions. | who want to know about Big | Question | | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Why is this course dangerous? I took this course because first I liked the idea to have a history lesson spanning the age of the whole universe. Maybe it is also intriguing to explain everything just with one principle: the second law of thermodynamics. BUT as it turned out they don't have any clue what this second law of thermodynamics means. They always forget the second part of it: it is just valide in a closed system. I think everbody will agree, that the earth for example isn't a closed system. In the beginning they tell you you should be critical about everything new you hear or get taught. But if you are critical and question things they teach you they will ignore you. One glance at the discussion forum shows: they are fast in answering good feedback and compliments by students, but critical questions (with scientific papers who show different facts) get ignored for weeks and months. They are cherry picking. They just see what encourages their view and their opinion and ignore everything that contradicts their course, opinion, believe and dogma. In this respect they are so dangerous. That is the same principle how cults work. Maybe their goal, stopping polluting and changing the world in such a speed seems to be a good one. But also here you have to be careful. When they talk about climate change and the overuse of ressources they are exaggerating by a factor of 50! In my opinion you are damaging an important discussion if you are lying and exaggerating in such a shameless way. For sure it is not helpful! But again, the truth doesn't fit in their world view. Furthermore they "teach" that cities get blown away by taifoons is caused by the "universe balancing entropy". This isn't just lack of understanding physics, or history, or flow mechanics, it is just insane. In summary: this is not a history course, but the "teachings" of a lying, exaggerating, cherry picking cult with no knowledge in particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology or even history. So please: if you take this course, be aware of this pitfalls and their intentions. | But if you are critical and | Question | things they teach you they will | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Why is this course dangerous? I took this course because first I liked the idea to have a history lesson spanning the age of the whole universe. Maybe it is also intriguing to explain everything just with one principle: the second law of thermodynamics. BUT as it turned out they don't have any clue what this second law of thermodynamics means. They always forget the second part of it: it is just valide in a closed system. I think everbody will agree, that the earth for example isn't a closed system. In the beginning they tell you you should be critical about everything new you hear or get taught. But if you are critical and question things they teach you they will ignore you. One glance at the discussion forum shows: they are fast in answering good feedback and compliments by students, but critical questions (with scientific papers who show different facts) get ignored for weeks and months. They are cherry picking. They just see what encourages their view and their opinion and ignore everything that contradicts their course, opinion, believe and dogma. In this respect they are so dangerous. That is the same principle how cults work. Maybe their goal, stopping polluting and changing the world in such a speed seems to be a good one. But also here you have to be careful. When they talk about climate change and the overuse of ressources they are exaggerating by a factor of 50! In my opinion you are damaging an important discussion if you are lying and exaggerating in such a shameless way. For sure it is not helpful! But again, the truth doesn't fit in their world view. Furthermore they "teach" that cities get blown away by taifoons is caused by the "universe balancing entropy". This isn't just lack of understanding physics, or history, or flow mechanics, it is just insane. In summary: this is not a history course, but the "teachings" of a lying, exaggerating, cherry picking cult with no knowledge in particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology or even history. So please: if you take this course, be aware of this pitfalls and their intentions. | and compliments by students, but critical | Question | (with scientific papers who show different | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Liked the way course is organized, posing questions at the beginning of each lecture is a great idea. | the way course is organized, posing | Question | at the beginning of each lecture | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | This is definitely my favorite course on Coursera and anywhere else in internet! So glad I accidentally ran into it! Under a name that doesn't tell much about the content there is a real jewel - a multidisciplinary course that is truly able to connect many of the dots and make perfect sense of all these endless math and science, history and many other classes we all had to sit throughout our school years. I loved every minute of this course, all the experts zooming into subjects, all of additional materials (especially Crushcourse videos). Big History course is awesome for those always asking "but why?" questions. A very big thank you to The Big History course team for finding time and passion for making it available to everyone in the world! | always asking " but why? " | Question | A very big thank you to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| eXbmvDe9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Overall good course with a lot of examples. Though, some important steps seems to be missing, so could not follow along with all the demos. Had to spend some unpredictable amount of time digging into some questions (probably, it is fine, but the difference between 2 previous courses and this one in the program is vivid). I had a problem installing 'doorkeeper-mongodb' and it does not seem that this problem for a number of users. Good that it was not in the final project. | amount of time digging into some | Question | (probably, it is fine, but the | Negative | 0.76 | 3.0 |
| F0J_-3LWEeWxvQr3acyajw | It's a great course, but some of the questions could be improved. Many of the questions were too lacking in content. | great course, but some of the | Question | could be improved. Many of the | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| F0J_-3LWEeWxvQr3acyajw | It's a great course, but some of the questions could be improved. Many of the questions were too lacking in content. | could be improved. Many of the | Question | were too lacking in content. | Negative | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| F0J_-3LWEeWxvQr3acyajw | Well explained and a lot of questions to practice. | Well explained and a lot of | Question | to practice. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | The organization of this course was very good. I liked the themes and their order. I thought the videos could have been longer and more substancial, but the reading were great. I got confused on one of the assignments in which the questions of the given chapter were supposed to be answer. There were 3. I must have misunderstood or have another file, because no one I read had such question and I got not so great reviews. I think this should be looked at. Either way, thank you for this opportunity! | of the assignments in which the | Question | of the given chapter were supposed | Negative | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | The organization of this course was very good. I liked the themes and their order. I thought the videos could have been longer and more substancial, but the reading were great. I got confused on one of the assignments in which the questions of the given chapter were supposed to be answer. There were 3. I must have misunderstood or have another file, because no one I read had such question and I got not so great reviews. I think this should be looked at. Either way, thank you for this opportunity! | no one I read had such | Question | and I got not so great | Positive | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Solid and to the point. It will not get you ready to do a research, but it will give you the tools to design a solid enough draft or question for a research, | design a solid enough draft or | Question | for a research, | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | I like the first E-tivity where we were asked to do the reading and listen to the video then come up with our own research question. I wished the rest of the course had continued along the same line where we can create a possible framework of what our research would have looked like by utilizing the ideas developed during the videos and readings. | come up with our own research | Question | I wished the rest of the | Negative | 0.91 | 4.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Great course, I managed to refine my research question through its assignments, and got a better idea of how to go about creating a good literature review. Have bookmarked most of the readings for future reference. | I managed to refine my research | Question | through its assignments, and got a | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | It's a really good course to learn general parameters of research. However I think the E-tivity 3 wasn't clear some people did a summary from the reading, some others answered the questions from the reading and me tried to do a connection between the videos and the reading. These misunderstandings can have impact in the evaluation from the partners | the reading, some others answered the | Question | from the reading and me tried | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Excellent course to know and distinguish different approaches to the research question.. | distinguish different approaches to the research | Question | . | Positive | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | thanks a lot for this course i think that it will help me to progress in research practice and to publish researches and to learn how to find answers to burning questions in my mind | how to find answers to burning | Question | in my mind | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Good content but would have preferred if it was more interactive. There is no way to discuss in detail and debate over a topic. I still have many questions unanswered and forum is very inactive. Wish there was a thread for each topic where people could just discuss their perspective. Overall good content but lack of interaction makes it incomplete in my opinion. | a topic. I still have many | Question | unanswered and forum is very inactive. | Positive | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | The content of the course is very good. What I would improve are the Quizes; I'd concentrate more on key stuff, not include any questions concerning irrelevant details. Some of the assignment questions were also a bit unclear and the rating scales did not make sense at times. | on key stuff, not include any | Question | concerning irrelevant details. Some of the | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | The content of the course is very good. What I would improve are the Quizes; I'd concentrate more on key stuff, not include any questions concerning irrelevant details. Some of the assignment questions were also a bit unclear and the rating scales did not make sense at times. | irrelevant details. Some of the assignment | Question | were also a bit unclear and | Positive | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I undertook this marketing course as a marketer keen to make sure I was up to date and thinking about new ideas. It was a shame redlaser.com is no longer active, however I'm sure there are other tools, the course content just needs to be updated. I liked the Quad elements but found the Quizzes a bit frustrating particularly when they asked questions for which the answer was covered in the next topic. Overall however, time well spend. Thanks to Aric and team. | bit frustrating particularly when they asked | Question | for which the answer was covered | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I like this course because it has diferent activities. Its not about answering treaky questions but true learning and working around new interesting concepts. The must complete style. By far the best Coursera Ive took. | activities. Its not about answering treaky | Question | but true learning and working around | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I give this course 5 stars! I learned a lot and I like the hands on activities. The only thing I would change is how the assignments are graded. I know that they're graded by our peers but I don't think that everyone knows how to correctly grade assignments. I received some low scores and I disagree with them. I answered all of the questions with enough detail to be at least "good." | them. I answered all of the | Question | with enough detail to be at | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Exceptional course. Not only was Prof Rindfleisch an engaging host, the course materials were laid out in such a way as to prevent video-learner's fatigue. Each set of videos was interrupted by a graded assignment or practice quiz. The questions drew on the course materials but encouraged us to look deeper. I recommend this course highly. Great course and great community with it. | graded assignment or practice quiz. The | Question | drew on the course materials but | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | This course was excellent as a basic course, highlighting the most basic definitions and concepts that anyone interested in epidemiology without any background should and can understand. Thank you lecturers and organizers, this course definitely answered some questions I had after reading scientific articles. | organizers, this course definitely answered some | Question | I had after reading scientific articles. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | sure I could answer the quiz | Question | Either the quiz questions were bad | Negative | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | the quiz questions. Either the quiz | Question | were bad or it was taught | Negative | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I enjoyed hearing about epidemiology, but didn't find the quizzes very useful. I was expecting more practice doing computation or examining case studies. The lectures also had no time in between slides to pause, write notes, and make sure I understood what was just said. I liked that the lectures were well organized and the review questions in between the topics of discussion. | were well organized and the review | Question | in between the topics of discussion. | Positive | 0.77 | 3.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Nice course with the correct approach on the basics of Epidemiology. Only one minor issue, i think the focus on the historical aspects, although interesting, was a bit too much in the lectures and the tests. Being able to define OR or CI should be more important than questions on history. Overall, great work! | CI should be more important than | Question | on history. Overall, great work! | Positive | 0.91 | 4.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I thought this was a good basic level introduction course. One suggestion is to update the quiz section to be able to click on the questions that were answered incorrectly and see the correct answer with explanation (after passing). | be able to click on the | Question | that were answered incorrectly and see | Positive | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | There is no real flow between videos and questions, not easy to follow. Good efford, good content, just wrong methodology for online training for 2015. | no real flow between videos and | Question | not easy to follow. Good efford, | Negative | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | The content was really neat and definitely not something I had been exposed to before. I really liked the quantitative parts of the course and wish there had been more time spent on that and more quiz questions on that. The reason I am ranking this 2 stars is that I felt the quizzes were unreasonably difficult (or perhaps they had bugs). Week 2 quiz I had to take multiple times and really couldn't figure out what the correct answer was. Looking at the discussion boards I believe my sentiment is shared. I have taken multiple coursera classes (Astronomy, Astrobiology, Calculus) and these are by far the most difficult quizes I have encountered. | spent on that and more quiz | Question | on that. The reason I am | Negative | 0.97 | 2.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | I found the course very informative, there was quite a lot of information in there for only six weeks of study but it didn't feel overwhelming either. Professor Marc van Oostendorp was very engaging in his presentation of the material, and I liked the fact that his students were there to ask questions as well. I also liked how the language informants were used - I was able to practice what I had learned in the other videos by analysing their speech patterns. Overall, I was quite impressed by this course. | his students were there to ask | Question | as well. I also liked how | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | I really liked it ! It was a challenge for me personally ! Getting the questions wrong on quizes really discouraged me but then I would keep going and not give up ! Awesome !!! | for me personally ! Getting the | Question | wrong on quizes really discouraged me | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Interesting content, but issues with broken links needed to complete quizzes while they were due. Needs better explanation of how to use other resources. Many of the quiz questions are arbitrary, rather than really testing knowledge gained in the class. The lectures are still useful, and would recommend doing this as a free course, but see no use in paying for a certificate on completion of the course. | other resources. Many of the quiz | Question | are arbitrary, rather than really testing | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course is a lightweight introduction to Linguistics. If you are absolutely new to linguistics, it will provide you with enough information for further research and self-development. There are some really interesting facts provided by the required reading of the course. What I mostly liked about the course is the list of additional literature. What I mostly didn't like are quizzes - I little bit too reliant on the question formulation. The only quiz that I really liked was about syntactic analysis of informants' sentences. | little bit too reliant on the | Question | formulation. The only quiz that I | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | VERY good content and classes! Some questions in the quizzes are confusing, and there was the trouble with the required reading for Week 3. The first Honors assignment is confusing - specially its very last input question. | VERY good content and classes! Some | Question | in the quizzes are confusing, and | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | VERY good content and classes! Some questions in the quizzes are confusing, and there was the trouble with the required reading for Week 3. The first Honors assignment is confusing - specially its very last input question. | - specially its very last input | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Some of the material could be a bit more analytical, and there were a few problems with the quiz questions. Other than that, perfect! Great introduction to linguistics. Thank you for your hard work! | a few problems with the quiz | Question | Other than that, perfect! Great introduction | Negative | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course was often confusing and the quizzes came down to a question of trial and error. I found this very frustrating. Although the topics were interesting, I didn't find them very well presented in spite of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. But there was a lot of ambiguity and bias and the inability to discuss except through the forums was off-putting. It wouild be good to know why answers were wrong in the quizzes particulalry when you had put a lot of effort into studying them. In the final exam, there are questions which are evidently wrong, both in their wording and in their marking and nothing has been done to remedy this in spite of the complaints in the discussion page. | the quizzes came down to a | Question | of trial and error. I found | Positive | 0.72 | 2.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course was often confusing and the quizzes came down to a question of trial and error. I found this very frustrating. Although the topics were interesting, I didn't find them very well presented in spite of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. But there was a lot of ambiguity and bias and the inability to discuss except through the forums was off-putting. It wouild be good to know why answers were wrong in the quizzes particulalry when you had put a lot of effort into studying them. In the final exam, there are questions which are evidently wrong, both in their wording and in their marking and nothing has been done to remedy this in spite of the complaints in the discussion page. | In the final exam, there are | Question | which are evidently wrong, both in | Positive | 0.74 | 2.0 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Material is excellent and very interesting. Test questions can be confusing and poorly phrased. | is excellent and very interesting. Test | Question | can be confusing and poorly phrased. | Positive | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| FnZcU7lhEeW6YA7MjVrgzw | Excellent course syllabus and high standard quiz questions | course syllabus and high standard quiz | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | - but the quality of the | Question | is questionable. Sometimes the answer is | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | for this is that there are | Question | being asked, which weren't even touched | Negative | 0.93 | 2.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I did learn some new things, but there were times that I wasn't sure about the focus of the course: some of the questions are on the spectrum of too tricky-unclear, there were too many "find my error in the code" issues. Plus, the last project (gallery) - which has many good features and ideas, does not seem completely finished from a UX point of view. | of the course: some of the | Question | are on the spectrum of too | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I like how this specialisation evolves... as in the previous block, it does not give you all details, but merely sets the direction. The homework assignments are quite good and, if executed properly, will teach you a lot. The only complaint - frequent ambiguity of multiple choice quiz questions. | frequent ambiguity of multiple choice quiz | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Stuff is explained thoroughly, all documents are provided, teaching staff answers the questions in discussions. I've learnt a lot! Thanks to teachers! | are provided, teaching staff answers the | Question | in discussions. I've learnt a lot! | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| Fq__yk2bEeS5fSIACy-OMw | Great course! The only change i would ask for: after the test, could you let us see the correct response to the questions we got wrong? Thanks! | see the correct response to the | Question | we got wrong? Thanks! | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Fq__yk2bEeS5fSIACy-OMw | With a biology background I had some difficulty following this course. That is understandable, as a lot of it relies in mathematical modelling and statistics. I still felt like some exam questions relied on material not yet lectured, which would sometimes leave me at a loss as to how I should have gotten to the right question in the first place. The lectures could have been structured differently, so as to facilitate engagement - I found myself easily losing focus and having to repeat the videos. Despite its shortcomings, the course is still a powerful introduction to Systems Biology. | I still felt like some exam | Question | relied on material not yet lectured, | Negative | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| Fq__yk2bEeS5fSIACy-OMw | With a biology background I had some difficulty following this course. That is understandable, as a lot of it relies in mathematical modelling and statistics. I still felt like some exam questions relied on material not yet lectured, which would sometimes leave me at a loss as to how I should have gotten to the right question in the first place. The lectures could have been structured differently, so as to facilitate engagement - I found myself easily losing focus and having to repeat the videos. Despite its shortcomings, the course is still a powerful introduction to Systems Biology. | should have gotten to the right | Question | in the first place. The lectures | Negative | 0.93 | 3.0 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | The course material was interesting, but the TOTAL lack of support forces me to give it only one star. I left the following complaint in the general forum for this course 2 months ago. Neither Coursera, the instructor or any moderator ever responded. Many people were not able to run the software supplied in the course because of bugs, but the solution was left to the student. I have taken good courses on line before, but this is not one of them. It seems that the Dr. Tucker Balch and/or the moderators have totally abandoned this course, but Coursera keeps offering it and collecting money. The neither instructor or nor the moderators have posted on the Meet and Greet Forum. The instructor and/or moderators have ANSWERED NO QUESTIONS posted on ANY forum. The QSTK (software) BUGS have NOT BEEN ADDRESSED by the instructor or the moderators. Only students have answered these forum questions. "Computational Investing Part II is coming shortly." That is what they said 3 years ago. Further evidence of abandonment. | instructor and/or moderators have ANSWERED NO | Question | posted on ANY forum. The QSTK | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | The course material was interesting, but the TOTAL lack of support forces me to give it only one star. I left the following complaint in the general forum for this course 2 months ago. Neither Coursera, the instructor or any moderator ever responded. Many people were not able to run the software supplied in the course because of bugs, but the solution was left to the student. I have taken good courses on line before, but this is not one of them. It seems that the Dr. Tucker Balch and/or the moderators have totally abandoned this course, but Coursera keeps offering it and collecting money. The neither instructor or nor the moderators have posted on the Meet and Greet Forum. The instructor and/or moderators have ANSWERED NO QUESTIONS posted on ANY forum. The QSTK (software) BUGS have NOT BEEN ADDRESSED by the instructor or the moderators. Only students have answered these forum questions. "Computational Investing Part II is coming shortly." That is what they said 3 years ago. Further evidence of abandonment. | Only students have answered these forum | Question | " Computational Investing Part II is | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | Terrible. Nobody seems to monitor the forum. No response to questions posted. I want to rate zero but there is no such option available. | monitor the forum. No response to | Question | posted. I want to rate zero | Negative | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| fVStkiGAEeWibgoGfGzczQ | Des cours intéressants et très bien conçus, excellents professeurs. Ce cours nous met face à une problématique complexe du partage de l'eau: Une eau sujette aux variations du cadre politique, social, économique. La question sur l'eau et la manière dont elle est gérée éveille nos consciences face à l'enjeu vital dont on peine à apprécier l'ampleur. | du cadre politique, social, économique. La | Question | sur l'eau et la manière dont | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| fZN4SVfiEeWsGQ6fKrurvQ | The course was very interested , i learned a lot , the course allows me the ability to question matters of the Law . | course allows me the ability to | Question | matters of the Law . | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| GCbhVSsqEeWNaBKfE9kXTQ | J'ai trouvé ce cours très intéressant. Il aborde de nombreux aspects du sport auxquels on ne pense pas toujours, mais qui sont très importants dans le monde contemporain. Le professeur Orin Starn est agréable à écouter et les illustrations permettent de bien visualiser de quoi il est question tout en maintenant les élèves attentifs au cours. Cependant, pour un non-anglophone, l'effort demandé en termes de lecture est parfois un peu trop important et il est difficile de terminer la lecture des articles avant la fin de la semaine. | bien visualiser de quoi il est | Question | tout en maintenant les élèves attentifs | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Was very educational, learn't a lot and the great thing was having to implement the theory learn't in the notes and lectures during the assignments. The "curve" ball questions were great too as it forced you to apply understanding thus teaching you to apply your knowledge based on the core principles learn't. | the assignments. The " curve" ball | Question | were great too as it forced | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Excellent course for students with some finance background. Content is nicely paced and well illustrated through models and examples. The quizzes range from straight forward application to challenging (given there is no feedback on where you got a question incorrect). | feedback on where you got a | Question | incorrect). | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | nice challenging course with very good lecture videos and supporting material. the questions tested the material very well and were just challenging enough for my taste. Also the teachers were explaining the material very well. | lecture videos and supporting material. the | Question | tested the material very well and | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The course provides a very thorough introduction on the basic models and mechanisms by which various financial products are priced. One issue I had, was that the quiz questions sometimes used terminology or jargon for which the link with the material covered in the videos was not always immediately obvious. Also, the course, especially the later modules, heavily relies on Microsoft Excel, which some people might not be willing to pay hard cash for. It is possible to pass by doing the assignments with e.g. Python, but it's a lot of work, and not for the faint of heart. | I had, was that the quiz | Question | sometimes used terminology or jargon for | Negative | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Three stars for course structure, two stars less for every poor course material which doesn't contain any guidance to test questions. | doesn't contain any guidance to test | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Im really fascinated with this course. By the way, i think some quiz have few mistakes as the module about pricing swaptions in the calibration model. The answer the professor gave is not 13300 or 19400, but 1330 or 1940 respectively. The quiz#6, the answer for the question 1 and 2 is multiple, its between a range and i cant complete it, please check the parameters again. | The quiz#6, the answer for the | Question | 1 and 2 is multiple, its | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| gh5rVEd3EeW2ZBIIl17oPw | Great way of learning Arduino, and a great way of providing info. by video lectures. The best part being the questions that are asked in between the lectures and that makes it more interactive virtually. The course content is no doubt enjoyable and its worth taking this course as it builds up our basic concepts of embedded systems. | lectures. The best part being the | Question | that are asked in between the | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| GkyTjuR5EeWpUQ6vdoq9ZQ | Meat we need more meat. Where is the beef? Recommendation: One question what should a medium to small business do after a IoT hack? Walk this through as an exercise. This question can be part of a whole program exercise. | Where is the beef? Recommendation: One | Question | what should a medium to small | Negative | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| GkyTjuR5EeWpUQ6vdoq9ZQ | Meat we need more meat. Where is the beef? Recommendation: One question what should a medium to small business do after a IoT hack? Walk this through as an exercise. This question can be part of a whole program exercise. | this through as an exercise. This | Question | can be part of a whole | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| goJ9vXd_EeWtpg5GoAM5Iw | Very good! There's room for improvement in the assignments, especially the quizzes that have simple questions and some have only one. | especially the quizzes that have simple | Question | and some have only one. | Positive | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| gpAI9GK4EeWFkQ7sUCFGVQ | This is a brief and very informative course. The mixture of slides, lecture, small tasks and question is an ideal combination. The suggested readings gives the opportunity to get deeper into topics of special interest. | of slides, lecture, small tasks and | Question | is an ideal combination. The suggested | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is an excellent course indeed. Access to real world data is a huge +. Some of the questions in the quizzes were difficult though. And also the witty jokes by the Prof... :):) | a huge +. Some of the | Question | in the quizzes were difficult though. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I found the first 4 weeks of the course amazing: just really well structured, thought-out, and delivered in a way that positions the student for success. Jana breaks the material down into digestible bits, gives you sufficient practice, and even if you don't get it, you can look at the answers to the practice questions and figure out where your thinking was incorrect. The 5th week wasn't as well broken down, especially the last set of Teradata exercises. New concepts or ways of structuring queries were being introduced in those exercises, but there was no way to check for a correct solution if I couldn't come with one on my own (which was unfortunately half of the time). I still got a good grade on my last quiz, but I can't say that I really truly learned how to write the more complicated queries. I would suggest that the last Teradata exercise set has more explanation or perhaps just answers that the student can refer to in order to understand why his/her line of thinking isn't working. Otherwise, a truly fantastic course. I 100% recommend it. | at the answers to the practice | Question | and figure out where your thinking | Negative | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Great course! It takes you from zero knowledge of SQL to being able to write quite complicated queries, and being ready for most of standard SQL questions in job interviews. Strongly recommended! | ready for most of standard SQL | Question | in job interviews. Strongly recommended! | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I'm still in Week 1, but I'm already in love with this course. They give accurate information in a light manner, the exercises are very clear and didactic, and they also give the answers to these exercises which answers all of your potentially uprising questions, alongside with the Video Lectures. It is already giving me the confidence that it will be a great asset to me as a Data Analyst. | answers all of your potentially uprising | Question | alongside with the Video Lectures. It | Negative | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| gSfwG3HcEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Course lectures are good, but many quiz questions are out of syllabus. Sorry, I am not satisfied. | lectures are good, but many quiz | Question | are out of syllabus. Sorry, I | Negative | 0.96 | 2.0 |
| gt5ybBU-EeWhTg59fTWfpQ | This is a great course, the final questions had me a bit confused BUT if you read carefully (not dyslexically like me) no problem. | is a great course, the final | Question | had me a bit confused BUT | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | About me: I studied computer science in Dortmund, Germany in the 90ies. I recommend this course to everyone who wants to have a very good understanding of machine learning. A little bit of advice, if you have never learned linear algebra on a university level, you should at least try to get a basic understanding of it before starting this course. I was happy that I remembered stuff, learning it from scratch in 1 or 2 weeks would be difficult, I assume. +: * Mathematical basics of machine learning are very well explained * Andrew Ng is a very good professor, he explains the topic very well and thoroughly * It is not limited by using a special framework or language * The support in the forums, and the transcription of the talks, and all the material that is given to you is really excellent. -: * I would be happy if the programming exercises would be a bit more fun, currently it feels like translating / transforming math formulas into octave, which is fine, but not very fun. Having said that I am only in week 4, perhaps this will happen later * some text questions in the multiple choice quizzes require a precise understanding of the english language, especially in regards to math, I am not a native speaker, so these questions feel especially hard for me | will happen later * some text | Question | in the multiple choice quizzes require | Negative | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | About me: I studied computer science in Dortmund, Germany in the 90ies. I recommend this course to everyone who wants to have a very good understanding of machine learning. A little bit of advice, if you have never learned linear algebra on a university level, you should at least try to get a basic understanding of it before starting this course. I was happy that I remembered stuff, learning it from scratch in 1 or 2 weeks would be difficult, I assume. +: * Mathematical basics of machine learning are very well explained * Andrew Ng is a very good professor, he explains the topic very well and thoroughly * It is not limited by using a special framework or language * The support in the forums, and the transcription of the talks, and all the material that is given to you is really excellent. -: * I would be happy if the programming exercises would be a bit more fun, currently it feels like translating / transforming math formulas into octave, which is fine, but not very fun. Having said that I am only in week 4, perhaps this will happen later * some text questions in the multiple choice quizzes require a precise understanding of the english language, especially in regards to math, I am not a native speaker, so these questions feel especially hard for me | not a native speaker, so these | Question | feel especially hard for me | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Just completed the course myself and I have to say this is a great course for anyone who wants to get a comprehensive understanding of Machine Learning. First of all, the content of the course is very well structured. It covers a lot of machine learning algorithms and also includes a lot of practical applications. Professor Ng is very gifted in teaching and he can explain some difficult topics in very simple terms. I also found he is very engaging and the quick questions inserted in the middle of the videos are very helpful to keep the students focused on the lecture. The programming assignments are at the right level of difficulty, and I found the instruction for each assignment works like a great summary of the corresponding materials. Didn't use their discussion forum much, but for a couple times I used, the mentor was able to respond in a very timely manner. Overall, this is a great course and I am so happy to be able to take it myself. Thank you, Professor Ng! | is very engaging and the quick | Question | inserted in the middle of the | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course material and programming assignments were very helpful, but the test grader is not helpful, I was not allowed to post questions I had on the forums (nor provide meaningful answers) because of the strange version and interpretation of the Honor Code, and the mentor Tom Mosher was unhelpful bordering on outright rude. | I was not allowed to post | Question | I had on the forums (nor | Negative | 0.62 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | An in-depth survey of perhaps most of the current techniques in machine learning. Very well presented, in a well-paced and understandable fashion. The mentors were very receptive and helpful with my questions. I think I spent about 20 hours per week to try to absorb the material. Highly recommended. | very receptive and helpful with my | Question | I think I spent about 20 | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Well-explained, clearly structured, useful practice and well designed review questions. Really helpful! | useful practice and well designed review | Question | Really helpful! | Positive | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The videos are of a helpful length and they are organized into lessons with constructive quiz questions and assignments interspersed to make a student progress logically and incrementally through the course. I found the mentors' guidance helpful to bridge the gap between video lectures and programming assignments. | organized into lessons with constructive quiz | Question | and assignments interspersed to make a | Negative | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Perfectly explained! And a nice community. Questions are being answered within 30 minutes. | Perfectly explained! And a nice community. | Question | are being answered within 30 minutes. | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Although this course was recorded in 2011, I have found it incredibly valuable. Professor Andrew Ng presents exceptionally well providing a strong logic and clear thought allowing you to follow along and understand. Additionally, due to the fact that this was recorded in 2011, I think allows people like myself who don't have much experience with the ML topic to learn the basics as it was taught then. Many times, topics get very confusing as they grow and evolve. The level of information and concepts presented are fantastic and I've gotten so much out of my time and efforts. Thanks to Professor Ng and all of the moderators and mentors that are still active answering questions. | mentors that are still active answering | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is the best to way to start with Machine Learning. Andrew NG has explained all the topics in a really interesting manner for student with all kind of background. Also He has taken care to answer all the question probably a student can have while attending this class. Overall a wonderful experience and Now I am really feeling Welcomed By the field of Machine Learning :-). Thanks a lot Andrew NG, Thanks a lot Coursera. | taken care to answer all the | Question | probably a student can have while | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Awesome/Excellent/Outstanding !!! This course was my first step in Machine Learning en route to data science. The videos explain difficult concepts in easy to understand words with examples. The assignments will make you think real hard and they do a great job to ensure that you get basics down and give you wings to implement an algorithm to a real world data set. The discussion/forum/wiki_page is very helpful and thanks to the Mentors for immediate help with questions on the forums. Many thanks to Professor Ng. | the Mentors for immediate help with | Question | on the forums. Many thanks to | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Phenomenal. Andrew explained concepts that I thought were so difficult with ease and clarity. Now I'm thinking "Oh, it was so simple!" The mentors did a great job responding to questions and aiding. The first few lessons are a grind- easily spend more than 2 hours on the first problem of the first problem set. Week 6 was brutal. But that was the pivoting point; after that, the knowledge just stuck with me and became more intuition. The problem sets after week 6 took maybe an hour or two *total*, which shows the progression you can make if you stick it out. Thank you Stanford for this amazing course! | did a great job responding to | Question | and aiding. The first few lessons | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Awesome course, great teacher. very useful material, quizzes, assignments, review questions and intutions throughout the course | very useful material, quizzes, assignments, review | Question | and intutions throughout the course | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Andrew explains things in a very clear way. Some of the quizes seems redundant, ie., ask very basic questions which can be answered with common sense w/o knowing the content, but all in all give good intro. I gained enough knowledge to challenge PhDs specializing in ML when we brainstorm stuff. | redundant, ie. , ask very basic | Question | which can be answered with common | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing course: rather slow-paced but quite in-depth, great pedagogy, various quizzes and little questions in the videos that maintain interest and rhythm throughout the course. The programming assignments are also very well built, allowing people to focus on the core aspects of machine learning by taking care of all the language-specific environment. | great pedagogy, various quizzes and little | Question | in the videos that maintain interest | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I benefit a lot from this course. Most of details in this course are designed from practical perspective, so if you as a beginner want to learn ML well, you are highly recommended to take all questions and programming assignments. | are highly recommended to take all | Question | and programming assignments. | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course and a great instructor. Basic linear algebra and obvious motivation can help you get through this class. Amazing moderators who quickly response within hours to your questions how naïve it may so | quickly response within hours to your | Question | how naïve it may so | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | There are a number of issues with this course, and more generally Coursera. While the course does cover the material, it uses non-standard mathematical notation. This can be very confusing and seems as if it is purposefully so. There are several mathematical abstractions used that perhaps have a purpose in later machine learning applications but seem unnecessary here. Another issue is that the course assumes the use of Octave which is not available for Windows users apparently. It also allows the use of MatLab but the quiz questions are in Octave which means the quiz is not necessarily testing understanding of the course material as it is Octave. Generally, the opportunities for feedback to Coursera are highly limited. A colleague once took a course online (through another platform). Some of the course material was objectively wrong. However, there was no ability to submit feedback. I have the sense that this could easily happen with the Coursera material. It totally undercuts the apparent validity of the platform. | use of MatLab but the quiz | Question | are in Octave which means the | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is a fantastic course! I have a computational physics/chemistry background but had no prior machine learning experience. This course allowed me to gain a solid foundation in machine learning. The lectures are very well paced and the exercises and revision questions well thought out. Enough real-world context is given to prevent things from being too abstract, but the great bulk of the time is spent actually learning how to apply machine learning. Well worth the money. Thanks Andrew! | paced and the exercises and revision | Question | well thought out. Enough real-world context | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course. Covered many key machine learning concepts, was clear and easy to follow. Great support from both staff and other students with questions. | both staff and other students with | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Fantastic. Andrew Ng is a naturally charismatic teacher with a knack for anticipating issues which his students may encounter and assuaging them before they become sticking points for later understanding. By their nature, online courses cannot benefit from students asking questions of their instructors so it is doubly important that instructors be aware of areas which may confuse students and take anticipatory action to avoid this- this is only one of Ng's strengths. Beyond this, Ng is simply an enthusiastic instructor whose passion for his subject is contagious. He also conveys a genuine sense of understanding the student's process of coming to grips with more difficult portions, often explaining what has confused him before (though, given his expertise, one may wonder just how much these areas actually give him difficulty). All things considered, the biggest disappointment is that there are not more courses available with Ng as the instructor. | courses cannot benefit from students asking | Question | of their instructors so it is | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I'm about 3/4 into the class. Before the start I knew close to nothing about the subject. Prof. Ng has done an outstanding job in presenting the subject, explaining the underlying theory, and assigning problems and exercises that deepened my understanding. He is a highly organized teacher and excellent pedagogue. Special thanks to the course TAs as well who are very responsive to comments and questions, and have prepared great materials that always helped me to completed the assignments. This is a textbook example of a great online class that is fun to attend. Well done! | are very responsive to comments and | Question | and have prepared great materials that | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This was my first class on Coursera and I couldn't have been more happier about it. Content is very well presented, mathematics standing behind various ML models is served to the listener with just enough details to understand it, but not to add any confusion. Assignments are great and really help you to understand how algorithms works. The only thing I'd change is questions about Octave in Quizes. Octave is very nice tool, no doubt, but I personally want to stick to R language and I really didn't want to memorize certain functions or syntax that Octave is using. Great job! I can recommend this class to anyone with a clean conscious. | The only thing I'd change is | Question | about Octave in Quizes. Octave is | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good videos. reasonable quiz questions. good programming assignments. | good videos. reasonable quiz | Question | good programming assignments. | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | My CS friend recommended me to take this course to learn more about how to use data in business, after he heard that I wanted to program an app for food. he warned me about the great deal of math involved (mainly linear algebra). me being a physics/engineering major I naturally got even more excited (it turned out that he was right, and it would also be a huge plus to know multivariate calculus, and I can see myself struggle with the concepts had I not studied both these topics to bits in school). incidentally, this was my first online coursera experience. I can tell you it will be life changing experience. No longer do I have to physically travel somewhere to listen to lectures or hand in assignments, nor download lecture notes off of the school server. This is a 24/7 always on always available service, with the best TA's to answer your questions if you get stuck on homework assignments and quizzes. Everything in the coding assignments tests your knowledge of the course lectures and is designed such that you can complete it in the shortest possible amount of time while reaping the maximum amount of benefit. It is "easy" sense does not require you to grind through mundane things like looking for your own training set data or writing code to plot and visualise the data, but it is "hard" in the sense that very often it takes an hour (or more) of studying the lectures and thinking to figure out how to solve the problem in the most efficient way as possible which often involves writing a single line of vectored matlab/octave code. It is more of an overview of the most important topics in machine learning, but will be a great springboard to go in depth into each aspect of it. Lastly, Andrew often offers wonderful insights into the day to day of machine learning professionals in his lecture videos, so I would advise watching every single minute of them to get the most out of the course instead of aiming to race over the finish line (which can be tempting at times when the deadline approaches) | the best TA's to answer your | Question | if you get stuck on homework | Positive | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course offers informative lectures with good explanations, a set of quizzes with well-posed questions and even programming exercises that are evaluated online using Octave. Highly recommended! | a set of quizzes with well-posed | Question | and even programming exercises that are | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course that holds one's hand through the field of ML and provides a hands on guide through the in-video questions, quizes & assignment tutorials. A great confidence builder. | hands on guide through the in-video | Question | quizes & assignment tutorials. A great | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It is pretty fast paced as well in depth course on Machine Learning. First five weeks are hard and mainly focused on building foundation while rest of the weeks teaches very useful technique to broaden the knowledge. Professor Ng has done awesome job as well as all the mentors. There is so much information on the group discussion, I hardly had to post anything as most of the answers to my questions are already there. wiki page is great and I did read it before taking any quiz. Some quizzes are super hard and I had to attempt few times to pass those. | most of the answers to my | Question | are already there. wiki page is | Positive | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was great! Andrew Ng did a wonderful job of explaining the material and keeping it engaging. The questions on the quizzes were relevant and provoked thought, not just recall. The programming assignments were interesting and have you implement actual ML algorithms. If Andrew offered another class, I'd take it! | material and keeping it engaging. The | Question | on the quizzes were relevant and | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is how an online course should be! Quizzes, Programming assignments, Questions change when you retake quizzes! Would've been better if a reference textbook was suggested that one can grasp more information from. I couldn't rate the course below 5 though. Recommended! | course should be! Quizzes, Programming assignments, | Question | change when you retake quizzes! Would've | Negative | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I like the way this course is designed. The lectures are very articulate. The thing that impressed me most about the Professor is; Students who doesn't have sound calculus and vector algebra understanding also can complete this course easily. Assignments are application oriented and some are challenging too. The Questions in Quiz assignments are in such a way that they test your understanding of that particular lecture and the summary of it. | and some are challenging too. The | Question | in Quiz assignments are in such | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | https://plus.google.com/102962854949157079552/auto O https://www.facebook.com/ZekomTributeMagazine Zekom - Tribute Magazine Community Page about All your base are belong to us · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us · · · · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_Your_Base_-22-10-10%29.ogg · · · ZekomZ - Zekom Tribute Magazine - G+ is a community portal, dedicated to digital agenda, modern science, space exploration and activism. · https://plus.google.com/102962854949157079552 · https://sites.google.com/site/zekomtributemagazine/ · https://www.indiegogo.com/individuals/782594 · (*) Identification of an Unexplained phenomenon in the International Aerospace of Slovenia. (CC) 2012, Zekom Tribute Magazine ZekomZ - Zekom Tribute Magazine - G+ is a community portal, dedicated to digital agenda, modern science, space exploration and activism on Google+ Themes: · 10 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 16 ECONOMICS, 20 TRADE, 2006 trade policy, 2031 marketing, 24 FINANCE, 2411 monetary economics, 2421 free movement of capital, 2451 prices, 28 SOCIAL QUESTIONS, 2821 social framework, 2841 health, 3226 communications, 4406 employment, 4411 labour market, 52 ENVIRONMENT, 5211 natural environment, 6416 intelectual property · · · · · · · · · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us · · · · · · · · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_Your_Base_-22-10-10%29.ogg · | of capital, 2451 prices, 28 SOCIAL | Question | 2821 social framework, 2841 health, 3226 | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course content is very dense but the questions and exercices help you master the topics as you are progressing. Interesting class. | content is very dense but the | Question | and exercices help you master the | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | An extremely useful course designed very beautifully and presented in a very lucid manner. The assignments help in bringing out the technicalities of the course very efficiently. And the quiz questions help a lot in gaining intuition. However, it MUST have a sequel.. another course that takes students deeper into Machine Learning concepts and tools of the trade. | course very efficiently. And the quiz | Question | help a lot in gaining intuition. | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The programming exercises aren't really all that challenging...just implement the formulas provided in the course or in the assignment itself, and you're mostly done. I hate the questions on the quizzes that are "Select all the following that are true..." The only questions I ever got wrong on quizzes were of that sort. | you're mostly done. I hate the | Question | on the quizzes that are " | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The programming exercises aren't really all that challenging...just implement the formulas provided in the course or in the assignment itself, and you're mostly done. I hate the questions on the quizzes that are "Select all the following that are true..." The only questions I ever got wrong on quizzes were of that sort. | true. . . " The only | Question | I ever got wrong on quizzes | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The concepts are explained masterfully with a focus on understanding rather than high-level mathematics which most of these topics invariably deal with. Plus the exercises give a real feel for the practical questions that Machine Learning can solve and the method that practitioners use most often. | a real feel for the practical | Question | that Machine Learning can solve and | Positive | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Really well structured. Very clear and concise lectures. Interesting and useful assignments - much better than multiple-choice questions, whilst still being correctable by software. | assignments - much better than multiple-choice | Question | whilst still being correctable by software. | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I thought this was an excellent course and only have positive feedback for it. The lecture contents were interesting and well tied to exercise questions and programming assignments. The programming assignments were challenging overall but forced me to really learn the details of each machine learning algorithm. When things got a little too frustrating, such as for the neural network backpropagation assignment, the forums provided ample direction for me to move forward. | interesting and well tied to exercise | Question | and programming assignments. The programming assignments | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It is worthwhile to spend your time and energy on this course if you're interested in this field. Prof. Ng has prepared many materials, including application cases in Silicon Valley, to illustrate the essence of machine learning. During the lectures, he was stick to the basic optimization concept, to minimize the cost function under constraints, which could answer many theoretic questions posed by beginners. | constraints, which could answer many theoretic | Question | posed by beginners. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was very nicely done. Dr Ng's videos and narrative were excellent. They were long enough to convey the material properly and short enough not to loose my attention. Assignments were very good as they left you just enough room to fail, learn and ultimately succeed. The quizzes were thought provoking. On the questions that stated "choose all that apply," I would suggest that some form of feedback be provided so that the test taker could know which ones were incorrectly selected/not selected. Perhaps partial credit would be good instead of 0/20 with one wrong selection. Feedback, perhaps an explanation, would be appropriate on all questions incorrectly answered. I would also suggest a pdf document that showed how to do the various matrix operations in octave with an example or two. This would include basic and advanced operations. I know linear algebra, I just didn't know the syntax in octave and this cost me 3-5 hours over the whole course. Now off to do some simple applications here at work like spam filter and anomaly detection to start. Thanks for an excellent course. | quizzes were thought provoking. On the | Question | that stated " choose all that | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was very nicely done. Dr Ng's videos and narrative were excellent. They were long enough to convey the material properly and short enough not to loose my attention. Assignments were very good as they left you just enough room to fail, learn and ultimately succeed. The quizzes were thought provoking. On the questions that stated "choose all that apply," I would suggest that some form of feedback be provided so that the test taker could know which ones were incorrectly selected/not selected. Perhaps partial credit would be good instead of 0/20 with one wrong selection. Feedback, perhaps an explanation, would be appropriate on all questions incorrectly answered. I would also suggest a pdf document that showed how to do the various matrix operations in octave with an example or two. This would include basic and advanced operations. I know linear algebra, I just didn't know the syntax in octave and this cost me 3-5 hours over the whole course. Now off to do some simple applications here at work like spam filter and anomaly detection to start. Thanks for an excellent course. | explanation, would be appropriate on all | Question | incorrectly answered. I would also suggest | Negative | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course for a beginner in Machine Learning. Nice explanation of concepts with good examples followed by programming assignments. I like the way of using an intuition to understand a new learning theory. Questions in quizzes will help check/improve basic concept of the learning algorithms with real world problems. | to understand a new learning theory. | Question | in quizzes will help check/improve basic | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I liked this course very much: The lectures follow up in a logical, natural way and the topics are very well explained. Personally, I had more problems with the quizzes (5 questions each) than with the programming assignments. The examples were interesting and the instructions so clear and detailed that I found it rather easy to do the programming. Another point that is worth to mention: The instructor, Andrew Ng, has not only an agreeable voice and speaks an easy-to-understand english (important for me as a non-english speaker) - He "transports" in addition his own passion for the subject and gives a lot of applicable advices. | more problems with the quizzes (5 | Question | each) than with the programming assignments. | Negative | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | a. very good coverage of standard algorithmic approaches. b. good suggestive guidelines on specifics of algorithms like issues / details one need to be careful, need not to bother etc.. c. broad coverage of examples.. d. tricky questions...good to experience... Overall I liked this course content and the breadth of coverage. Based on the difficulty i experienced let me place some points of improvements that would help every student.... e. could have dealt some specific examples in full (from definition to implementation) as part of video lecture which would helped better understanding of the problems, algorithms, impact of specifics, implementation issues, analysis methods, inferences that could be derived, final expected solution. f. expecting feedback on exercises.... not only correct or incorrect but reasoning for the responses could be of great help in better understanding.... g. downloadable videos could contain in video quiz... h. Octave content could be increased..... i. audio of the lectures needs fine tuning, hissing sounds could be filtered. For some of the lectures subtitles does not match at all... Thank you very much for coursera.... Thank you very much Prof. Andrew Ng..... Looking forward for mor courses related to ML by you.... | coverage of examples. . d. tricky | Question | . . good to experience. . | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | There should be more multiple choice questions; 20+ instead of just 5 questions. There should be more MCQ tests. 5+ instead of just one. There should be more assignments. 3+ instead of just one. Make it one easy, one medium and one hard. There should be more optional assignments. 5+ instead of just one. I know you guys are working hard as it is, but we learn by doing, not by listening or watching. Just food of thought. | questions; 20+ instead of just 5 | Question | There should be more MCQ tests. | Negative | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Andrew Ng is an excellent tutor and has a real talent for exposition. I find I'm getting the depth, rigor and keen interest that this subject commands, but not at the expense of clarity. I also find the quizzes to be conducive to my learning. In a modest number of questions, the most important points are covered completely. | learning. In a modest number of | Question | the most important points are covered | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course provides a very structured introduction to the subject of Machine Learning. Every week includes programming assignments in MATLAB/Octave. These come with templates and precise instructions. With a little experience in any programming language the assignments should be no problem. The assignments are well planned to keep the motivation up. Really great job! Learners should be familiar with vectors and matrices. Even though all the concepts are explained, being confident with the math will shorten the time for debugging the code immensely. The course team answers technical and other questions VERY quickly. Thanks again! | course team answers technical and other | Question | VERY quickly. Thanks again! | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very interesting content, very well explained. Minor issues: some quizzes or questions appear a little early sometimes regarding the order of the videos though, and subtitles are not always correct. | explained. Minor issues: some quizzes or | Question | appear a little early sometimes regarding | Positive | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Overall, an awesome course. It covers many useful algorithms and approaches to machine learning, and presents the material in an easy to understand manner. The assignments really reinforce the material and give you a chance to try out the lessons learned in the lectures. The only downside to this course is that it doesn't cover some of the more theoretical aspects of machine learning. After participating in this course, it is natural to ask "what questions can't we solve with machine learning?" "What defines something as machine learnable?", or "What are the mathematics behind this method?" These are small problems with an otherwise amazing course. In fact, I would say that this course is more useful than quite a few you can take an accredited university. | is natural to ask " what | Question | can't we solve with machine learning? | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Before starting this course, I had no previous knowledge of machine learning and I had never programmed in Octave and I have little/no programming skills. This is a 11-week course and so I was not sure if I would make it to the end (or even get through the first week) but I was keen to learn something new. Positive Aspects: The course is extremely well structured, with short videos (and test questions to help us verify if we have understood the concepts), quizzes and assignments. Prof. Andrew Ng presents the concepts (some very difficult) in a clear and almost intuitive manner without going too much into detail with mathematical proofs, making the course accessible to anyone. The mentors were fantastic and provided prompt responses, links to tutorials and test cases, which all helped me get through the course. Negative Aspects: Searching the Discussion Board for something specific was no easy task. I would have liked to have known the answers to some of the questions in the quizzes that I got wrong. What I loved about this course: Learning how powerful vectorization is, it allows us to write several lines of code in one single line and can be much faster than using for-loops. I was wowed several times. Prof. Andrew Ng is a great teacher. He is also extremely humble and very encouraging. During the course he often said, "It's ok if you don't understand this completely now. It also took me time to figure this out." This helped me a lot. He also said, "if you got through the assignments, you should consider yourself an expert!" and I laughed silly. By no means do I feel like an expert but now I have a basic understanding of the different types of learning algorithms, what they could be used for and more importantly this course has generated a spark in me to use this tool for things that I find interesting and for that I am very grateful. I don't think a teacher has ever thanked me for assisting a class. This is a first-time! So thank you Prof. Andrew Ng and everyone who worked to put this course together. Also, special thanks to Tom Mosher (mentor). My best MOOC so far! | structured, with short videos (and test | Question | to help us verify if we | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Before starting this course, I had no previous knowledge of machine learning and I had never programmed in Octave and I have little/no programming skills. This is a 11-week course and so I was not sure if I would make it to the end (or even get through the first week) but I was keen to learn something new. Positive Aspects: The course is extremely well structured, with short videos (and test questions to help us verify if we have understood the concepts), quizzes and assignments. Prof. Andrew Ng presents the concepts (some very difficult) in a clear and almost intuitive manner without going too much into detail with mathematical proofs, making the course accessible to anyone. The mentors were fantastic and provided prompt responses, links to tutorials and test cases, which all helped me get through the course. Negative Aspects: Searching the Discussion Board for something specific was no easy task. I would have liked to have known the answers to some of the questions in the quizzes that I got wrong. What I loved about this course: Learning how powerful vectorization is, it allows us to write several lines of code in one single line and can be much faster than using for-loops. I was wowed several times. Prof. Andrew Ng is a great teacher. He is also extremely humble and very encouraging. During the course he often said, "It's ok if you don't understand this completely now. It also took me time to figure this out." This helped me a lot. He also said, "if you got through the assignments, you should consider yourself an expert!" and I laughed silly. By no means do I feel like an expert but now I have a basic understanding of the different types of learning algorithms, what they could be used for and more importantly this course has generated a spark in me to use this tool for things that I find interesting and for that I am very grateful. I don't think a teacher has ever thanked me for assisting a class. This is a first-time! So thank you Prof. Andrew Ng and everyone who worked to put this course together. Also, special thanks to Tom Mosher (mentor). My best MOOC so far! | the answers to some of the | Question | in the quizzes that I got | Positive | 0.67 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course is a highly valuable one. It has been organized extremely well. The instructor provides a lot of motivation around Machine Learning and its uses and explains everything in a very simplistic way that even a non Linear-Algebra expert can understand. Furthermore, there were also mentors that had been really helpful by responding to questions and providing unit tests and test cases for the programming assignments in order to make the debugging an easier task for those attending the course. | been really helpful by responding to | Question | and providing unit tests and test | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This was by far the best class I have had so far on Coursera. I feel that I now have a really good understanding of linear and logistic regression and neural networks as well as the other learning methods that we touched upon. I thought that the quizzes and assignments were very appropriate and helped me to further cement my understanding that I gained through watching the video. Professor Ang explains the material very clearly. I always walked away feeling that any questions I might have were answered completely in the videos or in the discussions. I would highly recommend this class to anyone who wants to have a good understanding of Machine Learning. | always walked away feeling that any | Question | I might have were answered completely | Negative | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very well put together course. The lectures are logically structured and well presented with lots of meaningful and current examples. The Matlab programming assignments have been well thought out to incrementally step the student up through the different capabilities. 'Select All that Apply' quiz questions will likely drive you crazy as there is no feedback on no feedback on failed questions to understand where your mistake(s) was/were which means you spend hours more pouring over the videos/notes to try and better understand possible options for a subsequent attempt. | capabilities. 'Select All that Apply' quiz | Question | will likely drive you crazy as | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very well put together course. The lectures are logically structured and well presented with lots of meaningful and current examples. The Matlab programming assignments have been well thought out to incrementally step the student up through the different capabilities. 'Select All that Apply' quiz questions will likely drive you crazy as there is no feedback on no feedback on failed questions to understand where your mistake(s) was/were which means you spend hours more pouring over the videos/notes to try and better understand possible options for a subsequent attempt. | feedback on no feedback on failed | Question | to understand where your mistake(s) was/were | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| GVy8tIIKEeWXmQ4F86nmrw | Some exercises need some improvement. Tests were not that helpful and the instruction to the last homework was quite bad (many open questions). | homework was quite bad (many open | Question | | Negative | 0.83 | 1.0 |
| gw4zh2MfEeWckg7qTYxfmw | This is by far the best course I've seen on cities. It's amazing. But having to translate all the assignment questions is annoying. Surely all the assignment questions could be translated very easily. Having it in English would make this so much more accessible to African students who aren't francophone. I am South African and want to share this with friends but they find the french too intimidating. | having to translate all the assignment | Question | is annoying. Surely all the assignment | Negative | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| gw4zh2MfEeWckg7qTYxfmw | This is by far the best course I've seen on cities. It's amazing. But having to translate all the assignment questions is annoying. Surely all the assignment questions could be translated very easily. Having it in English would make this so much more accessible to African students who aren't francophone. I am South African and want to share this with friends but they find the french too intimidating. | is annoying. Surely all the assignment | Question | could be translated very easily. Having | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| gZ6cbKKkEeW1Bw7HN8tFsw | Professor Meyer gave exemplary lectures while explaining a variety of different philosophical schools. I found the course interesting and enriching primarily due to the high quality of the lectures given by Professor Meyer. The questions during the lectures were helpful and the quizzes were short and effective in testing learning. May Professor Meyer live long and continue to teach! | lectures given by Professor Meyer. The | Question | during the lectures were helpful and | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| gZ6cbKKkEeW1Bw7HN8tFsw | Outstanding course for those who don't fear the important questions, such as: "What makes a good life?". Don't miss it! | those who don't fear the important | Question | such as: " What makes a | Positive | 0.85 | 5.0 |
| gZ6cbKKkEeW1Bw7HN8tFsw | Clearly presented.course which focuses only on the principal question and themes of each of the 4 philosophies. I found it extremely valuable as it structured in a logical way these issues and also related themt modern life. My only criticism relates to the grading method of the final assignment 0 or 1 is far too simplistic. | which focuses only on the principal | Question | and themes of each of the | Positive | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Unlike the rest of the modules in this specialisation, this one was well taught, a good blend of theory and practice and well paced. There were still a few issues with wording in quizzes (and some where there seemed to be two identical answers to one question, where one would be considered right and the other wrong - purely chance). In addition, the lack of consistency in how to submit assignments across the specialisation is frustrating, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a way to show how to use github or something like that, but it shouldn't be the case. | be two identical answers to one | Question | where one would be considered right | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course allows you to implement practical solutions using machine learning algorithms without having to know the mechanisms behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately questions in the discussion forum were quite rare and many questions were not resolved during this course. | behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately | Question | in the discussion forum were quite | Positive | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course allows you to implement practical solutions using machine learning algorithms without having to know the mechanisms behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately questions in the discussion forum were quite rare and many questions were not resolved during this course. | forum were quite rare and many | Question | were not resolved during this course. | Positive | 0.97 | 4.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The quizes do not match a 100% with the lecture videos. There are some weird questions. My algorithms' outputs deviate from answers some times, which is due to different software versions. Quizes are not very educating this time. Courses by Brian Caffo were much better. | lecture videos. There are some weird | Question | My algorithms' outputs deviate from answers | Negative | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Very informative with plenty of real-life (or credible fictional) examples to better understand the concepts that were introduced. The pace was agreeable and the subjects diverse. Special mention should go to the instructor (Prof. Tobias Kretschmer), who did a terrific job! I liked the question format as well, though it could have been more challenging by not giving away the answers after an end-of-module quiz even if you didn't pass. That being said, the course is well worth 5 stars! | a terrific job! I liked the | Question | format as well, though it could | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | content was not as interesting as in the first course, but still good overall. Questions were also less analytical challenging as the first course. But I still enjoyed the course as the professor was explaining the subject clearly and the videos were compact and enjoyable. | first course, but still good overall. | Question | were also less analytical challenging as | Positive | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Overall, this is a good subject. However, some slides are not well organized. Many questions in assignment are too tricky. | slides are not well organized. Many | Question | in assignment are too tricky. | Negative | 0.69 | 3.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | while the task of summing up a lot of information in a minimum sized presentation is always a very difficult task, the structure of the material presented was not optimal. This in turn made it difficult for me personally to actually connect the weekly information presented with the overall meaning and the objective of each module. The "why" and "how" of most modules fit to the meaning we are forming (up to week 5 -the point I am leaving this class) is not evident. Last, some of the questions contained ambiguities that could not be reasonably clarified even going back and reviewing the material of the specific segment. Thank you for the offered class in any case. | not evident. Last, some of the | Question | contained ambiguities that could not be | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Material was tough, some of the questions weren't easy to understand / process. But overall a great class. | Material was tough, some of the | Question | weren't easy to understand / process. | Negative | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | quizzes. I got a number of | Question | wrong simply because I could not | Negative | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | explained. I would suggest more definitive | Question | and reduce multiple choice questions or | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | definitive questions and reduce multiple choice | Question | or at least define the question | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | questions or at least define the | Question | in a more narrow, specified manner | Negative | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | imagine non-business backgrounds would find the | Question | very difficult. | Negative | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| hgw1Nkd5EeW8cBKtDAegYw | This is a very basic course in using the arduino and having it communicate with various other devices. It is not a bad thing to have such a basic course exist, it is a good thing, but there are definite flaws in the course, the main ones being the grading system for the assignments and the lack of a place to go for clarification of the assignment / grading questions. Both the penultimate and the final assignments require a certain amount of extra research and learning beyond what was taught in the lectures and yet the grading instructions for the assignments did not allow for taking that into account; the grading criteria was either binary (grade of 100%, or 0) or had the possibility of a partial passing grade but without listing a number of possible criteria that would put a project into the partial passing grade category. | clarification of the assignment / grading | Question | Both the penultimate and the final | Positive | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| hgw1Nkd5EeW8cBKtDAegYw | I feel that the course did successfully help me to get started in this area of computing. My one disappointment was the removal of the traditional forums/discussions from the main body of the course, although it was possible to discuss things in a single discussion area. This made it less easy to discuss specific questions relating to your current assignment. As before I thought the practical demos were very good. I'm pleased I took the course - I wouldn't have made such good progress working on my own. I hope the Raspberry Pi related courses reinstate the internal discussions - they add to the sense of a common goal being achieved and recover some of the things that aren't available in a MOOC where face to face student/professor interaction aren't available. | it less easy to discuss specific | Question | relating to your current assignment. As | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| hhFDsQ72EeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Excellent introduction to game theory, high on concepts and practical applications, low on math. TA's are active in the forums. Quizzes usually have 4-5 very easy questions from lectures, 2-3 which require a little thought. | Quizzes usually have 4-5 very easy | Question | from lectures, 2-3 which require a | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Suitable neither for absolute beginners nor as a stand-alone course. For example, there are things that the quiz questions refer to that haven't been covered in the course, but you can't even look them up because they haven't given you the necessary terminology to find relevant information about them on google. This means that you'll be left looking through a minefield of resources that include the code in the quiz question but are actually about something else. I have now started using Lynda instead, and am seeing all the bad habits I've picked up and the holes left in my knowledge. Normally I prefer Lynda to Coursera for the assignments and the quizzes, but not in this case... | there are things that the quiz | Question | refer to that haven't been covered | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Suitable neither for absolute beginners nor as a stand-alone course. For example, there are things that the quiz questions refer to that haven't been covered in the course, but you can't even look them up because they haven't given you the necessary terminology to find relevant information about them on google. This means that you'll be left looking through a minefield of resources that include the code in the quiz question but are actually about something else. I have now started using Lynda instead, and am seeing all the bad habits I've picked up and the holes left in my knowledge. Normally I prefer Lynda to Coursera for the assignments and the quizzes, but not in this case... | include the code in the quiz | Question | but are actually about something else. | Negative | 0.85 | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Great way the info is presented. When we get the summary quizzes we sometimes get questions on subject matter that we did not cover and need to research the answers. I do like the assignment so far as it puts into practice what we have learned during the module | the summary quizzes we sometimes get | Question | on subject matter that we did | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I've learned a good deal about coding in HTML, CSS and JavaScript through this course. My only complaints are that the lecturer often whizzed through typing portions of the code during his lecture that I had to use more time than my schedule allotted reviewing the video slowly, and that some topics in the test questions didn't match any portion of the lecture. | that some topics in the test | Question | didn't match any portion of the | Positive | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Pretty awesome, nice people teaching and colleagues, a good feedback on every question, and also gave a good basis on the HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript development, but I would like to have more pure javascript solutions instead of jQuery. | colleagues, a good feedback on every | Question | and also gave a good basis | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Course is really helpful for whom start develop website, however, question set is too small so student can guess its answer in few trial (I don't like it). At the end, I admire your effort in these series and will keep joining the next course. | for whom start develop website, however, | Question | set is too small so student | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Very low level , im sorry but this cant be even considered a good intro to HTML,CSS im going to stop wasting my time watching this. no chllange in the assignments or questions , + more of an overview of the basics then the basics .. | no chllange in the assignments or | Question | , + more of an overview | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | many question in the quiz wasn't covered in the video lectures. I enrolled in this course looking for refreshing my info about the 3 subjects and hopefully gaining new in-depth info about them but the information presented during the course was very trivial and only covered few parts about the main 3 subjects | many | Question | in the quiz wasn't covered in | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Sometimes the teacher only shortly mentions things and then goes on with major exlanations about other things. Which is fine because I assume he will go deeper into the material later on. But when we had to do the final exam (for week 2), they asked questions about "what happens if there are two commands in the brackets" (like this .changeme .changemeagain). The teacher never ever mentioned that the first command is the most important one and the second is a kind of 'fallback', for example. And even if he did mention it, it was only a kind of sidenoteand did not seem that important. So, all in all, I really do like this course, but instructions aren't always super clear. | exam (for week 2), they asked | Question | about " what happens if there | Negative | 0.79 | 3.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | This course needs an overhaul. There are mistakes in some code examples and quiz questions are sometimes ambiguous. While I appreciate the work that has gone into making this MOOC, there are better courses available on Coursera to learn this material. | in some code examples and quiz | Question | are sometimes ambiguous. While I appreciate | Positive | 0.86 | 2.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | There was a lot of questions on the tests that were never covered in the videos. | There was a lot of | Question | on the tests that were never | Negative | 0.8 | 2.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | have been correct on the same | Question | in earlier quizzes. So take the | Negative | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | returned that way. On certain occasions, | Question | on one quiz were graded correct | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | then the exact same type of | Question | on another quiz was graded incorrect. | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Course seems fundamentally sound. Prof is enthusiatic and obvioulsy highly qualified. Really appreciate the proofs he provides such as the geometric development of the trig derivatives, the chain rule, and the fundamental theorem. I'd give it 5 stars for content and clarity. I am disappointed that some of the lectures were out of sequence with the quizzes and I really found that entering the answers to quizz questions was difficult. In some cases the tool misled me i.e. when the question indicated E should be entered for Euler's constant but the grading tool required e. Also in one instance the grading tool didn't recognize the right answer and I believe the correct answer wasn't even available as one of the choices. | that entering the answers to quizz | Question | was difficult. In some cases the | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Course seems fundamentally sound. Prof is enthusiatic and obvioulsy highly qualified. Really appreciate the proofs he provides such as the geometric development of the trig derivatives, the chain rule, and the fundamental theorem. I'd give it 5 stars for content and clarity. I am disappointed that some of the lectures were out of sequence with the quizzes and I really found that entering the answers to quizz questions was difficult. In some cases the tool misled me i.e. when the question indicated E should be entered for Euler's constant but the grading tool required e. Also in one instance the grading tool didn't recognize the right answer and I believe the correct answer wasn't even available as one of the choices. | misled me i. e. when the | Question | indicated E should be entered for | Negative | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Solid course. Good instructor. The quizzes, however, often were inconsistent on how to input Euler's number so that it could be read by the computer. 1 quiz had an item that did not contain a question (Thank god it was multiple choice) , and the last exam asked you to select between two answers which identical except for the fact that one added zero from x and one subtracted zero from x. | item that did not contain a | Question | (Thank god it was multiple choice) | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have never seen anybody who taught like Prof. Jim Fowler !!!!.Only he tells the "WHY" hidden behind every question. -Videos were FUN. -Practice Quizzes were making our understanding more clear about each topic. -End quizzes were extremely helpful. -Taking notes from his videos is "WORTH". THANK YOU | the " WHY" hidden behind every | Question | -Videos were FUN. -Practice Quizzes were | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | The teacher is Excellent. The materials used in teaching are very good. I liked the use of colors, the explanations in very details, and not skipping calculations. I liked the explanation behind everything, on how this is used in real life. I liked the enthusiasm of the teacher. He likes what he is doing and he loves Math. I think the limits subject should be taught in more details. I would liked it more if every theorem would have a proof. I think the use of epsilon/delta in practice was too little in this course, and should be expanded (it looks like this is a course for engineers rather than for mathematicians). The most painful problem in this course are the exercises, in 2 aspects. The first aspect: in many cases the exercises repeat themselves in a slightly different form - the diversity of of exercises should be expanded. The second aspect: exercises which require my typing have a lot of parsing issues, which are not clear, and are frustrating: example from integrals: the system would expect an answer like this one: (x)*(E^x) - E^x+C and would not accept a correct answer like this x*E^x - E^x+c. In this sense, I recommend using questions with multiple answers, and leave the open answers only for the cases where you need to type something where there are no parsing issues expected, such as typing numeric values. Thank you for this course. I liked it. | In this sense, I recommend using | Question | with multiple answers, and leave the | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This course is the only reason that I am currently flourishing in my college mathematics courses with 4.0s, but even more importantly, enjoying it. Prior to this, mathematics had always evoked a feeling of distress, but I now marvel in its ability to make us less intimidated by the universe's complexity and vastness, although it certainly does not answer every question. I almost feel guilty learning all of the things which took the whole human civilization thousands and thousands of years to contrive, and am humbled by the geniuses who had discovered all of the finite crucial mathematical theorems which ultimately gave way to an infinite amount of physical discoveries and insight, explaining "the complex visible by some simple invisible", as Jean Perrin once said. | it certainly does not answer every | Question | I almost feel guilty learning all | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Has a bit too many errors in the questions, and there's no proper introduction to new signs. | bit too many errors in the | Question | and there's no proper introduction to | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This is actually good. the tutor is very fun and it makes me feel clearly about calculus. But, it will be more excellent if this course give a short quiz for each topic in end of the section. And for the final test, can this course give more test? I mean like more question in number or kind of test. | more test? I mean like more | Question | in number or kind of test. | Negative | 0.98 | 3.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | It was a really fun course; I have started to understand how the power rule, etc can be used to differentiate functions and also learning new methods to integrate (Riemann Sum) and differentiate! Sadly, I wish there were extra questions that you could attempt to consolidate your knowledge! | Sadly, I wish there were extra | Question | that you could attempt to consolidate | Negative | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I recommend you this course. This course is very nice. Lectures are very easy to understand even if you are first time of calculus. But I think the questions are too little to exercise enough. Anyway thanks for the instructor. He's very nice and passionate guy. | of calculus. But I think the | Question | are too little to exercise enough. | Negative | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This course is very impressive to me. I get many experiences in answering the questions. Thanks | get many experiences in answering the | Question | Thanks | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I thought the professor was really great about explaining things in a clear, concise manner. I think some of the quiz problems were more complicated than they needed to be, especially considering that typing in a long string you're very likely to have a typo which results in missing a question you knew how to do. | typo which results in missing a | Question | you knew how to do. | Negative | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I enjoyed it. Jim Fowler does well, his enthusiasm and the time and effort he (and whatever filming and editing team he has) have put into the presentation is impressive. Difficult for me to rate it as a maths course - how would I know whether it covers what it needs and have anything meaningful to stay about the standard of it. I felt I understood what was going on, I passed the quizzes. Maybe that's all good? Occasional bug in the quizes - nothing you can't work around (eg totally blank question but four answers to choose from.) The mathematical symbol rendering doesn't work on the mobile app at all. | can't work around (eg totally blank | Question | but four answers to choose from. | Negative | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| HUJ11BnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Good course overall. Would be nice if the course offered review of questions we answered incorrectly. That would be helpful feedback. | if the course offered review of | Question | we answered incorrectly. That would be | Negative | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| HUJ11BnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Useful but a little bit fluffy (but i guess so is the topic). The material is good, the presentation (the speaker) is awesome: clear spoken and at a good pace. i found the questions in the quiz to be a bit vague. | a good pace. i found the | Question | in the quiz to be a | Negative | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | Good course, but the SWIRL exercises (and a few quiz questions) needed to be updated for the latest version of ggplot2. | SWIRL exercises (and a few quiz | Question | needed to be updated for the | Negative | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | A quiz or project question on k-means clustering or PCA would be nice. Overall the course provided solid coverage of the three main plotting systems in R. | A quiz or project | Question | on k-means clustering or PCA would | Negative | 0.71 | 4.0 |
| HXsj6jeHEeWJaxK5AT4frw | This course is a bit repetitive and provides only a few real life examples. As well as this, the evaluation of this course is based on the result of a single quiz of 15 questions, which is not enough to prove any knowledge at all. I think it should focus on a more practice oriented course in order to master the price optimization process and see how it fluctuates in real life examples. However, this course gives great insights and useful concepts that are of huge importance to the application of the revenue management activities. | of a single quiz of 15 | Question | which is not enough to prove | Negative | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A thoroughly inspiring, empowering, exciting, and enjoyable course. During the course, I found myself wanting to rush on to the next part because I was delighted to find answers to questions I've had for years and other pearls of wisdom, but on the other hand I also wanted to linger and revel in the process of making. I most heartily recommend this course to anyone looking to start out in graphic design, or who, like me, enjoys hobbies such as card making and creative embroidery. | was delighted to find answers to | Question | I've had for years and other | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This course does go over some of the basics of graphic design, but I expected it to be a lot more rigorous. The assignments are incredibly simple, and I think that there should be no optional assignments in the class. The reason I'm taking this class is because I have a hard time motivating myself to learn on my own, so I need something that will really push me. I only spent about an hour a week completing this course, and I believe that you can't learn something by only spending an hour a week on it. Also what's the point of having mentors if they don't engage with you? I know I could have contacted them if I had a question, but I didn't because it was so easy. I wouldn't mind getting feedback from a professional graphic designer though if they're available. Also seeing how many students misinterpret the assignments, it makes me nervous that they are the ones grading mine. | contacted them if I had a | Question | but I didn't because it was | Negative | 0.98 | 2.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I loved the course, although I think the instructions for various briefs should be more precise and/or someone should be available to clarify the instructions and answer any questions from students (regarding the briefs). | clarify the instructions and answer any | Question | from students (regarding the briefs). | Negative | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | An excellent introduction to graphic design. The videos were useful to clearly show the concepts. There were a number of assignments, many of them optional, which allowed you to practice and integrate the learnings. All material was taught at a level that made it accessible to a true novice. My only hesitation on giving this course 5 stars was the lack of any presence of teachers/tutors in the course discussions. There was a lot of questions about the final marked assignment, with many posts on the discussion boards. There was no response from anyone other than the participants in the course. The issue was not clarified and students were left to interpret (and peer review based on that intrepretation) the instructions on their own. | discussions. There was a lot of | Question | about the final marked assignment, with | Negative | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I totally liked the hands-on approach and the nice presentation of the material. On the other hand, I felt a little left alone since there was no didactically planned interaction beyond the peer reviews. Furthermore, a forum for discussion is nice, but it's a little sad if no one can answer course related formal questions, you misinterpret the instructions, and therefore receive a low grade. | one can answer course related formal | Question | you misinterpret the instructions, and therefore | Positive | 0.82 | 3.0 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | The questions based on the lectures are quite different and confusing | The | Question | based on the lectures are quite | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | This a great course it helps a lot to get to know state of the art techniques and how to use them properly although the assigment questions of selecting the statements are quite confusing. | use them properly although the assigment | Question | of selecting the statements are quite | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | On the bright side, "Lab based" videos are excellent for visualize the techniques. Nevertheless "Choose all that apply" questions in the quizzes are very ambiguous, these questions should contain an explanation for prevent confusion at the end of every unit. | Nevertheless " Choose all that apply" | Question | in the quizzes are very ambiguous, | Positive | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | On the bright side, "Lab based" videos are excellent for visualize the techniques. Nevertheless "Choose all that apply" questions in the quizzes are very ambiguous, these questions should contain an explanation for prevent confusion at the end of every unit. | the quizzes are very ambiguous, these | Question | should contain an explanation for prevent | Negative | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| IfDtq1vFEeSKTyIAC0YL2w | I absolutely loved this course. The material is highly relevant to someone who works with large databases and computational tools. The lab portion really demonstrates how different online resources can help answer research questions. | online resources can help answer research | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| IfDtq1vFEeSKTyIAC0YL2w | At first the questions were wrong, but i contacted with the professor and he corrected them. | At first the | Question | were wrong, but i contacted with | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Some tough assignment questions which lead to much longer homework time than anticipated, so you need to leave ample time to complete the assignments. But, great class over-all. | Some tough assignment | Question | which lead to much longer homework | Negative | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Very clearly laid out and well explained course. The assignments cover the lecture topics without being an exact recreation of what the videos demonstrate, and the mid-video questions are helpful for building intuition. | the videos demonstrate, and the mid-video | Question | are helpful for building intuition. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Fantastic introductory course to a long awaited specialization. I'm an electrical engineer and I was related to most of the theory prof. Erickson discussed with us in the lectures, but assignments, quick questions and facts were beyond my expectations. I can actually say I learnt things in these few weeks. And is just the beginning. Can't wait until we get to the control loop design for active filtering techniques. Great job by prof. Erickson and his team for the resources and the knowledge. | in the lectures, but assignments, quick | Question | and facts were beyond my expectations. | Negative | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Very good. Questions were good enough for testing the knowledge and lof students. | Very good. | Question | were good enough for testing the | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| Ijr8rurHEeSb-yIACwuKNg | Excellent course. There are many questions to think. | Excellent course. There are many | Question | to think. | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| Ijr8rurHEeSb-yIACwuKNg | needs more questions and answers. maybe just a section for practice or somethin | needs more | Question | and answers. maybe just a section | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | The course is very basic, videos contain a lot of repetitions and quiz questions are too easy (in addition, I believe that there are too much negative questions). I believe that this course should be called an Introduction to the basics of Nutrition and it's only for complete newbies. There are no insights in specifics of child nutrition besides general concepts of balanced diet and some tips how to make your kids be more enthusiastic in eating vegetables. | a lot of repetitions and quiz | Question | are too easy (in addition, I | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | The course is very basic, videos contain a lot of repetitions and quiz questions are too easy (in addition, I believe that there are too much negative questions). I believe that this course should be called an Introduction to the basics of Nutrition and it's only for complete newbies. There are no insights in specifics of child nutrition besides general concepts of balanced diet and some tips how to make your kids be more enthusiastic in eating vegetables. | that there are too much negative | Question | I believe that this course should | Negative | 0.92 | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | I am really disappointed with the content of this course. If what you're looking for is the most basic of information on making better choices and remembering to wash your cutting board after handling raw meat, maybe this course is for you. If, however, you come to this course wanting specific information about how to build great meals for babies, toddlers, and young children, or you'd like to know how their needs change over time, this course is not for you. I was hoping for information like how to teach your toddler to chew/eat difficult things (ex: whole apples). I wanted to know at what age/weight you switch to 2% milk. I wanted to know how many calories a meal should be based on height and weight and how that changes over time. I wanted to know medically verified tips on getting the right amount of each nutrient into a toddler's diet and what, if any, extra vitamins should be added. I wanted tips on weaning if you're still nursing a toddler... I guess I just wanted more. In addition, the quizzes are so easy as to be silly. Actual quiz question and correct answer: Which is NOT a good way to approach grocery shopping if healthy choices are desired? Answer: Visit the supermarket hungry and walk through the candy aisle first. COME ON! Did I need a Stanford University course to tell me that one?!?!? While the instructor is knowledgeable, this course is geared toward someone with NO knowledge, not someone who wants to gain a deeper understanding. The videos are painfully slow (am I waiting for a doodle here???) and I could read the entire course worth of transcripts in under a half hour rather than go through all of the videos. And the recipes... good god! I don't think that someone interested in learning more about child nutrition is needing a slow tutorial on how to make basic oatmeal on the stove top. If she'd upped the game- showed basics and then talked about the benefits of adding, say, chia seeds, different fruits, flax, etc. and how best to make a basic bowl of oatmeal into a complete breakfast, that would have been a useful topic. I'm just hugely disappointed. This course is best suited to perhaps a health department; not to someone seeking college level information about a topic that matters to their children's lives. | as to be silly. Actual quiz | Question | and correct answer: Which is NOT | Negative | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | This course helped me to solve some questions i had about nutrition. It also helped me with lots of techniques to include vegetables and healthy food at home. My 9 years old boy tested a cucumber yesterday with salad dressing! i couldn't believe that was possible. It's easy to follow and encouraging. Thank you. MG. from Venezuela. | course helped me to solve some | Question | i had about nutrition. It also | Positive | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | This was a good introduction to Coursera for me. Some of the information I already knew, but it was good to learn the "why" behind some of it. There were a few of the quizzes that contained questions from videos that hadn't been covered yet. Her information about food allergies was good, I would like to see her offer a class on just that topic. | few of the quizzes that contained | Question | from videos that hadn't been covered | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Worst course ever. I stopped partway through. Too many links to outside stuff. Tests/quizes were not based on what was presented in the lessons. Test design is horrible, too many negative questions. Glances over the good true information about nutrition to tell us about free range farms, farmers markets, etc., which most people do not have access to or can not afford. Giving it 1 star is being nice People who sponsored it should get their money back. | design is horrible, too many negative | Question | Glances over the good true information | Negative | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Excellent course. The material presented was not difficult to comprehend. I highly recommend this to parents who are in a quandry every night when the question, "what's for dinner?" presents itself. More than the content, I was most impressed by the manner in which the course was taught. Instead of a "talking head" format, the instructor used a variety of techniques to present the material, including teaching the majority of the class from her kitchen, using an interactive "blackboard" to illustrate concepts while she spoke and lots of cooking demonstrations. Kudos to Stanford for producing such high quality content. I have started a lot of Coursera courses and this is the first one that I've been able to complete because the content kept me engaged. | a quandry every night when the | Question | " what's for dinner? " presents | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Could be in much greater depth. Loved the video lectures: more please! Perhaps a second video lecture per week that delves into greater detail, so that the level of discussion is more in line with the PMBOK. The quizzes were simplistic, which is fine, but the final was literally just questions from the quizzes pasted together (all were repeats!) This sad fact undermines the integrity of the final as an actual test of ability and comprehension. | but the final was literally just | Question | from the quizzes pasted together (all | Negative | 0.85 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful slides for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy questions and exams. Not challenging at all | for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy | Question | and exams. Not challenging at all | Positive | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | test questions far too easy slide show lessons not well structured and too focussed on repetetive concepts | test | Question | far too easy slide show lessons | Negative | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Course goes over the most basic points, but also allows you (if you are interested) to dive much deeper into the content. Seems it has everything any project manager would want, so definitely worth taking. Would have wanted the questions to be a little more difficult and potentially more questions to help make sure the information was retained. Overall a great course. | worth taking. Would have wanted the | Question | to be a little more difficult | Negative | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Course goes over the most basic points, but also allows you (if you are interested) to dive much deeper into the content. Seems it has everything any project manager would want, so definitely worth taking. Would have wanted the questions to be a little more difficult and potentially more questions to help make sure the information was retained. Overall a great course. | little more difficult and potentially more | Question | to help make sure the information | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I really appreciate to learn this course - I've got a lot of answers for my daily questions. | lot of answers for my daily | Question | | Positive | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| iRl53_BWEeW4_wr--Yv6Aw | Excellent course from IBM IoT. Enjoyed it very much. The practical assignments were fun. It was great seeing my SensorHat board coming to life. The instructor videos were great and provided enough information to complete the assignments. I liked, it didn't attempt to spoon feed you ... and you needed to search for some of the solutions. Everyone was very helpful answering questions on the forum, and I liked the Coursera environment. Good stuff! | solutions. Everyone was very helpful answering | Question | on the forum, and I liked | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| iRl53_BWEeW4_wr--Yv6Aw | Clear explanations for using Node-RED tool. The intro to IoT is a bit too verbose, and 1st quiz has like a "gotcha" question. | quiz has like a " gotcha" | Question | | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course sets the stage for the rest of the Data Science specialisation. You get a lot of textbooks for free and they cover a lot of material. The quizzes are a little bit underwhelming, especially the first week. Too few questions, testing some questionable knowledge (eg, what other courses there are in the specialisation -- hardly a required tool in the data scientist's box). Overall, it's a good preparation for what is to come. It managed to whet my appetite for more , however I'm not sure the course is very useful on its own. | especially the first week. Too few | Question | testing some questionable knowledge (eg, what | Positive | 0.71 | 3.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | you shouldn't email the teachers with | Question | and that online questions should be | Negative | 0.73 | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | teachers with questions and that online | Question | should be of a certain standard, | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | think teachers should be available for | Question | even if its only through the | Negative | 0.89 | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course was a great intro to these concepts and helpful guide to getting things set up and getting used to the MOOC format, as well! A few times it seemed like the slides jumped right in while skipping over a bit of context, but was able to orient myself with some googling and asking friends some basic questions to figure things out. | googling and asking friends some basic | Question | to figure things out. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's a good first step into getting the right programs, learning key vocabulary, and interacting with important websites/programs at a very introductory level. If you are not from a math/statistics background you can still complete the course but you will not understand the previews for later courses completely, that is ok! But consider getting the eBook with this course. My only complaint is the quizzes, it often feels impossible to get a 5/5 based on only what you get from the lectures, there's always 1 question that is completely over the top compared to the other 4, but you can do the quizzes 3 times every 8 hours and just trial and error the 1 gotcha question on each quiz. | from the lectures, there's always 1 | Question | that is completely over the top | Negative | 0.83 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's a good first step into getting the right programs, learning key vocabulary, and interacting with important websites/programs at a very introductory level. If you are not from a math/statistics background you can still complete the course but you will not understand the previews for later courses completely, that is ok! But consider getting the eBook with this course. My only complaint is the quizzes, it often feels impossible to get a 5/5 based on only what you get from the lectures, there's always 1 question that is completely over the top compared to the other 4, but you can do the quizzes 3 times every 8 hours and just trial and error the 1 gotcha question on each quiz. | trial and error the 1 gotcha | Question | on each quiz. | Positive | 0.83 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is perfect for really newbie. However, it also answers the question of "What is Data Science?" | newbie. However, it also answers the | Question | of " What is Data Science? | Positive | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is a good first into to the topic. I think that the additional reading from the book and the Git manual will supplement it very well. My only complain is that in the first quiz, there was a question regarding some R packages used in Machine Learning that were not covered in the slides. It took me a while to find those so I had to take the first quiz 3 times. I think this question should be revised to guide the student as to how to find these packages. Another alternative would be that in the slides there some guidance in this matter. Otherwise, I liked to course and the final assignments. | the first quiz, there was a | Question | regarding some R packages used in | Negative | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is a good first into to the topic. I think that the additional reading from the book and the Git manual will supplement it very well. My only complain is that in the first quiz, there was a question regarding some R packages used in Machine Learning that were not covered in the slides. It took me a while to find those so I had to take the first quiz 3 times. I think this question should be revised to guide the student as to how to find these packages. Another alternative would be that in the slides there some guidance in this matter. Otherwise, I liked to course and the final assignments. | quiz 3 times. I think this | Question | should be revised to guide the | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | most part of this course is a duplicate of the "R programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher quality is very bad. not original, boring, dividing this in "4 weeks" is too ridiculously long, this should be done in 1 week to enable users to take more time for the "R programming". this course should be free. don't lose too much time on it, it's doable in a day or a weekend and move on to "R programming". asking for so much money to see how to install R and github is a shame. feels like this course has been added just to have a round number for the specialization. even the survey in the end asking for feedback starts with a question not adapted to moment it's been asked "did you get a certificate?" of course i did not as i've just finish the course and now wait for my peers to review my final submission. | asking for feedback starts with a | Question | not adapted to moment it's been | Negative | 0.82 | 1.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The first week's quiz is really difficult and I had to go through the lecture material several times. Because of the great number of very short lectures it is difficult to find an asnwer to sought question. | to find an asnwer to sought | Question | | Positive | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is in fact an overall intro to the full data science specialization. Some of the content are useful; but some of the quiz questions are not very informative, and don't really test on stats... | useful; but some of the quiz | Question | are not very informative, and don't | Negative | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Basically if you take this course you are paying money to create an account on a website and download some software (both of which you can do for free). The rest of it is a preview of the other courses in the series. The quiz questions don't correspond to the information on the slides. I successfully passed the course, but I didn't really learn anything. Now I am debating on whether or not to continue to the R programming course after reading through the reviews of that course. | courses in the series. The quiz | Question | don't correspond to the information on | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Really solid introduction to the subject matter. This course gave me a better understanding of how to go about finding the questions which need to be answered, which is fundemental to the study of data science. Also, it gave me a wonderful tutorial on where to find help and how to ask for help which I found very useful. | how to go about finding the | Question | which need to be answered, which | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Very informative course. The Quiz questions however may not be necessarily be in the course content. | Very informative course. The Quiz | Question | however may not be necessarily be | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | First experience got me hooked. I love coursera. This course, even though an introduction taught me a lot and showed me an error of my ways in everyday life. One question in the 3rd Quiz was very confusing to answer. But that's about it. I hope the rest of the specialization carries on forward in a similar maybe even better pattern. | my ways in everyday life. One | Question | in the 3rd Quiz was very | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | From the basic layout of the course you would assume it's for beginners since it covers step-by-step instructions to install software and run command on command line window. But on the other hand, many advanced concepts are slipped in this course without even basic introduction. I remember in one class, "data dredging" is discussed for about 2-3 minutes. But the instructor did not give a brief description about what it is, instead it just goes on about when you do not have clear question in your mind, you would run the risk of data dredging. I think the course could be organized in a better way. But I do appreciate the instructors' hard work of putting up such a 10-course specialization. | when you do not have clear | Question | in your mind, you would run | Negative | 0.84 | 3.0 |
| It7SNTe-EeWCYBKNeFwojw | Great course with a lot of details and clear instructions which gives answer to lot of my questions. Thanks Yaakov, keep up the great work. | gives answer to lot of my | Question | Thanks Yaakov, keep up the great | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| It7SNTe-EeWCYBKNeFwojw | The videos are clear, easy to follow and with plenty of examples, great information and content. Lots of material and sources to read, actually in my case not enough time to read it. The teacher YaaKov is a great instructor, his assignments are written in great detail and very clear steps, so is easy to comprehend and execute. The teacher as well as the teaching staff always answer promptly and in depth your questions or comments in the forum. This is my second course with Yaakov Chaikin and I am very happy with this particular course and the great instructor and the extra resources he offers to learn . | answer promptly and in depth your | Question | or comments in the forum. This | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Strategic implementation, something that people generally forget about after creating their "marvellous" strategies and then watch them fail. This course teaches us how not to make that mistake. The course was nicely organised, though I believe the rubric for the last peer review assignment could do with a bit of tweaking. Rating on a 1-5 scale for about 10 questions clearly showed central tendency problems, as well as lots of subjectivity in the reviews. I hope it can be improved in the future! | a 1-5 scale for about 10 | Question | clearly showed central tendency problems, as | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Material was very good and well structured. I think that one main issue is the assignment. We would need much more info/hard facts to make it much more interesting (i.e. less theoritical). Moreover, assignments are reviewed by people 1/ who did not necessarily went through the 2 previous courses 2/ did not see our previous documents ie for course 1 and 2 3/ did not necessarily understand the question (one person complained because I did not answer the question "edgy vs. conservative" => I guess she was misled by the support info which were the same as for the first course). This problem could be avoided by offering a distinct case for each assignment, so that there is no confusion/mis-match. In any case, "mange tak" for all your courses. I went through 3 so far, and the ones from CBS are clearly the best I had (videos - content and speed - slides/ support documents, quizzes). | 3/ did not necessarily understand the | Question | (one person complained because I did | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Material was very good and well structured. I think that one main issue is the assignment. We would need much more info/hard facts to make it much more interesting (i.e. less theoritical). Moreover, assignments are reviewed by people 1/ who did not necessarily went through the 2 previous courses 2/ did not see our previous documents ie for course 1 and 2 3/ did not necessarily understand the question (one person complained because I did not answer the question "edgy vs. conservative" => I guess she was misled by the support info which were the same as for the first course). This problem could be avoided by offering a distinct case for each assignment, so that there is no confusion/mis-match. In any case, "mange tak" for all your courses. I went through 3 so far, and the ones from CBS are clearly the best I had (videos - content and speed - slides/ support documents, quizzes). | because I did not answer the | Question | " edgy vs. conservative" => I | Negative | 0.87 | 3.0 |
| JBCvTm03EeWEewoyD2Bc5Q | Great content! This definitely challenges the mindset of what it takes to be a business owner or entrepreneur. One opportunity I see for the course is to better link the quiz language to what's taught in the videos and the articles, especially for the open ended questions. Those specific points can get lost in all of the ideas shared. | articles, especially for the open ended | Question | Those specific points can get lost | Positive | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| jcbwGG00EeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | Positive: Approach to the topics is solid, readings are very valuable. Negative: Some videos in week 3 and 4 have audio issues. Course should had a template with the course objectives, learning outcomes and grading scheme. 4 out of 6 quizzes didn't allow to see which questions were right or wrong. Social media resources such as a linkedin group for the specialization would add value. But the most negative aspect was not having the slides. A lot of the topics covered were presented very fast and not having the slides to review the materials made my experience in learning very frustrating. I note that also the course Critical Perspectives on Management had the same problems with the quizzes and also did not provide slides. what was somewhat frustrating also. Also, if IE is making an effort to become more relevant in this online space, it should allocate human resources to monitor and interact in the discussion forums. In my opinion there are a lot of opportunities to improve the student experience. What I found somewhat because being this a series of courses in marketing, a lot of these issues had to been fixed/addressed before the course started... Nonetheless my critics - which I expect to be considered as constructive critics, it is important to thank IE and Coursera for continuing providing online courses. I wish you luck. Ricardo J. Oliveira | quizzes didn't allow to see which | Question | were right or wrong. Social media | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Robert Wright does an excellent job presenting Buddhist ideas and putting them into context with modern psychology studies. I felt he offered a unique and scientific approach to the discourses and very much enjoyed his interviews and insights. The questions at the end of every lecture were very helpful to solidify new concepts. I look forward to digging deeper into supplemental materials. | enjoyed his interviews and insights. The | Question | at the end of every lecture | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | this course has changed my life, I have learned so much and have a new passion for evolution psychology, it has answered life long questions. | psychology, it has answered life long | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | As I followed the course my interest grew, because great questions arise, and the connections between Psychology and Buddhism are clear, an exiting discovery for me. Also, professor Wright is an excellent orator, so the lectures was clear and pleasant. | course my interest grew, because great | Question | arise, and the connections between Psychology | Positive | 0.85 | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Excellent! I thoroughly enjoyed the professor's explanations and all the guest speakers he invited to give their input. He is very dedicated and answered many questions in his office hours, with humor and genuine care. Also, Frasier and Milo are impossibly cute. | is very dedicated and answered many | Question | in his office hours, with humor | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Loved this course. It was a lot of fun. The Prof. really cares about the subject and how his students contribute to his own understanding of it. (He takes a lot of time reading students' comments and replying to them during "office hours.") He also reaches out to experts in both psychology and Buddhism and shows you his dialogue with them. Finally, the guiding questions for the assignments are a good challenge and the instructions for structuring the paper very clear. I didn't have time to write the papers but will as soon as I've the time. Bonus: you get to meet his dogs, and they're awesome. | dialogue with them. Finally, the guiding | Question | for the assignments are a good | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Loved the professor. Do not like essay questions. | the professor. Do not like essay | Question | | Negative | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Answered many of my questions! | Answered many of my | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Very delightful course as it is more than well taught and full of interesting data, opinions and experiments. The videos are very helpful and provide us of a large names to look for and read about. The resources are pretty enough and interesting. Office hours have been a discover: great questions from students and "being at home chatting with Robert" feeling all around. I appreciate so much Robert´s enthusiasm and above all, his natural and funny way to explain course concepts with his dogs or with his attachments to dark chocolate or powdered sugar doughnuts. Many thanks to Robert and to all the technical stuff for providing us this course with all the work they had done. | hours have been a discover: great | Question | from students and " being at | Negative | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| jeelkkLEEeWB_AoW1KYI4Q | c'est un excellent site d’étude mais il faut encore une page ou un lien qui nous permette d'avoir une réponse instantanément à la question que l'on pose parce que dans le forum la réponse vient après un temps un peu trop long peut-être même pas | d'avoir une réponse instantanément à la | Question | que l'on pose parce que dans | Negative | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok. Unfortunately: At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code. The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught. The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition. If you do take the course I'd want you to know: You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs. There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up. On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration. To conclude: This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it. | There are no " gotcha" quiz | Question | If you are confused by getting | Negative | 0.74 | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok. Unfortunately: At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code. The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught. The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition. If you do take the course I'd want you to know: You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs. There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up. On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration. To conclude: This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it. | you are confused by getting a | Question | wrong you might want to re-try | Negative | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok. Unfortunately: At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code. The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught. The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition. If you do take the course I'd want you to know: You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs. There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up. On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration. To conclude: This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it. | the way at least one quiz | Question | is set up. On the final | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The course provides a good insight into the world of Aerial Robotics and the dynamics involved in controlling the quad-rotors. Were the course fails is it does not explain the basics , there is more focus on trial and error and the questions are not formulated correctly such that they are simple to understand. It could have been better if the Introductory course to the specialization had little mathematical involved or could have been explained in simpler terms or with examples instead of showing the equation in the video. | on trial and error and the | Question | are not formulated correctly such that | Positive | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | in Matlab. That said, the last | Question | in the last exam, was an | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | felt like a " shake out" | Question | I passed the course and had | Negative | 0.87 | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | did, made it through that last | Question | in multiple random fashions. The material | Negative | 0.99 | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | the last part of the last | Question | as my concern is that there | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I had very high hopes for this course. I was actually planning to purchase the specialization - just as a thank you gesture. Unfortunately, there is very little to be grateful for here. In this course, you get a series of super short lectures giving you an overview of the math and physics behind the aerial robotics. I can't be the judge (since I hold a degree in this area), but I don't think you'll be able to get much if you aren't familiar with the topics yet. And you most certainly won't learn anything new if you had some previous training. And then suddenly there are assignments. That have almost nothing to do with the lectures, but require quite a bit of Matlab programming (did I mention you won't be taught any Matlab in the process?) To make things worse, the assignments are rather poorly explained. By the way, you won't get any replies from the course team - they even ignore questions about errors in lectures. The course looks very sloppy. As if someone forced the team to put together something for Coursera. A huge disappointment :( | course team - they even ignore | Question | about errors in lectures. The course | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I think there needs to be more association elaborated between the video lectures and the questions being asked during the lectures. It seems these questions are asked before the lecture itself tends to touch the point of it. Secondly, it was a bit difficult to associate the assignment write-ups to the lectures. Obviously they were relevant but this should be more clear in text and video. | between the video lectures and the | Question | being asked during the lectures. It | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I think there needs to be more association elaborated between the video lectures and the questions being asked during the lectures. It seems these questions are asked before the lecture itself tends to touch the point of it. Secondly, it was a bit difficult to associate the assignment write-ups to the lectures. Obviously they were relevant but this should be more clear in text and video. | during the lectures. It seems these | Question | are asked before the lecture itself | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | This course covered a lot of material, provided a well-rounded intro to the physics of 3D motion in the quad rotor context, included excellent supplemental videos to explain some of the tough mathematical concepts, and included well-designed practical assignments. The bridge between lecture and assignment, particularly the trajectory planning question in the last assignment, could be refined as the course iterates, although the material I found myself struggling through that very tough problem may be that which I retain most from this class. Over all an excellent class, and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. | and assignment, particularly the trajectory planning | Question | in the last assignment, could be | Positive | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective. Some issues however - 1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves. 2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question. 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is". 4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so. Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon. | good enough to answer a particular | Question | 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark | Negative | 0.82 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective. Some issues however - 1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves. 2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question. 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is". 4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so. Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon. | weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One | Question | asked " why" and the answer | Negative | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Very interesting course. Lectures were very informative however some test questions, especially in first quiz, where not covered directly in course materials. | were very informative however some test | Question | especially in first quiz, where not | Positive | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The material this course provided is sufficient for a beginner in robotics. But I have to say that the material the coursed presented is not well prepared. The lectures are not well organized. Some necessary prerequisite should be at least provided as reading materials. Quizs ask some questions that is not clearly mentioned in the lecture and some are with a little ambiguity. | as reading materials. Quizs ask some | Question | that is not clearly mentioned in | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | could me much better , if the questions in the quiz can actually related to the lecture | me much better , if the | Question | in the quiz can actually related | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| K28H5jJ0EeWgIQ7IEhB31Q | I feel that the course was great but I felt confused on the last assignment, we covered a lot of things during the last week but then I was unsure if I should've applied that on our assignment... Also I'm not sure if it is possible but if we could have a chance to ask the teacher questions would be great. I know that there is a lot of people going this courses and maybe it is not possible but still there are things that I feel only the teacher could answer. Overall the course was good :) | a chance to ask the teacher | Question | would be great. I know that | Positive | 0.78 | 4.0 |
| k8B9WjxkEeW7GArkqhNhJw | If you are surrounded by music, live, breath and love the music business; this course is for you. I write my own material and work with all my music responsibilities and this course helped a lot with the different aspects of music and what goes behind the scenes and beyond the artist. This course clarify lots of questions I had regarding the business side of music. Prof. Kellogg speaks about all the little terms and big words use in the business and breaks them down in small bite of knowledge that become easy to comprehend. Thanks, Berklee College of Music and Coursera for this great course. | artist. This course clarify lots of | Question | I had regarding the business side | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | Professor Noor is very friendly and clear in his lectures. He also answers questions in the discussion foruns with speed and detail. I was able to learn a lot from this course and challenged myself to a heavier load of lectures than I had expected because they were not boring at all. My only caveat is that the questions in his quizzes can sometimes be unnecessarily confusing because of wording or tricks. | in his lectures. He also answers | Question | in the discussion foruns with speed | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | Professor Noor is very friendly and clear in his lectures. He also answers questions in the discussion foruns with speed and detail. I was able to learn a lot from this course and challenged myself to a heavier load of lectures than I had expected because they were not boring at all. My only caveat is that the questions in his quizzes can sometimes be unnecessarily confusing because of wording or tricks. | My only caveat is that the | Question | in his quizzes can sometimes be | Positive | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | I found this course very well taught. Especially the lectures wre conceived in a way that it was entertaining and challeging at the same time. Coming for a social science background myself, I was delighted by the way the course eased people from outside the subject area into the field. Additionally, I was able to to do the course without it conflicitng with my job (in my case it actually helped my own research in social science, which made even mor eof a success for me). Prof. Noor did a great job in teaching without overburden and keeping a light tone while making me learn. Only one minor problem: Having never encountered multiple choice during my academic career, I was sometimes thrown off by the wording of questions and answers. I know it is hard to creat quiz-formats that are not based on multiple choice, but it would maybe make the course more comprehensive, i there were. Since this is likely to be a problem with my own experience and does not affect others so much, I would not go as far as deducing anything. A future wish: Maybe a course on the subject, specialising in some subareas based on this course woudl be great. All in all, Prof. Noor and his team did a good job in conceiving and conducting this course. | thrown off by the wording of | Question | and answers. I know it is | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | very interesting. I regret that we are not allowed to discuss the exam questions (of course after the dead line) for a better understanding. | not allowed to discuss the exam | Question | (of course after the dead line) | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | I thought I knew a bit about Genetics & Evolution when I enrolled, but the first Genetics lecture showed that I was wrong! Prof Noor has taught me a lot about Genetics. He is an engaging and inspiring lecturer. It is also obvious to me that he takes a keen interest in the students, as he has been quick to reply to questions that I have asked in the forums. I'm looking forward to the Evolution lectures. I am not sure why I enrolled for this course, since I was sure I already knew the material, but I am glad that I did. I recommend the course if you belong to any of the following categories: people who think they know the subject; people who don't think know it, but are interested; everybody else (because I think you will find Prof Noor inspiring. | has been quick to reply to | Question | that I have asked in the | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| kbmiwPT-EeSW1SIAC3oCCQ | What a refreshing portfolio of perspectives on modelling! This course answered a lot of questions that I've been accumulating overtime in the 'unanswered' log in my brain. Doing this course felt like a long overdue spring clean. | This course answered a lot of | Question | that I've been accumulating overtime in | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| knivtHEHEeSfpCIACzWBZw | I did this course last year, since I had psychological knowledge so it was not too hard to understand all the concepts. What really attracts me is the forum, I just tried to post my question about assignment at forum, then quickly got a reply from my peer, from then on, I started to participate on forum discussion and did learn a lot. So, come to join us! | I just tried to post my | Question | about assignment at forum, then quickly | Negative | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| L7stsPOKEeSlpiIAC7NwBA | Excellent course! Extremely well organized and definitely provides a lot of great information. The quiz questions are too easy, which is why it's not 5 stars. | lot of great information. The quiz | Question | are too easy, which is why | Positive | 0.88 | 4.0 |
| L7stsPOKEeSlpiIAC7NwBA | The answer choices for the quiz are so obvious and can be easily guessed. It can be improved to make the student really think. Also the final quiz is just a repetition of questions we see in the module quiz. It can be different to test the effectiveness of the student. | quiz is just a repetition of | Question | we see in the module quiz. | Negative | 0.84 | 3.0 |
| lD6srSmGEeWEOhKP8F7imw | It's been a great experience to undergo the capstone project. I should thank Prof. Maksimovic, Prof. Erickson and Prof. Afridi for designing such a good project material and their support for all the questions asked by the students in the forum. I will look forward for the next advanced courses offered by Colorado. Once again thanks to all. | and their support for all the | Question | asked by the students in the | Positive | 0.85 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | If I could I would give 0 starts, cause Nobody answers questions in the forums, eveyrone finished the course, but looks like nobody gets a grade on week2, So looks like nobody finished their course. It's been almost a month since everyone kept asking about the grading, but nothing happens. The Teacher was great, is just this issue that is bothering me, because I paid for the course! | give 0 starts, cause Nobody answers | Question | in the forums, eveyrone finished the | Negative | 0.91 | 1.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course is very interesting for junior -wannabe- web programmers. It uses the main structures of HTML and JavaScript and lets the user exercise through questions and assignments. Best option if someone wants to be a web developer! | and lets the user exercise through | Question | and assignments. Best option if someone | Negative | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Omg ,I wish I had these professors to teach us in our college.I have started loving HTML<CSS and Javascript.Being a total newbie to programming I have loved how clear and slow and easy to understand the videos are. Thank you so much and looking forward to completing the entire series. PS:the questions in between the lectures are very helpful and assignments are very very helpful too. | to completing the entire series. PS:the | Question | in between the lectures are very | Positive | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Everything they teach is in very good flow and interesting. The question they ask in between the video is also a good one for better understanding. I cannot find more better than this one. It make you want to learn more, watch more. It's my first experience in coursera, everything they do is awesome, like the weekly assignment, time given to complete the task which is make you want to do more........Thumbs up to this course lecture and Coursera team too. | very good flow and interesting. The | Question | they ask in between the video | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Not very good explain javascript. After this course I had many questions about this language, I not understood it enough. | After this course I had many | Question | about this language, I not understood | Negative | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I love the way that the course is explained and designed. The questions during the videos helped me to understand every concept. Now, I feel better programming using HTML and JAVASCRIPT. | course is explained and designed. The | Question | during the videos helped me to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The teaher of this class is excellent gives example and answers in all your questions and doubts about the how and why everything happens.I think it's a lesson you have to watch if you want to learn how to build your website or your app(wep app) !! | example and answers in all your | Question | and doubts about the how and | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course deserves to be registered and followed. It worth for newbies to learn these technologies HTML, CSS and JS. The course follows with lectures, practice questions and weekly assignment which make the learner keep interested during the course. Instructor is an Intelligent and Awesome personality. He teaches really very well.. Recommended for Newbies !! | The course follows with lectures, practice | Question | and weekly assignment which make the | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Very good course - requires dedication, concentration and hard work. I think that I got a lot, but still long way is in front of me. It depends what are you searching for in online course - that is crucial question, for my vision this was perfect choice, right to the target. Thanks a lot! | online course - that is crucial | Question | for my vision this was perfect | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Structured Course that gives beginner to intermediate level expertise. Short course, so there is not much time to give challenging assignments that would prepare you for a job or industry level skill in this topic. The student enrollment was limited (compared to my other courses on Coursera) and hence the discussion forum was not active. There is no TA or instructor participation in discussion forum; hence my advanced questions in forum (intended to learn beyond the course) went unanswered. You can learn this all on internet, but the instructor nicely covered 3 topics in 3 weeks, which is helpful. | in discussion forum; hence my advanced | Question | in forum (intended to learn beyond | Positive | 0.86 | 3.0 |
| loAmvxJgEea8fxLSgUgxeQ | The instructors do know their subjects and Paul Rodriguez has a wonderfully clear, practiced, to the point delivery. However, the class was not designed well. It appears the instructors did not work together to create the course material or have a well-thought agenda. What we have are concepts introduced without sufficient or any explanation, coursework that involves tweaking software instead of understanding the data transformations, rambling lectures, and no sense of accomplishment. I mostly spent my time working through confusing assignments where the key was to find an example, copy it and tweak it. What was it producing? How was it working? Why were the results significant? Those questions were left unanswered. Learning how software works is important, but we learned neither how it works or why. Also, the course did not build upon the previous Big Data courses. I expected to learn how Machine Learning fits as a piece in the overall puzzle of Hadoop and Big Data. But this class felt thrown together. It's not worth the cost and it's a shame to UCSD. The Big Data series has been overall a disappointment. There are a few good instructors, but they can't save a series of courses that have been poorly thought through. | Why were the results significant? Those | Question | were left unanswered. Learning how software | Negative | 0.91 | 1.0 |
| LrTP0yv9EeWccAqzeA4VPw | This is a joke right? 5 minutes long videos with questions after it shall teach me effective?! you guys are ridiculous! | right? 5 minutes long videos with | Question | after it shall teach me effective? | Negative | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| LWzwe3KxEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | Learned so much. Great course - good mix of video instruction, mini quizzes & questions, graded quizzes etc. to keep your attention. Also, the information is current and practical. Definitely recommend. | of video instruction, mini quizzes & | Question | graded quizzes etc. to keep your | Negative | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| LWzwe3KxEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | I would like only 1 question wrong be acceptable as in the first course - I appreciate when the certificate confirms rigor and value. | I would like only 1 | Question | wrong be acceptable as in the | Negative | 0.86 | 3.0 |
| lXNlz0B0EeWKOBLv1z6n9w | The presentation and content of lectures were compelling, motivating and disturbing. Very well done. No one really responded on the forums. This may have been because of small class size. In other classes I have taken on coursera the forums are quite active, and an instructor weighs in from time to time to answer questions or be present. Assignments were peer graded, so much was gained from reading other students interpretation of the material. I suggest putting the additional reading lists at the end of each unit, or in a separate side bar. They were hard to find in the syllabus. Overall an extremely worthwhile course. | from time to time to answer | Question | or be present. Assignments were peer | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| lYw3nxuGEeWo5g5SXpDA8Q | I liked the level commitment the programming problems demanded. It truly made you feel you had a deeper understanding of the subject after finishing them as opposed to just reading and answering multiple choice questions. Thanks for putting this together for the world to learn! | just reading and answering multiple choice | Question | Thanks for putting this together for | Positive | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The course content is good. But it needs some polishing... Major comment: The assignment submission/review process should be improved. Grading system is not clearly defined at the time of submission. Some grading question are inherently subjective "Is the code at least somewhat efficient?". But even for inherently objective questions "Is the code correct?" (as does it give the correct answer" the staff does not provide the correct answer... I think the staff should create some automated review for what is objective: does the code compile? does it yield the correct answer? is it efficient enough? (Just like many other courses on Coursera) And only when it passes the automatic review, use peer grading for coding style. Finally there a lot of confusion with the deadlines. Minor comments: Lucky Coursera has an option to play twice faster! Not that the content is too easy, but the talking ... pace ... is ... hum... very ... ... slow. Also how come for a programming course the slides with code are so poorly formated??? | the time of submission. Some grading | Question | are inherently subjective " Is the | Positive | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The course content is good. But it needs some polishing... Major comment: The assignment submission/review process should be improved. Grading system is not clearly defined at the time of submission. Some grading question are inherently subjective "Is the code at least somewhat efficient?". But even for inherently objective questions "Is the code correct?" (as does it give the correct answer" the staff does not provide the correct answer... I think the staff should create some automated review for what is objective: does the code compile? does it yield the correct answer? is it efficient enough? (Just like many other courses on Coursera) And only when it passes the automatic review, use peer grading for coding style. Finally there a lot of confusion with the deadlines. Minor comments: Lucky Coursera has an option to play twice faster! Not that the content is too easy, but the talking ... pace ... is ... hum... very ... ... slow. Also how come for a programming course the slides with code are so poorly formated??? | . But even for inherently objective | Question | " Is the code correct? " | Negative | 0.85 | 3.0 |
| maX993EhEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Unfortunately, didn`t enjoy this course at all. I have gone through 7 courses on Coursera and finished them with the biggest pleasure and great results. This time I had to leave the course before finishing because: 1st: content is organized awfully (for example "HTML overview" - I knew all the material so I have an idea how it should look like, but lecturer started from the middle of all concepts, than moved to the beginning and together it looked like an unlinked content. I have simply lost a logic inside this. 2nd: Very difficult to get an idea: lecturer doesn`t try to simplify the content, even opposite - I had a feeling, that he makes easy things complicated for a reason. My husbend is a programmer with 10 years experience and when he watched the lecture he said, that even for him it was difficult to understand all the thing (things he actually knows). All these terms used, no relevant examples, too complex words and so on - I lost concentration, I had to google a lot of unknown terms, I had to stop lecture every 30 seconds to reread or repeat the peace of lecture, because I could not understand it. As I mentioned, I know HTML well, but it was described so complex, that it was difficult to link my actual knowledge to lecturer words. 3rd: not international student friendly. Use of complex words in places where they were not necessary, complex structures, too fast language... I am pretty good in English, but had to stop video and to google translate some "smart" words lecturer used without particular need - I don`t mean definitions, just some epithets to make his speech "smarter". I completed Coursera specialization by Michigan University and it was completely easy with plain text, short sentences, so well made for international student. 4th: this is boring. I am sorry, but this is true. I am interested in all these questions, but for some reasons I lose my attention every time. Maybe the reason is in all points I have just mentioned, but I didn`t enjoy this course at all and it was the first time I didn`t enjoy something connected with web app development. Please, don`t be mad at me - lecturer is a very charming and charismatic person, but I simply don`t like how the material is presented. 5th: I have a feeling like all slides are taken from some scientific books and lecturer reads comments from some science articles, it is not like described with own words, simplified for better comprehension, cleared with own real-life examples and in atmosphere of friendly conversation with some emotions and humor. Please, take my feedback just as my personal opinion and hope other students will enjoy it more. | I am interested in all these | Question | but for some reasons I lose | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| MD72YtcMEeWxGA7pQdBNkw | The educator is really wants to be boring. The questions doesn't reflect the material. Why am I learning so much about a dog or who is whose relative in a bioelectricity course? | really wants to be boring. The | Question | doesn't reflect the material. Why am | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | Concise but too concise I feel. Maybe it's meant for more foundation/beginner level ? Else, need more details. Not just overview. And, need more involvement/engagement from students, need multiple (randomized per attempt) questions in quizzes, need participation from course producers/TAs for questions and clarifications needed by students (in discussion forums). | students, need multiple (randomized per attempt) | Question | in quizzes, need participation from course | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | Concise but too concise I feel. Maybe it's meant for more foundation/beginner level ? Else, need more details. Not just overview. And, need more involvement/engagement from students, need multiple (randomized per attempt) questions in quizzes, need participation from course producers/TAs for questions and clarifications needed by students (in discussion forums). | need participation from course producers/TAs for | Question | and clarifications needed by students (in | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | A disconnect between Video Lecture - Transcript (horrid form !) - Slides - Test questions. Information flow should be more fluent. | ! ) - Slides - Test | Question | Information flow should be more fluent. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | The instructor is sub par,. Questions are a bit vague | The instructor is sub par, . | Question | are a bit vague | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | In my point of view the course overall is a bit superficial (even though the decision-making part was very interesting indeed). More importantly, the course lacks one of the richest tools in MOOCS: peer interactions - people voicing their opinions and sharing experiences. Besides that: some of the questions in the quiz looked very ambiguous and there are some editing mistakes in the videos. | experiences. Besides that: some of the | Question | in the quiz looked very ambiguous | Positive | 0.88 | 2.0 |
| MEgKOpw3EeWILQ7D3uPEMw | Les professeurs prennent du recul concernant le profil de l'entrepreneur. Leur avis est très intéressant. Le discours devient très concret. Ce cours m'a aidée à me poser des questions concrètes quant à mon idée de projet et d'avancer de façon organisée. | m'a aidée à me poser des | Question | concrètes quant à mon idée de | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| MEgKOpw3EeWILQ7D3uPEMw | Overall, this was an excellent course and, for the beginner, a great foray into general entrepreneurship concepts and ideas. Here's why I say that: 1) The professors offering the course are apparently top-notch - they all have extensive and varied experiences with entrepreneurship, and many of them have published research and reports that can be found with a quick google search. 2) The amount and nature of the content make it so that it's easy to approach the course more like a workshop, than some static didactic. For example, one of Ethan Mollick's talks comes with a spreadsheet to help students think a little more concretely and specifically about their ventures. 3) The course passed no judgement on push vs. pull ventures; they really tried to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. With the business community's surge in interest in design-thinking, I had been under the false impression that a push venture, by definition, was inferior. I gave 4 instead of 5 stars, however, because I feel that more attention could have been devoted to more service-oriented or product and service hybrid businesses (though the professors didn't totally ignore the service-oriented business). Also, I was under the impression that the professors would have some degree of real-time interaction with students (although I get that they are super busy), or that even if the professors themselves couldn't respond, that a teacher's assistant or representative would comment on questions raised about the course content. Again, this is overall a fantastic course, though not perfect - I would still highly recommend it to anyone thinking about entrepreneurship! | assistant or representative would comment on | Question | raised about the course content. Again, | Positive | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| mfjjVlfwEeS-9SIACw8Vcg | Great course! The material is presented in a detailed way that makes it easy to understand even if you're new to economics, using a local sandwich business as a real life case study was really cool, plenty of practice questions to test your knowledge. An all around winner | was really cool, plenty of practice | Question | to test your knowledge. An all | Positive | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| mG15ZhQ9EeWCWhKuhISYpw | While the lectures were good, this course had annoying issues, such as in-video questions asking us to refer to previously shown material (which isn't easy given the Coursera interface). A few assignment questions were also poorly formulated. The course would have really benefited from .pdf reference material, for review and elaboration of topics presented in lectures. At minimum, a list of relevant equations would have helped. The acoustics part of the content seemed somewhat sketchy and hand-wavy; the assumptions and limitations behind the rule-of-thumb equations and models presented weren't given much weight, so I wasn't able to get a good grasp of when they were relevant*. The electronics part was more reasonable, but still suffered from some over-simplification (for example, the model of guitar pickups didn't include magnetic hysteresis). All in all, the course was worth taking, but I think the material deserves more rigor. *All models are wrong. But some of them are useful. | had annoying issues, such as in-video | Question | asking us to refer to previously | Negative | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| mG15ZhQ9EeWCWhKuhISYpw | While the lectures were good, this course had annoying issues, such as in-video questions asking us to refer to previously shown material (which isn't easy given the Coursera interface). A few assignment questions were also poorly formulated. The course would have really benefited from .pdf reference material, for review and elaboration of topics presented in lectures. At minimum, a list of relevant equations would have helped. The acoustics part of the content seemed somewhat sketchy and hand-wavy; the assumptions and limitations behind the rule-of-thumb equations and models presented weren't given much weight, so I wasn't able to get a good grasp of when they were relevant*. The electronics part was more reasonable, but still suffered from some over-simplification (for example, the model of guitar pickups didn't include magnetic hysteresis). All in all, the course was worth taking, but I think the material deserves more rigor. *All models are wrong. But some of them are useful. | the Coursera interface). A few assignment | Question | were also poorly formulated. The course | Negative | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Thank you very much for this course. I think I now have a good understanding of what Astrobiology is and how it is possible to look out for life on other planets. Hopefully some of the big questions of astrobiology will be answered :) | planets. Hopefully some of the big | Question | of astrobiology will be answered :) | Positive | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Very interesting material, and very well explained. The course is slightly out of date, and a couple of the test questions were poorly worded (mostly, these were corrected), but overall it is educational and fun to participate in. I enjoyed it and I learned even more about something that interested me. | and a couple of the test | Question | were poorly worded (mostly, these were | Negative | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| MMnLaEEjEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | The course tests are at times partially unrelated to the content of the lessons. In the test of Lesson 7 we are asked if removing jargon from an analysis makes the analysis clearer. This is never mentioned in the course. The question does not have a unique yes/no solution. It depends on the context, in particular on the audience of the analysis and report. If I'm talking to technical people who knows a lot about the topic jargon can be useful, on the other hand if jargon is not documented it can be confusing. How are we supposed to know this? This is just one example, but all the courses of the EDS specialisation had these issues. I don't know if it is a language barrier or what but I feel that I didn't have a chance to study more to get a better score. You either happen to have the same idea of the teacher or you don't, and this is not professional. | never mentioned in the course. The | Question | does not have a unique yes/no | Negative | 0.78 | 1.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | This course was effective in testing what was learned and in testing simple, useful expressions, words, and sentences. However, I would have liked to learn Chinese characters along with the pinyin, as in China reading the characters is just as important as speaking. Also, I believe the quizzes were a bit too simple, there should have been more multiple choice answers to chose from, more questions in general, and even some pronunciation practice. | choice answers to chose from, more | Question | in general, and even some pronunciation | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | I really enjoyed this course. The presenter was lovely. She was easy to follow and very clear in her speaking. She taught me how to speak sentences and questions. And she presented me with a lot of new vocabulary which I know I will have to sit down and learn. It is a great refresher course if you have tried to learn Chinese before. There is nothing threatening about it. I hope a follow-up course will be created. I will definitely do it. | me how to speak sentences and | Question | And she presented me with a | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Mue2M1z0EeWqJhKypiGv4w | The course is inspiring :-) The topics are interesting, and the learning materials are well designed by questions and answers, I like the part of Pause & Reflect. The part of quiz is sooooo good, when you submit your answers, you can read a detailed analysis of the correct solutions, that is very helpful. | learning materials are well designed by | Question | and answers, I like the part | Positive | 0.88 | 5.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | In no way is there enough information given to be able to complete this quiz questions. A total frustration to try to figure out. You can't even figure out what datasets you are expected to analyze! You have to pick one from hundreds that are available! UPDATE: Revising my rating to 3. Course and material improved as course progressed. Week1 very discouraging, but I'm glad I stuck with it. Other weeks were very good. | be able to complete this quiz | Question | A total frustration to try to | Negative | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | complains in discussion forum about quiz | Question | 5) No feedback for solving the | Negative | 0.66 | 1.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | even after the deadline. 6) Quiz | Question | required methods and logical constructs that | Negative | 0.86 | 1.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | version of the course). Some quiz | Question | were biologically inaccurate i. e. confusing | Negative | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | I liked the relevance of quiz | Question | to real life genomic questions, but | Positive | 0.93 | 2.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | quiz questions to real life genomic | Question | but all quiz questions were outstandingly | Positive | 0.73 | 2.0 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | life genomic questions, but all quiz | Question | were outstandingly difficult, because of both | Positive | 0.79 | 2.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | of the series. One: the quiz | Question | are often opaquely worded. Instead of | Positive | 0.68 | 2.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | was to learn to decode test | Question | 2 and the most glaring omission, | Negative | 0.7 | 2.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | after that. Then add the quiz | Question | from problem One above, and you're | Negative | 0.71 | 2.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course start from problems. So this great to motivate the content and let student know why. However, there are lot of confusion questions that lead to miss understand the exercise problems. | However, there are lot of confusion | Question | that lead to miss understand the | Negative | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Useful to get a first understanding but do not feel comfortable to use any of it in real case scenarios. Could give solutions at the end of the whole course to see best coding, and unsolved questions. | to see best coding, and unsolved | Question | | Positive | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Excellent lectures, evenly paced and nicely balanced between theory and practice, and mostly great quizzes and practice problems. However, the complete lack of instructor participation in the forums leaves many student questions unanswered. | in the forums leaves many student | Question | unanswered. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This is an amazing and brilliant course for machine learning. If you've done Andrew Ng's course, most of this material will feel familiar, but definitely has a lot more detail. Each sub-topic under regression is taken with a decent level of detail, with sufficient quiz and assignment questions to drill important concepts into your head. The lectures are lucid and concise, even the optional ones that cover more advanced concepts of the underlying math. As an aside, I would like to clarify to any reader that, when they say you can use other tools, they aren't being a 100% honest. After a few assignments of using Scala and R, I quickly realized that using their iPython notebooks is the simplest and most straightforward way of clearing this course. Eventually, the assignments are such that using any other tool can cause a lot of strife. Brilliant course. Looking forward to the next one. | detail, with sufficient quiz and assignment | Question | to drill important concepts into your | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I had the clear sense of actually learning and not just "copying & pasting" bits of code. The questions and problems are challenging enough to make you stop and think about you just learned. | & pasting" bits of code. The | Question | and problems are challenging enough to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| myQGkjlZEeWJaxK5AT4frw | Dear Coursera This was my first Coursera course at all. The course is in general is interesting and it give a good theoretical approach and examples how to turn this theory in practice. The discussion possibility is also very useful. Learning from your classmates is great. The discussions are respectfull and if somebody has a different opinion or view this is seen as "added value" and is not judged negatively. The only thing missing is the possibility to have live and direct conversation with the teachers. I did a training where we had the opportunity for one hour to ask questions in a chat and the teacher was answering them in a live webinar. That was really usefull and would make it a "five"***** star course. Overall, I would attend/take a Coursera training any time again. Great plattform! | opportunity for one hour to ask | Question | in a chat and the teacher | Negative | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| myQGkjlZEeWJaxK5AT4frw | Good materials, good professors and very well put together cours. If there is one thing I would improve is response to questions from the students by the professors. | I would improve is response to | Question | from the students by the professors. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| myQGkjlZEeWJaxK5AT4frw | This is a joke right? 5 minutes long videos with questions after it shall teach me effective?! you guys are ridiculous! | right? 5 minutes long videos with | Question | after it shall teach me effective? | Negative | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| n2zunIlgEeWSMw6QLoDNsQ | It's not bad, but not amazing. I would recommend University of Michigan's Programming for Everybody (Python) over this course. While the game-oriented approach is fun, I don't like the excessive focus upon the simplegui module which was created by the instructors specifically for this course. You will learn some basic python concepts, but you'll spend way too much time learning how to use this module which you will likely never use again, and this is at the expense of learning how to use some of the more commonly used standard modules (eg datetime, sys, etc). I also found glitches in the materials, and many of the questions and grading rubrics are unclear or ambiguous. Very frustrating. | the materials, and many of the | Question | and grading rubrics are unclear or | Positive | 0.77 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I had already done "Algorithms: Design and Analysis Part 1", so this course was not as good as that one. This course had lot of programming questions, which I find very good to have for any course. I just hope next courses of the specialization will be beneficial for my career. | This course had lot of programming | Question | which I find very good to | Positive | 0.84 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Overall is good course with many exercises, forum is supportive, however mentors/instructors never answered my questions (i guessed they bothered only with the very first session when course was launched) Language is sometimes overly complicated and hard to grasp the main principles of the algorithm (e.g. dynamic programming week 5) I watched youtube to understand same ideas but explained in much simpler way. | supportive, however mentors/instructors never answered my | Question | (i guessed they bothered only with | Negative | 0.9 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I found the assignments challenging in the absolute best sense of the term, and therefore incredibly rewarding as well! Whenever I've gotten stuck, the answer was always in the course material somewhere, even if I didn't see it there at first. The discussion forums were extremely helpful, and I was astounded to see that that instructors were still actively monitoring the discussion forums and responding to student questions. I'm obviously not an expert in this field, but I've been an educator before, and my own impression of the assignments was that they were extremely well designed: it was impossible to pass them without knowing what you were doing, the tools to approach them were always found in the lectures, and the challenge problems pushed your knowledge even farther. I would recommend the specialization to everyone. Additionally, I noticed that the content aligns well with other DS&A syllabi I have seen in brick-and-mortar institutions, especially the first 3 or 4 courses. It's also a very nice luxury to be able to submit in Python. I have certainly learned a great deal. | discussion forums and responding to student | Question | I'm obviously not an expert in | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The best online class I've taken so far: not only because of the clear explanation and easy-to-follow videos, but also the effort the professors have put int answering most of the questions, especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered more than half of the questions within short amount of time. This is very rarely seen in other moocs. | put int answering most of the | Question | especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered | Positive | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The best online class I've taken so far: not only because of the clear explanation and easy-to-follow videos, but also the effort the professors have put int answering most of the questions, especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered more than half of the questions within short amount of time. This is very rarely seen in other moocs. | answered more than half of the | Question | within short amount of time. This | Negative | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course comes with great explanation but the graded assignments sometimes seem pointless as they look irrelevant to the topic, There are unnecessary questions asked in quizzes i.e whether you have completed your assignment or not. These sort of questions never evaluate what we have accomplished | to the topic, There are unnecessary | Question | asked in quizzes i. e whether | Negative | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course comes with great explanation but the graded assignments sometimes seem pointless as they look irrelevant to the topic, There are unnecessary questions asked in quizzes i.e whether you have completed your assignment or not. These sort of questions never evaluate what we have accomplished | assignment or not. These sort of | Question | never evaluate what we have accomplished | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Great introduction to Java. Gives you an opportunity to play with several different libraries from the start, rather than learning the basics with just text input and output like most courses, which is really cool. No peer review, just quiz questions that can only be answered if the assignment is completed correctly. The assignments are therefore not particularly challenging -- you get out of this class what you put in! | cool. No peer review, just quiz | Question | that can only be answered if | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I like this class. I found the answers there on many tricky programming questions such as memory allocation for objects. I will recommend this class to all my friends who is interested in computer science. | answers there on many tricky programming | Question | such as memory allocation for objects. | Positive | 0.88 | 5.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course was a really comprehensive package explaining all the basic concepts of Object Oriented Programming . The instructors clearly explains the concepts of inheritance , polymorphism , searching , sorting etc. relating it as much as possible to real world examples. The concept challenge questions clearly helps you to understand the subtle nuances that the instructor wants to explain . The quiz are easy .The only thing that i found hard was to complete was the final assignment as i had minimal programming experience with data structures but if you stick to it , you will definitely make it , just like me :) | real world examples. The concept challenge | Question | clearly helps you to understand the | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Good course, ideal for the first half of a second course in computer science. A little java experience is recommended buy you'll probably be ok if you have program in a statically type programming language before because you can pick up java very quickly. The lectures are very good, I think that the teachers are excellent expositors but I feel that they could be more detailed. The project is about representing earthquakes in a map and you are always increasing the complexity. Finally you need to add your own extension which I found an excellent opportunity to test your imagination and your capacity to create new things. The only cons of the course for me is the way assignments are evaluated. I think it has to do with the fact that they are interactive. You have to answers questions in a Quiz related to the week content and the project. But the are not very demanding, therefore they do not reflect how much you really know. In general I recommend taking this course if you are in self study journey in computer science, even more the specialization start to get more interesting and demanding in the follow up courses, more complete and detailed. | are interactive. You have to answers | Question | in a Quiz related to the | Positive | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Some of the questions are not Java related ones at all which I couldn't see much of a helping point, e,g. What are the coordinates of rio de janeiro?. There were also a few of questions that I found a bit confusing because the code provided is plain white and it's a bit hard to focus on it. I'd rather want to customize the color of the presented code just like modern IDEs do. Everything else seems rather okay and intuitive. So far so good, guys :) | Some of the | Question | are not Java related ones at | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Some of the questions are not Java related ones at all which I couldn't see much of a helping point, e,g. What are the coordinates of rio de janeiro?. There were also a few of questions that I found a bit confusing because the code provided is plain white and it's a bit hard to focus on it. I'd rather want to customize the color of the presented code just like modern IDEs do. Everything else seems rather okay and intuitive. So far so good, guys :) | There were also a few of | Question | that I found a bit confusing | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Niihyrb2EeSNXyIAC0mVOQ | The Course material is great and is useful to refresh the concepts underlying dynamics of 3D motion in a short span of time. The course is very well structured and enjoyed thoroughly listening to the lectures by Dr. Whiteman. I have just one complaint though, model answers to the question in quiz are not available. So, it is difficult to compare the approach taken and validate the understanding. | complaint though, model answers to the | Question | in quiz are not available. So, | Positive | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| NiK99anHEeS88iIAC1WehA | Coming from a construction background with no policy work whatsoever besides personal interest, it was amazing to be able to understand the message that the speakers were conveying. Besides some cluelessness on the US senate system, every other topic was relevant to international audiences. Best part was the weekly schedule that was recently in place, it help to keep pace on progress as sometimes it feels overwhelming as we try to answer every question that was posted after each video. | as we try to answer every | Question | that was posted after each video. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| NiK99anHEeS88iIAC1WehA | This course was higly informative. Throughout this course, new things will be learned and lessons are pretty understandable. What I like most about this course, is that there were actual students, asking questions, which put me into atmosphere of real university. Thank you, Professor Warburg and all the staff and lecturers that were invited! | that there were actual students, asking | Question | which put me into atmosphere of | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| NpTR4zVwEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Great examples used in course videos. The Course Notes might be a worked on a bit more in terms of models and examples, but they are quite extensive and an invaluable resource. Teaching staff is quick to respond to forum questions, which is great! | is quick to respond to forum | Question | which is great! | Positive | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I really enjoyed this course, it was very informative. My only complaint is that on quiz questions that included example code, sometimes the ends of lines were cut off. I had to copy and paste them into an editor to read the entire thing. | only complaint is that on quiz | Question | that included example code, sometimes the | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | When I started this course, my only experience with HTML was <b> bold</b>, <i> italic</i>, and <u>underline</u>. After this course I have a much clearer understanding of what HTML is, and how it works, and I am able to now use it to a much greater extent than I was before. The professor did an excellent job of explaining most things, but I did find that on occasion I had to stop the video and go back several times to understand what she'd said or to take notes, despite having slowed the video down as much as possible. (In my opinion, one should be able to slow the video down more than is currently possible, especially for those for whom English is not their native tongue.) With me, it wasn't that I didn't understand what she said so much as I didn't have time to take in what she meant before she'd gone on to something else. I understand that Coursera is able to do what it does because of its method, which is basically independent study; one watches the videos, and reads whatever resources are listed, and goes on from there. If there is a question, it is not the professor in the videos that the question is asked of, but people hired as "teaching aides". These are the people (other than fellow students) who answer your questions, and they do not always answer in a 'timely' fashion. While this method works well for some people, I am quite sure there are others unable to learn with this method, especially if the subject turns out to be a more complicated, intensive one. Some people need to have a little more than just videos which they can only repeat over and over with the same information, hoping to learn something new from it. The only other thing I have a problem with is the lack of oversight/security. There's no way of knowing if the person who 'earns' a certificate is the person they claim to be, or if they earned the scores given. All in all, I think Coursera is a great tool, and well worth the low prices charged; I am sure there are plenty of courses still remaining (after the 'purge') that I would love to take. | from there. If there is a | Question | it is not the professor in | Negative | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | When I started this course, my only experience with HTML was <b> bold</b>, <i> italic</i>, and <u>underline</u>. After this course I have a much clearer understanding of what HTML is, and how it works, and I am able to now use it to a much greater extent than I was before. The professor did an excellent job of explaining most things, but I did find that on occasion I had to stop the video and go back several times to understand what she'd said or to take notes, despite having slowed the video down as much as possible. (In my opinion, one should be able to slow the video down more than is currently possible, especially for those for whom English is not their native tongue.) With me, it wasn't that I didn't understand what she said so much as I didn't have time to take in what she meant before she'd gone on to something else. I understand that Coursera is able to do what it does because of its method, which is basically independent study; one watches the videos, and reads whatever resources are listed, and goes on from there. If there is a question, it is not the professor in the videos that the question is asked of, but people hired as "teaching aides". These are the people (other than fellow students) who answer your questions, and they do not always answer in a 'timely' fashion. While this method works well for some people, I am quite sure there are others unable to learn with this method, especially if the subject turns out to be a more complicated, intensive one. Some people need to have a little more than just videos which they can only repeat over and over with the same information, hoping to learn something new from it. The only other thing I have a problem with is the lack of oversight/security. There's no way of knowing if the person who 'earns' a certificate is the person they claim to be, or if they earned the scores given. All in all, I think Coursera is a great tool, and well worth the low prices charged; I am sure there are plenty of courses still remaining (after the 'purge') that I would love to take. | professor in the videos that the | Question | is asked of, but people hired | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | When I started this course, my only experience with HTML was <b> bold</b>, <i> italic</i>, and <u>underline</u>. After this course I have a much clearer understanding of what HTML is, and how it works, and I am able to now use it to a much greater extent than I was before. The professor did an excellent job of explaining most things, but I did find that on occasion I had to stop the video and go back several times to understand what she'd said or to take notes, despite having slowed the video down as much as possible. (In my opinion, one should be able to slow the video down more than is currently possible, especially for those for whom English is not their native tongue.) With me, it wasn't that I didn't understand what she said so much as I didn't have time to take in what she meant before she'd gone on to something else. I understand that Coursera is able to do what it does because of its method, which is basically independent study; one watches the videos, and reads whatever resources are listed, and goes on from there. If there is a question, it is not the professor in the videos that the question is asked of, but people hired as "teaching aides". These are the people (other than fellow students) who answer your questions, and they do not always answer in a 'timely' fashion. While this method works well for some people, I am quite sure there are others unable to learn with this method, especially if the subject turns out to be a more complicated, intensive one. Some people need to have a little more than just videos which they can only repeat over and over with the same information, hoping to learn something new from it. The only other thing I have a problem with is the lack of oversight/security. There's no way of knowing if the person who 'earns' a certificate is the person they claim to be, or if they earned the scores given. All in all, I think Coursera is a great tool, and well worth the low prices charged; I am sure there are plenty of courses still remaining (after the 'purge') that I would love to take. | than fellow students) who answer your | Question | and they do not always answer | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I would have given this course 5 stars if not for the final exam, which is to look at a jpeg and then write code to make a web page look exactly like the jpeg. The issue is that there are many ways to get a page to look like the image and you will still fail the exam. The course creators have realized this and you now have supporting questions that you can pass the course on even if your page code is not validated as correct. In my opinion there are so many better ways this final exam could have been handled, for instance i would have like to have seen a few more questions in the exam, and once passed you could see a forum area open up for us all to paste our code in or link to a page where we could discuss with teachers and moderators etc. personally I believe that sort of approach would add more value. The above being said the content of the course is excellent for beginners with an eye opening focus on accessibility and good content on the DOM structure. The course will provide you with a good set of tools to get a basic page up on the internet. | this and you now have supporting | Question | that you can pass the course | Negative | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I would have given this course 5 stars if not for the final exam, which is to look at a jpeg and then write code to make a web page look exactly like the jpeg. The issue is that there are many ways to get a page to look like the image and you will still fail the exam. The course creators have realized this and you now have supporting questions that you can pass the course on even if your page code is not validated as correct. In my opinion there are so many better ways this final exam could have been handled, for instance i would have like to have seen a few more questions in the exam, and once passed you could see a forum area open up for us all to paste our code in or link to a page where we could discuss with teachers and moderators etc. personally I believe that sort of approach would add more value. The above being said the content of the course is excellent for beginners with an eye opening focus on accessibility and good content on the DOM structure. The course will provide you with a good set of tools to get a basic page up on the internet. | to have seen a few more | Question | in the exam, and once passed | Negative | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A great course. You can learn a lot if you're willing to dive in yourself beyond the lectures. My only fault is that some of the quiz questions didn't really seem relevant to useful material learned in the course (ie, what year html was implemented etc.) | is that some of the quiz | Question | didn't really seem relevant to useful | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | The caliber of | Question | in the quizzes is quite advanced. | Positive | 0.78 | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | good challenge. However much of these | Question | were not covered in the lectures | Negative | 0.73 | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | pedagogy. In order to answer the | Question | and prepare the requested page of | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | elsewhere in order to answer the | Question | In that case, I began wondering | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The weakest part of this coursera - are quizes - full of question, which check detailed facts from lecture instead of testing skills | - are quizes - full of | Question | which check detailed facts from lecture | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Very good basic introduction. The final project was a little challenging because some of the questions used coding that wasn't reviewed in either the textbook or in the lectures. The lectures were otherwise very informative and well-structured. | little challenging because some of the | Question | used coding that wasn't reviewed in | Negative | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | fix that, but the additional eight | Question | were basically a transcript of the | Negative | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | was the 'staff'. I got my | Question | answered nine days after I posted | Negative | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This is absolutely NOT for beginners. There is no way you can possibly do this class in under 10 hours a week. The presentations are sloppy and vague. There is absolutely no support, unless you count snark from the aids who check into the message boards once and a while to tell you your question is stupid. This woman chatters on way to fast and if you use the slower speed setting on the videos, it crashes every time. I am not happy that I wasted money on this class. It offers nothing to prepare you to actually do any real life HTML coding. I highly recommend either purchasing a book to learn on your own or take a class elsewhere. The Coursera platform is garbage. The app crashes and it doesn't seem to cooperate well with Safari so I have to lug around my laptop in order to get through this nonsense. | a while to tell you your | Question | is stupid. This woman chatters on | Negative | 0.99 | 2.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A good intro to the HTML material, which is an entry level into coding in itself. Since its intro it doesn't cover the vast array of of available tricks accessible within the language and there may be instances where you have to seek tips elsewhere on the internet. By the end of it all you should be able to build some basic HTML elements. With that, there are still some tidbits about the basics of HTML (tags) that I still have questions regarding importance/use of. | HTML (tags) that I still have | Question | regarding importance/use of. | Positive | 0.88 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Nice course. Could focus a little bit more on coding, rather than ask some informational-only question in the quizzes | coding, rather than ask some informational-only | Question | in the quizzes | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It was a very good course. I understood everything. My only complaint is that the tests questions were repetitive and so it would be easy to cheat on a second or third attempt and also the final quiz should have been more about writing your own code. I think what should have been tested was the end product by the autograder rather than the exact code. I'm not sure how that would work but it would result in a more precise grade rather than the 87.5% everyone gets and also help the student write his/her own code rather than proofreading and selecting others. I did thoroughly enjoy the course and am looking forward to Course two of the series on CSS3. | only complaint is that the tests | Question | were repetitive and so it would | Positive | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A very simple, but effective intro to HTML. Looking forward to CSS3!! Take the time to read the optional chapters in the free book PDF as some of the questions in the assignments are not mentioned in lectures, but are explained in the book. | book PDF as some of the | Question | in the assignments are not mentioned | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | 'Introduction to HTML5' course is a very general introduction to HTML5 for beginners. The professor doesn't assume you know anything about Web development or even how files are uploaded to a host website. The course covers a brief history of the Web, basic HTML5 elements, URL terminology, Accessibility, Semantics, and basic FTP & Web hosting software like C-Panel. Forms and other advanced topics are not covered. The class is presented in a laid back style and uses non-technical language which is easy to understand. The quality of the video and audio are excellent. Supplemental books (pdf) and links to Youtube videos are provided and are useful. The duration of some of the lectures seemed too long, even when using 2X playback speed. With some of the quizzes, the professor expected you to read her mind and were worded in a subjective manner. The Accessibility section seemed a little too preachy for me. Also, the final project was convoluted and the instructions were vague. The final project really ended up being a 9 or 10 question quiz that gave you hints on how to code the final project. In summary, take this course if you are a complete beginner. Otherwise, you won't learn much if you have more than 2 months of experience in front end Web development. | up being a 9 or 10 | Question | quiz that gave you hints on | Positive | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This is a very "pediatric" way to learn HTML basics and how to get started on your developer career. Both content and examples are pretty straight forward. Evaluation system should be reviewed and interaction with teacher, other than blog, should be open when there's an issue/question with specific questions. | when there's an issue/question with specific | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It may be a 5 weeks course with a more slow learning, because we see some tags in a second and it passes. And the autograder works really bad. I do not know where I fail but I failed all the questions. A peer grader would be nice for the final project. | fail but I failed all the | Question | A peer grader would be nice | Negative | 0.98 | 2.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course information was fairly useful, but the execution not so much. The material spent more time on somewhat repetitive examples than it did on explaining the actual concepts those examples were illustrating, and the videos were primarily just lecturers reading parts of the slides that you had already read, but in their own words. The tests, sadly, were poorly-designed for the subject matter of the course. Behavioral biases - like many psychological phenomena - overlap to some degree, and the frequently-used format of 'choose all that apply' - or worse 'choose all that might apply' - resulted in trying to guess what the test-setter was looking for rather than trying to apply the information that had been learned. When you find yourself trying to decide between the best answer based on what you have learned and a conceptually worse answer that happens to meet the wording of the question - and trying to guess whether the test-setter is looking to prove your understanding or catch you in a mistake - then you start to suspect that the course has been designed more as a way to earn grades than to actually learn. | to meet the wording of the | Question | - and trying to guess whether | Negative | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Not a bad course, generally learnt a lot of interesting facts about market crashes. Behavioural biases discussed are not something new that you can't figure them out on your own, but giving names to them makes it quite useful to remember and recall in future situations. The major problem with this course is the fact that many quiz questions are tricky. Most of biases aren't discussed well in lectures, so you need to do a bit of research. But even then, they overlap a lot, so some questions have several answers and it is difficult to choose. However, it makes you think at least. | is the fact that many quiz | Question | are tricky. Most of biases aren't | Positive | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Not a bad course, generally learnt a lot of interesting facts about market crashes. Behavioural biases discussed are not something new that you can't figure them out on your own, but giving names to them makes it quite useful to remember and recall in future situations. The major problem with this course is the fact that many quiz questions are tricky. Most of biases aren't discussed well in lectures, so you need to do a bit of research. But even then, they overlap a lot, so some questions have several answers and it is difficult to choose. However, it makes you think at least. | they overlap a lot, so some | Question | have several answers and it is | Positive | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Duke.... Coursera... guys, come on! I'd like to contrast this with the Wharton Business Analytics specialization that I'm completing. It was like night and day. I mean, professors in that course are presenting their own research! Cade Massey presents research he did with Dick Thaler! None of that happens here. The information shared doesn't even flow smoothly. This course relies mainly on PDF slides (if I wanted to read, I would've bought a book). At one point, it even links to 6 articles on another website (and that's in the quiz as well). It seems like very little effort was put into this online class by the professors. The slides themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking questions that are never even answered. It was almost as if someone took already prepared slides from a course and just kind of mashed them with a very little bit of video to make an "online" course. Even the answers to quizzes seemed extremely vague (it often felt like there were several right answers... or none -- to me, this is sloppy quiz writing). I honestly expected better from both Coursera and Duke! The only redeeming part about this course is that behavioral economics is honestly compelling, despite the shortcomings pointed out. | themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking | Question | that are never even answered. It | Negative | 0.83 | 1.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course covers the basic foundations of behavioral finance, especially prospect theory and various cognitive biases that negatively influence our decision making in financial affairs. The topics covered are definitely very interesting and the lecturers frequently prove that they know what they are talking about and explain some topics in adequate depth and breadth. For a valuable Coursera course I am expecting that most of the material is covered with video lectures (otherwise I read a book on that matter) and I am expecting thought-through slides with clear definitions, clear practical examples and exercises, and the presentation of experimental proofs for the given statements. Regrettably, most of this course is comprised of simple slides with limited structuring, as definitions, exercises, and proofs are often intermingled. More importantly, only a very limited subset of the course is covered with the suitable and valuable video lectures. Especially the last of the three-week course consist mostly of reading material from an external website. The exercises after each of the three weeks are at the lower end of what I have seen on Coursera and the lecturers should consider putting more effort in creating useful questions for formative and summative evaluations of the learning progress. In summary, smart lecturers present a very interesting and highly relevant topic, but they put to little effort in creating a compellingly online course. | putting more effort in creating useful | Question | for formative and summative evaluations of | Negative | 0.78 | 2.0 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | This course was actually quite helpful for learning Chinese, and it provides fascinating information about Chinese culture. Besides learning the language, you'll learn about holidays, foods, and art, and you'll hear Chinese music. Unfortunately, I could not give the course a good rating because I found some quiz questions impossible to complete. This questions required answers to be typed in Pinyin or in Chinese characters. However, the course gave no information on how to type the Pinyin tone marks or Chinese characters into the response boxes. I tried asking about this in a discussion forum, but got no answer. | rating because I found some quiz | Question | impossible to complete. This questions required | Negative | 0.91 | 2.0 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | This course was actually quite helpful for learning Chinese, and it provides fascinating information about Chinese culture. Besides learning the language, you'll learn about holidays, foods, and art, and you'll hear Chinese music. Unfortunately, I could not give the course a good rating because I found some quiz questions impossible to complete. This questions required answers to be typed in Pinyin or in Chinese characters. However, the course gave no information on how to type the Pinyin tone marks or Chinese characters into the response boxes. I tried asking about this in a discussion forum, but got no answer. | quiz questions impossible to complete. This | Question | required answers to be typed in | Negative | 0.69 | 2.0 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | The testing in this course is horribly crafted. Not is it only too easy, thus not actually testing students what is learned, the answers for some of the questions are incorrect. On the very last quiz, I was not able to finish the course because the answer for one of the questions was incorrect. In answering how to translate "South," the answer should be "nánbian," but when I selected this option, it was marked wrong. Therefore, I have to wait 7 more hours before selecting an incorrect answer to complete the course. | the answers for some of the | Question | are incorrect. On the very last | Positive | 0.8 | 2.0 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | The testing in this course is horribly crafted. Not is it only too easy, thus not actually testing students what is learned, the answers for some of the questions are incorrect. On the very last quiz, I was not able to finish the course because the answer for one of the questions was incorrect. In answering how to translate "South," the answer should be "nánbian," but when I selected this option, it was marked wrong. Therefore, I have to wait 7 more hours before selecting an incorrect answer to complete the course. | the answer for one of the | Question | was incorrect. In answering how to | Positive | 0.64 | 2.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course is very helpful, learned a lot of things, It rises a lot of questions for own company and how it should go. I will be happy to reccomend this course to my friends and colegues. Thanks, Mr. Austin | things, It rises a lot of | Question | for own company and how it | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | A great course all round! The concepts are simple and well presented for those who haven't studied strategy before, but lots of room to learn through the discussion in the videos and additional reading for those of us who have seen this subject before. The test format I though was a bit over-simplified. I would have preferred to see slightly longer, more demanding tests, perhaps with a different question format. In particular, I found the questionnaire for the capstone project much too simplified - giving all or nothing points means we can't differentiate between people who only just achieved the point (or achieved it partially) and others who achieved it well. Needs an intermediate option. | demanding tests, perhaps with a different | Question | format. In particular, I found the | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | This is a highly recommended course and the content is second to no other on Coursera at the time of this review. I have taken all of the courses in the series from Copenhagen Business School, as well as nearly all other business management courses offered for other institutions. This specific course on Strategic Management is the single most informative and current material of all of the options. It does not answer every question or address every concept you would need to know to run a major corporation, but it is a fantastic overview of past and present methods of business strategy, and is of value to any business minded individual. I highly recommend this course and the entire series from CBS. Enjoy! | options. It does not answer every | Question | or address every concept you would | Positive | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Content is great. The final project pier feedback/grading could be upgraded. Prefer only one person reviewing in depth than 3 using multiple choice questions. Scales might work better. | depth than 3 using multiple choice | Question | Scales might work better. | Negative | 0.71 | 4.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The actual material in the course is fascinating and quite useful but, as is common with so many Coursera courses, the enjoyment of completing the course is severely hampered by the requirement to review the final assignment of other students. The purposes of these courses is to learn from experts in the field not to grade the work of others. I wish Coursera would really stop professors from pushing their responsibility- grading the work of the students and offering THEIR feedback- onto the students who may or may not have a firm grasp of the material in question. | firm grasp of the material in | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course is very interesting but there is a problem with the quizzes, it doesn't accept correct questions. If needed I can provide a screen shot of the problem in one of the quizzes. Hope that all this will be fixed and I'll be able to take the course again. | the quizzes, it doesn't accept correct | Question | If needed I can provide a | Negative | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| ODnbKv_6EeSa0SIACyGBQw | This course is wonderful and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. BUT, it is not well monitored, the peer review process is broken and questions are not answered, making it frustrating. For example, I wrote an essay and received a non-passing grade. I re-wrote it and submitted it. The comments back were very good, but the grade remained a non-passing one. Very difficult to figure it out. I posted a request for clarification and received no response. So, course GREAT, administration of course, not so much. | peer review process is broken and | Question | are not answered, making it frustrating. | Negative | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| ODnbKv_6EeSa0SIACyGBQw | I absolutely loved the course content and the style of the instructor. The only feedback I'd extend is more variety in the writing assignment prompts, and a little more specificity in the quiz wording. Some of the questions seemed phrased in an unclear way. | the quiz wording. Some of the | Question | seemed phrased in an unclear way. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| oFRMKhbHEeWKlgqs7LdhRw | The irony of the fact that a course that was meant to teach how to appropriate evaluate adult learners was full of quizzes that were riddled with "guess what I'm thinking" short answer questions and multiple choice questions with > or < 1 correct answer was not lost on me. I ended up leaving the course during week three after issues with a quiz that was described in the forums as "impossible." It's too bad - the course description was very promising. | guess what I'm thinking" short answer | Question | and multiple choice questions with > | Negative | 0.76 | 1.0 |
| oFRMKhbHEeWKlgqs7LdhRw | The irony of the fact that a course that was meant to teach how to appropriate evaluate adult learners was full of quizzes that were riddled with "guess what I'm thinking" short answer questions and multiple choice questions with > or < 1 correct answer was not lost on me. I ended up leaving the course during week three after issues with a quiz that was described in the forums as "impossible." It's too bad - the course description was very promising. | short answer questions and multiple choice | Question | with > or < 1 correct | Negative | 0.75 | 1.0 |
| ofu7SKAEEeSrqiIAC46RtQ | The courses are extremely helpful and Professor Whiteman teaches amiably with great clarity. And I have a personal suggestion: the questions in quiz are great and challenging, but I don't think they should be challenging in calculation. When I did not have my calculator with me, there was nothing I could do to deal with those weird numbers in the questions. Anyway, I really love the mechanical engineering series and hope Professor Whiteman can put on more courses. | I have a personal suggestion: the | Question | in quiz are great and challenging, | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| ofu7SKAEEeSrqiIAC46RtQ | The courses are extremely helpful and Professor Whiteman teaches amiably with great clarity. And I have a personal suggestion: the questions in quiz are great and challenging, but I don't think they should be challenging in calculation. When I did not have my calculator with me, there was nothing I could do to deal with those weird numbers in the questions. Anyway, I really love the mechanical engineering series and hope Professor Whiteman can put on more courses. | with those weird numbers in the | Question | Anyway, I really love the mechanical | Positive | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Interesting course with well-organized lectures and graphics. I enjoyed the diversity of case studies, and especially hearing about countries other than the US and organizations other than large corporations with big budgets. The practice grading of the final project was well done and illuminating. It was effective in helping me understand the grading criteria better. It would be helpful if the printouts were 1 slide per page, as on the page the type is small and difficult to read. Small, weekly assignments such as posting a reflection question in the forum could be helpful. One guest presenter spoke too quickly, so I was thankful for the transcript. It would be nice if those auditing the course could also participate in the final assignment w/ peer feedback. | assignments such as posting a reflection | Question | in the forum could be helpful. | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | I am two weeks into the course and really like it. The ideas and concepts mentioned are quite profound. And hope to apply them soon enough in both my personal and professional life. One additional thing which would really like seeing in the course is use of questions just to ascertain our mastery over concepts. Something like the other course which I am taking concurrently -- Think again: How to understand arguments. Where intermediate quizzes ensures that learners are understanding what the intention is followed by 'Share your thoughts' questions to express your views and discuss specific course material with other learners. I feel this mix of quizzes and sharing really helps in learning the course. | in the course is use of | Question | just to ascertain our mastery over | Positive | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | I am two weeks into the course and really like it. The ideas and concepts mentioned are quite profound. And hope to apply them soon enough in both my personal and professional life. One additional thing which would really like seeing in the course is use of questions just to ascertain our mastery over concepts. Something like the other course which I am taking concurrently -- Think again: How to understand arguments. Where intermediate quizzes ensures that learners are understanding what the intention is followed by 'Share your thoughts' questions to express your views and discuss specific course material with other learners. I feel this mix of quizzes and sharing really helps in learning the course. | is followed by 'Share your thoughts' | Question | to express your views and discuss | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| op_vMOGiEeWr4g7T_DyXNw | Very well taught, easy to understand. The questions in the exams have been very thoughtfully selected, one must pay attention to the content and understand the concept. Going to remember the concepts for long time after watching & listing the tutorials. | well taught, easy to understand. The | Question | in the exams have been very | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| op_vMOGiEeWr4g7T_DyXNw | Cloud computing course provides an overview of the concepts of distributed processing. The algorithms behind real world distributed applications are well explained. The video lectures and quiz questions on various distributed protocols provide insights into the working of these systems. Highly recommended. Thanks Prof. Indranil Gupta and the Coursera community!! | explained. The video lectures and quiz | Question | on various distributed protocols provide insights | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| oSDxwswyEeWXgg4wnpJx-w | It's a quiet complex topic in general terms. It is well covered, but In my opinion there should be at least an exercise per video, explaining something similar to the in-video questions. It should have a demonstrative part rather than just talking about it and showing the formula. | explaining something similar to the in-video | Question | It should have a demonstrative part | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| ow0AdTeOEeWnxw5wP_KHTw | I would not recommend this specialization to anyone. The first assignment is just a first review of the final project, but it is almost impossible to pass, because the questions are not organized in a manner of constructive feedback. | almost impossible to pass, because the | Question | are not organized in a manner | Negative | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Very basic. Tricky quiz questions. There seems to be multiple right answers. | Very basic. Tricky quiz | Question | There seems to be multiple right | Negative | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Testing choice isn't great. Writing a letter, outline, etc. and submitting it for peer review would have been more productive. Furthermore, some questions in Week 2 test are confusing, the original meaning the test designer is trying to convey is, which dictates what the right answer is, isn't clear, giving too much room to interpretation not allowing the answer to be empirically right. | have been more productive. Furthermore, some | Question | in Week 2 test are confusing, | Negative | 0.9 | 3.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Some questions in the quiz for module 2 are unclear and seem unrelated to the course work. | Some | Question | in the quiz for module 2 | Negative | 0.68 | 1.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The information was very helpful. I would have benefited from quiz explanations I kept getting the same two questions wrong on quiz 2. | I kept getting the same two | Question | wrong on quiz 2. | Negative | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| o_VGekEUEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I enjoyed the course. Lots of Roman history included. Lots of interesting videos from other experts in a particular area of study. But, I will never again take an on-line course with essay questions graded by other students. Out of frustration, I experimented by looking at the answers before taking the test so I knew I should have gotten a perfect score & still didn't get passing marks from my fellow students. I started just skipping them. Remove the essay questions & I would give this course 5 stars. | take an on-line course with essay | Question | graded by other students. Out of | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| o_VGekEUEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I enjoyed the course. Lots of Roman history included. Lots of interesting videos from other experts in a particular area of study. But, I will never again take an on-line course with essay questions graded by other students. Out of frustration, I experimented by looking at the answers before taking the test so I knew I should have gotten a perfect score & still didn't get passing marks from my fellow students. I started just skipping them. Remove the essay questions & I would give this course 5 stars. | just skipping them. Remove the essay | Question | & I would give this course | Negative | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent Way to learn Python. I am completely new to programming, but able to complete the course with in the time and now I am comfortable with the basics python programming. Charles made it a simple thing. His way of teaching, taking it step by step is very nice. Assignments are simple and at the same time ensures that we are good to go to next chapter. Support for questions while doing assignments is great. Thanks to University of Michigan for allowing us completing assignments as well, without payment. This is very great. Giving chance to every one to complete assignments and in addition providing support during assignments is actually shows the social commitment of University that education should be available to every one . | go to next chapter. Support for | Question | while doing assignments is great. Thanks | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | This course was challenging for me as a beginning programmer but it was taught very well. The professor and the book are awesome. If you have a question there is always a Mentor with coding experience around who can help. | are awesome. If you have a | Question | there is always a Mentor with | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | learned a lot. dont forget to read the book its great. the class is a good pace and dr chuck is a great teacher. wish mentors answered more questions on the forums | great teacher. wish mentors answered more | Question | on the forums | Positive | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very applicable to real world development, but well thought out and executed for all levels to learn. Being a Data Engineer, I had a difference of opinion on one of the SQL questions exams, but all in all great job! | opinion on one of the SQL | Question | exams, but all in all great | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Awesome second course from Chuck. He explains the material well and provides a great foundation in Python and coding. The mentors are responsive and helpful when you have questions, and the exercises are a good level of challenge but not so difficult they are frustrating. | responsive and helpful when you have | Question | and the exercises are a good | Negative | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Again like in Getting Started with Python course, I wish there was a way for us to get explanations for quiz questions after we complete a quiz, so we can fully understand them. I wish we could have something similar for when we complete the coding assignments, the worked exercises are helpful, but it would be helpful after we complete an assignment to have a code to compare ours to, to see the differences and to make sure we understand exactly what Dr. Chuck was getting at. There were several assignments that I completed, but not in the correct way, so the next weeks assignment was more difficult than it should have been. | us to get explanations for quiz | Question | after we complete a quiz, so | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Hello, The course has been designed in a way which can help a person who doesn't even know Programming. I do appreciate that! But, just one question that I have is, why the deadlines for the Assignments are designed in such a way that Week1 of Introduction Course, and the Advanced (Object Oriented Programming) have the same deadline? | do appreciate that! But, just one | Question | that I have is, why the | Negative | 0.87 | 3.0 |
| pCa5-xauEeWEjBINzvDOWw | Good questions in quizzes and great understanding | Good | Question | in quizzes and great understanding | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | Fascinating overview but was hoping for a bit more depth. Did learn new things though, particulalry about the not so well publicised Apollo missions and the early Russian efforts. A couple of quiz questions were marking right answers as wrong but course team got them sorted fairly quickly | Russian efforts. A couple of quiz | Question | were marking right answers as wrong | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| PGQphxLCEeSD_CIACooXkA | Needs some means of feedback. Several times I felt sure that a question was wrong, but there's nothing to be done about it. Additionally, it would be nice if, after completing (and passing) a test, you could see what you did wrong and how the answer should have been determined. | times I felt sure that a | Question | was wrong, but there's nothing to | Negative | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| PK8RF2g8EeSYbSIACzWPZQ | I found this course very helpful in making me rethink the way I teach - moving from a lecture mode where I present information to students whilst they force themselves to try and focus or fall asleep to teaching using questions whilst inserting information at helpful points to guide the conversation. I am a homeschooling Mum and a church pastor, and in both those settings I have found this course to be very insightful and transformational in the way I teach and can promote creative thinking and engagement with students. | or fall asleep to teaching using | Question | whilst inserting information at helpful points | Negative | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | I enjoyed the course very much. I learn very much. It inspired me and made me less apprehensive of the gigantic job I have in front of me. To follow the simple rules and questions of the course will lead you on the right path to success of your mission-based business. Thanks Klaus-Michael | To follow the simple rules and | Question | of the course will lead you | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| pmf0N9G-EeWB-BI5fjMtHQ | Super cours complétant nos connaissances de base sur la gestion des AP dans nos pays (RDC en ce qui me concerne). La portée continentale de ce cours permet de mieux appréhender les particularités des milieux, des gestions sans oublier de donner vie aux cinq catégories des AP à travers des quiz et des devoirs. En tous cas, ça me permet de mieux poser certaines questions, d'actualiser et élargir mes bases scientifiques. | me permet de mieux poser certaines | Question | d'actualiser et élargir mes bases scientifiques. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| PwuYBQZREeW5gyIACwQVNg | I found this very interesting, covering some topics I did not expect an introduction. I think the pace of the course is about right, but I would have liked more questions. Unfortunately I became very busy during the course and failed to keep up. I look forward to repeating it when I have more time. | but I would have liked more | Question | Unfortunately I became very busy during | Negative | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| PwuYBQZREeW5gyIACwQVNg | Very clear and well paced class. I like the early introduction to Julia sets to introduce recent mysteries of in the subject before teaching the classical results. The professor is a very clear speaker and was generous enough with her time to answer some of the forum questions. | to answer some of the forum | Question | | Positive | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| PZNTj2DEEeWVEg5QpF1H_w | I really like the professor and his narration, quite engaging and interesting course. The only suggestion I have is to improve the quizzes with more analytical rather than fact-based questions. | with more analytical rather than fact-based | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| PZNTj2DEEeWVEg5QpF1H_w | This class was so informative and it brought to mind many thoughts and questions about how we interact globally. If you're not familiar with the area, you probably should bring up a few maps to refer to during the lectures -- he has plenty of graphics but that wasn't enough for me. The history of this area has always been so convoluted (in my mind at least); this class has taught me a lot and kept my interest throughout. Too many names but taking actual notes helps. I'm starting the next part now! Very worthwhile class. | brought to mind many thoughts and | Question | about how we interact globally. If | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| q3r0bBbMEeafcQ6IJeJ6Vw | The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems : -little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums -the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures -the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content). In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse. | final exam has severe problems with | Question | (form not content). In more detail, | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| q3r0bBbMEeafcQ6IJeJ6Vw | The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems : -little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums -the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures -the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content). In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse. | the final exam, some of the | Question | don't even contain all the content | Negative | 0.83 | 2.0 |
| q3r0bBbMEeafcQ6IJeJ6Vw | The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems : -little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums -the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures -the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content). In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse. | request multiple answers but have single | Question | boxes and/or the reverse. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | Information needs be updated especially with the changes just made in France 2015. It was a little slow and quizzes were often frustrating due to questions and answers not matching up, or info was not given in the lecture. Overall, since it was 101 and basic, I enjoyed learning the new information. | quizzes were often frustrating due to | Question | and answers not matching up, or | Negative | 0.66 | 3.0 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | First of all, thank you for the course, as it enables students to get a bit more up-to-date and knowledgeable in the topic. On the other hand, unfortunately it's not worth one's time as it didn't deliver very good quality, nor on its promise regarding "The Big Picture". Pros: Easy to understand. Self-paced. Objectivity and positive overall message. Cons: Overall quality and clarity of the lectures is not very good. Lectures are a bit hard to follow, not because of the complexity of the topic, but because of some controversial and outdated data, and the speaking and presentation style of the lecturer. Assignments contain too many trivial questions, but also some mistakes which makes some questions impossible to answer correctly, based on the lectures, or at all. No staff engagement or feedback on the forums, which is especially problematic regarding to aforementioned mistakes. The title and description of the course don't inform students that it is completely US-centric, and mostly concentrating on petroleum/oil. So along with a lot of important topics, "The Big Picture" is missing. | lecturer. Assignments contain too many trivial | Question | but also some mistakes which makes | Positive | 0.68 | 2.0 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | First of all, thank you for the course, as it enables students to get a bit more up-to-date and knowledgeable in the topic. On the other hand, unfortunately it's not worth one's time as it didn't deliver very good quality, nor on its promise regarding "The Big Picture". Pros: Easy to understand. Self-paced. Objectivity and positive overall message. Cons: Overall quality and clarity of the lectures is not very good. Lectures are a bit hard to follow, not because of the complexity of the topic, but because of some controversial and outdated data, and the speaking and presentation style of the lecturer. Assignments contain too many trivial questions, but also some mistakes which makes some questions impossible to answer correctly, based on the lectures, or at all. No staff engagement or feedback on the forums, which is especially problematic regarding to aforementioned mistakes. The title and description of the course don't inform students that it is completely US-centric, and mostly concentrating on petroleum/oil. So along with a lot of important topics, "The Big Picture" is missing. | also some mistakes which makes some | Question | impossible to answer correctly, based on | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| q78Cq1x8EeW9BBKT5ztNhQ | Very good introduction. light-weight explanations. Better animations and videos could enhanced the learning process. questions are too easy. Needs more complex tasks to integrates the different sections together. | videos could enhanced the learning process. | Question | are too easy. Needs more complex | Positive | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| q78Cq1x8EeW9BBKT5ztNhQ | I found this course useful and appropriate in the material offered and the assessed questions as an introduction and an update in cancer biology for CPD purposes. It is rather disappointing that the final grade achieved is not printed on the certificate. For A$65 to join the course and not have the full information such as the hours involved and the final grade achieved makes it very disappointing not to reflect the effort I put in as well as tricky to include this course as part of a CPD program. | the material offered and the assessed | Question | as an introduction and an update | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I was scepticale at first but Raj explained all sides to his ideas so well that I had to keep watching. Every time I thought of important questions, he'd explain it 1 minute later. The only concern for me personaly was that he choose creative wordings over clarity & simplicity. I also aticipated better strategies and explainations to sin #5 for toxic people, psych pain, accountability but besides this everything else was beyond expectations. | Every time I thought of important | Question | he'd explain it 1 minute later. | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Its excellent. Gives solution to all my questions one by one. Its a great experience with Dr. Raj | excellent. Gives solution to all my | Question | one by one. Its a great | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | In general it's fine, but I'd like to see more questions with calculations, such tasks help better understand the topic | but I'd like to see more | Question | with calculations, such tasks help better | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Pros: Content Professor Depth of material Cons: Exams are shit, full of mistakes, stuid questions asking 2 values but you have one field to fill in the data. Totally unacceptable quality issues with exams. READ THE FORUM!!!! | are shit, full of mistakes, stuid | Question | asking 2 values but you have | Negative | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Need to review some question. Example: The universe is 13.8 billion years. No unit for computational question. Two questions for one field to fill. A good idea to add an indication how to write an exponential number. Use Coursera tools to check if the answer is a number by student. | Need to review some | Question | Example: The universe is 13. 8 | Positive | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Need to review some question. Example: The universe is 13.8 billion years. No unit for computational question. Two questions for one field to fill. A good idea to add an indication how to write an exponential number. Use Coursera tools to check if the answer is a number by student. | billion years. No unit for computational | Question | Two questions for one field to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Need to review some question. Example: The universe is 13.8 billion years. No unit for computational question. Two questions for one field to fill. A good idea to add an indication how to write an exponential number. Use Coursera tools to check if the answer is a number by student. | No unit for computational question. Two | Question | for one field to fill. A | Negative | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| QKGzLQoYEeWKzSIAC7Uk8A | This is a joke right? 5 minutes long videos with questions after it shall teach me effective?! you guys are ridiculous! | right? 5 minutes long videos with | Question | after it shall teach me effective? | Negative | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Absolutely ingnoring of questions in forum from moderators, terrible changing of db schema during the course: on one week one schema, on second week another. it would be ok, but it is proposed to drop tables, that has foreign keys on another, already populated. therefore schema become unconsisten. and we should execute practice lesson on this chaos schema. do teachers tried to pass this course themselves? i don't think so. also there are absurd requirenments on practice lesson. For example, they ask create not null and primary key constraint on the same table. Do they know, taht pk already contatin not null? Maybe teachers should learn about database before they start to teach? | Absolutely ingnoring of | Question | in forum from moderators, terrible changing | Negative | 0.96 | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great course.... with lots of practice questions. | . . with lots of practice | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: Information is perfect for anyone looking at Business Intelligence as a career field, or already in the career field itself. I found the first week to challenge my on-the-job knowledge of a fuller set of concepts and general terminology. Cons: The wording on the quiz questions, in some cases, seems much different than the PPT slides and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The wording is a significant challenge, even when advancing into the more complex topics. I have had many differences of opinions on the solutions based on wording in the requirements. | Cons: The wording on the quiz | Question | in some cases, seems much different | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Not enough implication from the instructors in the course. Students are left alone with the material, without any answers to there questions on the course. Peer review process subject to personal interpretation and leading to frustration for the students. That's quite unfortunate as this provides a bad experience whereas the course might have been good without that. | material, without any answers to there | Question | on the course. Peer review process | Negative | 0.79 | 2.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: The course content covers a lot of relevant topics on Database Management. Things like Basic SQL queries, Database Normalization, Conceptual and Logical databases, and making ER diagrams are covered in the course. Cons: Prof Mannino is a bit robotic in his reading out of long sentences and the constant pace of talking. There is tons of repetition of sentences and words mere seconds after they were just spoken. The lectures seem to be a collection of bullet points. The assignments and the peer review structure is really a low point. There's no specific grading rubric - so points allocation is random and based on your peer's assessment. I had many instances where my right answers were marked as wrong. There is nothing you can do to correct it. Moreover, the questions are iterative and thus the same apparent error carries on and you get multiple wrong scores. Assignments need to be submitted in documents. Separate documents for each question !! At times, even a one-line answer needs to be in a separate document. Pictures of database diagrams need to be pasted in said documents. It was a bit frustrating to take screenshots all the time. Especially when you make a small correction, and have to take screenshots AGAIN, then paste it AGAIN, and upload AGAIN !! Summary: Take the course for it's content, and use the assignments as good practice. Don't take the grading seriously. Also, focus on the content rather than the delivery by the professor, and you will still be able to get some value out of the course (and the specialization by extension) | do to correct it. Moreover, the | Question | are iterative and thus the same | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: The course content covers a lot of relevant topics on Database Management. Things like Basic SQL queries, Database Normalization, Conceptual and Logical databases, and making ER diagrams are covered in the course. Cons: Prof Mannino is a bit robotic in his reading out of long sentences and the constant pace of talking. There is tons of repetition of sentences and words mere seconds after they were just spoken. The lectures seem to be a collection of bullet points. The assignments and the peer review structure is really a low point. There's no specific grading rubric - so points allocation is random and based on your peer's assessment. I had many instances where my right answers were marked as wrong. There is nothing you can do to correct it. Moreover, the questions are iterative and thus the same apparent error carries on and you get multiple wrong scores. Assignments need to be submitted in documents. Separate documents for each question !! At times, even a one-line answer needs to be in a separate document. Pictures of database diagrams need to be pasted in said documents. It was a bit frustrating to take screenshots all the time. Especially when you make a small correction, and have to take screenshots AGAIN, then paste it AGAIN, and upload AGAIN !! Summary: Take the course for it's content, and use the assignments as good practice. Don't take the grading seriously. Also, focus on the content rather than the delivery by the professor, and you will still be able to get some value out of the course (and the specialization by extension) | in documents. Separate documents for each | Question | ! ! At times, even a | Positive | 0.81 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Good but with some errors in assignments and not real support via the forum - some question has not been answered | support via the forum - some | Question | has not been answered | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The lecture videos have a format that is a bit over structured. It feels like the instructor takes as much time asking and answering an often contrived "motivation" question as he does teaching relevant material. The slides are of sufficient quality however to make viewing the lectures optional. . I would have appreciated having all the courses documents in single zip file. | answering an often contrived " motivation" | Question | as he does teaching relevant material. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The course is well structured with clear objective for each lecture. It starts by asking the main question about the course then summarize the answer and the key messages. Practice and assignment are valuable to apply and test courses knowledge. Thank you | It starts by asking the main | Question | about the course then summarize the | Negative | 0.71 | 4.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | A solid course, I feel well versed in the fundamentals of database design. The 'opening question' bits are rather superfluous though. | fundamentals of database design. The 'opening | Question | bits are rather superfluous though. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| qogqSFgBEeWBNwpVGuknww | I enjoyed the course. I wish there was perhaps a little more evaluation along the way (maybe occasional in-lecture questions), but otherwise very nice. | along the way (maybe occasional in-lecture | Question | but otherwise very nice. | Positive | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is one of the best courses I have ever taken. It is fun and yet, it is very detailed and, yes, it takes a bit more than 2-3 hours per week. You will learn much more than using Tableau. You will learn to ask the right questions and you will also learn how to present your data analytics results to the C-suite or whoever asked for it. I highly recommend this to anyone, beginners and experienced business / data analysts. | will learn to ask the right | Question | and you will also learn how | Positive | 0.83 | 5.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | There needs to be more help available, at least for paying students, to answer questions and clear misunderstanding. The quizzes are taking too much time. | least for paying students, to answer | Question | and clear misunderstanding. The quizzes are | Negative | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I will start with you do learn a lot from the videos (and the stuff you learn is very valuable), it's the absence of staff or professor involvement that is a problem and why I am not giving 5 stars. Outside of quizzes which are graded by computers, your "practice" assignments (which aren't practice because you can't check your answers before a test, super awesome when you can't really ask for help), final project and forum questions are graded or answered by other students. If you have any confusion, either it will go unresolved or be worsened by potentially wrong answers from other students which I saw happen many, many times. Maybe I am expecting too much from an online learning platform? In all, I feel like while I did learn, I perhaps learned some wrong practices too. So while the videos are great, the actual teacher involvement is poor. Coursera - I am not sure how you and the university work together, but is it totally strange to desire some input from your professor? | for help), final project and forum | Question | are graded or answered by other | Positive | 0.66 | 3.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is an excellent course. You are given a six month license to use Tableau as well as practice data for the assignments and exercises. It is very practical and informative. It covers more than just Tableau. The first week is about framing data questions and working with stakeholders. The second and third week cover Tableau. The last week gives some very helpful tips for giving effective presentations. The final assessment will go over all of these things, so be prepared to put them to use if you want the final certificate. | first week is about framing data | Question | and working with stakeholders. The second | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Tableau is garbage and their assignment practice questions don't work | is garbage and their assignment practice | Question | don't work | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The material is very interesting with well-made videos. Great course to get an introduction to Tableau. The downside for me was that some videos were rushed with as they had too much content, and quizzes could be much better, I found the questions not really up-to-par with the course content. | be much better, I found the | Question | not really up-to-par with the course | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course content is itself interesting but the lack of active mentors to provide guidance makes the course really difficult to learn. So many unanswered questions on the discussion board and many confused students. I am so glad I am not paying for this course. | difficult to learn. So many unanswered | Question | on the discussion board and many | Positive | 0.68 | 1.0 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | Liked the course, but it was a little easy (took four days total to do the material for the whole course). Many questions were left unanswered (such as how dependent the credibility intervals are on the choice of prior distribution and the assumed distribution of the data), and it didn't touch on later topics that are interesting (MCMC sampling). Again, good beginning course, but I was looking for more in depth study. | material for the whole course). Many | Question | were left unanswered (such as how | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | There are several things in the course that were able to clear up my understanding. The course instructor responds to more questions than I would have expected as well. The course uses a lot of mathematical notation and it helps to take some time with it but once you get the idea of conjugate priors down you can quickly employ them in your own problems. The course covers conjugate priors for several different likelihoods including the normal distribution and the binomial distribution. Although the derivation of the conjugate priors looks daunting as it is written down, the usage of the priors make Bayesian statistics much easier. This course uses R and Excel but is not a course in either. Most of the computations that are performed for the quizzes are pretty simple and require little skill in R. I am glad that I have taken the course and would take another if provided by this instructor. I plan to reference the materials provided in the future whenever I need a refresher. | The course instructor responds to more | Question | than I would have expected as | Negative | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | Out of 15 online courses I have taken over the last 3 years, this is the best. Professor Lee presents rather difficult material in a clear, detailed, style. The lesson quizzes are remarkably useful; it seems real care has been taken in aligning the questions with the key points in the lectures, and in furthering one's understanding of the same. | has been taken in aligning the | Question | with the key points in the | Positive | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | This course makes a lot of details clear to me. Thanks professor for this great course. I still have one question, is the professor writing on a transparent board in inverse pattern? The technique is amazing! | great course. I still have one | Question | is the professor writing on a | Positive | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | No one responds to questions. Lectures are not as good as other courses in the specialization and no slides available. | No one responds to | Question | Lectures are not as good as | Positive | 0.68 | 1.0 |
| QRDjcWLVEeWFkQ7sUCFGVQ | I enjoyed this course immensely! I was a bit hesitant due to its length, however, the content was usually manageable and mostly interesting. A couple of the weeks, the lectures are quite lengthy and dense while others were a bit dry. Also, I think the week about bacteria could use a little more explanation. I feel as though I didn't really understand those concepts until watching that week's as well as the next week's lectures. Finally, the quiz questions for the third to last week were a bit confusing and didn't match well to what the instructors actually said. | next week's lectures. Finally, the quiz | Question | for the third to last week | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| qVetW596EeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | I posted questions and couldn't find any answer. The course also doesn't allow me to be creative (although it's about design!) in answering assignments. | I posted | Question | and couldn't find any answer. The | Negative | 0.74 | 1.0 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The algorithms presented in this course are interesting. However, the quizzes contain some questions that have no apparent relation to the content of the lectures, and some questions about details of the presented algorithms which are explained in neither the lectures, nor in the papers from which the lectures are derived. Also, most of the sample implementations will not run on a modern computer. They only work on Windows with Java 6 installed. | interesting. However, the quizzes contain some | Question | that have no apparent relation to | Negative | 0.93 | 2.0 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The algorithms presented in this course are interesting. However, the quizzes contain some questions that have no apparent relation to the content of the lectures, and some questions about details of the presented algorithms which are explained in neither the lectures, nor in the papers from which the lectures are derived. Also, most of the sample implementations will not run on a modern computer. They only work on Windows with Java 6 installed. | content of the lectures, and some | Question | about details of the presented algorithms | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The lectures were good but when it came to quizzes and assignments, we do not know what to do? The questions were very complicated and not stated in the Lectures | not know what to do? The | Question | were very complicated and not stated | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 |
| r0e9gyUAEeWxbhIkPfddLQ | Teacher is good, also the contens are very interesting. However i felt the capstone must be clearer in order to follow the previous one. They have both the same situation, but there is something missing between capstone 1 and 2. Maybe it is the way it is conceibed, the questions were not clear at all. | the way it is conceibed, the | Question | were not clear at all. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| r0e9gyUAEeWxbhIkPfddLQ | Very down-to-earth and hands-on approach for a subject that - in the wrong hands - might be very abstract. I think that examples, companies and questions were challenging and entertaining. I learned a lot and have built my strategy tool kit around this course. | I think that examples, companies and | Question | were challenging and entertaining. I learned | Positive | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| R1xPlXlzEeW3pg6oA-kqJQ | Good Questions and very good Test Cases. | Good | Question | and very good Test Cases. | Positive | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | Interesting material, and good assignments. However this is no assistance when by TAs if you have questions, which is important since there is no feedback on assignments and hard to know where you went wrong. | when by TAs if you have | Question | which is important since there is | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | Lack of support from course teaching staff in answering student's questions. | course teaching staff in answering student's | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | So I'll start with the positives. The material was appropriate and interesting and well presented. CJ Taylor is an enthusiastic lecturer and the material was presented in an enjoyable easy to understand way and having finished the course, I definitely want to learn more about computational motion planning. The problems I have with this course though are numerous. This is the second part of the Robotics Specialization and compared to the first part, this course was very weak. There was very little lecture material and the course felt thin - as if it were 2 weeks of material stretched over 4. There were many instances where the lectures could have gone in to much more detail and just didn't, I appreciate that you can't cover everything in lectures, but would it have killed you to provide or at least point to some good additional reading resources? The assessments were the worst part. The quizzes barely tested what I had learnt and could mostly be solved by common sense. What I find shocking is that there were so few questions with few multiple choice answer that you could easily brute-force these quizzes if you really wanted to. Compare this to the Aerial Robotics course where the quizzes took time and forced me to think and understand what was discussed in lecture. The programming assignments were shockingly bad. They were hard for completely the wrong reasons. I spent most of my time on them not coding the solution, but trying to figure out what was actually wanted and fixing bugs that were in the provided code that we WEREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO EDIT. The autograder would never tell you why you were wrong, just "I'm sorry, your solution didn't pass all of our test cases." This meant that finding the solution was based on guesswork rather than considered thought. This was made even worse by the fact that some simulations took a long time to run which made iterating guesses very slow - and doing this on a time limit is just pointlessly stressful. One of the assignments had the solution already in the source code as the instructors had forgotten to take it out. The final assignment wouldn't even run out of the box without fixing bugs in the provided code. This would have taken seconds to check had the person who wrote it bothered to check their work beforehand. Thing is, the tasks provided in principle weren't that hard, they were actually kind of too easy. Dijkstra's algorithm isn't that difficult to implement from scratch, and yet all that was asked of us was to implement a small 10 line for-loop. That said, I appreciate that as a software engineer, I might find this sort of thing much easier than most, but even so I don't feel as though the programming assignments helped me learn anything. Overall, regardless of how interesting the material was, this course was very shoddily put together. I appreciate this is the first time the course has been run, but this really felt phoned in and unacceptable. I paid money for this course and the quality of it is notably worse than most free MOOCs I have taken. I feel ripped off and I sincerely hope that the next section is better otherwise I doubt I will bother to continue until the end. I thought Penn University was better than this. | is that there were so few | Question | with few multiple choice answer that | Negative | 0.85 | 2.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | TA's do occasionally provide answers to | Question | The total amount of time TA's | Negative | 0.78 | 1.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | amount of time TA's spend answering | Question | is just really poor. Don't expect | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | poor. Don't expect even well asked | Question | to be answered at all. In | Negative | 0.97 | 1.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | I have many hours of undergraduate accounting and finance course work under my belt and this class gives you a tremendous overview of financial statement analysis. The only disadvantage is that the professor creates the workbooks for you and you only have to answer conceptual questions. While this would be great for some, I was hoping for some more hands on work to practice. | you only have to answer conceptual | Question | While this would be great for | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Very interesting course, well designed, using animated fun-makers to shoot out questions that you will probably do it yourself. Course content easy to understand. Very suited for non-accounting major analyst who wants to get some background in accounting analysis.. | using animated fun-makers to shoot out | Question | that you will probably do it | Negative | 0.62 | 5.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | While I enjoyed this course and the topics covered, I don't feel like the course content matched what the course description stated it was supposed to. I enrolled in the Business Analytics Specialization course with a focus on analyzing a business from the inside, not outside. Of the 4 weeks of the course, I'd say that only week 4 was valid from an internal perspective but it was kept very high level. I'd say this course could be good for a specialization in business market analysis, but not as advertised. I also found the cartoon classroom questions to be very annoying, almost as bad as fingernails on a blackboard. | I also found the cartoon classroom | Question | to be very annoying, almost as | Negative | 0.86 | 2.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Lot of considerably complex and dry (accounting and statistics!) subject matter covered at a high level without much discussion! Quiz questions are unnecessarily complex - which (IMHO) will discourage / turn off those who are new to this subject matter in completing this course. The last week is pretty interesting though! I am taking the full business analytic course - and find that the quality and complexity of content is all over the place!! Some are way too simple and some are highly complex. | high level without much discussion! Quiz | Question | are unnecessarily complex - which (IMHO) | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | It's ok. Bushee is very knowledgeable and a very enthusiastic teacher, but his lessons are too dense compared to the content in the rest of the Wharton BA programs. I actually like all the detail, but I think it's covered too quickly and the course should probably be made longer to deal with it all. There are ratios and balance sheet jargon just flying at you at a breathless pace. It would be better to focus on a few key ones and then walk through the examples a little more slowly. The quizzes were extremely tricky with too many choose more than one answers. It was difficult to find the parts of the video to review missed questions because 1) the transcripts are machine generated and make it difficult to search specific words and 2) it's difficult to remember where the concept was covered because there was so much in each video. The last week felt very disconnected from the first week and like it belonged in a different course almost. It was pretty good, though. I liked how it contained specific examples and charts. | of the video to review missed | Question | because 1) the transcripts are machine | Negative | 0.82 | 3.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Excellent online course that caters to a wide spectrum of audiences with different learning backgrounds. Also love the cut scenes to the classroom where students make funny comments or ask questions haha | students make funny comments or ask | Question | haha | Negative | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Five stars is not enough to express my satisfaction and love to this course. The instructor is very proactive in community. Every questions I posted got direcly feedback from Teaching staff (and most of them are from Prof Bushee!!!) This is the besttttt course among all Wharton analytics sessions! Honestly, you have to try!! | is very proactive in community. Every | Question | I posted got direcly feedback from | Positive | 0.72 | 5.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | “think about what this means” type | Question | that is not necessarily “marked” but | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | would be effective. Or, perhaps a | Question | that relates strategy specifically to the | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | I think having specific problems or | Question | will enhance the learning experience rather | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz | Question | would be helpful. Perhaps it might | Negative | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | or something similar. Just some practice | Question | to get people working with the | Negative | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | even though I struggled with the | Question | where there are multiple correct responses. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | want to remind students that the | Question | may change from quiz to quiz. | Negative | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | of these on-demand courses, the quiz | Question | do not change and students may | Negative | 0.78 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the habit of not rereading the | Question | they have gotten correct on previous | Positive | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the lectures other than some in-line | Question | might be good. . I found | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the lectures – some in-line quiz | Question | might help. This would also help | Negative | 0.62 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz | Question | 9 -, the double negative wording | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the double negative wording of the | Question | and the correct response may cause | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | I think in-line quizzes or practice | Question | would be helpful for students – | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| RFyNbG0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | As an advanced English speaker, for me this course goes too little into improvement of pronounciation. The tips for conversations - small talk, phone, online etc. - are only very basic as well. Good course for beginners though and I also liked the interspersal of little questions and tasks along the way (although also too simple imo). Very good - but obviously only paid content - are the teamwork assignments. | also liked the interspersal of little | Question | and tasks along the way (although | Positive | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This seemed like a somewhat outdated course but did have a lot of basic info for people who want to make a game but haven't given it much thought. I also found the quizzes and review options frustration due to poorly worded questions and rating choices, as well as the lack of a written feedback option besides comments. Some of the videos seem to kind of drag on a bit as well, but overall it was still helpful for developing my game despite feeling like I didn't gain much new information. | options frustration due to poorly worded | Question | and rating choices, as well as | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I probably have to rate this course 5 stars just for the supplementary reading materials provided. There's a lot of great information provided here. This course helps formalize a process that highly talented people just do intuitively. With the information within, you're able to better understand different aspects of your creative process. At times, the professor's delivery can be a little distracting (he has quite a few awkward pauses in the middle of thoughts, and uses the phrase, "right?" a little too unconsciously). I also found some of the lecture material difficult to connect in a practical sense. Some aspects of the design, play, experience model could use better examples in lecture to make the points more concrete. It is a deep model, and they do in fact point you to a whitepaper published on it so there is that, but just for the sake of the lessons; the examples need better explanation. The quizzes were easy, but challenging in the wrong way. Often, questions are posed that weren't ever directly answered in lecture or the materials, and sometimes they are worded in ways that make it difficult to pinpoint what they are looking for. It would be nice to see student responses to the free-response questions make a comeback in future lessons or at least know that they could possibly carry into the material used to teach the next incoming class. The assignments follow a logical progression, and again are supplemented with great materials. The review system is a little wonky. I've posted in the boards about this. They need to make the criteria more clear. The community activity is pretty low. I'm not sure how this can be addressed, but overall this is a great course and perfect second stop on the journey towards the Game Design and Development specialization. | challenging in the wrong way. Often, | Question | are posed that weren't ever directly | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I probably have to rate this course 5 stars just for the supplementary reading materials provided. There's a lot of great information provided here. This course helps formalize a process that highly talented people just do intuitively. With the information within, you're able to better understand different aspects of your creative process. At times, the professor's delivery can be a little distracting (he has quite a few awkward pauses in the middle of thoughts, and uses the phrase, "right?" a little too unconsciously). I also found some of the lecture material difficult to connect in a practical sense. Some aspects of the design, play, experience model could use better examples in lecture to make the points more concrete. It is a deep model, and they do in fact point you to a whitepaper published on it so there is that, but just for the sake of the lessons; the examples need better explanation. The quizzes were easy, but challenging in the wrong way. Often, questions are posed that weren't ever directly answered in lecture or the materials, and sometimes they are worded in ways that make it difficult to pinpoint what they are looking for. It would be nice to see student responses to the free-response questions make a comeback in future lessons or at least know that they could possibly carry into the material used to teach the next incoming class. The assignments follow a logical progression, and again are supplemented with great materials. The review system is a little wonky. I've posted in the boards about this. They need to make the criteria more clear. The community activity is pretty low. I'm not sure how this can be addressed, but overall this is a great course and perfect second stop on the journey towards the Game Design and Development specialization. | see student responses to the free-response | Question | make a comeback in future lessons | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Great content and great teacher. But I found the assignments and the quizzes not that great. I reckon the questions and corrections were a bit subjective and time consuming. | not that great. I reckon the | Question | and corrections were a bit subjective | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | After the excellent first course in the specialisation, this was quite a disappointment. I realise that the subject matter in this course will inevitably involve abstract concepts and subjective opinions, but I didn't really 'get' the way that Casey was presenting the subject given that there were quizzes and assignments to follow. That's not to say that the videos aren't interesting. But, given their rambling style, they would be much more useful as reference material rather than driving the course, in my opinion. Many of the questions in the quizzes felt like they'd been added simply to make them up to the correct number. Some were so loose that you could write any answer and I'm sure you'd get a mark! Also, I'd say not to even start this course unless you have a clear idea for a game. The assignments require you to produce design documents that are tedious, going on impossible, to write without some firm rooted idea to start from. Maybe if you really want to be a game designer then this will be the course for you. If you are doing the course out of curiosity, for fun, or to learn how to control Unity, I'd give it a miss. | in my opinion. Many of the | Question | in the quizzes felt like they'd | Positive | 0.64 | 1.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Tasks are different in complexity, but time is given the same. Speaker's constantly interrupts sentences. Hard to understand for people, who bad speek English. Questions for peer review are bad: "Mark 5 if work amasing". But we just student, our work are rough, not amasing. And everybody can grade as he wish. | for people, who bad speek English. | Question | for peer review are bad: " | Negative | 0.91 | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This is a great course, if you want to hear The Questions you need to Answer to make a good game design for your game. It does not give you the answers, but it gives you a road map to follow. Downside of the course are Quizes and Peer Reviews. Quizes sometimes have shady and non-clear answers, especially for non-native English speakers. Assignments grading criteria makes your peers to choose from 1 to 5. And 5 is "you did so awesome, that you've impressed your peer very much". And this is not happening often. | if you want to hear The | Question | you need to Answer to make | Negative | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A pretty nifty course for game design. I loved getting to work on the documentation planning for the game I was creating. Simple and easy to follow. Some of the quiz questions were a bit tricky as I had spent more time than I though I would, going back to the lectures to review the questions. | to follow. Some of the quiz | Question | were a bit tricky as I | Positive | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A pretty nifty course for game design. I loved getting to work on the documentation planning for the game I was creating. Simple and easy to follow. Some of the quiz questions were a bit tricky as I had spent more time than I though I would, going back to the lectures to review the questions. | to the lectures to review the | Question | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I learn a lot by doing assignments and reviewing other people's assignments. The important con of this course was some of its quizzes' questions which was ambiguous or badly framed. | course was some of its quizzes' | Question | which was ambiguous or badly framed. | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Not very informative content, some parts are interesting but not worth the money. The worst thing is, all assignments are writting work that are evaluated by colleagues, meaning, it is purely objective, to the extent that one question asks if my uploaded file is in a readable format, example pdf, txt...etc and two out of three marking my pdf file as not!!! and not even leaving a comment why they are giving that bad score on obvious things! | objective, to the extent that one | Question | asks if my uploaded file is | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Very helpful information with lots of solid, practical advise (prototype! test!) and a few important questions to think about (genderfication? accessibility?) when designing. Excellent learning experience for game design documentation. Quite worth the time and effort. Thank you! | test! ) and a few important | Question | to think about (genderfication? accessibility? ) | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Although the course content is highly informative and interesting, the way it's all presented it not the best, most of the time concepts are confusing because of this, quizzes become guessing games most of the time. Forums feel neglected by the course tutor, lot's of question that someone knowledgeable should answer become random rambling as nobody is sure as to what the tutor actually meant. As somebody said on the forums "I feel like I'm alpha testing your course". | by the course tutor, lot's of | Question | that someone knowledgeable should answer become | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Good content and GREAT assignments. Main problem is that the lecture videos are unscripted and could easily be made more concise. The other thing that worried me was that most of the assignments that I peer reviewed had missed large parts of the question. I would rather have my work marked by people who have read the question properly. | had missed large parts of the | Question | I would rather have my work | Negative | 0.95 | 3.0 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Good content and GREAT assignments. Main problem is that the lecture videos are unscripted and could easily be made more concise. The other thing that worried me was that most of the assignments that I peer reviewed had missed large parts of the question. I would rather have my work marked by people who have read the question properly. | by people who have read the | Question | properly. | Negative | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | The course covers the various aspects of Energy business in detail, but is very effectively covered. The case study surrounding the political decisions was very interesting, as this is generally not addressed in detail in traditional courses surrounding energy business. While completing each quiz has been challenging to get the required score of 9/10, the questions have been built to ensure exhaustive coverage. It is worth taking this course seriously and completing it. I really liked the course and would recommend this course for any one trying to understand the basics of energy business. | the required score of 9/10, the | Question | have been built to ensure exhaustive | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This was actually pretty hard. I felt like the questions asked in the quiz were considerable above and beyond what was taught - and the amount of R itself taught felt like being thrown in the deep end. | pretty hard. I felt like the | Question | asked in the quiz were considerable | Negative | 0.96 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The course is very well laid out to demonstrate the main features of R programming language. (To elaborate on one thing that I liked) The programming assignment for the 4th week (rating/choosing hospital based on outcome) is very helpful to try out what I learnt from the course so far. All the 3 parts of this question are connected well, and I hope the rest of the courses of the Data Specialization is also implementing similar format. | All the 3 parts of this | Question | are connected well, and I hope | Positive | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | so then to expect to answer | Question | where you had to program seemed | Negative | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I was initially going to give this 3 stars but it would have been a biased score as I found the programming assignments too hard otherwise everything else was great, so I've added a star to counter my own bias. The programming assignments for a novice like me who has only completed the Data Scientist Toolbox course (which was the only prerequisite as far as I know but may have missed this in the opening spiel) would have significant difficulty completing and comprehensively understanding the programming assignments in any meaningful way (i.e. to reuse the knowledge in a different context or question). I completed all of the videos, swirl programming tasks, took fairly decent notes, exams/tests and still had to look elsewhere for much more guidance than I would have thought necessary on the programming assignments as I found them too hard to do on my own. I am not that smart though and this review can only capture part of my own subjective experience. Other than that, as I really enjoyed learning about R and analysing data in general as well as the way Robert Peng's teaching style and demeanour I really enjoyed it. Trying to work out if my failure to understand and reapply is a lack of my fully grasping the material and if so whether to continue grappling with R and programming in general. I've started the third course of the specialisation so will give you more feedback once I'm done there. Thanks very much for the course and keep up the good work. | knowledge in a different context or | Question | I completed all of the videos, | Negative | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I entered this course with no coding experience, and I can definitely say I am disadvantaged because of it. The lectures are great explanations of the different commands in R, and the projects are a great playground of R's different capabilities, but the lectures and projects are too difficult to approach using just the lectures. That being said, this course's difficulty provides students like myself the opportunity to learn how to ask questions and seek resources for the programming. Overall, I do not enjoy this course - mainly because it is very difficult. However, the course is structured logically and provides (what I assume the majority of students) a comprehensive introduction to R. | opportunity to learn how to ask | Question | and seek resources for the programming. | Negative | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I really struggled - coming from a zero programming background. I recommend tons of reading, practical exercises, swirl is a bit of a savior and so is stackoverflow. Even with all of that, I struggled to get my mind to think like a programmer and structure the thoughts into plans for the assignments and tests. I think there needs to be a course before this that teaches one what the first step of solving a programming-related problem; eg one that focuses on flow charts, breaking down the question, etc... It literally is like learning a new language : you need to keep reading and practicing and watching/listening to others do it until you start to get it. | on flow charts, breaking down the | Question | etc. . . It literally is | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you are planning to learn R, then go and buy a book. This course is a complete scam. At least don't pay any money. The reasons; 1.) They advertise that you need couple of hours of study per week. That's a lie, you have to study much more than that unless if you know a little R programming. 2.) The quiz questions are totally unrelated from the lessons. They teach you the basic stuff but they expect you to accomplish intermediate quizzes. 3.) The instructor has no idea how to teach. May be he is trying to prove something. I couldn't really understand his motives. If you really want to teach that's simple. You do couple of extra videos and teach whatever you are asking in quizzes, or tell us to read a certain material. He didn't do any of them which means he either doesn't know how to teach or this specialization is a complete scam. 4.) And I don't really understand what coursera is doing by the way? What kind of a business model is this. I was planning to enroll many specializations but now I am not going to do it. So think about how much they are loosing. Where is the quality assurance. Just because one guy comes up to you and say that he teaches this and that do you believe them? MY ADVICE TO YOU: DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS SPECIALIZATION. AND FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE BAD REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | R programming. 2. ) The quiz | Question | are totally unrelated from the lessons. | Negative | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | A very challenging course for a beginner, but if you are ready to invest time and effort, you will definitely manage it. A point that should definitely be mentioned is that the course is not self-sufficient, so to speak: you will need to do a lot of additional research, googling, ask questions on forums and maybe even take additional courses in parallel in order to make it to the end. But once that steep learning curve is overcome, you will enjoy all the benefits and, above all, will be well-armed to continue in the specialization. | lot of additional research, googling, ask | Question | on forums and maybe even take | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I have some programming experience, but I often could not understand the questions being asked in the programming assignments. Not because of my skill level, but the lack of clarity in the directions. I felt that I learned a lot while taking this course because it held me accountable, but the course design could be much smoother. | I often could not understand the | Question | being asked in the programming assignments. | Negative | 0.71 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The content and the speed that they teach you R are actually good. But considering that we now have to pay 45€/49$ for the course you will expect more polished videos and quizzes. Some of the videos are just stutters, repetitions and filling words. It's seems like they have been in a rush without decent preparation. Also one of the quiz questions was simply wrong. This should be fixed. Furthermore some of the commands they present are deprecated and cannot be used anymore. | preparation. Also one of the quiz | Question | was simply wrong. This should be | Positive | 0.73 | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I did learn a lot from this course, i know where to find the resource to solve my questions. | find the resource to solve my | Question | | Positive | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | The material here is good, especially for a MOOC, and it seemed like they tried to make it dynamic with the use of questions, discussion, interviews, and extension activities. I'm disappointed, however, that the course focused so heavily on Frederickson's work to the exclusion of others. While I understand that this is where she would feel the most comfortable and familiar, to start with her broaden-and-build theory and continually reference her lab's work, with the additional readings often being her books, it felt limited. I would have liked more of a discussion of the contributions of other psychologists like Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, Peterson, Diener, Lyubomirsky, etc. Along with that, it could have addressed topics other than emotions (or been titled The Positive Psychology of Emotions), like character strengths, flow, or institution change. I love the fact that this course exists, and it's a good foundation to build on, but it still feels too narrow to claim the title Positive Psychology. | it dynamic with the use of | Question | discussion, interviews, and extension activities. I'm | Positive | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | Great course material for casual study. This class is not at all demanding but has a lot of useful materials that we can apply in our life. The quiz questions are too simple and obvious but I guess that is not the purpose of this course :) | apply in our life. The quiz | Question | are too simple and obvious but | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | A good basic course for positive psychology. Really like the panel discussion and the interactive questions. Do find it is a bit too basic for people who are in the psychology field. But recommended for people who want an introduction to positive psychology. | the panel discussion and the interactive | Question | Do find it is a bit | Positive | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | Really interesting and well presented videos. The quizzes were also well thought out with relevant questions without being too difficult. | also well thought out with relevant | Question | without being too difficult. | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | the set up for the course was choppy, with random intervals of questions. could definitely flow better | was choppy, with random intervals of | Question | could definitely flow better | Negative | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Very nice and interesting! I learnt a lot. I wish I could make better use of discussion forums. Some questions and few concepts remained unanswered/ not clear, however it was a fantastic experience overall. | better use of discussion forums. Some | Question | and few concepts remained unanswered/ not | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Excellent organisation of the course! The content is also well thought and presented. i personally clarified many vague questions related to variables, measurements and research ethics. I did have the quantitative methods course at the university, in any case some blank spots were left, so this course was helpful. It is a useful course for revising, but I do not know how total beginners feel about it. If I were a beginner I would have some difficulties probably. It could relate to my personal "slowness" to grasp material like this. Thank you Annemarie! I really like your lecturing/teaching style. | presented. i personally clarified many vague | Question | related to variables, measurements and research | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | One of the best courses! Good in-lecture questions. :) | of the best courses! Good in-lecture | Question | :) | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course is excellent! I found the content of very high quality, the lecture videos are very clear and easy to understand. What I find remarkable however, is the quality of the exams and assignments! The staff have put in a lot of effort in creating questions and assignments which really test your understanding and knowledge with a clever marking system which always works out to give you a fair mark even when the assignments are peer reviewed. Well done to Anne-Marie and the other staff who put together this course :) | a lot of effort in creating | Question | and assignments which really test your | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I really enjoyed this course overall (and it was somewhat easy for me because I have some background in this already), but there were some technical issues especially regarding accessing assignments. It would be nice if there was a more robust group of volunteer tutors/teaching assistants or something to answer questions or deal with these technical issues, especially the final exam not working for a while for me and some other people. But, I enjoyed the illustrations (drawings) and cute examples, and also the lecturer did a pretty good job on camera. I would probably give this course a 4.5 if possible, but I am hesitant to give it a full 5 points because of the technical issues. Anyway I would recommend the course to someone who wants a survey of quantitative methods to prepare for future study. | tutors/teaching assistants or something to answer | Question | or deal with these technical issues, | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | What can I say? Although it was a tough course but sometimes things were tough, it felt so incredibly fruitful each week. I think the main reason was because even though there were so many quizzes and the assignments which required so much time, they were carefully crafted in a way which helped build my abilities in a progressive manner. There was definitely a close alignment between instruction (video) and the assessments (quizzes/exams). You'll never be asked questions you weren't prepared to answer because of the aforesaid alignment. As I also work in a department which dabbles in educational research, I found the concepts thought in this course directly applicable to what's done in practice. Because the concepts were communicated so clearly, I could readily see examples of them in my everyday work! | assessments (quizzes/exams). You'll never be asked | Question | you weren't prepared to answer because | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The actual educational value of this course is quite high. The score I can offer it in good faith is dragged down by the additional "assignments" like "Write you own quiz question!" and the expectation to review the quiz questions thought up by other students. Such things in a scientific course are unnecessary and may actually be counterproductive because of the reliance upon other students and their grasp of the material. If they are to remain part of this course, they really should be treated as supplementary and not required to complete the course. It really detracts from the experience for those of us who come here to learn and not to socialize. | like " Write you own quiz | Question | " and the expectation to review | Negative | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The actual educational value of this course is quite high. The score I can offer it in good faith is dragged down by the additional "assignments" like "Write you own quiz question!" and the expectation to review the quiz questions thought up by other students. Such things in a scientific course are unnecessary and may actually be counterproductive because of the reliance upon other students and their grasp of the material. If they are to remain part of this course, they really should be treated as supplementary and not required to complete the course. It really detracts from the experience for those of us who come here to learn and not to socialize. | the expectation to review the quiz | Question | thought up by other students. Such | Negative | 0.73 | 3.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Nicely explained with easy to understand examples. Quite hard for those who have never studied research methods. Very dense information. I found one or two questions in the weekly quiz that I couldn`t answer with the knowledge available in the videos. | information. I found one or two | Question | in the weekly quiz that I | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| ru6DZ3Q6EeWi0g6YoSAL-w | I love all your online sources. I think the information is presented well and with logical questions to test the information. I like how the presenter was clearly knowledgeable and spoke with excitement. He was very engaging. The visuals are great. The fossils are great. The extra time and effort put into the materials is obvious. | is presented well and with logical | Question | to test the information. I like | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| ru6DZ3Q6EeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Very interesting and compelling course, and I liked the questions every few minutes during the lectures as that helps me to retain information. My only complaint is that the lecturer's manner of speaking is very rhythmic and repetitive and that makes it kind of hard to lose track of his words. | compelling course, and I liked the | Question | every few minutes during the lectures | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | Excellent class with a rich variety of instructors from multidisciplinary array of fields, lots of extra information and pretty much any question answered! | extra information and pretty much any | Question | answered! | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | This was one of my first online courses and I think the lecturers did an excellent job of conveying the material especially through this medium. They were also quick to respond to any questions that I had about lectures. I loved the material they presented as well. Great Course. I would definitely recommend it. | also quick to respond to any | Question | that I had about lectures. I | Positive | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | I liked the course, with its many different speakers and approaches. The one thing I missed the most was seeing the models in action. Even if the course isn't aimed at scientists or programmers, there are free online simulations where one can adjust model constants to see the effects interactively without any knowledge required. See NetLogo at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/, for which there are forest fire, disease spread in networks, cellular automatas and many other interactive simulations. Insight providing questions may involve finding the value of a parameter such as the epidemic can't spread, for instance. For more formula oriented optional exercises, I would recommend something similar to Differential Equations in Action from Udacity. It's a relatively easy course implementing the SIR model, physics and ABS. An exercise could be "modify the simulation to consider X% germs get resistant after each antibiotic treatment" (either in NetLogo, or Python). | many other interactive simulations. Insight providing | Question | may involve finding the value of | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| sCE0nT-OEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | The subjects selected are relevant, the professors are very knowledgable, engaging and inspiring and they answer all the questions promptly. I enjoyed this course tremendously, highly recommended! | inspiring and they answer all the | Question | promptly. I enjoyed this course tremendously, | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | The course materials are very good for anyone who wants to get into SEO. I only gave 4 stars because I personally dislike the quizzes. They don't focus on what's important but rather on small detail questions that don't really matter. Other than that it's a great course! Most of it you can find in books too but with videos & the community it's more fun to learn on Coursera. | important but rather on small detail | Question | that don't really matter. Other than | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | Sometimes it's not important to be able to DO the subject, but just understand the language to ask the right questions. This was an informative and helpful insight into optimization fundamentals. | the language to ask the right | Question | This was an informative and helpful | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | Course quality went downhill, compared to previous course in series. No 'teacher' involvement in comments / questions. Mistakes within quizzes. Both practice and rated. | No 'teacher' involvement in comments / | Question | Mistakes within quizzes. Both practice and | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | Great introduction to the fundamentals of SEO. The assignments and questions as well thought out. I've benefited immensely from this course. | fundamentals of SEO. The assignments and | Question | as well thought out. I've benefited | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | It's good for undergraduates, and people returning to academia (say, before starting a Master's course). It's a very short simple introduction. I kind of wish it had more examples of language to use in academic writing, contrasting good and bad examples. Some of the quiz questions and final exam questions need some proofreading. The videos from about week 3 to 4 have poor sound quality, but still understandable. | bad examples. Some of the quiz | Question | and final exam questions need some | Negative | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | It's good for undergraduates, and people returning to academia (say, before starting a Master's course). It's a very short simple introduction. I kind of wish it had more examples of language to use in academic writing, contrasting good and bad examples. Some of the quiz questions and final exam questions need some proofreading. The videos from about week 3 to 4 have poor sound quality, but still understandable. | the quiz questions and final exam | Question | need some proofreading. The videos from | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course provides a number of very useful tips for researchers, especially those whose first language is not English. There are a number of useful guides for new researchers to learn how to structure, phrase, and approach academic writing. However, there are also a few shortcomings of the course. Some of the material is overly subjective (giving rules for academic writing that are not necessarily applicable). Many of the assessment questions ask about issues which are either overly specific or simply incorrect (this is a very small percentage, but it is noticeable). The pace of the videos is also slow and oddly punctuated to the point that it can be difficult to follow at times. Finally, the course relies too heavily on academic writing for the hard sciences, rather than taking a broader approach, so some students may wish to keep this in mind when watching, as some advice may not be applicable to their own discipline. Overall, a recommended course for ESL academics, but could do with some improvement. | necessarily applicable). Many of the assessment | Question | ask about issues which are either | Positive | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course lacks for the practice exersises. Instead, the quizes are full of questions like "Present Simple tense is used to write about a special study implemented by a well-known scientist. True or false". The questions of this type are pointless. Still, the videos sometimes contain useful information. | Instead, the quizes are full of | Question | like " Present Simple tense is | Positive | 0.82 | 2.0 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course lacks for the practice exersises. Instead, the quizes are full of questions like "Present Simple tense is used to write about a special study implemented by a well-known scientist. True or false". The questions of this type are pointless. Still, the videos sometimes contain useful information. | scientist. True or false" . The | Question | of this type are pointless. Still, | Negative | 0.91 | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | It is best to have a strong statistical background before taking this course. Lots of statistical calculations and procedures. If you don't have a strong background in statistics , there is a good chance you will get lost at some point in the course. There is no questions that the instructor of this course is an accomplished mathematician, I just found it hard to follow his lectures as he got deeper into various statistical aspects of the course. | in the course. There is no | Question | that the instructor of this course | Negative | 0.94 | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The instructor should spend more time putting equations and concepts into concept, and tying them together. It often felt like values and questions were arbitrary. This is less about master data analysis in Excel, and more about gaining ground in a few key concepts, so the title is misleading as well. | It often felt like values and | Question | were arbitrary. This is less about | Negative | 0.9 | 3.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concepts here are useful and Mr. Egger is a knowledgeable instructor but 1) this class is really about gathering information with Excel as the tool - you aren't learning anything about Excel functionality, so the title of this course is really misleading if you just want to become a stronger user in Excel 2) there is a huge disconnect between the video lessons and the excel worksheets used to complete the assignments and since many previous reviewers mentioned this, it seems like that's not going to change. 3) the disconnect between the lessons and the assignments wouldn't be an issue if the instructor could be bothered to respond to forum questions. Mine sat unanswered for 5 days as the deadline passed. You are NOT going to get support if you dont understand something. | be bothered to respond to forum | Question | Mine sat unanswered for 5 days | Negative | 0.82 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | When the instructor for the course expresses amazement at the level of difficulty people are expressing in the forums that tells you a lot about how out of touch he is with what he is teaching and what is really required prerequisite knowledge. There is minimal actual instruction in excel-most often concepts are taught much like Khan Academy, on a digital blackboard. Nothing inherently wrong with that but when your course title has the word 'EXCEL' in it one would reasonably expect the instructor to actually demonstrate using excel. Nope, not here. If you've never heard of linear regression or Bayes Theorem don't bother with this course. Honestly. While those things may be easy to explain without the math they are very difficult concepts to implement and a simple 10 minute video won't clear the fog. You absolutely will not 'master' data analysis with this course. I've used Excel for over 15 years, daily, and to have the gall to say your course will 'master' something with a few videos is misleading and deceptive. If it wasn't for the TA/Mentors who do the lions share of work in the forums answering questions and deciphering the questions so students can understand them this course would be an abysmal failure. If you're wanting to jump on the data analysis/ scientist bandwagon look elsewhere. i.e. EdX has a great course on a true introduction to data analysis that is more in line with people's impression of actually using excel in that context. Now, having bashed the course I do believe the instructor to be a very competent and knowledgeable individual, but I feel he's been in academia too long and has grown accustomed to teaching those who've been in school continuously and still have algebra/ stats fresh in their minds vs. those who need to brush away the cobwebs. The course in more on the level of a 201 and in certain parts 401 level but not 101. | of work in the forums answering | Question | and deciphering the questions so students | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | When the instructor for the course expresses amazement at the level of difficulty people are expressing in the forums that tells you a lot about how out of touch he is with what he is teaching and what is really required prerequisite knowledge. There is minimal actual instruction in excel-most often concepts are taught much like Khan Academy, on a digital blackboard. Nothing inherently wrong with that but when your course title has the word 'EXCEL' in it one would reasonably expect the instructor to actually demonstrate using excel. Nope, not here. If you've never heard of linear regression or Bayes Theorem don't bother with this course. Honestly. While those things may be easy to explain without the math they are very difficult concepts to implement and a simple 10 minute video won't clear the fog. You absolutely will not 'master' data analysis with this course. I've used Excel for over 15 years, daily, and to have the gall to say your course will 'master' something with a few videos is misleading and deceptive. If it wasn't for the TA/Mentors who do the lions share of work in the forums answering questions and deciphering the questions so students can understand them this course would be an abysmal failure. If you're wanting to jump on the data analysis/ scientist bandwagon look elsewhere. i.e. EdX has a great course on a true introduction to data analysis that is more in line with people's impression of actually using excel in that context. Now, having bashed the course I do believe the instructor to be a very competent and knowledgeable individual, but I feel he's been in academia too long and has grown accustomed to teaching those who've been in school continuously and still have algebra/ stats fresh in their minds vs. those who need to brush away the cobwebs. The course in more on the level of a 201 and in certain parts 401 level but not 101. | forums answering questions and deciphering the | Question | so students can understand them this | Negative | 0.64 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Poorly coordinated lectures. References to resources that are not provided. No response (at least, for days on end) when questions are posted on the forums | least, for days on end) when | Question | are posted on the forums | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Concepts are fantastic but the material developed to deliver the course is short of expectations, especially from a university. Excel sheets do not match what is demonstrated in video lectures, lots of confusion around how to complete tasks, quiz answer options not being correct, and missing Excel spreadsheets (e.g. video lecture says to refer to accompanying excel spreadsheet, but no spreadsheet available). Also, judging from past discussions by students, some inconsistencies around formulas being presented in video lectures versus assignment questions. could have been a great course, but the inconsistencies have made is very disappointing. | presented in video lectures versus assignment | Question | could have been a great course, | Negative | 0.94 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I would like to have more example, it feels there is mostly theory. The quizzes were super easy, I dropped out at final project, I couldn't get through the first questions. The course (and especially the final project) requires a good basis in statistics beforehand. The assistants are super helpful and patient. | I couldn't get through the first | Question | The course (and especially the final | Negative | 0.67 | 3.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | In the course info this is described as the first course in the series and that it requires no prior knowledge but the first week quiz contains questions referring to an equation 'discussed in the previous course'. | but the first week quiz contains | Question | referring to an equation 'discussed in | Positive | 0.63 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I learnt a lot from this course. The first week seemed very straight forward and I was worried the course was a bit too rudimentary. From there it stepped up four or five gears and I had to work hard to reinforce the concepts and apply the concepts. A really great course for any analyst or anyone seeking the true insight in data. The discussion board is a wealth of knowledge and a good read with tutors posting very plain english easier to understand answers to questions. | english easier to understand answers to | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | It has a lot of problems, including: Not so many lectures about excel itself - most of the time you will be watching videos about statistic methods. The lectures are very superficial, even though the quizzes and projects demand a lot of knowledge and time. The course seems to have a staff of one man: the professor of the course rarely replies (even though he did at the beginning of the session) and all the work seems to be done by his assistant, who tries his best, but ends up not coping with all the questions asked at the discussion forums. | up not coping with all the | Question | asked at the discussion forums. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| sQB40x47EeWS6wrbVw_uEw | i found the course very helpful and informative and i t helps to critically read and interpret research papers. my only take on it is that there was no responses to questions that i asked the lecturer | that there was no responses to | Question | that i asked the lecturer | Negative | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| SxjkGailEeSy_SIAC49HnA | Fantastic course with a enthusiastic, personable professor. It was fun and informative to hear the different viewpoints of the diverse authors as well as the relevant questions from the students in the seminar. | authors as well as the relevant | Question | from the students in the seminar. | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| t1gZRTXyEeW6RApRXdjJPw | Fantastic, just want to get that one quiz figured out so I don't loose marks for questions that didn't apply? help | so I don't loose marks for | Question | that didn't apply? help | Negative | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I've only taken 2 classes with Wharton online. This and Intro to financial accounting. Financial accounting is awesome. It taught smoothly and explained things well. This class jumped around and didn't give full explanations and had questions on one quiz that we didn't learn until the next week. | didn't give full explanations and had | Question | on one quiz that we didn't | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Pros: Very good information and methods for running real life business models. The course provided the spreadsheet modules which allowed you to tinker around and learn them. I consider myself a power Excel user and I picked up some very good new modeling methods. Very concise. Cons: I did Week 2 on my lunch break. Some questions on the quizzes were a bit vague. Probably need some working knowledge of Excel before taking this class. If you need to complete a lot of modeling with your job, this is a good course to pick up some skills. | 2 on my lunch break. Some | Question | on the quizzes were a bit | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | It's a good course, with quite a bit for a newbie to learn. Would have appreciated more in-depth examples in the lectures though, as I often found a gap in the lectures and the questions asked in the quiz. Even otherwise, good stuff. | gap in the lectures and the | Question | asked in the quiz. Even otherwise, | Negative | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The lecture was quite good but some questions of the quiz made me confused, maybe it can be written in a different expression. | lecture was quite good but some | Question | of the quiz made me confused, | Negative | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The tests were not upto the mark, where the questions were not very logical and the options were confusing. | not upto the mark, where the | Question | were not very logical and the | Negative | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I like the course but currently it has some issues. First and foremost problem is tests. There are some questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions require to know the information that is discussed later in course and so on. Also the lectures are quite short. Other than that course gives very nice introduction into using the spreadsheets in modelling | problem is tests. There are some | Question | that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I like the course but currently it has some issues. First and foremost problem is tests. There are some questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions require to know the information that is discussed later in course and so on. Also the lectures are quite short. Other than that course gives very nice introduction into using the spreadsheets in modelling | questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some | Question | require to know the information that | Positive | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Frankly speaking, it should be the most disappointing MOOC I have ever enrolled so far. The Professor's teaching is clear and comprehensible but the depth of the course content cannot meet the university level, especially from a worldwide renowned school like Wharton. Quiz is the most terrible part which seems like nobody could get it because of the ambiguous questions and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, like many other mates, am really grateful to Coursera for offering everyone this equal opportunity. But courses with that kind of quality but staggering price will destroy the company's brand. We all want Coursera to go further and better, but few people prefer monopoly businessman rather than prestigious professors and diligent intellectuals. | get it because of the ambiguous | Question | and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, | Positive | 0.66 | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | It was a good course. The quizzes should be corrected since some questions are ambiguous. | quizzes should be corrected since some | Question | are ambiguous. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The lecturer was very slow, and some things were not explained very well (while very simple concepts were often over-explained). Also, I'm quite sure there were at least 2 errors in the weekly quizzes. One that comes to mind is a question that had identical options for two of the multiple-choice answers, but only one of them was correct (50/50 guess, more or less --- I had to take the quiz 3 times before I guessed right!). | that comes to mind is a | Question | that had identical options for two | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | 1st 3 weeks were helpful but questions of the quiz were unclear & improvement is really necessary but still an ok course for basic learners.It could be much better | 1st 3 weeks were helpful but | Question | of the quiz were unclear & | Negative | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | not advanced calculus! Also, there were | Question | on the quiz that weren't even | Negative | 0.75 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | on quiz #1, there was a | Question | about " objective functions" which the | Negative | 0.81 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | or formatting variances, then change all | Question | to multiple choice where there's (maybe) | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course was very average to me. Compared to the first course in the specialization, Fundamentals of Quantitative Modeling, which was absolutely great. What I liked: Good info on the tools in excel that are needed. What I didn't like: Time spent on content that necessarily wasn't regarding models; the critical material was buried in videos and was very brief. More time should have been spent. Additionally the quiz questions were subjective at times based on what was said on video and the formula answers weren't correctly graded in many cases. This course could have been much better, maybe I was just spoiled by the first course. | have been spent. Additionally the quiz | Question | were subjective at times based on | Negative | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course needs a total overhaul; in its current state it is a detriment to both Coursera and the Wharton Online brand. First, there was relatively little content; there was less than an hour of lectures each week and no actual programming involved. Second, the material was pitched at a very basic level, but not in a good way. Third, the tests didn't manage to even test the material being covered. For example, when given a mean and stdev, when asked to find a value, often the lecture would use an approximation ( i.e., a 2-tailed 95% distributed = 2.00 std devs. ) This is a class on excel: there is NO excuse for not introducing norm.s.inv and norm.s.dist when asking that question. When the test required the "approximation" rather than the exact calculation? Everything about this course was wrong, it needs to be scrapped and thrown away. | norm. s. dist when asking that | Question | When the test required the " | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The exam answers were not clear.... The were questions not related to the videos. This was an excel course and no excels were available to download, just PDF. In the other two courses (Quantitative Modeling and Accounting Analytics) the excels were explained and available for download. This was an excel course and no excels available..... | clear. . . . The were | Question | not related to the videos. This | Negative | 0.71 | 3.0 |
| TcSA6RwWEeWBKhJRV_B8Gw | I would LOVE to give this course 5 stars because I absolutely loved it. However, one small thing that drove me nuts makes me give it 4 star rating. I am a big type A personality and I wanted a perfect 100% grade. For this reason I take very, very detailed notes and studied very hard. When I was taking the tests, all of the answers came to me and I knew they were right without question. Then I would get marked wrong some answers at the end. For example, there were several questions relating to the 4 phases of the design cycle. These should very easy answers as the question was usually "What follows after the 'alternative design phase" which is an easy answer, "prototyping". Regardless it would be marked wrong, and it was absolutely impossible to get 100% and I encountered this issue on about 3 questions. I would encourage you to make sure your answers are properly programmed into the response bank | I knew they were right without | Question | Then I would get marked wrong | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| TcSA6RwWEeWBKhJRV_B8Gw | I would LOVE to give this course 5 stars because I absolutely loved it. However, one small thing that drove me nuts makes me give it 4 star rating. I am a big type A personality and I wanted a perfect 100% grade. For this reason I take very, very detailed notes and studied very hard. When I was taking the tests, all of the answers came to me and I knew they were right without question. Then I would get marked wrong some answers at the end. For example, there were several questions relating to the 4 phases of the design cycle. These should very easy answers as the question was usually "What follows after the 'alternative design phase" which is an easy answer, "prototyping". Regardless it would be marked wrong, and it was absolutely impossible to get 100% and I encountered this issue on about 3 questions. I would encourage you to make sure your answers are properly programmed into the response bank | end. For example, there were several | Question | relating to the 4 phases of | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| TcSA6RwWEeWBKhJRV_B8Gw | I would LOVE to give this course 5 stars because I absolutely loved it. However, one small thing that drove me nuts makes me give it 4 star rating. I am a big type A personality and I wanted a perfect 100% grade. For this reason I take very, very detailed notes and studied very hard. When I was taking the tests, all of the answers came to me and I knew they were right without question. Then I would get marked wrong some answers at the end. For example, there were several questions relating to the 4 phases of the design cycle. These should very easy answers as the question was usually "What follows after the 'alternative design phase" which is an easy answer, "prototyping". Regardless it would be marked wrong, and it was absolutely impossible to get 100% and I encountered this issue on about 3 questions. I would encourage you to make sure your answers are properly programmed into the response bank | should very easy answers as the | Question | was usually " What follows after | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| TcSA6RwWEeWBKhJRV_B8Gw | I would LOVE to give this course 5 stars because I absolutely loved it. However, one small thing that drove me nuts makes me give it 4 star rating. I am a big type A personality and I wanted a perfect 100% grade. For this reason I take very, very detailed notes and studied very hard. When I was taking the tests, all of the answers came to me and I knew they were right without question. Then I would get marked wrong some answers at the end. For example, there were several questions relating to the 4 phases of the design cycle. These should very easy answers as the question was usually "What follows after the 'alternative design phase" which is an easy answer, "prototyping". Regardless it would be marked wrong, and it was absolutely impossible to get 100% and I encountered this issue on about 3 questions. I would encourage you to make sure your answers are properly programmed into the response bank | encountered this issue on about 3 | Question | I would encourage you to make | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| tGbJuel4EeSnMSIACzuFJw | This is without question one of the best course I have taken online or in a classroom as an undergraduate or in graduate school. The professor is smart, witty and has a great presentation style. As this is my first course on Coursera, I am so happy that I found it. My goodness, how much more money and opportunities I would have had if I had this course 10 years ago. | This is without | Question | one of the best course I | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| tGbJuel4EeSnMSIACzuFJw | This is one of the most remarkable, useful and well-structured courses I have ever taken, in real life or online. The principles of negotiation are well explained and applied, and the interactions we must develop with our classmates make the experience incredibly friendly and applicable to real life settings. This course has given me a firm ground to approach negotiation problems from a logical perspective, which is never taught at school but which I believe is a fundamental part of a successful career and personal life. I wish this course had lasted longer and perhaps covered some topics in greater detail--proof that this is an excellent course is that upon finishing I had even more questions on my mind! Thanks so much Prof. Nalebuff for a truly extraordinary course! Diego Miranda-Saavedra, PhD | upon finishing I had even more | Question | on my mind! Thanks so much | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This class is very easy. It is a decent introduction, but has very little content. It is clearly made to be accessible to people from all around the world, and takes the content very slowly. The test questions ask you to recite information from the video lectures and reading, rather than thinking critically. It seems like they are just trying to make sure you watched/read the content and understood it, rather than making sure you acquired the knowledge. I guess it would be hard to grade essay questions in a class this big, but the content could go a little faster. | the content very slowly. The test | Question | ask you to recite information from | Positive | 0.83 | 3.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This class is very easy. It is a decent introduction, but has very little content. It is clearly made to be accessible to people from all around the world, and takes the content very slowly. The test questions ask you to recite information from the video lectures and reading, rather than thinking critically. It seems like they are just trying to make sure you watched/read the content and understood it, rather than making sure you acquired the knowledge. I guess it would be hard to grade essay questions in a class this big, but the content could go a little faster. | would be hard to grade essay | Question | in a class this big, but | Negative | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Love the pace of the course. The short videos. The summary. The essential question is the best part of the course triggering the need for getting deeper into analyzing what I am learning. | short videos. The summary. The essential | Question | is the best part of the | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | The teachers are clear and offer insight into the correct way students should be learning language. The essential questions offer a great way to stimulate critical thought and helps in the digestion of the material. | should be learning language. The essential | Question | offer a great way to stimulate | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Wonderful course. I enjoyed it very much, especially all the advice and the question at the end of each week. I encourage whoever wishes to teach English to participate. | especially all the advice and the | Question | at the end of each week. | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions:) Thanks for your work!!! | I didn't enjoy much are some | Question | in the tests because sometimes they | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions:) Thanks for your work!!! | point and reducing the amount of | Question | Thanks for your work! ! ! | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Well organised and helpful material. The lessons were easy to follow and posed thought provoking questions. Good for seasoned professionals and beginners. | to follow and posed thought provoking | Question | Good for seasoned professionals and beginners. | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This course has great videos. I give it such a low rating to get your attention and point out some serious problems. This is a certification course in how to teach English as a second language. What was not apparent to me though is that you have to take 2 parts of the specialization before getting certified and it will take over a year! Also, there is close to no teacher participation in the module I took and there are no mentors or student teachers (that might change in future classes I would hope, but no guarantees) and there was close to zero feedback of my work or even in the discussion area and no authoritative feedback. Even the peer reviews require your classmates ONLY to judge you based on whether you actually tried to answer the question, if it was between one and three paragraphs and one other silly thing that I can't even remember now. No one is required to give actual feedback and a lot of the assignments were written by students in horrendous English, but that is not to be considered. With so many people taking this course for whom English is not a first language, even these very simple instructions were often misunderstood and people had problems with getting credit for their assignments. Also, even though the videos are really well-done, they are short and contain little information for the price. I figured that I was paying about $50 an hour for the lectures at regular speed. There are also little to no resource links etc. for further study so the lectures are pretty much the only thing you get. If you are a native English speaker who doesn't mind spending an entire year and the cost for well-done videos on the subject is not important, then this course if for you. If however you think this is going to cost only $200 and you would have interaction with teachers and you would get a certification in about half a year... I want to make sure you realize, that is NOT what this specialization is! If you are NOT a native English speaker, this course is designed well I think for people who do not speak English as a native language, who might even have a low level of English, yet who are teaching English already in foreign countries and would have difficulty acquiring certification any other way and therefore don't mind taking a full year to complete the course or the price and for whom not having someone give them feedback would be considered an asset. I have recommended it to friends who are not native speakers of English, but as a native speaker I found it slow, expensive and the assignments to be actually annoying. It's perfect though for my foreigner friends... as long as they understand it's real length and cost! THE CERTIFICATION WILL TAKE OVER A YEAR AND COST AROUND $400. | you actually tried to answer the | Question | if it was between one and | Negative | 0.95 | 1.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | I learned some great techniques in this course, one in particular is to the 80/20 rule. Language teachers should allow learners to talk more, and teachers talk less! My only drawback is that I could not see my own responses to Essential Questions or feedback from my peers. | see my own responses to Essential | Question | or feedback from my peers. | Positive | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This was a very interesting module, other than giving out imporant information to question ourselves as language teacher it encouraged us to think again and review how is it that we are really performing as teachers, are we asking the right questions? are we thinking of the best ways to enroll our students on leargning languages? are we wnjoying our labour? All of the lessons provided not only gave information to improve our classes but gave us the opportunity to wonder what can we do better and how can we be better as teachers. Thank you! | than giving out imporant information to | Question | ourselves as language teacher it encouraged | Positive | 0.72 | 5.0 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This was a very interesting module, other than giving out imporant information to question ourselves as language teacher it encouraged us to think again and review how is it that we are really performing as teachers, are we asking the right questions? are we thinking of the best ways to enroll our students on leargning languages? are we wnjoying our labour? All of the lessons provided not only gave information to improve our classes but gave us the opportunity to wonder what can we do better and how can we be better as teachers. Thank you! | teachers, are we asking the right | Question | are we thinking of the best | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Very interesting course that provides a comprehensive, yet accessible, account of the global financial crisis as well as of its causes and consequences. Both Prof. Metrick and Mr. Geithner do a great job in explaining the materials using clear slides and easily understandable graphics and figures. The course setup is also clear and can easily be completed. The quizzes offer a good opportunity to keep track of the course contents (maybe extend them to 3-4 questions instead of just 2?). Perhaps a comprehensive final exam reviewing the materials of all prior weeks would be sensible, as one might have forgotten what topics were discussed in week 1 or 2 while learning the contents of week 11. | contents (maybe extend them to 3-4 | Question | instead of just 2? ). Perhaps | Negative | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | a) There clearly was a huge amount of criminal behavior that contributed to the crisis. The presenters appear to approach the subject half-heartedly, and focus their energies on disproving the possibility without sufficiently examining it. b) A lot of the review questions focus on remembering facts rather than on understanding the causes and effects. For example, what is the relevance of being able to remember that job losses at the height of the crisis were of the order of 880k a month or 200k a month?? c) It is obvious to anyone with even trivial financial expertise that the financial system today is weaker than it was before the crisis. The too big to fail are bigger today (by a large margin) and interest rates are too low (remember the search for yield was the motivation for the creation of the exotic securities which blew up the system). Secy Geithner's focus in week 8 comes across as a personal defence of his actions rather an objective analysis of what was done and should have been done. | b) A lot of the review | Question | focus on remembering facts rather than | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Excellent course. However, lots of unanswered questions of students are still pending. | Excellent course. However, lots of unanswered | Question | of students are still pending. | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Excellent speakers with excellent organizations on course content. Could not wait for more courses from Prof Andrew. However, is there any one who could help clear the questions raised in the forum? Thank you. | one who could help clear the | Question | raised in the forum? Thank you. | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| TN2PygiBEeW4diIACwKO-g | These professors took a brave approach to discussing topics that are avoided in the classroom but merit discussion. It was a well balanced course that doesn't shove you into a particular corner but instead offers multiple viewpoints and questions for you to consider about your own personal beliefs. | but instead offers multiple viewpoints and | Question | for you to consider about your | Negative | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| TN6htXEnEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Once again a good course but the quizzes are improvable. I had 98%, I don't say it because I didn't know the answers. Many questions just don't make sense. Other than that the course was very interesting! | I didn't know the answers. Many | Question | just don't make sense. Other than | Negative | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | Nice videos, well explained. The powerpoints are extremely useful and clear. However sometimes there is a confusion between what is said in the videos and in the lecture notes and the quiz questions. It may just be me however. Apart from that last thing, the rest is all good! | the lecture notes and the quiz | Question | It may just be me however. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | I have already completed 3 modules, and I just love this course. The program, the videos and the quizes are all very well designed, the exam questions although a bit of higher level compared to the theory exposed, makes you think in real physiology and that's really great. You can see that this course is planned and designed with the real objective of teaching you physiology, and you can see the effort that's been placed here by both teachers in order to make this happen. So congratulations to both of you and to the University of Duke. Great job in general terms. | all very well designed, the exam | Question | although a bit of higher level | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | participation in the forum and answering | Question | on every subject. I was amazed | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | luxury of teachers replying to your | Question | and this actually motivated me to | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | And yes, come up with new | Question | :) By the end of the | Negative | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | of the course not all my | Question | were answered, but on the other | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | would even think of asking those | Question | about work of human body! Such | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | quizzes. Not all courses have practice | Question | after the lessons and it’s excellent | Positive | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | difficult to correctly reply to such | Question | only relying on information: you need | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | I would like to rate this fabulous course as excellent under Dr. Emma Jakoi and Dr. Jennifer Carbrey, brilliant instructersThank you very much for all the kind explanation given for my questions, and good video quizzes, enjoyable problem sets and mind provoking exams. Regards and lots of thanks. Indira Raghunathan | the kind explanation given for my | Question | and good video quizzes, enjoyable problem | Negative | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| trgWdYiKEeWfngrMqWa91Q | A solid introductory course, with some interesting course materials and thought-provoking questions. | some interesting course materials and thought-provoking | Question | | Positive | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | I wish they spent more time on the content of videos and less on the silly effects and 30-second intro and outro sequences. Practically every question of the final comes word-for-word from a book not assigned in the module readings and not available for free to students for them to study. I won't be taking any other courses from this school if this course was an indication of quality. | intro and outro sequences. Practically every | Question | of the final comes word-for-word from | Positive | 0.89 | 1.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Could have utilized video lectures more. Questions on final exam did not seem to relate to materials covered in course. Course seems to just comprise 1 or 2 minute long video lectures and then direct students to vast amounts of online reading material. | Could have utilized video lectures more. | Question | on final exam did not seem | Negative | 0.84 | 2.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The course content does not follow the exam question is totally different what you learn from the two-minute video. You need to have the background in the field. This course should have gone through the beta test before release to the public. | content does not follow the exam | Question | is totally different what you learn | Negative | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Video content barely summarizes the outline of each module. The questions in the quiz are not "though provoking". Peer discussion are rather superficial and do not cover half the content of the course. Readings are OK, show good sources, but there is no real discussion about them in the videos or in the quizzes. | the outline of each module. The | Question | in the quiz are not " | Positive | 0.73 | 1.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | It's not exactly I was expecting. It covers lot of theory part. Some practical work in coding and security practicles would have added more value. I enjoyed the some material pdf suggested. However, I didn't liked "Accordingly to Microsoft" question and material. It was made 10 years back. Course content must be updated and more invovled tasks or discussions with Course makers. It looks like some videos are once made and kept as it is. I never saw actual teachers teaching something in this course, just browsing, reading and eassy writing. | didn't liked " Accordingly to Microsoft" | Question | and material. It was made 10 | Negative | 0.73 | 3.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The videos and documents are not balanced with the quizzes. The quiz questions are sometimes verbatim sentences from one book with a missing word - which I find hardly a test of acquired knowledge. The course must rise above only a few definitions and rough concepts. Most of the video's hardly offer insights - they last only 2 minutes and cover a few of those definitions. This course has a lot of potential, but in its current format and content it was a disappointment. | balanced with the quizzes. The quiz | Question | are sometimes verbatim sentences from one | Positive | 0.67 | 2.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The lectures were too heavy on Industry experts who quickly covered the important topics. I have taken many technology and business courses on Coursera with one or two professors covering the important content accented with industry and subject matter expert interviews. This format works best for consistency and learning, IMHO.. A student who is not in the Cybersecurity field will not gain insight into the meat of the material from the lectures. The final exam question material is almost exclusively absent in the lectures. One is required to read the cited material to gain the required information | from the lectures. The final exam | Question | material is almost exclusively absent in | Negative | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | One of the absolute worst final exams I've ever seen. Vague questions coupled with synonymous answers form a frustrating experience that ruins an otherwise decent entry in security topics. | final exams I've ever seen. Vague | Question | coupled with synonymous answers form a | Negative | 0.94 | 2.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | So far, the best course I took. Very timely and relevant. Coming from a very technical/scientific background, this course taught me about the nuances of governance, policy-making, corporate responsibility among many other things. It is good to have a historical and global perspective of economic development, the aggregate of human activities and our impact to the planet. While it seemed bleak to accomplish the goals set forth to obtain sustainable development, Dr. Sachs ended in a hopeful note. We do need more people that will ask and answer the question: "Why not?" I wish to learn more, if not work to help sustainable development a reality. While the SDGs are interconnected, I hope there will be a more detailed online course about each to the extent that people can focus on one or two. For my part, I would like to learn more about the underpinnings of SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy. SDGs 12 and 10 also form my core personal values and causes. Now looking for related-reading materials. | that will ask and answer the | Question | " Why not? " I wish | Negative | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Some questions in the quiz do not have the proper data sources. Please review quiz questions, sources and answers expected. Thank you very much for this learning opportunity.< Sincere thanks and deep admiration and gratitude to Prof. Sachs for his genuine, continuous contributions to society. He is a true insporation to me. Kind regards, yullie matsouka | Some | Question | in the quiz do not have | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Some questions in the quiz do not have the proper data sources. Please review quiz questions, sources and answers expected. Thank you very much for this learning opportunity.< Sincere thanks and deep admiration and gratitude to Prof. Sachs for his genuine, continuous contributions to society. He is a true insporation to me. Kind regards, yullie matsouka | proper data sources. Please review quiz | Question | sources and answers expected. Thank you | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Excellent course content but very poorly designed quizzes. More clarity is needed in formulating questions, since different pages have different values for the same data sets (even on the same website such as the World Bank indicator datasets) and it will be difficult for students to get the right answers. | More clarity is needed in formulating | Question | since different pages have different values | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | I really enjoyed this course. Very fluid, well organized and well-present. In my opinion, quizzes should not contain questions referring to the book, because not everyone (like me) can afford buying it. I would enjoy if Prof. Sachs could go deeper in the topics and explore them a little bit more and make student´s job a little bit more difficult. | my opinion, quizzes should not contain | Question | referring to the book, because not | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | This course is pretty much what i expected from an online course. I just rate it with four stars because: 1. Quiz questions are often just about interpreting world bank data and not about the contents of the course. 2. Having read Prof. Sachs book the course does not offer additional insights. | with four stars because: 1. Quiz | Question | are often just about interpreting world | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| u3goXsk9EeWT3Aqsn0BGnQ | Some parts are needed more clarification. In other words, as a student of the course you need to go beyond the materials, since the materials are not self-sufficient. Specially about simulation methods. However, this is not the reason that I give the course 4 out of 5. The absence of any help from TAs, based on my experience, is the reason. I expected some official replies to my question while there are only a few question for each week of the course. | expected some official replies to my | Question | while there are only a few | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| u3goXsk9EeWT3Aqsn0BGnQ | Some parts are needed more clarification. In other words, as a student of the course you need to go beyond the materials, since the materials are not self-sufficient. Specially about simulation methods. However, this is not the reason that I give the course 4 out of 5. The absence of any help from TAs, based on my experience, is the reason. I expected some official replies to my question while there are only a few question for each week of the course. | while there are only a few | Question | for each week of the course. | Positive | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | While informative I question the value of memorizing release years of os updates. Then again, it was an easy entry into the broader specialization. I think it is always a good thing to ease students in with a less challenging intro course much like a video game begins with an easy level and slowly gets harder. | While informative I | Question | the value of memorizing release years | Positive | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| UAqCjp_TEeWLkg68u0gykQ | very poor. even though for the most part I found the videos engaging, the course's overall structure doesn't help to 'read the novel together', as is stated in the title. the quizes are poorly written, even for me, a native russian speaker, it was often hard to understand the questions, and sometimes its plain guess work on the opinions of the course authors. often a required number of answers to pass a quiz is the same as the total number of questions in that same quiz. the essay's topics rarely correspond with the actual reading of the book. for the very first week the essay required knowledge of the book that hasn't been read yet by the participants. or it should be stated that one needs to read the book prior to taking the course. then again that would require the change of the course's name. | was often hard to understand the | Question | and sometimes its plain guess work | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| UAqCjp_TEeWLkg68u0gykQ | very poor. even though for the most part I found the videos engaging, the course's overall structure doesn't help to 'read the novel together', as is stated in the title. the quizes are poorly written, even for me, a native russian speaker, it was often hard to understand the questions, and sometimes its plain guess work on the opinions of the course authors. often a required number of answers to pass a quiz is the same as the total number of questions in that same quiz. the essay's topics rarely correspond with the actual reading of the book. for the very first week the essay required knowledge of the book that hasn't been read yet by the participants. or it should be stated that one needs to read the book prior to taking the course. then again that would require the change of the course's name. | same as the total number of | Question | in that same quiz. the essay's | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| UCBrJjb0EeWw6g4yTrGrVQ | Great course. I was very pleased to see how all the individual specializations came together in the development my capstone report. I had to go back and re-learn some aspects of the specializations I may have forgotten, but this course ultimately equipped me on how to ask research questions and go about using the right tools to find the answers. Repetition is key, and the more you use it the less you lose it. | me on how to ask research | Question | and go about using the right | Negative | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| uhCqzJVDEeWiKgp3mpfjeQ | Great lectures and Peter McPhee covers the main views of the French Revolution not just his own. I enjoyed how his questions throughout the video lectures encourage us to establish our own opinions concerning this part of history. | his own. I enjoyed how his | Question | throughout the video lectures encourage us | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | I feel this course is designed in a way that may be too challenging to those who know nothing about music, sound, or biology. The quizzes dont really match the material covered and some of the questions are too ambiguous. The explanations are a little hard to follow as well. It does cover some interesting information about the relationship of music to speech. However, for someone a little more advanced in music and biology, I was hoping for more to be covered. I would have enjoyed more discussion of the history of modes and tuning systems, including more discussion of the Pythagorean comma (and how adjusted need to be made to intervals, especially in a chorus) and Kepler's work. I also would have enjoyed more discussion of rhythmic entrainment, the social cohesion hypothesis of the evolution of music, the roles music plays in human life, the way that bodies synchronize, and more about the relationship of music to emotional regulation, meaning, and personality. Im sure there is more as well. Giving this course 3 stars is generous in my opinion. | material covered and some of the | Question | are too ambiguous. The explanations are | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | I didn't understand very much of this course. Instructor relies heavily on the use of various charts. They were seldom explained in a way I could understand. Instructor seemed to believe that underlining things in the charts served as an explanation. After completing the entire course & listening to many of the lessons several times, I can't tell you "what we like to hear and why". Instructor speaks in a monotone with no emotion. Seems bored stiff. Seems like he's just talking, but his mind is elsewhere. Quizzes frequently contained questions for material to be covered in a future lesson | mind is elsewhere. Quizzes frequently contained | Question | for material to be covered in | Negative | 0.67 | 1.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The course was alright in the sense that it was descriptive, however, the level of critical thinking suggested for the course was not actually indicative of the material presented. A lot of the material presented was great, but when the quiz came around, questions regarding the material were unequal. For example, in one quiz, there was a question about Galileo, but there was no mention of Galileo in the lecture for that week, and, a lot of the PDF'S were repetitive and not diverse in the material being taught. | but when the quiz came around, | Question | regarding the material were unequal. For | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The course was alright in the sense that it was descriptive, however, the level of critical thinking suggested for the course was not actually indicative of the material presented. A lot of the material presented was great, but when the quiz came around, questions regarding the material were unequal. For example, in one quiz, there was a question about Galileo, but there was no mention of Galileo in the lecture for that week, and, a lot of the PDF'S were repetitive and not diverse in the material being taught. | in one quiz, there was a | Question | about Galileo, but there was no | Negative | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | It is odd that a course that concentrates so vehemently on speech tone, as a segue to music would be taught by a monotone and mostly unenthused professor. Often verbose, but never succinct, I had to listen to his drone twice to glean anything of value. His tests were wrought with "gotcha" questions, having nothing to do with the important material of the course. As a physicist, I was very disappointed in his treatment of the important equations associated with the mathematics of music (mentioned as "too hard" to understand). There was nearly no mention of rhythm and its importance in music, as relates to biology and/or emotion, and no mention of how those rhythms relate to heartbeat. I am deeply disappointed, but I do hope this critique is seen as an opportunity to create a better course. | tests were wrought with " gotcha" | Question | having nothing to do with the | Negative | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The content was interesting, but the quizzes didn't relate to the lectures very often. It was as if there was a major piece missing in this course. One of the questions even referenced a book that was never mentioned or made available. Also, several of the musical sections seemed to be in the wrong place. I think maybe this is one of the classes that doesn't work well in this format. | in this course. One of the | Question | even referenced a book that was | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | I was most excited about taking this class (in fact, it's how I found the specialization as a whole) and I did not get as much out of it as I was hoping for. :-\ I think that it's geared to too wide of an audience, so we didn't get as specific as I was anticipating. I also felt that a lot of the time of the videos were taken up by telling us what not to do. ("You don't want to be too far to this side, but you don't want to be too far to the other side, right?") I did get some good information out of this class, but I found a disconnect between the lectures and the homework. When we were assigned an elevator pitch as an assignment, it might have been nice to have seen some examples of elevator pitches--what makes a good (or a bad) elevator pitch? What kind of things would be a good idea to include? Concrete examples would have been super helpful. Submitting my homework and then seeing that other people did vastly different stuff made me question my own submission (Did we just take it in a different direction or did I (or they) misunderstand the assignment?) but since we're all peer reviewing, it's a case of the blind leading the blind there. This also happened with the SWOT Document...which I don't think was even mentioned in the lectures at all in-depth. Again, it would have been helpful to have seen some concrete examples, as I've never heard of that document before. | did vastly different stuff made me | Question | my own submission (Did we just | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | Great content and great teacher. But I found the assignments and the quizzes not that great. I reckon the questions and corrections were a bit subjective and time consuming. | not that great. I reckon the | Question | and corrections were a bit subjective | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The material was interesting and the professor was engaging to watch. But unlike other Coursera courses, I never did see any replies from a staff member to any of the questions posted on the forums. Other professors on Coursera reply to threads themselves or have a TA reply for them. I understand that one person may not be able to reply to all threads if the forum is active. But at least those asking questions to get clarification about the assignments should be answered. The class forum was not very active during this session and could have been easily watched more closely by one person. | staff member to any of the | Question | posted on the forums. Other professors | Negative | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The material was interesting and the professor was engaging to watch. But unlike other Coursera courses, I never did see any replies from a staff member to any of the questions posted on the forums. Other professors on Coursera reply to threads themselves or have a TA reply for them. I understand that one person may not be able to reply to all threads if the forum is active. But at least those asking questions to get clarification about the assignments should be answered. The class forum was not very active during this session and could have been easily watched more closely by one person. | active. But at least those asking | Question | to get clarification about the assignments | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | Great way to introduce the business of games. Gave me a very thorough understanding of the biggest questions one has about how money works in the industry. | very thorough understanding of the biggest | Question | one has about how money works | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The information in this course was valuable, but the assignments were poorly integrated with the course. The types of documents assigned were either not covered or barely covered in the course leaving the students to guess what was expected. For one assignment the provided template left off a section required in the grading criteria. The quizes were also poorly tied to the lecture material and some of the questions were ambiguous. There were several quizes were a single wrong answer resulted in having to take the quiz over. | lecture material and some of the | Question | were ambiguous. There were several quizes | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | This course tries to cover the many aspects around the games industry. But the coverage in each of the subject is not deep enough to be useful. For example, the instructor talks about project management, public speaking, how to write a resume etc. The instructor starts by talking about why they are useful, and then followed by one to two 10-15 minutes long video lectures. Each of these could worth a full Coursera course and I am sure the other courses have better coverage than in this course. The quiz questions are not well thought and do not stimulate thinking at all. Some of the "correct" answers are personal opinions but you have to choose them in order to pass the quiz. The third peer grading assessment asks students to post a video either to pitch himself/herself or to pitch the game the student makes. However, the specialization up to this point does not equip student with the skills beyond the basics. Unless you are already in the industry, I do not think anyone can make anything impressive to be worth pitching in front of the audience. | than in this course. The quiz | Question | are not well thought and do | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| UShq4HPgEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | 1. Sometimes the audio of the recordings is poor, making it difficult to listen. 2. For non-speakers of Spanish, the translations are not so great and sometimes lack proper grammar or are almost literal translations of the spoken Spanish version. This makes the subject matter, although very interesting, very difficult to fully grasp. This also occurs in the quizzes, causing me to either misunderstand or not understand the questions. Overall, it is a very interesting course but the 'execution' is not up to standard. It could be improved by updating the audio recordings, and correcting the translations for the subtitles | either misunderstand or not understand the | Question | Overall, it is a very interesting | Positive | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | The astronomy course exceeded my expectations. I learned a great deal from the video lectures and the astrpoedia textbook. I was surprised that preparing for the essay questions was also a good source for added knowledge in researching for the assignments. I am indebted to Chris Impey for the excellent lectures and course. Everything was well presented and explained well but I could not get up to understand much of the last lesson – Life in the Universe. In summary, great course and recommend it without reservations. Kudos and thanks to Chris Impey. | surprised that preparing for the essay | Question | was also a good source for | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | This course is bad! I had come upto week 4. While Chris Impey is knowledgeable and good, the course structure is very poor and leaves a lot to be desired. I would venture to make some suggestions: a. Restrict each video to a max of 7 minutes. More than that makes one sleepy. b. Reduce the number of videos in each module to a max of say 6. c. Instead of having Chris expound it like an audio reading, please include some slides, pictures,tables so that the matter to be learnt becomes self evident and Chris doesn't have to speak so much. A good example is the Coursera "The Global Financial Crisis", which I am also doing currently. d. If you feel all the material in this course has to be studied, then to achieve the objectives in (a) and (b) above, divide this course into two parts, Astronomy: Exploring Time and Space - part I & II. e. The written assignments are very simple and do not require any mental resources other than memory. Can you make the questions more challenging? For example, in Telescopes (Assignment 2), can you not ask a question like "In addition to Atacama, Chile, using Google earth, which other parts of the globe may be suitable for installation of ground based telescopes?" or "To obviate the blurring effect of the atmosphere, discuss the possibility of high altitude balloon based telescopes?" or "What do you feel about the fact that since today's mobile phones have high computing ability, their components can be used to make a low-cost space based interferometric telescopes?" Kudos to Chris and his team! On the whole, knowledge wise, this is a good course. | than memory. Can you make the | Question | more challenging? For example, in Telescopes | Negative | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | This course is bad! I had come upto week 4. While Chris Impey is knowledgeable and good, the course structure is very poor and leaves a lot to be desired. I would venture to make some suggestions: a. Restrict each video to a max of 7 minutes. More than that makes one sleepy. b. Reduce the number of videos in each module to a max of say 6. c. Instead of having Chris expound it like an audio reading, please include some slides, pictures,tables so that the matter to be learnt becomes self evident and Chris doesn't have to speak so much. A good example is the Coursera "The Global Financial Crisis", which I am also doing currently. d. If you feel all the material in this course has to be studied, then to achieve the objectives in (a) and (b) above, divide this course into two parts, Astronomy: Exploring Time and Space - part I & II. e. The written assignments are very simple and do not require any mental resources other than memory. Can you make the questions more challenging? For example, in Telescopes (Assignment 2), can you not ask a question like "In addition to Atacama, Chile, using Google earth, which other parts of the globe may be suitable for installation of ground based telescopes?" or "To obviate the blurring effect of the atmosphere, discuss the possibility of high altitude balloon based telescopes?" or "What do you feel about the fact that since today's mobile phones have high computing ability, their components can be used to make a low-cost space based interferometric telescopes?" Kudos to Chris and his team! On the whole, knowledge wise, this is a good course. | 2), can you not ask a | Question | like " In addition to Atacama, | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Well organized and informative. Really nice to ask questions of Dr Impey live on Google+ every 2 weeks or so. If you want to know everything we know about the Universe in a understandable summary, this is the course for you. | and informative. Really nice to ask | Question | of Dr Impey live on Google+ | Positive | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Very good instructor and good structure and pace to the class. Would have liked more real-life examples, and would have liked peer review questions that required more thought and strategy behind them. "Which channel do you like more" isn't really that intriguing a question. Instead, a different question could have been "How might you leverage each channel for different purposes?" | and would have liked peer review | Question | that required more thought and strategy | Negative | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Very good instructor and good structure and pace to the class. Would have liked more real-life examples, and would have liked peer review questions that required more thought and strategy behind them. "Which channel do you like more" isn't really that intriguing a question. Instead, a different question could have been "How might you leverage each channel for different purposes?" | more" isn't really that intriguing a | Question | Instead, a different question could have | Negative | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Very good instructor and good structure and pace to the class. Would have liked more real-life examples, and would have liked peer review questions that required more thought and strategy behind them. "Which channel do you like more" isn't really that intriguing a question. Instead, a different question could have been "How might you leverage each channel for different purposes?" | intriguing a question. Instead, a different | Question | could have been " How might | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Assignments were uninspired and some questions were weird. Also, this textbook is horrible, and is presented in a very inconvenient format (PDF-only, two book pages per page of PDF so you can't effectively read it on a phone). | Assignments were uninspired and some | Question | were weird. Also, this textbook is | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Provides a comprehensive overview, however it is heavily lecture based. Would be nice if more interactivity was built in, via pop-up questions during the lectures and practice problems. | interactivity was built in, via pop-up | Question | during the lectures and practice problems. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Great course. Sometime too easy, sometime a little bit boring. Actuality of recommended reading (Web Analytics Demystified, 2004) is under question IMO. | (Web Analytics Demystified, 2004) is under | Question | IMO. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | I think it's a great course that allows an individual to develop his skills and practice in everyday negotiation. It has a unique approach in visualization and towards the results you want to do in a negotiation and asks you a lot of questions: Should you negotiate? What is your goal? Is it legal? Ethical? Prof. Seidel videos are easy to watch and learn and makes you feel as if you were inside one of his classes,he shares his vast knowledge and experience and lets us practice a real life negotiation between students. I also bought his book, which summarizes and explains other aspects of the course. | and asks you a lot of | Question | Should you negotiate? What is your | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | I have so far, loved the examples given in this course ! The teacher gets you to be very interactive by asking you to answer some questions in the videos. The subject is interesting, and the way the courses are is a good way to make you quick learn about it. | by asking you to answer some | Question | in the videos. The subject is | Negative | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The way professor Mr. G. Siedel conducted the course is very practical and useful. Invites always to "think about answers" to complex questions and his new approaching techniques to negotiate with success are truly useful to analyze your behave negotiating, and therefore , improve in the negotiation techniques and knowledge of tools and different approaches to a negotiation. | " think about answers" to complex | Question | and his new approaching techniques to | Positive | 0.91 | 4.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Because of this course, I am more aware of opportunities to negotiate in my every day interactions with others. I enjoyed Professor Siedel's teaching style. He gets you to think on a deeper level, especially when he poses questions and presents scenarios. The course material is framed in a comprehensive manner. In hindsight, this course on negotiation has shown me how much of a poor negotiator I was. However, I now feel more empowered by what I've learned. | deeper level, especially when he poses | Question | and presents scenarios. The course material | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The course is very and very good and usefull, but it's easier for the attendants to take the quiz by the end of each Module and do the final test shorter (about 10-15 questions are enough) | the final test shorter (about 10-15 | Question | are enough) | Positive | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Excellent content. I felt elevated in this area and can enter any negotiation with confidence. I loved the Professor, he kept it interesting an I always had to keep my paper an pen close to answer his quick questions. EXCELLENT!!!!! | pen close to answer his quick | Question | EXCELLENT! ! ! ! ! | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Interesting, focused on relevant matters, practical. Enriched with many examples and one involving practical exercise. I would have appreciated questions after each lesson block. | practical exercise. I would have appreciated | Question | after each lesson block. | Positive | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Course is interesting and provides basic knowledge of the subject. But often the tests require more information than provided in the questions or lectures. Also very less help is provided in the forums. | more information than provided in the | Question | or lectures. Also very less help | Positive | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | I feel that the lecture material lacks proper explanation of the key concepts but the questions in quizzes are good although the lectures should have been more conceptual rather than theoretical | of the key concepts but the | Question | in quizzes are good although the | Positive | 0.8 | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | The course was very good, but I guess there were too many quizzes, and the instructions / questions in the quizzes and other assignments are not unambiguous. That could be improved. Other than that I liked the course and the specialization very much. | many quizzes, and the instructions / | Question | in the quizzes and other assignments | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course, was really bad structured, was often the discrepancy between the information provided in the videos and the questions in the Quiz. Also a lot of time the system was very picky to take an answer like correct, just because the format used, for example e!=E in one equation, and because this was necessary a lot of guessing in order to find how the system take the answer by correct. But really the worst was the discrepancy between the video and the quiz, because my impression is that the videos were cut to fix in the time, but they were cut a lot, missing important information to be used in the quiz. | provided in the videos and the | Question | in the Quiz. Also a lot | Positive | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | most quizzes had 5 or more | Question | which is not the case, most | Negative | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | the quizzes have 4 or less | Question | This is such an unreasonable requirement, | Negative | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | requirement, if you miss only one | Question | in a quiz with 3 questions | Negative | 0.75 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | question in a quiz with 3 | Question | there's already no chance to pass | Negative | 0.78 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | trivia, a considerable number of the | Question | are very superficially related to not | Positive | 0.76 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | each lecture. Instead of using the | Question | to delve deeper into the topic | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | of using multiple templates and a | Question | in its quiz was about an | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | that is never shown in the | Question | itself, only briefly shown in the | Negative | 0.77 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | cases where there are multiple choice | Question | which have incorrect answers accepted by | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | there was no information in the | Question | itself to narrow down the possible | Negative | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | myself reverse engineering most of the | Question | just to try to find an | Negative | 0.76 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | one looks at the comments or | Question | posted by some learners, it is | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | that we simply don't understand the | Question | or a question is answered correctly | Negative | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | don't understand the question, or a | Question | is answered correctly in essence , | Positive | 0.63 | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Although main teacher looks very cult, I wonder how there are so many mistakes in this course. The first one that don't looks like a hands on matlab tutorial as the others i have taken. Some unclear questions in quizzes. Some mistaken or unclear math in video and quizzes. Looks like no staff is following the course. Some people complain about this. Too many references and resource papers require payment, and not everyone's university or school have them available, they are just too expensive. | others i have taken. Some unclear | Question | in quizzes. Some mistaken or unclear | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Despite the arguments of this module are extremely interesting and very useful for Robotics, I think the way they are treated is very poor. In my opinion lectures are so superficial that it is almost a waste of time to follow them. Lectures are completely useless and most of the time quizzes are note related with them. In order to solve quizzes you have not only to recover prior knowledge, that it is obvious, but also to search for new arguments somwhere in the web, in some other courses where contents are better treated and explained. In that contest what are the quizzes, what should quizzes have to test if no content is given? Moreover it often happen that without a clear support from the lectures, questions are confused and ambiguous. It is quite difficult to follow the teaching path and to enrich my knowledge. I think it is a very bad way to make a course and often the pleasure to follow disappears leaving a sense of frustration and futility. I arrived at the end of the course just because I'm doing the specialization otherwise I would have left in the middle of the first week. I'm very disappointed. | a clear support from the lectures, | Question | are confused and ambiguous. It is | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Good teachers but a lot of questions in the quizzes were very ambiguous and unrelated to the Course Content. | Good teachers but a lot of | Question | in the quizzes were very ambiguous | Positive | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course helped me identify my interest at the intersection of biomechanics and robotics. The lectures were very motivating which gave a birds eye view of the background and research in mobility of legged robots. While watching the lectures, I expected programming assignments involving simulation of dynamics and control of the templates and further perform compositions with them but didn't find them much. In a few assignments, the wording of the questions was ambiguous or the grader accepted only certain answers; hence, consumed a lot of time. However, the TAs were very helpful in clearing most of the doubts very quickly which also made solving the assignments easier. Further, it provided references to abundant resources to steer the student in the right direction to pursue specific interests. Overall, this four-week course provided a very good intuitive understanding of the dynamics and control of legged mobility in animals and robots. | few assignments, the wording of the | Question | was ambiguous or the grader accepted | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course is a disappointment after the previous two courses in the specialisation. It tries to cover too many topics. As a result it provides a shallow introduction to many topics rather than deep coverage of any one topic. I do not feel I have learnt anything of substance. Many of the assignment questions are poorly written. To name one example, assignment 3.1.1 question 3 has at least three correct answers, but the grader accepts only one of them. I wasted hours trying to work out why it was marking my answer wrong. The lectures by the TAs are delivered in a "robotic" tone if you'll pardon the pun. They are reading off an autocue and it shows. | of substance. Many of the assignment | Question | are poorly written. To name one | Negative | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course is a disappointment after the previous two courses in the specialisation. It tries to cover too many topics. As a result it provides a shallow introduction to many topics rather than deep coverage of any one topic. I do not feel I have learnt anything of substance. Many of the assignment questions are poorly written. To name one example, assignment 3.1.1 question 3 has at least three correct answers, but the grader accepts only one of them. I wasted hours trying to work out why it was marking my answer wrong. The lectures by the TAs are delivered in a "robotic" tone if you'll pardon the pun. They are reading off an autocue and it shows. | one example, assignment 3. 1. 1 | Question | 3 has at least three correct | Negative | 0.91 | 2.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | The course served as a great introduction to legged robots and the templates that anchor them. The teaching staff was also very responsive to questions on the discussions forum which was immensely helpful. | staff was also very responsive to | Question | on the discussions forum which was | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | weekly quizzes were very short (six | Question | where other courses typically have 20 | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | courses typically have 20 to 30 | Question | per module), and and questions focus | Negative | 0.69 | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | 30 questions per module), and and | Question | focus almost entirely on the pedagogical | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The information, videos, links additional reading do provide important information. However this course is aimed at teachers and that is not clear from the title and much less with the small amount of articles that are related to teaching. This course also has lots of issues with its quizzes; getting no support from staff on technical matters or feed back on why a true or false questions is always wrong. | on why a true or false | Question | is always wrong. | Positive | 0.77 | 3.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | and assignment is just awful. The | Question | with multiple choice work wrong: marking | Negative | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | of the above" line. Also many | Question | are debatable, and there is no | Negative | 0.78 | 2.0 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | The information is fascinating and the instructor is very interesting. It's a great course!! The only drawbacks are that there is so much reading to do (but you can succeed in the course and only do as much of the reading as you want to) and the 70 question final exam (but given that you can take it as many times as you want you can get any grade that you're willing to put in the time for). All in all I highly recommend this course. | you want to) and the 70 | Question | final exam (but given that you | Negative | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Very informative course. Mr. Picker also responds quickly to questions posted/asked. I would love for a special edition, to focus on law in the EU/UK | Mr. Picker also responds quickly to | Question | posted/asked. I would love for a | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| VcGV0kxGEeWKRQoYMLwAUw | Pros: Basics were explained well. A good kick start for beginners who are travelling towards learning Project planning and management. Cons: Wish we had assignments to practice MS Project to a certain extent. Some of the Quiz questions were confusing (Esp. the 3rd week quiz) | certain extent. Some of the Quiz | Question | were confusing (Esp. the 3rd week | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| VfuJSYYDEeW99gozy_2pgw | This course was very educational. I thought the illustrations were helpful. My only negative comment was that the quiz questions were a little confusing at times and difficult to know what answer to choose. At times, multiple answers seemed correct based on the material presented in the lessons. I do plan to take Part 2. | negative comment was that the quiz | Question | were a little confusing at times | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| VfuJSYYDEeW99gozy_2pgw | Very good content, but technical issues (poor closed captioning, ambiguous question on the exams, a couple of readings that were a little esoteric for an introductory course) led me to mark the course down a star. | technical issues (poor closed captioning, ambiguous | Question | on the exams, a couple of | Positive | 0.69 | 4.0 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | Very broad instruction but very picky quizzes. Spent more time frustrated with trick questions on quizzes than actually learning something. | Spent more time frustrated with trick | Question | on quizzes than actually learning something. | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| VIUTXB0IEea20BJooCBlFw | I do not want to rate this course at this stage but I would like to make the following comment in relation to the course resources and in particular the answers to the exercises in the optional text book. For students who do not have a copy of the text book, providing answers to questions from the text book without showing the actual questions is not very useful and to be quite frank, ridiculous. I would like to think that the course designers would take some sort of appropriate action to remedy this. How exactly this would be done is up to the course designers but I would suggest that another downloadable PDF document showing all the questions would be extremely useful and necessary. I look forward to a response. Regards, Trevor Farley | the text book, providing answers to | Question | from the text book without showing | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 |
| VIUTXB0IEea20BJooCBlFw | I do not want to rate this course at this stage but I would like to make the following comment in relation to the course resources and in particular the answers to the exercises in the optional text book. For students who do not have a copy of the text book, providing answers to questions from the text book without showing the actual questions is not very useful and to be quite frank, ridiculous. I would like to think that the course designers would take some sort of appropriate action to remedy this. How exactly this would be done is up to the course designers but I would suggest that another downloadable PDF document showing all the questions would be extremely useful and necessary. I look forward to a response. Regards, Trevor Farley | text book without showing the actual | Question | is not very useful and to | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| VIUTXB0IEea20BJooCBlFw | I do not want to rate this course at this stage but I would like to make the following comment in relation to the course resources and in particular the answers to the exercises in the optional text book. For students who do not have a copy of the text book, providing answers to questions from the text book without showing the actual questions is not very useful and to be quite frank, ridiculous. I would like to think that the course designers would take some sort of appropriate action to remedy this. How exactly this would be done is up to the course designers but I would suggest that another downloadable PDF document showing all the questions would be extremely useful and necessary. I look forward to a response. Regards, Trevor Farley | downloadable PDF document showing all the | Question | would be extremely useful and necessary. | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Readings were not necessary for the course and quizzes were extremely difficult, seeming to be worded in an attempt to stump students, and many questions were not from the course lessons. Videos very dry and boring. | attempt to stump students, and many | Question | were not from the course lessons. | Negative | 0.91 | 2.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | is poor. There were numerous quiz | Question | that I think they just had | Negative | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | need to carefully look at the | Question | with the most incorrect answers and | Positive | 0.86 | 2.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is a bit dry, but it's essential to writing effective survey questions. The course is well designed and easy to follow. Thanks to the University of Michigan and the University of Maryland for offering this interesting course. I hope to see additional offerings in survey research methods from these professors in the future. | it's essential to writing effective survey | Question | The course is well designed and | Positive | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| VyHnEjaTEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | for me too much graded questions - but in generall the course is good | for me too much graded | Question | - but in generall the course | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| W-hoIJw3EeWJORITtzkPnQ | Les sujets sont abordés de façons très pratique. Les cours sont très inspirants et aident à se poser les bonnes questions. Idéal pour structurer ses idées avant de lancer son projet. | aident à se poser les bonnes | Question | Idéal pour structurer ses idées avant | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| w8XFGTVyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Professor Dinham's investigative and research based approach is great, and in my opinion much needed in the professional educational community worldwidely. The material is presented thoroughly and the second piece of peer-assesed assignment is pretty well explained. However, I think the course material proposed in the outlines should be more diverse, by adding complementary video lectures, research articles and book extracts in every week, since this was proposed in this way just in fifth week; course 5 of the specialization program is a great example of that. The first piece of peer-assessed assignment may improve by being clearer and giving the opportunity to the learner to express his/her own ideas, instead of request a summary from this. Multiple Choice Questions should follow the principles exposed in the 6th course of the specialization program, which seems to not be done at all. Forums prompts should be shorter and clearer by highlighting a single key question instead of a bunch of these as happened. | a summary from this. Multiple Choice | Question | should follow the principles exposed in | Negative | 0.7 | 2.0 |
| w8XFGTVyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Professor Dinham's investigative and research based approach is great, and in my opinion much needed in the professional educational community worldwidely. The material is presented thoroughly and the second piece of peer-assesed assignment is pretty well explained. However, I think the course material proposed in the outlines should be more diverse, by adding complementary video lectures, research articles and book extracts in every week, since this was proposed in this way just in fifth week; course 5 of the specialization program is a great example of that. The first piece of peer-assessed assignment may improve by being clearer and giving the opportunity to the learner to express his/her own ideas, instead of request a summary from this. Multiple Choice Questions should follow the principles exposed in the 6th course of the specialization program, which seems to not be done at all. Forums prompts should be shorter and clearer by highlighting a single key question instead of a bunch of these as happened. | clearer by highlighting a single key | Question | instead of a bunch of these | Negative | 0.99 | 2.0 |
| Wa2LIymGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | Dear Prof, I take the opportunity to thank prof. Dragan Maksimovic for his detailed explanation and excellent course material. I have learnt many exciting things while answering practice and Home work quiz questions. Looking forward for Magnetic design (next course in specialization). Once again thanks prof. for all that you gave to us through the course. Thanks Pandu S | answering practice and Home work quiz | Question | Looking forward for Magnetic design (next | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| WChOZHTVEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Enjoyed thoroughly! The professor seems to be quite friendly ad overall the course is quite easy to follow and understand. Also liked the concept of asking questions between modules to stimulate thinking and revision of prior topics. Huge thums UP :D. | Also liked the concept of asking | Question | between modules to stimulate thinking and | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| WChOZHTVEeSi3yIACzSGcw | 4.5, Not perfect, but very clear and consistent (I'm only in week 2 and this is my first coursera course) there are some topics that I feel need a little more clarification, but that is my only complaint. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the site to have a FAQ for each individual course. The Professor or course instructor, could answer these questions for future course sessions. Perhaps there's a reason this idea wouldn't work, but it would be nice to see from the student's perspective. | or course instructor, could answer these | Question | for future course sessions. Perhaps there's | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| WChOZHTVEeSi3yIACzSGcw | An excellent course; it helped me to learn the most fundamental topics of Engineering Mechanics conceptually and with clarity. One of the major things that I liked about the course was that Dr Wayne made the otherwise seemingly difficult topics very easy and simple to understand. Questions (of lecture modules as well as quiz) were also very nice. Thank you very much Dr. Wayne! | very easy and simple to understand. | Question | (of lecture modules as well as | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| WChOZHTVEeSi3yIACzSGcw | I liked everything about this course except the unavailability of answers to the quiz questions. I think that once when someone passes the test, he/she should be able to view the answers. | unavailability of answers to the quiz | Question | I think that once when someone | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | It is ironic that a course about virtual instruction is one of the worst online courses I have taken. The content was good, if a little outdated (hence the two stars vs only one), but the course design and delivery were lacking. The videos were excruciating for visual learners (or really any non-auditory learners). The video for Week 2, Lesson 2, for example, had a single static image on the screen for eleven minutes. Words were added to the image during that time, but all in all there were 26 words of text on the slide. Really?!? ELEVEN MINUTES. 26 WORDS. Give me a transcript or make it an audio file. Don't keep me chained to my laptop watching a static image for ELEVEN MINUTES! The instructor droned and was clearly reading from a script. She did not even use the video to highlight key terms or spotlight key references. Whenever she mentioned a reference I wanted to look at, I had to either hope it was on the course reference page (many of them weren't there) or try to figure out how to spell the author's name based on her pronunciation of it. It was just really, really hard to get through. The tests were also poorly designed. What states do x y or z. Who cares? I don't live in those states. Which online school has this policy? Again who cares? Maybe a question about why states/schools have different approaches or how outcomes differ between states/schools, but memorizing a laundry list of which state or school has which policies and practices is useless and did not advance the learning objectives in any way. | policy? Again who cares? Maybe a | Question | about why states/schools have different approaches | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | I found much of the content to be interesting and timely. However, I thought the quizzes were poorly written. There was no feedback, so as a learner it was hard to grow from errors. Also, there were many that required more than one answer, if you missed one, you missed entire question. Without feedback, it was difficult to know which one you missed. The week 4 lesson content was a bit dense for an introductory course. It was dry and could've been more global. Last, the large lesson assignment was only graded by peers with no feedback from the instructor. | you missed one, you missed entire | Question | Without feedback, it was difficult to | Negative | 0.64 | 2.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | was marked wrong twice for a | Question | that asked my opinion! Also, in | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | the " check all that apply" | Question | if one misses one of the | Positive | 0.64 | 1.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | one of the answers, the whole | Question | is marked wrong. Finally, many of | Positive | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | wrong. Finally, many of the test | Question | themselves are irrelevant to the content | Positive | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| we5nljlYEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I enjoyed the course overall, but the HR component/perspective was only somewhat useful. Beware of the final unit (week 4): the takeaways and the final quiz are not well aligned. In the week's final project, though the questions doesn't ask for them, be sure to explain your rationales. When reviewing your peers' work, the points rely on whether you've explained yourself. Cheri Alexander's inclusion of videos felt like filler and the notion of having to create a video as an assignment is time-consuming and ultimately not necessary to our learning. Because I experienced a great course with two of the three professors in Leading Teams, I can only conclude that Professor Alexander designed the final assignment, criteria, and quiz. These components were not clear. Fortunately, my classmates were very supportive and understood the spirit of the assignment. It's a good class, but I enjoyed the first one in this specialization more. | the week's final project, though the | Question | doesn't ask for them, be sure | Negative | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| we5nljlYEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | the language was a little fast for me and i tried to follow by the subtitles.. the peer view is frustrating .. some we'll have hard time understanding the ideas, some will write in their mother language.. so have technical jobs and talking about it like another )???) word.. also, in the same task, some people will give high rate and the same question others will give 0.. it's frustrating as it affect the mark | give high rate and the same | Question | others will give 0. . it's | Negative | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | It's a good course if you want to learn meteor but a lot of people would like to have support at discussions from a professor since a lot of questions stay unanswered or with wrong answers. | a professor since a lot of | Question | stay unanswered or with wrong answers. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The course started off a bit slow, but I stuck with it and only did the things the way the course was showing me to. Before I knew it the course was already answering questions and showing me the right way to do things that were bugging me when we started (ex: file structure). The final project ended up being just the right amount of challenging and I learned a ton from the course overall. I signed up for the followup as soon as I learned about it and recommended both courses to the entire engineering group at our company. Try it out! | it the course was already answering | Question | and showing me the right way | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Was only videos and 2 question quizzes until the very end. I was very surprised by the assignment at the end as it was never mentioned in any of the videos. Almost didn't finish it in time because it was due right after Christmas. Would like more hands-on assignments throughout the course instead of one at the end. | Was only videos and 2 | Question | quizzes until the very end. I | Negative | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Fabulous overview of the science of global warming! I really appreciated the step-by-step approach and the comprehensive coverage of the subject. Playing with the models was highly useful in most cases, though some of the quiz questions related to the models seemed to be overly finicky in the answers they'd accept as correct. In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed this course and will be using the knowledge I gained from it as I begin pursuing a Master's in environmental science this summer. | cases, though some of the quiz | Question | related to the models seemed to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | This course is addressing a critical subject matter. The material is great. I love the math. But these are my personal metrics: A 4-star course has a high level of student collaboration and teaching staff participation, a 5-star course has very responsive teaching staff. I love learning the material but the learning environment is disappointing. As the course progresses to the later weeks, the inconsistency between quizzes and lectures grows. Not greatly but enough to frustrate. Some quiz questions, with multiple choice options with only one correct answer, will not accept any answer. There are a few questions which are not covered in the video lecture (or covered in later weeks). Some answers can be found in the book (but the book supposedly is not required). Some answers can be googled but the answers vary wildly between sources. Mathematical Thinking from Stanford is the gold standard. | but enough to frustrate. Some quiz | Question | with multiple choice options with only | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | This course is addressing a critical subject matter. The material is great. I love the math. But these are my personal metrics: A 4-star course has a high level of student collaboration and teaching staff participation, a 5-star course has very responsive teaching staff. I love learning the material but the learning environment is disappointing. As the course progresses to the later weeks, the inconsistency between quizzes and lectures grows. Not greatly but enough to frustrate. Some quiz questions, with multiple choice options with only one correct answer, will not accept any answer. There are a few questions which are not covered in the video lecture (or covered in later weeks). Some answers can be found in the book (but the book supposedly is not required). Some answers can be googled but the answers vary wildly between sources. Mathematical Thinking from Stanford is the gold standard. | any answer. There are a few | Question | which are not covered in the | Negative | 0.76 | 3.0 |
| wnxlH3Q8EeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very good content. The lessons are clear and relevant, with good examples. The course would be "excellent" if the instructor would be involved with the forums and would answer questions that were posted directly to her. But I still think it is a great deal for managers to take this course! | with the forums and would answer | Question | that were posted directly to her. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| wnxlH3Q8EeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | i supposed that may be i am not very clever so the content and the question after the class also make me confused. a little bit disapoint with this course. but i saw a lot people below think this a good course so may be i am wrong. | clever so the content and the | Question | after the class also make me | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| WQMNShxYEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Waste of time and I did not learn anything from this course. It is basically 6 weeks of the "facilitator" asking questions without offering much in the form of answers. | weeks of the " facilitator" asking | Question | without offering much in the form | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| wS6YM72kEeSuIiIAC0uZhw | Un excelente curso, conciso, claro, amigable y los profesores están siempre atentos a aclarar las dudas en el apartado de discusiones/ Excellent course, precise, clear, friendly, and the professors respond to every students' questions on the discussion windows. | the professors respond to every students' | Question | on the discussion windows. | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| Wv_qFVYzEeWKXg4Y7_tPaw | Really excellent materials and links but spoiled by typos on the videos and in the quiz questions. I'm sure some of the quiz answers conflicted with what had been said in the videos. | the videos and in the quiz | Question | I'm sure some of the quiz | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | good course to understand keys questions and methodology to manage each step of data analysis process | good course to understand keys | Question | and methodology to manage each step | Positive | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course gives a really good guide on how to define data science questions correctly and how to work with sharp goals during the hole Data Analysis funnel from the definition of the Data Science question to the communication of it's results. | on how to define data science | Question | correctly and how to work with | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course gives a really good guide on how to define data science questions correctly and how to work with sharp goals during the hole Data Analysis funnel from the definition of the Data Science question to the communication of it's results. | the definition of the Data Science | Question | to the communication of it's results. | Positive | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Personally not a big fan of Roger Peng's approach while teaching. The lessons get a bit confusing, and so does the questions from the quiz. Jeff Leek's approach is more calm and simple. Nevertheless, the course in general is really good. | bit confusing, and so does the | Question | from the quiz. Jeff Leek's approach | Negative | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Easy to understand what speaker is trying to explain, Good question design, not easy to pass all but really consistent with lecture content. | speaker is trying to explain, Good | Question | design, not easy to pass all | Negative | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| X3F5IHK0EeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Great course - learned a lot. Videos are short and easy to understand/view and the quiz and questions help to integrate and test the concepts taught. The entire series is the best online learning course I've ever taken! Definitely recommend., | to understand/view and the quiz and | Question | help to integrate and test the | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Although the course was very useful, I couldn't complete the course due to an assignment. The assignment is very unrealistic and the graders don't give any feedback!! The assignment is open ended question and not difficult but took significant time, when I submit I was unable to pass. | ! The assignment is open ended | Question | and not difficult but took significant | Negative | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Excellent course to gain macroeconomic fundamentals, even for people without economics background. Wide range of questions in the discussion forum helps you clarify various queries you might have. Overall, i am very satisfied. | without economics background. Wide range of | Question | in the discussion forum helps you | Positive | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | the quizzes are poorly written. Some | Question | are asked at the end of | Negative | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | modules when the subject of the | Question | is not even introduced until the | Negative | 0.96 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | the following module. Further, for some | Question | the right answer is either not | Negative | 0.83 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some | Question | ask what answer is " most | Negative | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | several " NOT" or 'opposite answer' | Question | which are valid but confusing, so | Negative | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz | Question | set to clarify what you are | Negative | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | answer' (" most correct" ) type | Question | they are ALL too subjective to | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Gayle was an outstanding lecturer. I have little economics background and I was able to follow all lessons quite well. Videos were of perfect length, not too long. I enjoyed the graphs, etc in presentations as well as the questions in the middle of a video (to see if we were paying attention). Quizzes were very helpful. The big assignment with the simulator took some time but was worth it. It brought together all ideas and I think it taught me a lot. This was my 1st coursera course so i think the bar is set very high. | in presentations as well as the | Question | in the middle of a video | Positive | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Very nicely and comprehensive taught. Material is supported with lots of graphs and multimedia that makes it more exciting. Short quiz questions are incorporated into the videos to keep the students alert, and the articles provided as a mandatory reading keep the link with the real world. I think the corse makers did a fantastic job! | makes it more exciting. Short quiz | Question | are incorporated into the videos to | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I really liked the structure and the content of this course but I didn't like the assignment questions. The questions went into too much detail instead of questions about understanding the topic. All in all it's a great course for people who want to get into SEO! | but I didn't like the assignment | Question | The questions went into too much | Negative | 0.91 | 4.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I really liked the structure and the content of this course but I didn't like the assignment questions. The questions went into too much detail instead of questions about understanding the topic. All in all it's a great course for people who want to get into SEO! | didn't like the assignment questions. The | Question | went into too much detail instead | Negative | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I really liked the structure and the content of this course but I didn't like the assignment questions. The questions went into too much detail instead of questions about understanding the topic. All in all it's a great course for people who want to get into SEO! | into too much detail instead of | Question | about understanding the topic. All in | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Great course, but it's a shame that there is no "your question" section after every topic, so that we could ask if something is not clear completely. Apart from that, I really enjoyed it and will keep on studying from related courses. | that there is no " your | Question | section after every topic, so that | Negative | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Worth all the effort. Meticulously scripted to guide you through the complexities of SEO, with gentle repetition and some tough assessments that required me to go back over parts of the module until I understood it. A good system of multiple-choice questions and peer review as assessment. | it. A good system of multiple-choice | Question | and peer review as assessment. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| xg_cj6KwEeWiwAqQT7MHVQ | Without question the content is great, but the written assignment instructions were somewhat vague and did not match the peer review rubric at times (although the mentor did pin a few posts to address the problem). | Without | Question | the content is great, but the | Positive | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| XJUJYyzXEeWWqBIFfWmDPQ | The topic was interesting , but most of the questions need to be rewritten. | interesting , but most of the | Question | need to be rewritten. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| XJUJYyzXEeWWqBIFfWmDPQ | I would suggest to review quiz questions, because in some cases several answers are correct, but still just one accepted as right one. But in general very good course with very broad introduction to telecommunications and IoT. Thank You! | I would suggest to review quiz | Question | because in some cases several answers | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| XJUJYyzXEeWWqBIFfWmDPQ | the questions were too easy in my opinion. everything else is fine | the | Question | were too easy in my opinion. | Positive | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| xL0drBU7EeWpKw4zIcjkHw | I found the course very interesting. The weekly assignments were a great challenge, but lacked reference to some reading on the subject.When I went quiz I've found that most of the questions had to do with concepts that weren't covered in the videos. I think that this courser should have further readings about these concepts. | I've found that most of the | Question | had to do with concepts that | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| xL0drBU7EeWpKw4zIcjkHw | Assignments are not well prepared: forms are not helping either people accomplishing the assignment, or the people reviewing their work. We have to go back and forth to review the question answered in both cases (when filling-out or reviewing), and sometimes notation criteria are not clear upfront. Please review the assignments and improve them, because it was really frustrating. | back and forth to review the | Question | answered in both cases (when filling-out | Positive | 0.69 | 2.0 |
| xL0drBU7EeWpKw4zIcjkHw | Gotta watch how the test questions are formulate as it can be overly deceiving...... | Gotta watch how the test | Question | are formulate as it can be | Positive | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | I found this a very good course, the reason I rate it so low is because the quizzes had a minimum of questions and these were very basic ones. The actual course content was interesting and informative and covered in depth . | the quizzes had a minimum of | Question | and these were very basic ones. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Interesting topic and very good information Not enough content (my opinion) Tests where way to easy, I could take them all without first watching the videos, and my grade ist above 90%. The questions are (espacially in Week 3 and 4) easy to solve with logic and a basic intelligence. Please work on making it harder! :) | my grade ist above 90%. The | Question | are (espacially in Week 3 and | Negative | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Someone really put some work into this! Great if you (like me) do not have any clue on how to eat healthy. Somehow superficial treatment though, if someone asked me what i took out of this course i would say to best eat half vegetables and half meat/carbohydrates. I hoped for more answers on "why" questions, like "why are vegetables necessary?", or "what vegetables are needed for what body function?". Still, nice, flashy videos and great commitment of the editors. | for more answers on " why" | Question | like " why are vegetables necessary? | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Videos are fun and informative. I think assignment questions sometimes are too scientific nevertheless for some people this can be even more exciting. | fun and informative. I think assignment | Question | sometimes are too scientific nevertheless for | Positive | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Could be added more technical question, but I understand that the course is trying to reach as much people as possible. However explaining a bit more details about minerals, which was not mention, would be good. Extending to flavonoids and some other stuff which most poeple is unaware would be interesting. | Could be added more technical | Question | but I understand that the course | Negative | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | Fantastic!! Really enjoyed the course Informative and enjoyable course which helped me understand the history of Rock/Popular music upto 1970. Prof Kovach's lectures helped me explore music and artists who I had long forgotten or did not even know of. This is a good course for both professionals like Dj's, student's as well as lay people like me who love both music as well as history. The only problem I had is that one had to do a lot of hunting on the net and that took a lot of my time. But it was well worth it because of what I heard and saw. The quizzes were sometimes too detailed and memory oriented. Maybe a more conceptual framework of questions can be considered in the future. Will definitely do Part 2 shortly! Thanks Prof Kovach and the Team. We are blessed by your effort and dedication | Maybe a more conceptual framework of | Question | can be considered in the future. | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | This nice course helped me to understand the rock music in more systematical, organized way. The lecturer was very good, the visual part of the videos helped a lot, and supplementary materials too. The only disappointment I had with sometimes too specific questions in the quizzes, which meant that I must stop the video all the time to make an enormously specific notes, and this kinda spoils the integrity here. Nevertheless it was a great experience, and I definitely plan to go to the part 2 in the next year. | I had with sometimes too specific | Question | in the quizzes, which meant that | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | As a standard overview, the course is fine. However, the lecturer skirts around or hand waves away controversial or difficult subjects, and he's apparently afraid of offending anyone by getting too close to saying "fuck" or "sex" even in an academic setting. Additionally, this course won't introduce anyone to forgotten and erased artists of the past - women are largely absent from his history of rock, even though Janis Joplin and The Supremes didn't come out of nowhere. The quizzes are also too heavy on the trivia - "who published what when" questions rather than critical thinking questions about why or how. | - " who published what when" | Question | rather than critical thinking questions about | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | As a standard overview, the course is fine. However, the lecturer skirts around or hand waves away controversial or difficult subjects, and he's apparently afraid of offending anyone by getting too close to saying "fuck" or "sex" even in an academic setting. Additionally, this course won't introduce anyone to forgotten and erased artists of the past - women are largely absent from his history of rock, even though Janis Joplin and The Supremes didn't come out of nowhere. The quizzes are also too heavy on the trivia - "who published what when" questions rather than critical thinking questions about why or how. | when" questions rather than critical thinking | Question | about why or how. | Negative | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| xRA5cxnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Thank you for this well prepared and presented course. the assignment were very useful to test and validate our understanding of the course materials. I also liked the opening question and the answer at the end. | materials. I also liked the opening | Question | and the answer at the end. | Positive | 0.88 | 4.0 |
| XRy7uCAeEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Horrible quiz questions. I found the distractors to be too similar to the answer, what is the point in having 4 possible correct answers? | Horrible quiz | Question | I found the distractors to be | Negative | 0.9 | 2.0 |
| XRy7uCAeEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | The quiz questions were not clear enough sometimes. | The quiz | Question | were not clear enough sometimes. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | Positives:- Good practice with the exciting world of script writing Learnt how to use the scriptwriting software Celtx.com Some aspects of the videos were helpful and instructive e.g. teaching us how to write a cold open Areas of improvement:- The beginner's course is entirely graded on peer reviews where one could get a range of divergent opinions on the same story, at times scathing and not constructive. Reviewers (who are purported to be beginners themselves) also at times give seemingly 'blind' grades without sharing constructive comments. The questions that you are graded on e.g. Do you feel immersed in the story? Is the story unique? are highly subjective and solely dependent on the reviewer's fleeting preferences. It would help if the questions were more nuanced and focused on the structure and technical aspects of script writing e.g. format, grammar, three part structure Lessons were too short and instructional (less than 10 mins of videos for each lesson) only for certain areas; it seemed like one of the major takeaways was to keep writing which is sensible but not helpful from a beginner's point of view. Suggestions:- To maintain some objectivity in grading: Mask the general comments section when a reviewer is giving his comments as negative comments from other peers could influence more negativity and vice versa. Give some guidelines on reviewing to prevent the grading process from turning into trolling. Would appreciate more helpful lessons with deeper content! | grades without sharing constructive comments. The | Question | that you are graded on e. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| XZomz77LEeWn1ApTWZT9Yw | Positives:- Good practice with the exciting world of script writing Learnt how to use the scriptwriting software Celtx.com Some aspects of the videos were helpful and instructive e.g. teaching us how to write a cold open Areas of improvement:- The beginner's course is entirely graded on peer reviews where one could get a range of divergent opinions on the same story, at times scathing and not constructive. Reviewers (who are purported to be beginners themselves) also at times give seemingly 'blind' grades without sharing constructive comments. The questions that you are graded on e.g. Do you feel immersed in the story? Is the story unique? are highly subjective and solely dependent on the reviewer's fleeting preferences. It would help if the questions were more nuanced and focused on the structure and technical aspects of script writing e.g. format, grammar, three part structure Lessons were too short and instructional (less than 10 mins of videos for each lesson) only for certain areas; it seemed like one of the major takeaways was to keep writing which is sensible but not helpful from a beginner's point of view. Suggestions:- To maintain some objectivity in grading: Mask the general comments section when a reviewer is giving his comments as negative comments from other peers could influence more negativity and vice versa. Give some guidelines on reviewing to prevent the grading process from turning into trolling. Would appreciate more helpful lessons with deeper content! | preferences. It would help if the | Question | were more nuanced and focused on | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| X_ZG4rVzEeWq2A7HIftJ6w | I had high expectations of this course, but must admit I'm pretty disappointed. Navigating the course feels unintuitive and clunky. Not sure if that's just a Coursera thing though. The actual content (video) looks great, but is unfortunately exceedingly brief, so much so, that it feels like this entire course could have just been a single article. In fact, there's not much presented that really benefits from the video format. Most 'instruction' in the course is centered around brief talks, or artist interviews, and thus you're often just looking at two people talking, or an artist showing you their work while they talk. You never even see anyone draw to my recollection. The 'work' in the course feels rather 'phoned in' at times too. Questions such as "What did you find interesting about the video you just watched?" seem unnecessary, and too elementary to contain any real value, especially when the videos are so brief. Having said all that, I DO think the people who made it are genuine, and have passion for comics, and comics education, and I'll continue to follow their efforts on that front. | rather 'phoned in' at times too. | Question | such as " What did you | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | This course is wonderful ! Its great oportunity for career evolution. I learned very much ! When I did contacting a teacher (Eva) about some specific questions, she was super helpful and helped me with the issue. I appreciate the opportunity and the creation of the course. Thanks so much. | a teacher (Eva) about some specific | Question | she was super helpful and helped | Negative | 0.62 | 5.0 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Very good course overall. There was a problem with the formulas in several quizzes, though. One couldn't get the app to reflect a formula properly, which resulted in the questions being qualified as wrong. Otherwise nice, interesting course Congrats, and thanks for sharing your knowledge folks! | formula properly, which resulted in the | Question | being qualified as wrong. Otherwise nice, | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Maybe I missed the pre-requisites - I was unable to complete some of the questions correctly because I did not see any examples of how to answer the questions calling for calculations of formulas. | unable to complete some of the | Question | correctly because I did not see | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Maybe I missed the pre-requisites - I was unable to complete some of the questions correctly because I did not see any examples of how to answer the questions calling for calculations of formulas. | examples of how to answer the | Question | calling for calculations of formulas. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| y20FTlDPEeWMlwoziUhyxQ | This introductory course gives a pretty much clear idea of the basics of marketing analytics. The practical based approach actually works if its taken seriously. Lots of examples covered and the questions are tricky. All in all I have been quite happy with the progress that I have personally made through this course. | Lots of examples covered and the | Question | are tricky. All in all I | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course as much content in it and it's difficult to have an holistic idea how it all fits together. Some videos are taught having the same problem like, for example, some tools/themes are presented without us knowing what they are for. E.g., Chi-squared test and null hypothesis. Only after a while we understand their use. This bring a lot of overhead to us who are learning. Some videos seem to have been re-worked over time and present cuts or jumps. As for assignments, they should be better worked because some questions are not clear or misleading regarding the criteria that you want to evaluate. For example, I already reported that in Question 2. and 3. of the assignment for the 3rd week. The example you give is a short introduction with two problems: 1) "I did the website", which can make the participant not to be at ease to criticize and 2) we're no evaluating the participant performance but the website. Next, you ask us to rewrite the introduction, which we do with those two problems in mind. Now, when we do the peer review we realize that you're expecting for us to rate the new introduction based on having "early prototype" and "user feedback". The original problems just seem not to count. Only by chance you can eventually write the new introduction touching the points that count for grading. | should be better worked because some | Question | are not clear or misleading regarding | Negative | 0.87 | 3.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course as much content in it and it's difficult to have an holistic idea how it all fits together. Some videos are taught having the same problem like, for example, some tools/themes are presented without us knowing what they are for. E.g., Chi-squared test and null hypothesis. Only after a while we understand their use. This bring a lot of overhead to us who are learning. Some videos seem to have been re-worked over time and present cuts or jumps. As for assignments, they should be better worked because some questions are not clear or misleading regarding the criteria that you want to evaluate. For example, I already reported that in Question 2. and 3. of the assignment for the 3rd week. The example you give is a short introduction with two problems: 1) "I did the website", which can make the participant not to be at ease to criticize and 2) we're no evaluating the participant performance but the website. Next, you ask us to rewrite the introduction, which we do with those two problems in mind. Now, when we do the peer review we realize that you're expecting for us to rate the new introduction based on having "early prototype" and "user feedback". The original problems just seem not to count. Only by chance you can eventually write the new introduction touching the points that count for grading. | example, I already reported that in | Question | 2. and 3. of the assignment | Negative | 0.79 | 3.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Definitely improved from the first course of this specification. Better feedback on errors regarding quizzes' questions and still really interesting assignments for peer review that help you to learn. Still missing a document or a file with all the notes that one can take away and use as a reference guide, hence only 3/5. | Better feedback on errors regarding quizzes' | Question | and still really interesting assignments for | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course wasn't good. Many of the assignment instructions and questions were poorly written, and students clearly had trouble understanding what was asked of them. The assignments also weren't very deep or imaginative, and some of them requested very specific answers relying in keywords from the lectures rather than ensuring that the students had really understood the concepts. The design principles were introduced at such a surface level as to be just silly rather than useful. This was kind of a waste of my time. | Many of the assignment instructions and | Question | were poorly written, and students clearly | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I don't recommend this class. Jogesh K. Muppala has very labored English and his pace and verbosity make the lectures hard to get through. I've turned in around 10 assignments and have yet to get a grade on anything. The course content is poorly organized and executed. Peer grading is just dumb (and clearly doesn't work, since I have yet to get a single assignment back). When you turn in assignment files, they cannot be opened (and we found out from an apparent student how to get past the technical issues). Questions about the class and submitting assignments went unanswered. My advice, save your money and don't take this class. | to get past the technical issues). | Question | about the class and submitting assignments | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Enjoyed course. Wish the review questions didn't include 'ands ' (both had to be right for a 'Yes' and pts) . With many ways to solve problems, these 2-part questions didn't always fit. Sometimes a peer had one exactly and then did the other part a different way that worked just fine. They make it harder to grade people. In most cases, if it worked I said it was good-to-go. | Enjoyed course. Wish the review | Question | didn't include 'ands ' (both had | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Enjoyed course. Wish the review questions didn't include 'ands ' (both had to be right for a 'Yes' and pts) . With many ways to solve problems, these 2-part questions didn't always fit. Sometimes a peer had one exactly and then did the other part a different way that worked just fine. They make it harder to grade people. In most cases, if it worked I said it was good-to-go. | ways to solve problems, these 2-part | Question | didn't always fit. Sometimes a peer | Positive | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I concur with others of a similar opinion on this course: Assignment instructions/criteria differ from the grading rubric criteria. Assignments mostly copy and paste. Referring people to the Bootstrap docs as reference defeats the purpose of an instructor. Many of the assignments required you to do things against best practices, like inserting inline styles to make your element look like the instructor's screenshot of his page. The last week's content seemed to be a slapdash mix of bits and pieces, and trying to inform people about Node modules via solving a quadratic equation seemed really strange. How about an example from the real world, like even an e-commerce application? (In the comments on this, the instructor said there wasn't time in this course to explain Node modules, but that he provided a "clearer" example in the Node.js course. Hunh? Why wouldn't you do a simpler example in the drive-by assignment?) Instructor consistently mispronounced words that are CENTRAL to the field, which just seemed weird and made me question his credibility. This might sound petty, but kuh-rooze-zel for the word Carousel? It would be like a fashion designer mis pronouncing tulle as tull-ee or bias as bye-ez. Just not impressed. I am glad my employer paid the tuition and not me. The only positive was it enforced a schedule and structure for me to try my hand at Bootstrap. I had already worked with Foundation. | just seemed weird and made me | Question | his credibility. This might sound petty, | Negative | 0.98 | 2.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Awesome Course. One of the best courses , i have been part of on coursera. well paced, very rich in content, very good delivery of the ideas,. Assignments very good. A value for time i just wish practice quiz to have more number of question, and more challenging. A VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO JOGESH. THANKS A LOT | quiz to have more number of | Question | and more challenging. A VERY SPECIAL | Positive | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Excellent teacher and course format / materials. Teacher also makes a big effort to answer questions in the forum also. | makes a big effort to answer | Question | in the forum also. | Positive | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I wish, the professor could pay more attention to from questions from students. | could pay more attention to from | Question | from students. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| yEfdpZz9EeWlGQ5Xb9b0kw | I like the course. It's answer my questions about organization design which was a mystery for me!! | like the course. It's answer my | Question | about organization design which was a | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Seemed like a "ghost" course, issues reported with the swirl package, duplicate questions in the final assessment, where is the instructor ? | reported with the swirl package, duplicate | Question | in the final assessment, where is | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This course took me 3 weeks longer than anticipated, and I'm not sure it was the difficulty of the material. A lot of this information is review for me, so I am confused why it took so much time to complete. There were new topics, and I did enjoy working through the homework questions. | did enjoy working through the homework | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | 4.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This course goes on a very fast pace and simply does not have the charm of all the other courses in the specialization. I understand that a lot of content is covered within a month, but there should be supplementary course material available. Moreover, TAs should be more active on the forums. I have seen most of the questions just being discussed among the students. A little disappointed. Will probably have to watch all the material again to have confidence with it. | I have seen most of the | Question | just being discussed among the students. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| YfUyugThEeW0KyIACxqWIg | Exciting course for beginners with a lot of examples of Fluid Power Application. This course has only one disadvantage - Assessments are too easy. Most of questions could be answered by substitution of values in a single formula. Тhis can be done even without understanding the subject. | Assessments are too easy. Most of | Question | could be answered by substitution of | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| yFZxWd8aEeWDLBKS83bB7Q | it's a good course , but it could be offering more, like when we answer a questions wrongly, it could offer corrections and also we need more details with video journalism. | more, like when we answer a | Question | wrongly, it could offer corrections and | Negative | 0.78 | 4.0 |
| YjCOKcQTEeWI6BLH_IXMZw | I liked the quiz questions. Thanks. | I liked the quiz | Question | Thanks. | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | After completing this course you'll have a good idea on how professional PMs schedule and budget complex projects. It will also teach you some valuable techniques that can be applied to projects you may be handling in your own work. I was unfortunately not impressed by the fact that the final exam was quite simple, simply borrowing questions already asked during the lesson quizzes. | exam was quite simple, simply borrowing | Question | already asked during the lesson quizzes. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | I found the assignments challenging in the absolute best sense of the term, and therefore incredibly rewarding as well! Whenever I've gotten stuck, the answer was always in the course material somewhere, even if I didn't see it there at first. The discussion forums were extremely helpful, and I was astounded to see that that instructors were still actively monitoring the discussion forums and responding to student questions. I'm obviously not an expert in this field, but I've been an educator before, and my own impression of the assignments was that they were extremely well designed: it was impossible to pass them without knowing what you were doing, the tools to approach them were always found in the lectures, and the challenge problems pushed your knowledge even farther. I would recommend the specialization to everyone. Additionally, I noticed that the content aligns well with other DS&A syllabi I have seen in brick-and-mortar institutions, especially the first 3 or 4 courses. It's also a very nice luxury to be able to submit in Python. I have certainly learned a great deal. | discussion forums and responding to student | Question | I'm obviously not an expert in | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | I liked this course alot. If you are a student and come from the previous course, you may only read the cons, since this course has the same spirit as the previous. Pros: 1. The lectures contain quite a good material which is somehow difficult and they made me to pay attention. The lectures are based on dasgupta's book and MIT course book. 2. There are links to additional materials, I found the dijkstra's book and MIT course book, so I was able to gain extra information for topics which interested me. Also slides are very useful 3. The forum! This course has a life forum where you can find help or share your ideas. 4. The teaching stuff! They are answering student questions and taking part in discussions Cons: Having compared this course with the previous one from the set, this course suffers from luck of interesting problems. The previous course has more than ~25 problems and for each module it has advanced problems,even more they added extra problems during the course running. This course has ~12 problems and only one advanced for the whole course!. Only this advanced problem made me take a piece of paper and a pen and draw trees, and play with toy examples. Only for this problem I wrote a stress test. That is the most fun for me of studying! If this course didn't have this advanced problem, I would barely give it 3 stars. P.S. Theaching stuff, please conider to add extra problems, the first course is awesome and it is way too good. This course is good, but it think you may develop it not only the first one. Otherwise students may get dissapointed if they come from the previous course. I hoped that you would have added extra problems, so I slowed down, my expectation didnt come true :( | teaching stuff! They are answering student | Question | and taking part in discussions Cons: | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | All in all a great and challenging course. A big thank you to all the teachers! I especially liked the assignments as completing them forced me to think about all the little details and edge cases. A few observations/constructive criticisms: - While the first 3 weeks had almost everything explained rigorously, including complete, usable pseudo codes, the last 2 weeks had lots of holes in terms of details. I think it is down to the fact that it covered a lot, however, pseudo codes suddenly became very high level, to the point where a 5 liner translated to ~100 lines of real code. This in terms meant that learners had to do quite a bit of additional research about the nitty-gritty. Nevertheless I thoroughly enjoyed this extra research, just be mindful about the extra time required. - There are languages with first class support, namely C++, Java and Python3, which means there are starter files supplied. If you choose a different, supported language then be prepared that you have to implement everything from scratch, which again mean extra time, although I would argue that you will learn more, especially in the last 2 weeks. - Forums seemed to be more active in the past, especially with regards to teacher contribution. Be prepared to be self-reliant and able to come up with answers to your own questions. | up with answers to your own | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | The structure of the class follows the regular academic model you'll find in college: lecture -> lecture -> lecture -> assignment... repeat. I don't think this model is suitable for online delivery. Without discussion and the ability to interrupt and ask questions, the lectures are at times a more frustrating than useful (especially with Coursera's user interface, which lacks quick rewind and is generally speaking rather poorly thought out). For many of the topics, better videos exist online (try safari or pluralsight). As for the problems, they were the main source of learning, but were also at times a bit frustrating (the splay trees starter code was rather sad to look at). I find that hacker rank is probably better at delivering value (if you can forego the warm fuzzy feeling you get from getting a verified certificate, you'll probably be better served by practicing on hacker rank than from doing the problems in this course). | the ability to interrupt and ask | Question | the lectures are at times a | Positive | 0.66 | 3.0 |
| yQcuJCOcEeagwg7hVay0BQ | It was an amazing experience. Many thanks for such a good theoretical information and challenging practice. Every single time I had one question - can I do better. Knowledge obtained from this course is outstanding. Thank you again | Every single time I had one | Question | - can I do better. Knowledge | Negative | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| yS8ezjDPEeW-zwq84wShFQ | The professor's view of Plato is unique and interesting. I would not recommend this as a first look at the Dialogues, however. Also, it was difficult to see how the lectures connected to the remit of the course, to teach "reason and persuasion", in Plato's view. The course was more of a "modern take on ancient questions". | a " modern take on ancient | Question | . | Positive | 0.76 | 3.0 |
| yS8ezjDPEeW-zwq84wShFQ | R&P is a great course for anyone with a slight interest in the basic questions about life. If ever I found myself begging for answers on this questions or trying to understand myself in a wider perspective, or simply bored out of my mind, finding this course has meant finding my life, or at least finding a better way to live my life. | a slight interest in the basic | Question | about life. If ever I found | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| yS8ezjDPEeW-zwq84wShFQ | R&P is a great course for anyone with a slight interest in the basic questions about life. If ever I found myself begging for answers on this questions or trying to understand myself in a wider perspective, or simply bored out of my mind, finding this course has meant finding my life, or at least finding a better way to live my life. | myself begging for answers on this | Question | or trying to understand myself in | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| yWjlOBnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Pros: Information is perfect for anyone looking at Business Intelligence as a career field, or already in the career field itself. I found the first week to challenge my on-the-job knowledge of a fuller set of concepts and general terminology. Cons: The wording on the quiz questions, in some cases, seems much different than the PPT slides and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The wording is a significant challenge, even when advancing into the more complex topics. I have had many differences of opinions on the solutions based on wording in the requirements. | Cons: The wording on the quiz | Question | in some cases, seems much different | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| yWjlOBnoEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Not enough implication from the instructors in the course. Students are left alone with the material, without any answers to there questions on the course. Peer review process subject to personal interpretation and leading to frustration for the students. That's quite unfortunate as this provides a bad experience whereas the course might have been good without that. | material, without any answers to there | Question | on the course. Peer review process | Negative | 0.79 | 2.0 |
| z-Ezh6UFEeWGbRLK1bnBqw | Too much question and it takes me too much time on it | Too much | Question | and it takes me too much | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Zba0dJLREeSb9SIACzCJlg | A rather non-engaged teacher ho does not know what goes on with the reviews. She does not have enough people to review the written assignment and the assignments go UN-reviewed leading to a 'no-grade' whihc is ridiculous. It is not even clear how the written reviews are graded. She is not involved and does not serve to inspect the work of the students to ascertain that a grade is in order. Three reviews are requited for a grade, but she has so few reviewers that one might only get one review and then fail. Very inept. Stay away from this one. She does not get involved with answering questions of students either. Her internet activity is rated a 2/5 whihc I did not know until I got involved with this course. Observation of the video showing her teaching is terrible. She places herself in front of the camera and one cannot see the placement of the student's fingers or most importantly what is actually happening on the fret board with the finger movement. She also places herself directly in front of the camera blocking a clear view of everything - poor video skills. | does not get involved with answering | Question | of students either. Her internet activity | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| ZgdEeNmtEeWIyg6KWmLgkQ | Enjoyed the course. Gets difficult at times but, follow steps and ask questions and you should be able to do really well in this class. | times but, follow steps and ask | Question | and you should be able to | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| ZgdEeNmtEeWIyg6KWmLgkQ | The software video tutorials need to be updated ..for example mac users need to use different programs which raises all sorts of different questions on where to go and where to find what Dr. T is working with for the lesson , second this is for beginners we would like to know why we are typing certain commands and what they do ... he has a good attitude but explanations need to be a little more detailed on what things are ,what they do and why we are using them... for any mac user you will be better off using parallels to install Windows and use this lessons with the programs he is working on like Visual Basic which is only for Windows .... | which raises all sorts of different | Question | on where to go and where | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| zHCX4hJgEeaX4g6xdats6w | I was unhappy with this. It was clear that this course was pulled together from a superset of other material, and that it was not checked for consistency or completeness. The students were tested on their ability to write down a specific phrase from a video rather than on application of the principles learned from utilization of the graph database tools. (Broccoli -- REALLY???) Further, the lack of response to questions posted in the forum indicates a lack of engagement from instructors and / or facilitators. | Further, the lack of response to | Question | posted in the forum indicates a | Negative | 0.84 | 1.0 |
| zKZY59dlEeSQOCIAC0ELFw | This course very briefly presents large picture concepts of Entrepreneurship without going into a enough detail to provide any major benefit. I would see this being most useful to a person who had only vague ideas of what entrepreneurship entailed overall. The quizzes seemed to focus more on what was said during the lectures rather than what large scale constructs actually define entrepreneurs or processes overall. i.e. questions focused on sentence construction and ordering in a lecture rather than the overall concepts the sentences themselves were expected to convey. | entrepreneurs or processes overall. i. e. | Question | focused on sentence construction and ordering | Positive | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| zn0YnhqsEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course is the absolute best I have taken on Coursera. The teacher is very engaging, explains with ease is a very friendly professor that guides you effectively as if you weren't taking this class online. It is elegantly designed with in-video questions and helpful quizzes that are short and on-point. I liked the over-all design, it touches in the most important thinkers of Sociology but also focuses on aspects that aren't always taught in Sociology classes. A great course! | It is elegantly designed with in-video | Question | and helpful quizzes that are short | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| zn0YnhqsEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Excellent overview on the major sociological thinkers from Adam Smith to Norbert Elias. A very good introduction to the subject. Beware though - the professor is an engaging teacher, but his quizzes are tough. You actually have to do some of the recommended readings to answer the questions - there are at least three questions in each quiz based on the writings of the sociologist who is the subject of the test. | the recommended readings to answer the | Question | - there are at least three | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| zn0YnhqsEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Excellent overview on the major sociological thinkers from Adam Smith to Norbert Elias. A very good introduction to the subject. Beware though - the professor is an engaging teacher, but his quizzes are tough. You actually have to do some of the recommended readings to answer the questions - there are at least three questions in each quiz based on the writings of the sociologist who is the subject of the test. | - there are at least three | Question | in each quiz based on the | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| zn0YnhqsEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Great lectures with clear explanations and illustrations. Well chosen readings. Extremely interesting topics. Some of the quiz questions were ambiguous, particularly ones that asked students to pick the quotes that best represent a particular idea. | interesting topics. Some of the quiz | Question | were ambiguous, particularly ones that asked | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I hadn't touched math in any real way in years and this was a great re-introduction. The videos were fun and engaging, and while the material was challenging, I felt I got a lot out of it. I highly recommend it for people who need statistics for their work or for a degree program but who are feeling a little intimidated by it. As far as feedback goes, I would have liked to get explanations for quiz questions I couldn't answer. I wish there was a way to say, "This is the quiz score I'd like to accept; now please explain to me the ones I missed." The lack of feedback on the quizzes was frustrating at times. | liked to get explanations for quiz | Question | I couldn't answer. I wish there | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I think the notes given after the lectures should contain the formula the students need. Also the quizes should show the correct answers once you completed them, if not you cant figure out why the questions are wrong. | you cant figure out why the | Question | are wrong. | Negative | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| zs3YSHQ6EeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | I found this course very thorough but extremely challenging. Were it not for classmates and mentor in the discussion forum to answer my many questions I would never have passed. One does learn a lot and at this point the GIS material is becoming far more advanced and professional. I have a new appreciation for the many applications of Arc GIS, far more than I ever had before. | discussion forum to answer my many | Question | I would never have passed. One | Positive | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| zs3YSHQ6EeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | I enjoyed the course very much but found the assignment very frustrating. Despite trying numerous ways with the data provided I did not get the same map coverage as the instructor and there was no explanation as to what I might have done differently despite a number of people asking the same question in the forums. It was still possible to get full marks without but it would have been more satisfying to get the same answer. | number of people asking the same | Question | in the forums. It was still | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| zSmzLR5LEeS6wiIACzGPEQ | Great and inspirational course. Thank you Prof Freeman for your approach that is making us think, reflect and question the current models of businesses in our societies! | is making us think, reflect and | Question | the current models of businesses in | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Great course, but the quizzes are not quite there yet. They focus too much on minor details and the questions are sometimes awkwardly phrased. | much on minor details and the | Question | are sometimes awkwardly phrased. | Positive | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Best instructor and lectures covering the entire area..But Assignments should include more questions so that to cover entire content of course. | . But Assignments should include more | Question | so that to cover entire content | Negative | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | This is an absolutely 5-star course. Educational, interesting, right-paced... It is very clear that the professor has a passion for the subject and is deeply knowledgeable. There are two questions after every video lecture, which focus on the most important parts of the lecture and also helps the student see if they understood the content. Reading assignments are relevant and interesting. End-of-the week quizzes are challenging, but can be completed very successfully if the student paid close attention to the subject. I would recommend this course to everyone who likes history or ancient cultures. I hope for a sequel, too! | is deeply knowledgeable. There are two | Question | after every video lecture, which focus | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | A lesson with discussion about the question of quizz. | A lesson with discussion about the | Question | of quizz. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Very interesting class. The readings were helpful in understanding a deep appreciation for the subjects covered. Still dislike the multiple guess questions at the end of each section, think essays would show mastery of the bigger picture, but understand the constrains of time on the professor. Still, I would recommend this class as a basic introduction to Ancie | covered. Still dislike the multiple guess | Question | at the end of each section, | Positive | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| _3FDkYE5EeWuHwqbqMyacw | I am quite new to this learning portal and thus visited just few courses. Nevertheless I didn´t finish all of them because some were unfortunately quite boring. In contrast this course is so far the best I have seen. Professor Chang caught my attention from the first second. Course is very well structured, lessons and language are easy to understand. Lecture is very interactive, interrupted by short questions to maintain your concentration. Background is changing in order to keep your attention and desire to know more. Learning with prof. Chang is simply great fun!!! | is very interactive, interrupted by short | Question | to maintain your concentration. Background is | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Excellent course. Just a shame, trying to figure out to get always the video notes only in english language and not in my natural language (currently french, detected by Coursera), which is better to understand questions & insure to get the answer. For some videos, only the notes in my natural language are available, which constraint me to translate and probably leads to misunderstandings. | Coursera), which is better to understand | Question | & insure to get the answer. | Negative | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Exceptionally informative as an introduction to Islamic studies. Could do with tightening up its question and answer format. | Could do with tightening up its | Question | and answer format. | Negative | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | A very thought-engaging and enjoyable course. I learned a lot about the history and contexts of various Muslim countries, the challenges faced by them as well as the practical challenges that Islamic-based political thought have not demonstrably addressed so far. The instructor is very knowledgeable and well-meaning. I like the course's approach of not so much attempting to answer the questions as just a 'tour guide' and an entry point to the much more complex discussion about the topic. I might not agree with everything in the course, and some of his statements might have made me a bit uncomfortable, but overall this is an engaging and insightful course. | so much attempting to answer the | Question | as just a 'tour guide' and | Negative | 0.8 | 5.0 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Impressive analysis. This will truly push the intelligentsia to understand the core problems and ask questions. | understand the core problems and ask | Question | | Positive | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | On later parts the videos are poorly edited and less interactive. In one place practice quiz has wrong answer marked as right. (Whether it's a situational question or behavioral). | as right. (Whether it's a situational | Question | or behavioral). | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course seems patched together. The volume isn't consistent, even within videos. Some videos / slides are great and full of information, while others are just long periods of talking with one word or phrase on the screen and none of the information put in written form. Some of the questions occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, there are misspellings in the quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a question wrong and then, in the comments, noted the answer was right. Further, some of the videos seem to stretch out information to fill time. | in written form. Some of the | Question | occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, | Positive | 0.74 | 2.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course seems patched together. The volume isn't consistent, even within videos. Some videos / slides are great and full of information, while others are just long periods of talking with one word or phrase on the screen and none of the information put in written form. Some of the questions occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, there are misspellings in the quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a question wrong and then, in the comments, noted the answer was right. Further, some of the videos seem to stretch out information to fill time. | quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a | Question | wrong and then, in the comments, | Negative | 0.7 | 2.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | The subject is interesting and the instructors both seemed very competent. Still I wish the course had been better prepared as there were lots of sounds defects: you had to adjust the volume during each video which is tiresome. In the same idea, the questions during the course would pop up in mid-sentence, sometimes with too much anticipation with the subject at hand. Last, the questions in the assignments were sometimes not so much to check your understanding but your memory about a small detail like a % in a study that is already obsolete by the time we learn it... All in all a great course, with great instructors but still room for improvement as a mooc. | tiresome. In the same idea, the | Question | during the course would pop up | Negative | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | The subject is interesting and the instructors both seemed very competent. Still I wish the course had been better prepared as there were lots of sounds defects: you had to adjust the volume during each video which is tiresome. In the same idea, the questions during the course would pop up in mid-sentence, sometimes with too much anticipation with the subject at hand. Last, the questions in the assignments were sometimes not so much to check your understanding but your memory about a small detail like a % in a study that is already obsolete by the time we learn it... All in all a great course, with great instructors but still room for improvement as a mooc. | the subject at hand. Last, the | Question | in the assignments were sometimes not | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course was a bit mediocre. The videos were often choppy, awkward, and cut off in the middle of sentences. The quiz questions were unclear and generally poorly written, and didn't make me think enough. I did enjoy the onboarding special topic section, and the quality was higher there. But the first 3 weeks need quite a bit of revision and fine-tuning. | the middle of sentences. The quiz | Question | were unclear and generally poorly written, | Negative | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| _PaLh7RPEeW-cQqGkhsQ8w | J'ai suivi jusqu'au bout ce MOOC. J'ai apprécié la grande qualité de l'équipe enseignante, le niveau du cours ! La partie "variable aléatoire réelle" a été difficile à suivre pour moi vu mes lacunes. J'ai aussi bien aimé les exercices, nombreux et variés. J'espère que leur correction restera disponible un moment car je n'ai pas encore tout examiné de près. Une première réserve : on voit que l'équipe n'est pas constituée de pros de la vidéo, ça manquait assez souvent de naturel et du coup l'ensemble paraissait fréquemment assez austère, mais ça n'est pas vraiment très important ! Une deuxième plus sérieuse : j'aurais apprécié que les enseignants jettent de temps en temps un oeil sur les questions du forum - les miennes par exemple ! - Il me semble que que c'est ce que l'on peut attendre d'un MOOC, cette spécificité que de créer ou maintenir en ligne un lien entre enseignants et étudiants. Dommage ! Le forum n'a pas fonctionné, les étudiants intervenant se comptant sur les doigts d'une seule main. Encore dommage car c'est très stimulant et enrichissant que de lire les contributions des autres étudiants et c'est d'une grande aide. Ces réserves ne m'empêchent pas de dire que j'ai eu beaucoup de plaisir à suivre ce MOOC, de grande qualité, je le redis et je pense suivre dans un moment la partie II. Cordialement, Roland Thiers | en temps un oeil sur les | Question | du forum - les miennes par | Positive | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | A great course! Whether you are simply interested in applying some concepts into your life, or a student (like myself) looking to brush up/or learn economics, this is a great intro course! I especially love the module overview at the beginning of each week. I usually copy and paste "key questions" into Evernote, and answer them when I'm watching the videos. Then I would review the Q&A before and after each quiz. It turns out to work great for me! Thanks for making this course available on Coursera! | usually copy and paste " key | Question | into Evernote, and answer them when | Negative | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Well done. Logical progression of learning, good examples, clearly spoken. There were quite a few spots where sound or video cut out for several minutes while the other (either sound or video) continued to work. Not sure if it was my computer or a course issue. One quiz (i believe week 10 or 11) had a question with two right answers. You could either choose 3) all of the above or 4) answers 1&2 (which were both correct). I believe '4' was the correct answer. Very well created overall...nice job. | week 10 or 11) had a | Question | with two right answers. You could | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Although the course cover everything there can be in Macro-economics, the course is tightly bound with US economy. Also the questions, some of them, in quiz are exact from the slides. I think there could have been changes. None the less, it was best thing i have learnt in past 6-12 months. Awesome going through it. | bound with US economy. Also the | Question | some of them, in quiz are | Positive | 0.78 | 4.0 |
| _xNLlFY4EeWKXg4Y7_tPaw | Very interesting course, providing a descent overview of the whole water management and policy question. A lot of interesting examples are provided to illustrate the different points and various experts are interviewed throughout the course. I still believe though that the general message remains very generic and would benefit from further technical details to go more in depth. Also, the English subtitles do not always exactly match the oral French version. Finally, the marking only based on quizzes that can be retaken several times makes it very easy in my view. I believe that assignments that would require more involvement from the students (e.g. maybe group assignments with other students?) or applications of the course concepts to case studies would greatly enhance the quality of the course. Still, it remains a very interesting and well dispensed course! | the whole water management and policy | Question | A lot of interesting examples are | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| __JK5M3TEeSa0iIAC9RQCQ | Basic course and good for high school to undergraduates as the title suggest. Good for overview of managing your finance. Budgeting which is the cornerstone of managing money is well talked about. Very limited coverage on the investing portion and I disagree that intelligent speculation in the stock market is the way to educate individuals starting out on investment. I would prefer Dr Navarro teaching this topic and hearing his perspective on stock market. Asking people to cash out when a stock lose 10% is equivalent to selling low and buying high. A better question is has the business change when the stock price drops. A better read would be The intelligent investor. | low and buying high. A better | Question | is has the business change when | Negative | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| __JK5M3TEeSa0iIAC9RQCQ | This course contained good information and it was discussed in a clear and easily understandable fashion. I was a bit disappointed though that the level was pitched quite low and so didn't answer a lot of the questions I have. If you have next to no financial literacy, however, this would be an invaluable course. | didn't answer a lot of the | Question | I have. If you have next | Negative | 0.72 | 3.0 |