| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating |
| -0BI9jXyEeWa2g6sjqf03Q | Hi, I'm enjoying every step of this enriching course. I'm applying more and more your ideas, experience in daily business and I use some slide to obtain a wow effect! Thanks to all contributors, and Professor Hlavac, really looking forward to see what's coming next. ps I wrote my first blog in english!!, and I still don't believe it :-) | daily business and I use some | Slide | to obtain a wow effect! Thanks | Positive | 0.88 | 5.0 |
| -1YwAnTLEeSjmyIAC0aXFg | Difficult to understand the professor, and slides were hard to read | Difficult to understand the professor, and | Slide | were hard to read | Negative | 0.67 | 2.0 |
| -1YwAnTLEeSjmyIAC0aXFg | Lecturer is downright boring and not engaging. Could had used more real-world companies as examples for teaching, including pictures, but it's the same bland slides again and again. | pictures, but it's the same bland | Slide | again and again. | Positive | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| -4ffSHNYEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | In this course, there was a slide presentation with audio recorded in a classroom. This part of the course should be replaced as soon as possible to offer better experience. As it is presented right now, with a loudy environment, it really doesn't match to the quality of the other courses. | In this course, there was a | Slide | presentation with audio recorded in a | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | I was really disappointed in this "course" for several reasons. I did not complete it, because it was really not worth spending time on. The organizer impressed me as only wanting to sell copies of his book on dog behavior and used the course as his vehicle. Then there were games to "purchase" online to facilitate teaching my dog cognitive skills. The videos were lacking in creativity. I was really disappointed with this, especially since its a cool topic that could easily be presented in a very exciting way. The artistic level, the videos, slides, etc were something a high school student could pull together. After taking solid courses like ModPo and Positive Psychology, I was amazed at the lack of effort that was put into this. | way. The artistic level, the videos, | Slide | etc were something a high school | Negative | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| -Eu38u08EeSKeyIACwQXPg | It was very interesting course, I thought I knew a lot about dogs psychology and cognition but it turned out that I have a lot of white blankc about some thing. Very informative course with good slides and some very interesting information. | thing. Very informative course with good | Slide | and some very interesting information. | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Overall a good and useful course, however: A) They could do a much better job regarding LDA, standard Gibbs sampling, and Bayesian model and inference. Many slides on these 3 topics only contained some text and the instructor tried to "verbally" visualize the related important concepts. Hence not a good use of a video session. B) Week 1 and the 1st half of Week 6 were redundant. C) It would be much better to have a 7-week course with more topics and may be with some optional videos on Bayesian model, HMM. | and Bayesian model and inference. Many | Slide | on these 3 topics only contained | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | This course started off easy, and became challenging in the last 3 weeks. But a lot of details were covered in the slides and also the forum helped deepen my understanding of the material, and I was able to get through the course. I enjoyed the course! | of details were covered in the | Slide | and also the forum helped deepen | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| -Y69EP9dEeSa0SIACyGBQw | Very good content and delivered in an effective manner. Lots of information and examples are quite valuable and not provided in the slides so I recommend everyone to have the handouts at hand when studying for the assignments and exams. | valuable and not provided in the | Slide | so I recommend everyone to have | Negative | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| -zH9iof2EeWGBwqGAoUFww | boring lecturer, monotone, passionless reading of even more boring powerpoint slides and images, and absolutely no intelligent discussion going on in this course, I have learned more from reading the book "the epigenetics revolution " by nessa carey, a book written for laypersons, than I have from this course taught by university professors. don't waste your time | reading of even more boring powerpoint | Slide | and images, and absolutely no intelligent | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | It was fast with lots to memorize but I could quickly obtain the basic knowledge of the genre I was not familiar with. The clear speech and the slides of the instructor helped me a lot to understand and the price was pretty reasonable. Very satisfied!!! Thank you very much!!! | with. The clear speech and the | Slide | of the instructor helped me a | Positive | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| 0aY3BdGZEeSX5iIAC4tS5g | I found the course really useful and informative and the teacher was very enigmatic and engaging. My only comment would be that perhaps the teacher goes through the slides slightly too quickly at times,as I found myself often pausing to read them. Excellent course though. | perhaps the teacher goes through the | Slide | slightly too quickly at times, as | Positive | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| 0ayiYtaOEeWvEArBkQ8C9Q | All talking, don't even have slides to assist with the presentation of materials, also seemed to have focused too much on the European Union/Convention instead of the Common Law itself. | All talking, don't even have | Slide | to assist with the presentation of | Negative | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 1b9VUDu6EeWdUgozVKt3nw | I really did want to take this course in a specialization mode. However I sampled some of the course videos in the different courses making this specialization and decided against it. In the course videos we see no teacher or lecturer just pictures of people and power-point slides with a flat voice in the background reading the slides. In my opinion this does very little in making this topic interesting as it comes out flat and more work should have been put into making of this MOOC considering one has to pay for the specialization. There were also no discussion forums of any kind available. More work should be put into the making of the lecture videos by the school to give it a realistic classroom experience. Unfortunately I dropped out of the MOOC because of the poor quality done by the school despite it being a topic of interest for me. | just pictures of people and power-point | Slide | with a flat voice in the | Negative | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| 1b9VUDu6EeWdUgozVKt3nw | I really did want to take this course in a specialization mode. However I sampled some of the course videos in the different courses making this specialization and decided against it. In the course videos we see no teacher or lecturer just pictures of people and power-point slides with a flat voice in the background reading the slides. In my opinion this does very little in making this topic interesting as it comes out flat and more work should have been put into making of this MOOC considering one has to pay for the specialization. There were also no discussion forums of any kind available. More work should be put into the making of the lecture videos by the school to give it a realistic classroom experience. Unfortunately I dropped out of the MOOC because of the poor quality done by the school despite it being a topic of interest for me. | voice in the background reading the | Slide | In my opinion this does very | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | I find this course excellent. It is a well balanced course in combining econometric theory and its application. The fact is that to apply econometric theory one needs to understand fair bit of econometric method (that includes matrix algebra, some properties of inner product space etc.) as well as how to apply those concepts in practice. In this respect this course does serve its purpose very well. Overall, this course focuses some fundamental aspects and properties of cross-sectional data and time series data. Therefore, it provides one a good foundation (over 8 weeks) so that one can carry out one's future quest regarding any empirical topic by oneself ! I admit that modern econometric theory develops more sophisticated techniques but all of them share one common aspect i.e. they are based on more or less the same fundamentals or properties. Indeed, this course has been designed carefully by targeting those fundamentals and properties. Thus it might be very helpful to follow the modern econometric techniques. However, this course does not talk about the panel data analysis, which share both the cross-sectional and time series properties (more or less). In my opinion it might be better to have at least additional one week session on panel data. In particular, when the data set shares both cross-sectional and time series properties, which set of properties will be dominant or how the estimation technique incorporates the variation of two dimensions (i.e. cross-sectional and time ) etc. Finally, I like to thank all the teaching members and moderators of this course. I have enjoyed the lecture slides and videos very much. | course. I have enjoyed the lecture | Slide | and videos very much. | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | One thing I regret from this course is the content of the video lectures. Having watch the first week's videos, I found that the professor mostly just read the slides - and did it in a very faithful and careful manner, not to miss a subscript .... This is quite devastating for me. I can read the slides myself (although I have to download it first, since the fonts on the screen are very small). What I need is the professor to explain the logic behind the formulas, the *why* behind what is written, instead of just reading *what* is written on the slides. I find it amusing that with an expected learning of 8 hours a week, the total duration of the first week's videos add up to a mere 36 minutes. A couple of weeks ago I have just finished a course that subjectively is comparable in its difficulty level. That course is also rich in mathematical content and also requires a commitment of 4-8 hours per week. Each week, the duration of the lecture videos amount to somewhere between 120-150 minutes - and the lecturer didn't read slides; instead, he would explain the logic behind the concepts and provided papers for learners to read on our own time. That approach really helped scaffold my learning. I hope you'd consider revisiting this course's learning plan - or probably just state on the course info page that this course is more suitable for a refresher course rather than an introductory one. | the professor mostly just read the | Slide | - and did it in a | Negative | 0.72 | 2.0 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | One thing I regret from this course is the content of the video lectures. Having watch the first week's videos, I found that the professor mostly just read the slides - and did it in a very faithful and careful manner, not to miss a subscript .... This is quite devastating for me. I can read the slides myself (although I have to download it first, since the fonts on the screen are very small). What I need is the professor to explain the logic behind the formulas, the *why* behind what is written, instead of just reading *what* is written on the slides. I find it amusing that with an expected learning of 8 hours a week, the total duration of the first week's videos add up to a mere 36 minutes. A couple of weeks ago I have just finished a course that subjectively is comparable in its difficulty level. That course is also rich in mathematical content and also requires a commitment of 4-8 hours per week. Each week, the duration of the lecture videos amount to somewhere between 120-150 minutes - and the lecturer didn't read slides; instead, he would explain the logic behind the concepts and provided papers for learners to read on our own time. That approach really helped scaffold my learning. I hope you'd consider revisiting this course's learning plan - or probably just state on the course info page that this course is more suitable for a refresher course rather than an introductory one. | for me. I can read the | Slide | myself (although I have to download | Negative | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| 1BM3lirjEeWLVg5w1LoYqQ | One thing I regret from this course is the content of the video lectures. Having watch the first week's videos, I found that the professor mostly just read the slides - and did it in a very faithful and careful manner, not to miss a subscript .... This is quite devastating for me. I can read the slides myself (although I have to download it first, since the fonts on the screen are very small). What I need is the professor to explain the logic behind the formulas, the *why* behind what is written, instead of just reading *what* is written on the slides. I find it amusing that with an expected learning of 8 hours a week, the total duration of the first week's videos add up to a mere 36 minutes. A couple of weeks ago I have just finished a course that subjectively is comparable in its difficulty level. That course is also rich in mathematical content and also requires a commitment of 4-8 hours per week. Each week, the duration of the lecture videos amount to somewhere between 120-150 minutes - and the lecturer didn't read slides; instead, he would explain the logic behind the concepts and provided papers for learners to read on our own time. That approach really helped scaffold my learning. I hope you'd consider revisiting this course's learning plan - or probably just state on the course info page that this course is more suitable for a refresher course rather than an introductory one. | reading *what* is written on the | Slide | I find it amusing that with | Positive | 0.64 | 2.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | A BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT COURSE, the teachers put A LOT of effort into making the lecture slides and videos. Everything was explained multiple times such that the student understands it better. Also, computer vision, especially geometric vision is difficult to understand without a proper background in linear algebra, but the teachers' explanation was enough to fill the gaps so that even someone with only a minimalistic knowledge of linear algebra was able to consume the content. The exercises were a class apart, they were very well structured with tangible results at the end of each, And each of the exercises brought together the key points of the lectures, so that the student could easily implement them in code and test out the algorithm. Last but the not the least, the community was very active with the teaching assistants pitching in wherever necessary, in particular, Stephen did a great job of understanding the issues students were facing and taking appropriate action. All in All, a very well structured course to jump start one's career into computer vision. | of effort into making the lecture | Slide | and videos. Everything was explained multiple | Negative | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | This course is great! There is a lot of information available, a wide range of topics are covered, some complex subjects are explained quite well and especially the Chinese professor makes it easy to understand them. Still, there is room for improvement. Considering this is a 4-week course and the coverage of the material, sometimes it feels too squeezed and cramped together. This could be improved by providing access to more references to other materials to complement the studies. A bibliography for instance would be much welcome. Also there are some annoying typos in the slides in the formulas and its derivations that can cost you some precious time to figure out, especially during the Matlab assignments. These are the only reasons I don't give this course 5 stars, but it's definitely worthwhile. You will not regret it! | are some annoying typos in the | Slide | in the formulas and its derivations | Negative | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | It is certainly the most comprehensive course in computer vision that can be provided in a span of four weeks. It is much time consuming compared to the other four courses (I have done this at the end); however, each and every bit of it is worth it. The teaching is incredible, especially, Prof. Shi's teaching includes intuition and physical interpretation which helps in appreciating the equations much more. The assignments equally match with the lecture content. Trust me, by the end of four weeks you will be comfortable in reading and understanding papers in visual SLAM, pose estimation, etc. A small suggestion: in a few lectures, for instance in SIFT lecture, Prof. Daniilidis is not shown in the screen whereas his actions are necessary to better understand the content in the slides. The Professors and the TAs have done a commendable job and thank you all for this course. | better understand the content in the | Slide | The Professors and the TAs have | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | I really loved the dense collection of relevant information, this course is a great introduction to computer vision-related algorithms. Unfortunately the lecture videos are poorly edited and subtitles are inaccurate, however the slides are quite good and verbose enough to understand every topic. Assignments are quite good, however formula derivation explanations could be better. | and subtitles are inaccurate, however the | Slide | are quite good and verbose enough | Positive | 0.66 | 3.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | The course is a very good overall description of the Perception field. The part I really liked is that there was no haste or a concept just superficially discussed - lectures are long and detailed. The presentation of lectures especially from Prof. Jianbo Shi are excellent - to represent Matrices in colours and give a intuitive sense of every formula(especially the Jacobians and treating the image blending process as painting) . The bad part of this course is that pronunciations of faculties could be a little unclear and hence a very good transcript is required - which in this course is not upto the mark. There were few mistakes on the slides and should be rectified atleast in the pdf of the slides. What this means is that we have to go through some frustration while watching the video first time which gradually improves on second or third view. Also, there is absolutely no participation of teaching staff. A good content should be supplemented with assistance to further enhance learning experience. Few doubts because of this remains unclear and I wish I could have got this sorted in this class. | There were few mistakes on the | Slide | and should be rectified atleast in | Negative | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| 1eYewVu-EeWACQpGR_316w | The course is a very good overall description of the Perception field. The part I really liked is that there was no haste or a concept just superficially discussed - lectures are long and detailed. The presentation of lectures especially from Prof. Jianbo Shi are excellent - to represent Matrices in colours and give a intuitive sense of every formula(especially the Jacobians and treating the image blending process as painting) . The bad part of this course is that pronunciations of faculties could be a little unclear and hence a very good transcript is required - which in this course is not upto the mark. There were few mistakes on the slides and should be rectified atleast in the pdf of the slides. What this means is that we have to go through some frustration while watching the video first time which gradually improves on second or third view. Also, there is absolutely no participation of teaching staff. A good content should be supplemented with assistance to further enhance learning experience. Few doubts because of this remains unclear and I wish I could have got this sorted in this class. | atleast in the pdf of the | Slide | What this means is that we | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | Good in content. But, I suppose, the slides can be polished with some animations and figures. | in content. But, I suppose, the | Slide | can be polished with some animations | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | The additional resources provided add that extra edge to your learning from this course and the provision of slides recapitulating what the videos covered is a great support. | this course and the provision of | Slide | recapitulating what the videos covered is | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 1ndQqNPxEeSloiIAC3kKUw | It was an excellent course and I have learned a lot out of it. The presenter style was very nice and clear. The slides were properly designed. It was a very pleasant experience indeed. | was very nice and clear. The | Slide | were properly designed. It was a | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| 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. | lectures on probability, the first " | Slide | in the lecture talks about random | 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. | . . . On the next | Slide | the notion of probability of an | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 2H8ExCTIEeWeDBJG1XrG0w | Great course! The lectures are very thorough with all the necessary details. It would be nice if they made the lecture slides available for download. | nice if they made the lecture | Slide | available for download. | Negative | 0.67 | 5.0 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | 4/5 for content, 2/5 for presentation. Compared to other courses, the lecturer is slow and often reads from slides. Nevertheless thanks for the course. | is slow and often reads from | Slide | Nevertheless thanks for the course. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | Too simplistic and not enough real world examples. It was clear instructor regurgitated material directly off of the screen, offered zero highlights to real world experience or issues. Rather than wasting a couple hours listening to presentations, download the slides and read them yourself. Disappointing. | hours listening to presentations, download the | Slide | and read them yourself. Disappointing. | Negative | 0.95 | 2.0 |
| 3791_tdbEeS2-SIAC4-TTw | Really simple and easy to follow along. I learned things that will definitely help me work more efficiently in my business. I found it faster to just go over the slides instead of watching the videos. | faster to just go over the | Slide | instead of watching the videos. | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The good: -Good examples to learn the concepts -Good organization of the material -The assignments were well-explained and easy to follow-up -The good humor and attitude of the professor makes the lectures very engaging -All videolectures are small and this makes them easy to digest and follow (optional videos were large compared with the rest of the lectures but the material covered on those was pretty advanced and its length is justifiable) Things that can be improved: -In some of the videos the professor seemed to cruise through some of the concepts. I understand that it is recommended to take the series of courses in certain order but sometimes I felt we were rushing through the material covered -I may be nitpicking here but I wish the professor used a different color to write on the slides (the red he used clashed horribly with some of the slides' backgrounds and made it difficult to read his observations) Overall, a good course to take and very easy to follow if taken together with the other courses in the series. | different color to write on the | Slide | (the red he used clashed horribly | Negative | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The good: -Good examples to learn the concepts -Good organization of the material -The assignments were well-explained and easy to follow-up -The good humor and attitude of the professor makes the lectures very engaging -All videolectures are small and this makes them easy to digest and follow (optional videos were large compared with the rest of the lectures but the material covered on those was pretty advanced and its length is justifiable) Things that can be improved: -In some of the videos the professor seemed to cruise through some of the concepts. I understand that it is recommended to take the series of courses in certain order but sometimes I felt we were rushing through the material covered -I may be nitpicking here but I wish the professor used a different color to write on the slides (the red he used clashed horribly with some of the slides' backgrounds and made it difficult to read his observations) Overall, a good course to take and very easy to follow if taken together with the other courses in the series. | clashed horribly with some of the | Slide | backgrounds and made it difficult to | Negative | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Compared with the regression course, this course was a slight disappointment. 1. there is less material compared to the regression course. Maybe this is because classification concepts are more intuitive. 2. the slides are much less prepared. Some of the sides even re-use earlier lesson slides in the beginning as a "review", much like soap operas re-use scenes from earlier episodes as "memory recall" to fill air time. 3. the math is more handwavy compared to the regression course. Neither course are supposed to go in depth with proofs, but I felt the regression course was at the right level and this course degraded too far. Do note it's very possible that I'm biased because I have seen more of the material from this course than the regression course. | concepts are more intuitive. 2. the | Slide | are much less prepared. Some of | Negative | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Compared with the regression course, this course was a slight disappointment. 1. there is less material compared to the regression course. Maybe this is because classification concepts are more intuitive. 2. the slides are much less prepared. Some of the sides even re-use earlier lesson slides in the beginning as a "review", much like soap operas re-use scenes from earlier episodes as "memory recall" to fill air time. 3. the math is more handwavy compared to the regression course. Neither course are supposed to go in depth with proofs, but I felt the regression course was at the right level and this course degraded too far. Do note it's very possible that I'm biased because I have seen more of the material from this course than the regression course. | the sides even re-use earlier lesson | Slide | in the beginning as a " | Positive | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | This course is very nice and covers some of the very important concepts like decision trees, boosting, and online learning apart form logistic regression. More importantly, everything here has been implemented from scratch and so the understanding of codes becomes very easy. The lectures and slides were very intuitive. Carlos has explained everything very properly and even some of the very tough concepts have been explained in a proper manner from figures and graphs. There are lots lots of python assignments to review what have we learned in the lectures. Overall, its a must take course for all who wants an insight about classification in ML. | becomes very easy. The lectures and | Slide | were very intuitive. Carlos has explained | Positive | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The course provides an overview on classification methods in machine learning. The lectures are clear and easy to understand due to the quality of the slides and of the explanations. The limit of this course lies in the assignments: too easy if done with the provided notebooks and tools. Sometimes impossible to do with different tools (the suggested machine learning package is free for educational purposes, but otherwise it needs a license). | due to the quality of the | Slide | and of the explanations. The limit | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| 3c1bSkIJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The contents are very interesting and well explained. Nevertheless, unlike the Regression module, the current one suffers of some technical problem, like slides not well formatted, noisy audio in some video, weekly work load not perfectly calibrated. Despite all this, if you are interested in the subject, you will definitely love this course!!! | suffers of some technical problem, like | Slide | not well formatted, noisy audio in | Negative | 0.94 | 4.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | Do not like the slides and the way it is explained. Compared with other ML courses on cousera, this one makes me feel that it is more like a handbook/dictionary instead of a tutorial to teach students. If you already know it, it would help you refresh the mind. Otherwise, you might find it is just to show off how how complex and mysterious is the data science. | Do not like the | Slide | and the way it is explained. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | Professor Bill Howe gives great reactions to when there are typos on the slides! | when there are typos on the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 3mA6QTIyEeWsOA5fzAmxbw | Very interesting course. It would be useful to download slide used during videos. | It would be useful to download | Slide | used during videos. | Negative | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | Good information, but not good for people lacking background knowledge. Lecturer reads off slides and gives very little supplementary information. | lacking background knowledge. Lecturer reads off | Slide | and gives very little supplementary information. | Positive | 0.66 | 2.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | I understand it is a technical subject but going slide after slide reading the material without any clear explanation, is not learning is just reciting. It would have been better to try and put only half of the facts (we can always search for specific flag) and explain more about use cases. There has to be a better way to pass the materials. | is a technical subject but going | Slide | after slide reading the material without | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | I understand it is a technical subject but going slide after slide reading the material without any clear explanation, is not learning is just reciting. It would have been better to try and put only half of the facts (we can always search for specific flag) and explain more about use cases. There has to be a better way to pass the materials. | technical subject but going slide after | Slide | reading the material without any clear | Negative | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| 3TdKKA-VEeWhsgqB1eduww | I miss the slides for static consulting alter the vídeo. | I miss the | Slide | for static consulting alter the vídeo. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 3UY0FCmGEeWFggqB2SRvtQ | Would be great to have slides available to help for future review. | Would be great to have | Slide | available to help for future review. | Positive | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | The course is fine in the content. As usual, the presentation from Brian Caffo is rather rushed and stumbling. A better presenting style would improve the course no end, but ultimately, what is covered is what you need. I generally just avoid the videos and read the slides. | avoid the videos and read the | Slide | | Negative | 0.94 | 3.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | This review does not reflect the course content. The new Coursera UI makes it impossible to download transcripts or slides of the videos. Without these features, following the lectures is significantly more difficult, and I can't rate this course any higher than 1 star. I would rate it zero stars if that was possible. | it impossible to download transcripts or | Slide | of the videos. Without these features, | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | In general, an excellent course, taught by competent professors. I believe that in the main this course does very well in achieving its objective of knowledge transfer. However, having experienced it, there were parts where the professor was demonstrating a topic using a video presentation showing him operate a process or screen sequence on his computer. These aspects, like virtually all the material on this course, are of a technical nature and contain many important details. As such, to help complete and re-enforce their learning, students require something like a sequence of slides that they can print out and retain for revision and future reference. In certain parts, the provision of the printable screenshots in the form of slides was absent. An important theme of the course and Data Science in general is "Reproducible Research". What I'm arguing for here is, "Reproducible Learning Materials" covering a complete course, not only parts of it. Admittedly, it was only a very small proportion of the course that suffers from this defect. But I would not like it to become the norm in the future. As a suggestion, it could be possible to author a lecture using HTML so as to combine the verbatum lecture text with every slide/screenshot image embedded in its right position within the lecture. I notice Coursera courses have also moved away from the weekly lists of individual lectures together with their links to .txt, .mp4, etc. files. The new presentation keeps you submerged within the flow within each week's series of lectures. One has to 'click out' in order to watch your progress and then re-enter the lectures at a resumption point. I prefer the previous navigation structure in order to access lectures and materials. Printed learning materials are also important for me, in addition to the video lectures. The latter are of course vital as the medium for the initial exposure of the material. | require something like a sequence of | Slide | that they can print out and | Negative | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| 3Vo3Am1LEeWMPAqsmzmVew | In general, an excellent course, taught by competent professors. I believe that in the main this course does very well in achieving its objective of knowledge transfer. However, having experienced it, there were parts where the professor was demonstrating a topic using a video presentation showing him operate a process or screen sequence on his computer. These aspects, like virtually all the material on this course, are of a technical nature and contain many important details. As such, to help complete and re-enforce their learning, students require something like a sequence of slides that they can print out and retain for revision and future reference. In certain parts, the provision of the printable screenshots in the form of slides was absent. An important theme of the course and Data Science in general is "Reproducible Research". What I'm arguing for here is, "Reproducible Learning Materials" covering a complete course, not only parts of it. Admittedly, it was only a very small proportion of the course that suffers from this defect. But I would not like it to become the norm in the future. As a suggestion, it could be possible to author a lecture using HTML so as to combine the verbatum lecture text with every slide/screenshot image embedded in its right position within the lecture. I notice Coursera courses have also moved away from the weekly lists of individual lectures together with their links to .txt, .mp4, etc. files. The new presentation keeps you submerged within the flow within each week's series of lectures. One has to 'click out' in order to watch your progress and then re-enter the lectures at a resumption point. I prefer the previous navigation structure in order to access lectures and materials. Printed learning materials are also important for me, in addition to the video lectures. The latter are of course vital as the medium for the initial exposure of the material. | printable screenshots in the form of | Slide | was absent. An important theme of | Positive | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| 41f7CjlXEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | 3 stars for the missing pdf slides. other than that it was very well structured and oraganized!! | 3 stars for the missing pdf | Slide | other than that it was very | Negative | 0.94 | 3.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Pretty good coverage of Angular as whole, how to setup a Angular project, and how it fits into bigger picture web development. Criticisms: - Overall, the code presentation (in exercises, provided files, and the slides) was ugly. Good looking and properly styled code is important to ingrain, and this course fell pretty short there. Code was (very) poorly indented, had inconsistent single vs. double quotes, and didn't follow any style guide out there. Use some beautifier and make sure jshint doesn't have any suggestions for improvement! Slides need at least some monospaced font; better would be colored code snippets or screenshots. - The Gulp and Grunt week felt pretty strangely structured. The two task runners just had such long lectures videos that it was a really big hump to get over, especially since we didn't use Grunt later. - (harder to fix) My files got pretty inconsistent with what I needed to copy/download over week-by-week from the course. Some sort of git repository and easier way to pull changes would be good. I ended up version controlling every week and every week's assignment. So yeah, I'd say this was worth taking, but some parts of the setup are pretty frustrating and version controlling makes life much easier. | (in exercises, provided files, and the | Slide | was ugly. Good looking and properly | Negative | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Pretty good coverage of Angular as whole, how to setup a Angular project, and how it fits into bigger picture web development. Criticisms: - Overall, the code presentation (in exercises, provided files, and the slides) was ugly. Good looking and properly styled code is important to ingrain, and this course fell pretty short there. Code was (very) poorly indented, had inconsistent single vs. double quotes, and didn't follow any style guide out there. Use some beautifier and make sure jshint doesn't have any suggestions for improvement! Slides need at least some monospaced font; better would be colored code snippets or screenshots. - The Gulp and Grunt week felt pretty strangely structured. The two task runners just had such long lectures videos that it was a really big hump to get over, especially since we didn't use Grunt later. - (harder to fix) My files got pretty inconsistent with what I needed to copy/download over week-by-week from the course. Some sort of git repository and easier way to pull changes would be good. I ended up version controlling every week and every week's assignment. So yeah, I'd say this was worth taking, but some parts of the setup are pretty frustrating and version controlling makes life much easier. | doesn't have any suggestions for improvement! | Slide | need at least some monospaced font; | Negative | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I was able to grasp the overview of the course. The instructions are delivered well and the flow seems in order. However my lack of background with the topic discussed cause me to stop watching everything. Plus, I can't do the said assignment because I am a beginning on this topic. it seems this is not a course for me to rate based on content. However I will rate it in terms of the aesthetic, organization or structure of the slides . The organization of the content of the slides needs to be properly organized. Long paragraphs are a pain to read. Further when comparing, two concepts, it is easier to comprehend when they are in table form. For instance in FrontEnd JavaScript Framework Overview video, it is better in terms of organization and aesthetic to show library vs. framework in table form. Also, the volume of Introduction to AngularJS video is too loud. Though I can adjust it and lower the volume, but sudden high volume sound is discouraging when the next video has normal volume causing me to adjust it again. I was only able to watch few of the videos but they are good. Just a little improvement needed. | aesthetic, organization or structure of the | Slide | . The organization of the content | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I was able to grasp the overview of the course. The instructions are delivered well and the flow seems in order. However my lack of background with the topic discussed cause me to stop watching everything. Plus, I can't do the said assignment because I am a beginning on this topic. it seems this is not a course for me to rate based on content. However I will rate it in terms of the aesthetic, organization or structure of the slides . The organization of the content of the slides needs to be properly organized. Long paragraphs are a pain to read. Further when comparing, two concepts, it is easier to comprehend when they are in table form. For instance in FrontEnd JavaScript Framework Overview video, it is better in terms of organization and aesthetic to show library vs. framework in table form. Also, the volume of Introduction to AngularJS video is too loud. Though I can adjust it and lower the volume, but sudden high volume sound is discouraging when the next video has normal volume causing me to adjust it again. I was only able to watch few of the videos but they are good. Just a little improvement needed. | organization of the content of the | Slide | needs to be properly organized. Long | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | After finishing week 1, I have decided to stick with Duke university's Medical neuroscience which is starting up again. I also highly recommend "Understanding the Brain The Neurobiology of Everyday Life" which I believe was taught by the University of Chicago. I found them to be far more engaging the viewer and the format to be much easier to follow. I found it visually disturbing and also have to keep pausing to read the slide before it switches.It's too bad because I was really looking forward to this course. It also seemed she had trouble pronouncing many of the words and I do not want to learn how to pronounce many of them incorrectly also many of the slides did not have an English translation on them. | to keep pausing to read the | Slide | before it switches. It's too bad | Negative | 0.92 | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | After finishing week 1, I have decided to stick with Duke university's Medical neuroscience which is starting up again. I also highly recommend "Understanding the Brain The Neurobiology of Everyday Life" which I believe was taught by the University of Chicago. I found them to be far more engaging the viewer and the format to be much easier to follow. I found it visually disturbing and also have to keep pausing to read the slide before it switches.It's too bad because I was really looking forward to this course. It also seemed she had trouble pronouncing many of the words and I do not want to learn how to pronounce many of them incorrectly also many of the slides did not have an English translation on them. | them incorrectly also many of the | Slide | did not have an English translation | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| 5AYG1NbQEeWEOQ7ZE5jC0Q | I find this to be a very nice and stimulating course. The teachers are enthusiastic and entertaining. The course material (slides, quizzes, captions) needs to be polished, but the general organization of the course is logical, clear, and systematic. The course presents an experimentalist's view of the subject, which I find very good considering that much related Coursera material is quite theoretical. There are plenty of historical notes and introductions of general neurobiology research viewpoints (don't miss the excellent bonus material interviews!). In particular, I enjoyed the "cherry picking" metaphor. Some students have had problems with the instructors' accent, but perhaps because English is not my first language, this has not been a problem for me at all. I'm looking forward to part two of the course! | enthusiastic and entertaining. The course material | Slide | quizzes, captions) needs to be polished, | Positive | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| 5D-g-HEiEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | Overall good course. I would appreciate if the slides could've been provided. Also some external resources to further study of the topics covered would add value. | course. I would appreciate if the | Slide | could've been provided. Also some external | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 5epfT7cBEeScDCIAC9REiQ | Very good and interesting overall, the slides are very helpful. The only thing for me is that it's going a bit fast sometimes. The content can be quite technical and for a social science graduate like myself it would be nice if some very technical things could be explained just tiny bit more. But overall it's understandable and clearly done. | Very good and interesting overall, the | Slide | are very helpful. The only thing | Positive | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | really good! On suggestions: Publish the slides. Thanks | really good! On suggestions: Publish the | Slide | Thanks | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Well-structured and entertaining course, in which basic competitive concepts are issued. I dont rank it with 5 stars because I think they should post the slides of the lessons for the students and they have to add the possibility of paying for a certificate | I think they should post the | Slide | of the lessons for the students | Negative | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Great presentation style. Only recommendation would be to make the slides available for download. | recommendation would be to make the | Slide | available for download. | Negative | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | This is a brilliant introductory course on Competitive Strategy. Instructor explains the concepts well. It would be useful to get the slides of the lectures. | would be useful to get the | Slide | of the lectures. | Negative | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Slides availability could prove helpful | | Slide | availability could prove helpful | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The lesson is informative but the course professor does not share value on each slide. She's reading each point and does not provide additional insight. | does not share value on each | Slide | She's reading each point and does | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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 | is far off the poorest. The | Slide | don't make much sense and a | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | This is basic content i wish it was a more outside just a lecture style where the lecturer just reads from the slides. | the lecturer just reads from the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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. | the presenter is not focused and | Slide | are sometimes mixed up. The reading | Negative | 0.64 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The presenter in this course is hard to follow and does not have good slides. She often does not put her bullet points or lists on the slides ( I am a visual learner and she does not provide enough on screen info) She is really uncomfortable and makes it really hard to listen to her talk. She struggles through the entire presentation which is just super distracting. Content is good though. | follow and does not have good | Slide | She often does not put her | Positive | 0.78 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The presenter in this course is hard to follow and does not have good slides. She often does not put her bullet points or lists on the slides ( I am a visual learner and she does not provide enough on screen info) She is really uncomfortable and makes it really hard to listen to her talk. She struggles through the entire presentation which is just super distracting. Content is good though. | bullet points or lists on the | Slide | ( I am a visual learner | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The content of this course is very good. However I feel it is unfortunate that the lecturer did not make an effort in preparing the presentation of the material. This makes a huge difference. Especially when it is an online course, the lecturer needs to bring the story to life rather than simply reading with hesitation from the slides in most instances. | simply reading with hesitation from the | Slide | in most instances. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The slides were too brief, felt presenter at times was reading off a script which made some of the lectures less interesting to follow. | The | Slide | were too brief, felt presenter at | Negative | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I found this course less engaging than the previous ones in the specialization. I would have appreciated if the video lessons were focusing more on commenting case studies; in many cases I had the impression that the Professor was simply reading the slides... | the Professor was simply reading the | Slide | . . | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I think this course could have been more interesting. It was very dry with just slides and majority of the examples were not explained well. Especially the one about the marketing plan was not about plan but about presentation skills. This course content definitely needs update. | It was very dry with just | Slide | and majority of the examples were | Negative | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The lessons on presentation skills and traditional media should have taken just one one or two minutes, and one or two slides, at most. The details and time invested really had little to do with digital marketing or the digital landscape. The use of the hand-written pros and cons was an unnecessary novelty. Regular bullet text are more readable and technically more reliable. Most of all, the presenter's style was distracting. It seemed that she was unsure of her subject matter and script. I recommend re-scripting and rehearsing the presentation -- before re-shooting it. Finally, with the rapid pace of change in digital, we should not be using reading material more than two or three years old. Five years is tantamount to a generation in the digital world. | two minutes, and one or two | Slide | at most. The details and time | Negative | 0.69 | 1.0 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | The instructor needs improvement on her presentation skills. She is just reading off the slides instead of providing more examples and scenarios to help student comprehend the material. I have to retake almost every quiz under her courses. In previous courses, I passed quizzes in one try. Please improve material or get a better instructor. | She is just reading off the | Slide | instead of providing more examples and | Negative | 0.83 | 2.0 |
| 6Fa6w3EjEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | The course is a well thought and masterfully set of lessons on the main principle of journalism: it talks ethics starting from maybe old concepts that surprisingly are still fitting today. Being a basic course, it is very easy to follow and finish. Quizzes are alternating between very good and very bad. Tough ethical decisions and a space to discuss them is a really great thing, but peer grading two phrases essays with only the ability of telling yes or no doesn't make for a good use of the crowdsourcing the very course is advocating. The videos seem to have been made with an indecent knowledge of the technology, especially for journalists who are supposed to use it daily; green screens were used so badly as some parts of the professors "spark white", and slides are often cut away and put back in view while the teacher is talking about it, which was downright infuriating. It still qualifies for a very good opening course in journalism, but needs serious improvement. | professors " spark white" , and | Slide | are often cut away and put | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | The slides are excellent and instructions are clear and to the point. But that point is very limited. The main negative about this class is that there is absolutely no student/TA/teacher feedback and you're pretty much on your own learning. | The | Slide | are excellent and instructions are clear | Positive | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Quite good, sometimes the lecture slides spent a little too much time on explaining a basic concept. For example, it probably isn't necessary to repeatedly explain a loop iterating 5 times until the end of the loop. But otherwise the course cleared up a few things that I was having a hard time wrapping my head around with a different crash course I took in another class. | Quite good, sometimes the lecture | Slide | spent a little too much time | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Very good course, professor, slides, interviews ..... everything was excelent. Thanks alot | Very good course, professor, | Slide | interviews . . . . . | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | really good, great for beginners, need to get rid of slides with white text on green background | beginners, need to get rid of | Slide | with white text on green background | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I used to do a lot of very simple programming when I was younger, but let it slide over the past decade or so. Being a total newcomer to Python, I really appreciated the solid foundation that this course provides, and I'm looking forward to furthering my knowledge of Python with the other related courses. | I was younger, but let it | Slide | over the past decade or so. | Positive | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | This is something really great and I appreciate all the efforts of the creators of that course, especially Dr. Charles Severance, who has an amazing ability of imparting his knowledge in a very colourful and enjoyable way, while fully substantively and clearly. This is my first ever on-line course, and if the remaining parts are conducted in similar way, I am more than impatient to start it immediately. It is a pity, it is 3:54 AM... :) And one more thing - this course as well as the book is indeed for the very beginners however with some ability of logical thinking (if you are not such a very beginner it will take just couple of days to finish it, as it was in my case). So listen carefully what Dr. Chuck is saying, read the book, take look at the slides, and other available stuff and don't hesitate to start and don't give up if something goes wrong. | the book, take look at the | Slide | and other available stuff and don't | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Really good course, very clear and well put together. If you have some previous coding experience, you might find the pace a bit slow, but the slides are very good also and it's really great that Dr Chuck has made the textbook freely available. | pace a bit slow, but the | Slide | are very good also and it's | Positive | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Never thought I would enjoy programming as I just believed my brain didn't work that way, but how wrong was I. I am simply amazed at how well the instructor subtly but quickly builds on previous slides to increase your understanding so that after six weeks you thoroughly grasp the very basic fundamentals. | subtly but quickly builds on previous | Slide | to increase your understanding so that | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | colours in the slides are not clear and disturb the eyes especially when using purple, yellow and light green. Other than that this course is terrific and the instructor rocks :) | colours in the | Slide | are not clear and disturb the | Positive | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course materials such as the lecture videos, slides , assignments and pdf helped me to grasp and implement the basics of Python very well. I have recommended this course to my colleagues who are interested in learning Python | materials such as the lecture videos, | Slide | , assignments and pdf helped me | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Dr. Chuck makes the course quite simple. At the beginning of the course, he patiently introduces some preparing steps such as python installation and screenshot tools, which is quite useful for students with little computer knowledge. During the course, Dr. Chuck manages to use the simplest language to explain the concepts. The slides use different colors to differentiate different elements in a script, indicating Dr. Chuck's consideration for the students. The course reminds me of the sentence from The Zen of Python, "simple is better than complex." The course is a beginning course for python. I studied Visual Basic in my freshman year, and now, three years after VB, I found the assignments quite easy. So I advise that if you have prior knowledge of other languages, you can use the book provided by Dr. Chuck to quickly understand the concepts and view some example code. Then you can directly jump to the assignments and I suppose that it would not be too hard for you. I heard MOOC one year ago and enrolled several courses at Coursera. However, this is my first finished course. Sometimes the network speed of the school was too slow to view the videos and this really slowed me down. I also had some school work and exams. Now I am at the end of my undergraduate study and have enough time to take MOOCs. $310 is quite expensive for me but I hope I can accomplish the five courses of this specialization and some day I'll come back to pay for the certification. Thanks to Dr. Chuck and mentors. Tao.Zheng Huazhong University of Science&Technology, P.R.China | language to explain the concepts. The | Slide | use different colors to differentiate different | Positive | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Needs an update and the slides are hard to see, but overall very good. | Needs an update and the | Slide | are hard to see, but overall | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Nice and easy course. I think the slides need some improvement especially for those who just study from them without explanation from the instructor. Thanks | and easy course. I think the | Slide | need some improvement especially for those | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course was very basic. It was nicely taught and the examples and the lectures were really enjoyable. However, some shortcomings I felt were that the colors in the slides could have been a bit clearer. Another thing was that some concepts were introduced in the lectures which were not explained completely. A real beginner would not be able to understand them which would in some parts defeat the purpose of the course. Other than that, I felt the course was really structured well. The assignments were easy and the quizzes did test the knowledge about the subject taught so far. It was such that any new person would not feel discouraged. Keep up the good job people. | were that the colors in the | Slide | could have been a bit clearer. | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Useful course if you don't know programming. If you do, it's a bit simplistic. Love that all of the slides are available for download. | simplistic. Love that all of the | Slide | are available for download. | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Our Mentor , he is just mind blowing . I really like the way of teaching.Also the study material and slides are really very helpful. Coursera really took teaching to a very higher level. | teaching. Also the study material and | Slide | are really very helpful. Coursera really | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7fljFneTEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | Curso com bons fundamentos. Ainda tem algumas coisas a melhorar mas no geral é bom. Deve-se melhorar: a qualidade dos áudios e do próprio vídeo. Muitas vezes parece que a cada 5 segundos o vídeo é editado, causando confusão quando o professor estar dando um conceito. Ou, ás vezes o áudio falha. Vi isto até mesmo no último vídeo do curso. As aulas do professor Clovis são de grande valor mas acho que ele poderia focar menos nos slides e tentar ultilizar uma ferramenta mesmo de modelagem , um hands on teórico, digamos. | que ele poderia focar menos nos | Slide | e tentar ultilizar uma ferramenta mesmo | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 7fljFneTEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | Por favor leiam esse feedback como uma crítica construtiva. É louvável o ITA ter um curso online no Coursera, mas esse material precisa de muito refinamento. Uma boa didática é fundamental para passar o conteúdo e, sinceramente, sequer consegui avaliar direito o conteúdo, pois a didática obtida pelos vídeos é horrível! Estou saindo do curso antes mesmo de terminar a 1a semana pelos motivos apresentados abaixo. A edição/produção dos vídeos é primária (indicadores dos slides passando na parte inferior da tela, fonte Comic Sans e desenhos bobos para ilustrar conteúdo), são infinitos cortes durante os vídeos, um dos professores parece se preocupar mais com a aparência do que com o conteúdo passado (vide o chapéu chamativo), o outro professor parece que fica lendo o material de algum lugar à esquerda dele, e os questionários feitos durante os vídeos são confusos, chatos e/ou desnecessários. Um dos questionários usados para nota tem perguntas cuja resposta não segue um padrão (em uma você digita Verdadeiro ou Falso, noutra você tem de clicar se é Verdadeiro ou Falso, e noutra você tem de digitar uma assinatura de um método Java - que eu errei por ter incluído a palavra "public"!!!!). Eu estava animado por ter um curso do ITA disponível e com essa ementa (que pareceu ser ótima), mas os fatores apresentados acima tornam as aulas quase insuportáveis. | dos vídeos é primária (indicadores dos | Slide | passando na parte inferior da tela, | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 7gLccRnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Compared to the other Coursera course I attended ,this one is by far the least useful one. The instructor is super brief and his slides are mostly made of a list of acronyms! I would not recommend it until they make some serious changes to the content and presentation of material. | instructor is super brief and his | Slide | are mostly made of a list | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 7jEat7ioEeWfYA612mWHZw | The audio quality of a lot of the lectures are quite bad. A number of the slides seem to be un-organised at times, with repeating information, making them confusing. While all the information seems to be presented, it feels like it could be done better with more time spent preparing and recording the videos. | quite bad. A number of the | Slide | seem to be un-organised at times, | Negative | 0.97 | 2.0 |
| 7O843CBJEeWcQw5YiljpGw | Love the downloadable videos, slides & transcript files. Suggestion: better to add "answer model' file after every quiz as a downloadable one. | Love the downloadable videos, | Slide | & transcript files. Suggestion: better to | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 7O843CBJEeWcQw5YiljpGw | Excellent course. I suggest that in a few quizzes you were asking to get the numbers off the slides in the video. It is very difficult to read the numbers off the video. Can you instead add the slides in the quiz PDF file? All the information required to answer the quizzes should be in the PDF file. The course material was very good. The problem sets were very good too because of real life data. The rigor of courses was average. I can understand why you do not want to make the course more rigorous. However, it would help advanced engineering students to go through a more rigorous course. | to get the numbers off the | Slide | in the video. It is very | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 7O843CBJEeWcQw5YiljpGw | Excellent course. I suggest that in a few quizzes you were asking to get the numbers off the slides in the video. It is very difficult to read the numbers off the video. Can you instead add the slides in the quiz PDF file? All the information required to answer the quizzes should be in the PDF file. The course material was very good. The problem sets were very good too because of real life data. The rigor of courses was average. I can understand why you do not want to make the course more rigorous. However, it would help advanced engineering students to go through a more rigorous course. | video. Can you instead add the | Slide | in the quiz PDF file? All | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| 82sYmnQ8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | The course content was clearly and concisely taught. The professor expounded on concepts and gave applicable examples. The only suggestion that I would give is to provide downloadable slides in pdf format for each lecture video. | would give is to provide downloadable | Slide | in pdf format for each lecture | Positive | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | This is a fantastic course with a lot of content. The presentation is very clear and engaging. The only downside is that the pace is sometimes quite fast. However, there are slides as supporting material which contain all the necessary details. Thanks for this wonderful course! | sometimes quite fast. However, there are | Slide | as supporting material which contain all | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | The most in-depth course I have taken on Coursera by far. Do not let the short amount of weeks fool you, there is a huge amount of information in the slides and the start-up simulator will keep you busy far beyond finishing the course. | huge amount of information in the | Slide | and the start-up simulator will keep | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | very interesting and useful course. I hope that many users will find it relevant. African market and models are absent on the présentation; I appreciate the professor and the slides exercises are quite clear | I appreciate the professor and the | Slide | exercises are quite clear | Positive | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Really nice course with a mixture of slides, presentations, interviews and exercises. I definitely suggest it. | nice course with a mixture of | Slide | presentations, interviews and exercises. I definitely | Positive | 0.74 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Good videos, good slides, good excel-sheets, and fair exams. | Good videos, good | Slide | good excel-sheets, and fair exams. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | An awesome course for the students who want to pursue a career as Private Equity Analyst. This course is an excellent overview of Private Equity and Venture Capital business model used in the field of the finance. Everything is explained very well. The presentation is kept short and informative with good slides. The exercises are interesting and fun to do. They help a lot to learn the course material. I highly recommend this course. Thank You! | kept short and informative with good | Slide | The exercises are interesting and fun | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| 84pGjiPgEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Great course. He should mention beforehand that the slides are far more detailed than the video lectures. | He should mention beforehand that the | Slide | are far more detailed than the | Negative | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| 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. | advantages outweigh the negative sides. It | Slide | on the surface of things, though, | Positive | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | The lectures are very well-organized. The topics are also cover in this field. However, the lectures are very dry and boring. The main professor were reading the scripts on the monitor. From my perspective, with his knowledge in this field as being described on his personal web site, he should be able to talk comfortably by looking at the topic on the slide then discuss about it in detail. I would suggest to change the environment to be at the wide open space, like coffee shop, to make this course more attractive. I'm sorry, it is not what I expected. | looking at the topic on the | Slide | then discuss about it in detail. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 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 | that he did was read the | Slide | in most cases not doing so | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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 | had to focus only on the | Slide | otherwise I would get distracted. I | Negative | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| 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 | like to had available the weekly | Slide | to further reflection. I think the | Positive | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Few thoughts: The very first videos describing Java For Android were containing really too many keywords/concepts, and it might be discouraging for someone new to programmation who just started the class, try to make it less dense. That's my point of view as someone who already had a good programming background. The lessons were okay. However the slides could be really improved and make things concise for someone who is new to Java. Finally I was really disappointed by the assignments. I often spent more time reading and trying to understand a long assignment (which could be reduced to a few lines), than writing the solution. Also, the frequent use of "rand" seems to be leading a lot of people to "almost correct" solutions, and they spend a long time debugging (that's what I understood reading the forums). | The lessons were okay. However the | Slide | could be really improved and make | Negative | 0.86 | 2.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | Basing on the first videos, I would not recommend this course to anyone believing that "You are expected have basic computer literacy skills, such as knowing how to send & receive emails and browse the web". The lector is robotic, the slides look outdated, listener is bored after 10 min of watching. I definitely WOULD NOT pay for this course. I will change the rate after I watch more videos, but this course is a big no-no for me. | . The lector is robotic, the | Slide | look outdated, listener is bored after | Negative | 0.76 | 1.0 |
| 8UQBnm04EeWyAQ6K5KeLkw | I liked the course contents, but in my opinion the slides should be more modern, and the main idea in each lesson should get more highlight, and the ideas to retain too. | contents, but in my opinion the | Slide | should be more modern, and the | Positive | 0.94 | 3.0 |
| 9D3LWblUEeWbNBLZhfEI2Q | good course, poor slides in pdf | good course, poor | Slide | in pdf | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| 9h_j5XEiEeWbbw5cIAKQrw | This was by far the worst course in the series. There is a lot of good content in this course that needs to be shared, but I just felt the delivery failed in a lot of ways. Here are some issues 1) Often, concepts are thrown out but aren't explained clearly. Speaker glosses over them without giving concrete examples 2) The structure of the course is poorly configured. On several occasions, inline quizzes test you on concepts that haven't been introduced until later in the video, forcing you to guess at answers. Also, the assignment portion of the course asks you to submit a word or pdf with images, but it wasn't configured to allow uploads. You could only submit text in a text box. I realized I wasn't the only person with the issue when I graded assignments from others who had trouble submitting their assignment. In some cases, I believe students failed that portion of the course because they could not figure out how to submit. I have some IT background and was able to share my homework through my shared drive fortunately. 3) The speaker should re-record his lecture. It was obvious (or at least seemed as if) he was reading a teleprompter. There were many awkward pauses between sentences that made it hard to listen to. Often times, the audio presentation were inconsistent with the words in the slide, making it confusing because I didn't know which I should be following. | inconsistent with the words in the | Slide | making it confusing because I didn't | Negative | 0.97 | 1.0 |
| 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. | and points, but should have more | Slide | and some times be more grafic | Negative | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| a0OJ1ha4EeWKlgqs7LdhRw | This is one of the most refreshing MOOCs I have ever done. Be careful, you are not enrolling for a classic course, where you have people with formal postures standing in front of a green screen and weird slides. You are enrolling for Kimberley R's course. It is her way of teaching. And basically, she is really engaging and decicated to her "learners". Great course! Thanks University of Virginia :) | of a green screen and weird | Slide | You are enrolling for Kimberley R's | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The positive. What a wealth of material! This is a very worthy attempt to integrate the history, philosophical underpinnings and modern transformations of Tibetan Buddhist meditation. Clifford Saron’s Week 2 lectures on neuroscience and neuroplasticity were fascinating and intriguing introductions to the topic - very engaging. The negative. Too academic for an introductory course. David Germano’s lectures are full of information but he doesn’t help the learner to make sense of it. His ‘academic speak’ obfuscates meaning rather than making it accessible. More diagrammatic slides at the start would give learners a framework of the overarching concepts. Because of the many perspectives presented each week, this course needs A LOT of time. I personally would have leaned better if the course were broken into smaller weekly segments. | than making it accessible. More diagrammatic | Slide | at the start would give learners | Positive | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| aaNxjzc9EeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I enjoyed and benefitted from some of this course. In particular I would highly recommend the Meditation Labs, the Science of Meditation videos and the short presentations from the Tibetan Buddhist monks . But I think the creators of this course need to be a lot clearer about what their aims are in that part of the course which Dr Germano presented. Since this was he was presenting the main overview of Buddhist content it was particularly disappointing that his presentations were so bad. I understand that there were difficulties in getting the course up and running from the various delays in its starting date and the change to its title and perhaps Dr Germano's role was more affected than the other lecturers. However it's pretty damning when he manages to to be so off-putting to so many of the students, going on the discussion comments. For my own part, I've studied and practiced Buddhism for more than 30 years and I am left with little sense of what his aims were for his lectures. To be more specific Dr Germano's Presentation: -he read from what I presume were lecture notes but more likely he was reading from an academic paper. the language was pretty turgid. -he could have just provided a PDF of his paper / notes for us to download. That would have been much more helpful as presumably it would have had some structure to it. doing that would have enabled him to use his video time in a more creative way. -MOOCs are wonderful audio-visual opportunities but he had no slides or illustrations at all. The few text headers which appeared then disappeared in only a very few seconds and sometimes did not relate directly to what he was saying at that time. Dr Germano's content: the amended title was Tibetan Buddhist Meditation. This is a complex subject which encompasses many layers of meditation practice culled from historically earlier Buddhist traditions. Can I suggest that any future version of this course includes the following: -include a video which presents the main aspects of the historical development of Buddhism. There was some mention of this in Germano's material but he did it from the Tibetan point of view. Surely what a modern day presentation needs is a modern impartial historical analysis of the subject. It's not as if there aren't plenty of academics and practitioners who are active in this field. -it's confusing to describe Tibetan Lesser Vehicle practices but then illustrate them with Pali text sources, modern Mindfulness practice, and modern Brahma Vihara practice all of which have emerged from the modern Theravadin tradition. -it's also perplexing to include information about many modern Theravadin teachers (Sayadaw, Goenka) in a course apparently not about them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the videos about Sayadaw and the interview with Sharon Saltzberg, but I am left in the dark about just what differences, if any, there are between them and Tibetan meditation. Overall I think this course was offered prematurely. Much of its content was enthralling, inspiring and very useful practically. However much of it was not. | audio-visual opportunities but he had no | Slide | or illustrations at all. The few | Negative | 0.96 | 2.0 |
| 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. | help if these lectures also included | Slide | or graphs with some of these | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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. | more uniform, the lectures contained some | Slide | the course would be a brilliant | Positive | 0.78 | 3.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | I again found many of the lectures to be difficult to follow along, there seems to be lots of different styles of videos in the way that the person was superimposed on the slides. In fact it was often impossible to read the text in the slide due to the size of the presenters head which obscured the text. Honestly this data science course is getting worse as the months progress, you really should think of updating the content of the course if you want to continue to charge money for it. 2 stars as I did actually learn something despite the quality of the material and its delivery. | the person was superimposed on the | Slide | In fact it was often impossible | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | I again found many of the lectures to be difficult to follow along, there seems to be lots of different styles of videos in the way that the person was superimposed on the slides. In fact it was often impossible to read the text in the slide due to the size of the presenters head which obscured the text. Honestly this data science course is getting worse as the months progress, you really should think of updating the content of the course if you want to continue to charge money for it. 2 stars as I did actually learn something despite the quality of the material and its delivery. | to read the text in the | Slide | due to the size of the | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | The course is essentially just a review of formulas with very little intuition explained to the beginner. It was necessary to use a collection of outside material from other courses and readings to learn the concepts. This course needs to be completely redone with a focus on developing a student's intuition for the material and then support this intuition with basic examples that build as the course progresses. A fundamental demonstration of how to use R to work through regression models (starting from square one) should be added so that this becomes a self-contained course. As it currently stands it is a collection of poorly integrated slides and concepts that serve to confuse the student more than educate. Other classes teach this material infinitely better. | is a collection of poorly integrated | Slide | and concepts that serve to confuse | Negative | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | The professor doesn't explain clearly as part of the videos is his correcting himself or saying the same thing two or three times. And why must the videos show the teacher? It distracts from the slides and seeing him move doesn't help understand anything better Concepts like VIF or hat values are not very well explained by the teacher, at least the SWIRL lesson explains it correctly. ANOVA and ANCOVA are mentioned in the description but they aren't explained anywhere. ANOVA is used without any explanation of what it is. I found myself searching online for other sources to understand the concepts. | the teacher? It distracts from the | Slide | and seeing him move doesn't help | Negative | 0.64 | 2.0 |
| a_xPWXNVEeWxvQr3acyajw | Very badly organized course. Poorly explained theory. The book is full of typos and it seems like nothing but copy-and-paste from the slides. The course project is even worst | like nothing but copy-and-paste from the | Slide | The course project is even worst | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Excelente Curso que contiene los conceptos y las herramientas de estrategias para el mundo digital, ahora se como usar mejor los análisis y los datos para dirigir y mejorar la comunicación en el mundo digital. Puse 4 estrellas, porque tiene contenido y slides repetidos del curso anterior, creo que no habría necesidad de eso pues el curso es una continuación del anterior. | 4 estrellas, porque tiene contenido y | Slide | repetidos del curso anterior, creo que | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Very interesting course with clean slides and good understanding of the key concepts. A bit more "practice" would have been better, but I still highly recommend this course for a basic knowledge in digital marketing. | Very interesting course with clean | Slide | and good understanding of the key | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| 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. | Great course. Like the | Slide | and the way it structured. It | Positive | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| BK2bam0iEeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | Gerry Landers, the course instructor, is a true professional of the field. What's more, he is the Teacher. I'm not exaggerating, he is the Teacher in nature. He explains everything in such a manner that everything gets straight to the skill level of unconscious mind, and you, as a student, are able to momentarily use that information in your everyday work. Also, I'd love to mention here the brilliant team work that has developed the way of delivering the knowledge as effectively. Shootings, changing backgrounds, wallpapers, headlines, sound, slides, bullet points, voice instructions combined with simultaneous written information - to say the demeanor is perfect would be a great understatement. I can judge, since I've successfully lived through quite a number of courses not only on Coursera but also on Edx and have a lot to compare with. I want to thank all of you, professionals, for such a delivery. And I strongly recommend every person anything interested in writing to join the course "Write Professional Emails in English" with Mr. Gerry Landers. Join the course unhesitatingly because it is worth finishing. | Shootings, changing backgrounds, wallpapers, headlines, sound, | Slide | bullet points, voice instructions combined with | Positive | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | Excellent intro course, but not without issues. In general, pro's include reasonable length lectures, provided by _the_ leading expert in the field, and designer of the Scala language. Focus on functional programming techniques versus syntax nuance is a significant benefit - Scala is easy to get bogged down in. Pro's also include the fact that lectures have had at least some amount of post-production work done, and manage to make voiceover/slides/whiteboard consistent and coherent better than most similar online classes/tutorials. The assignments are reasonable, and the time estimates of ~3 hrs each was about right on the average, at least in my case (senior programmer with deep background in C/C++, and just enough Java to be dangerous and dislike boilerplate). Some drawbacks - there was no clear segue from "basic syntax" to "collections framework". That's _IMPORTANT_. In 20/20 hindsight, I would have benefitted from a big, bold slide before the first mention of "foreach" that said "stop here, go to the text, and skim the chapters on collections for 'foreach' and other common operations. This is a building block for everything to follow, and NOT unique to just lists." The major factor keeping this from being a '5' in my mind were that the assignments didn't always make sense as written, and I had to go back and forth between the assignment writeup, the source code and the test cases to really sort out what was required. The assignments could become _much_ more effective if they were provided with more test cases, including expected FAILURE cases and not just bare minimal acceptance cases. | have benefitted from a big, bold | Slide | before the first mention of " | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| bRPXgjY9EeW6RApRXdjJPw | Very good course! I like slides, explanations and examples | Very good course! I like | Slide | explanations and examples | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A great review of current advancements in physics presented in a manner comprehensible to people with basic physics knowledge. Only issue was with some slides which had text in colours which was difficult/impossible to read for my type of color blindness. | knowledge. Only issue was with some | Slide | which had text in colours which | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Very helpful, I wish the "slides" had more in them so that I could use them for quick review. | Very helpful, I wish the " | Slide | had more in them so that | Positive | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Good tools, approaches, and guidance on communication with different people within an organization. The only drawback of this course is that it relies a lot on additional readings rather than lectures slides. | on additional readings rather than lectures | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | A good introduction to Workplace Communication. The resources supplied were extremely helpful. I didn't pay so much attention to the slides that came with this - in fact, I'm not even sure how relevant they are looking back. I had expected the overview videos to be an insight to the resource content, but it wasn't quite compiled that way. The tests could have been longer, and perhaps could have contained obvious solutions - in some instances the solutions provided were all applicable, leaving the student to select the best option. In other instances the options available weren't even discussed in the content, confusing the student. | pay so much attention to the | Slide | that came with this - in | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| CJs0DTk_EeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | A clear and well described and explained course with supporting slides to make it easier to comprehend. | described and explained course with supporting | Slide | to make it easier to comprehend. | Negative | 0.75 | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | it was a great review of grammar and punctuation, it would have been nice to print the slides as you go along. | have been nice to print the | Slide | as you go along. | Positive | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | It would be nice to have the slides for downloading. | would be nice to have the | Slide | for downloading. | Negative | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Great class. Some slides show awful colors. I think that could be improved. Also professional transition betwixt slides could give the course a more "polished" look. | Great class. Some | Slide | show awful colors. I think that | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Great class. Some slides show awful colors. I think that could be improved. Also professional transition betwixt slides could give the course a more "polished" look. | be improved. Also professional transition betwixt | Slide | could give the course a more | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Poor visual communications, it should be better since it is the only way to follow the course. Should be nice if the slides counted with a kind of animation to enphatize what we are talking about. | course. Should be nice if the | Slide | counted with a kind of animation | Negative | 0.68 | 2.0 |
| d0bq5PkAEeSBSSIAC7JSBQ | The only disadvantage which i've noticed in this course, is that the examples shown in the lesson are not correct number-wised,which make a little-bit confusion to the students. for example,the critical and oversampling slides, the shown sampled picture is totally independent to the frequency domain shown beside. | for example, the critical and oversampling | Slide | the shown sampled picture is totally | Negative | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| d1D5SCmGEeWEOhKP8F7imw | The quality of the slides, and the notes written on them were fantastic. It was a great experience. Looking forward to the capstone project. | The quality of the | Slide | and the notes written on them | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 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. | previous courses of the specialization: -Some | Slide | are not completed. Dr. Khurram Afridi | Neutral | 0.50 | 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. | completed. Dr. Khurram Afridi completes these | Slide | in the lecture, but there are | Negative | 0.63 | 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. | lecture, but there are not the | Slide | with the final result. I had | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | The videos are slow and unengaging and way too much text on each slide. A few of the assignments have been weird, not so good brief and hard to find out how to do it correct and well. | way too much text on each | Slide | A few of the assignments have | Negative | 0.97 | 2.0 |
| 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. | more dynamic, switch between explanations and | Slide | in full screen. Only explanations, it | Positive | 0.77 | 3.0 |
| 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. | read a well prepared set of | Slide | on my own. The first set | Positive | 0.92 | 2.0 |
| 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. | information, lots of examples and great | Slide | | Positive | 0.93 | 2.0 |
| eDkkVBq9EeWjrA6seF25aw | Las explicaciones son incompletas, por ejemplo no explican que hay que poner atención a la diferencia entre prefijos rdf y rdfs, pero luego los exámenes son sobre esas diferencias de sintaxis. Los exámenes están diseñados para hacer al estudiante equivocarse y perderlo, no para enseñarle y hacerlo practicar lo que hubiera aprendido. Además, algunos de los exámenes aceptan y marcan como respuestas correctas algunas respuestas equivocadas, con errores de sintaxis. (rdf:Property vs rdfs:Property). Los ejercicios prácticos asumen que uno sea experto en el tema y sepa qué buscar y cómo hacerlo, sin ninguna guía y asumiendo que uno descubrió como funciona la tecnología solo con mirar los slides ya que muchas veces los profesores simplemente dicen "así como está en el ejemplo" y siguen. Los ejercicios son abrumantes y producen más una sensación de que "es difícil" que de "aprendí algo". He tomado al rededor de 30 MOOCs y sé que se pueden hacer explicando y enseñando mejor. | la tecnología solo con mirar los | Slide | ya que muchas veces los profesores | Negative | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| eGUHRneUEeWtpg5GoAM5Iw | Parece que o curso foi feito nas pressas, sem muita qualidade. O código dos slides tem partes em inglês e parte em português, perece até que foi copiado de outro curso. Tem um professor que não da pra assistir a aula dele, ele se atrapalha muito na fala, parece que não sabe o que quer falar, e aos constantes cortes no vídeo. | sem muita qualidade. O código dos | Slide | tem partes em inglês e parte | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | He talks to0o00o fast and His slides are too wordy and I feel so sleepy When I was watching these videos! (I don't know why)! However As a PhD biomedical Eng, I'm learning alot from this specialization and I highly appreciate them for creating such amazing Idea. I'm Canadian and I know we have lots of similarities with you and I think I should make it for Canada and our university. Sincerely, Azadeh | He talks to0o00o fast and His | Slide | are too wordy and I feel | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | I thought this course would be kinda boring, but I have been pleasantly surprised at how interesting it is. Steve Parenti has a dry and sly sense of humor and the content gives me great historical and current perspective on the way healthcare works in the U.S. and to a lesser degree, in the rest of the world. Only quibble: There are lots of typos on the slides. Sometimes these are pretty amusing, but sometimes confusing. Also, some of the listed handouts seem to be relevant to the next course in the series, rather than to this one. All said, I think Dr. Parenti would be someone fun to go and have a beer with. | are lots of typos on the | Slide | Sometimes these are pretty amusing, but | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| EGWVwnE7EeWxvQr3acyajw | the quality of the lecture is poor - slides are dense and full of bullet points which the professor LITERALLY JUST READS OUT on videos. I did a google search, and found almost all of the analytical charts he presented, readily available on the internet. What exactly is the point in the lecture then? Instead, why don't you compress some valuable learning nuggets into half the course time, instead of hearing you ready through your ocean of bullet points, and needlessly underline (in red) the current bullet point your reading. Seriously, this is one the poorest quality lectures I've ever done! The quality of peer assignments to grade are a joke. Classmates are simply copying bits and pieces of the lecture material to make up the 'market sizing memo'. I seriously doubt the learning value in this class, and the quality of instruction. | of the lecture is poor - | Slide | are dense and full of bullet | Negative | 0.94 | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Its very boring. Just someone reading off slides. One could read from a book instead. No examples or explanation to the information on the slides. | very boring. Just someone reading off | Slide | One could read from a book | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Its very boring. Just someone reading off slides. One could read from a book instead. No examples or explanation to the information on the slides. | explanation to the information on the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Presenter is reading the slides. I feel I would have been able to learn as much by just reading the slides. CDN course is a bit more visual, with some maps and charts used during the course | Presenter is reading the | Slide | I feel I would have been | Negative | 0.9 | 2.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Presenter is reading the slides. I feel I would have been able to learn as much by just reading the slides. CDN course is a bit more visual, with some maps and charts used during the course | as much by just reading the | Slide | CDN course is a bit more | Positive | 0.93 | 2.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | very pedantic. course teacher just repeats the information on the slides verbatim. an interesting subject is made quite dull. would request more emphasis be put on presentation skills as the course material seems ok for a refresher | just repeats the information on the | Slide | verbatim. an interesting subject is made | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Good job on the explaining CDN concepts! In the two first modules, the lecturer just read from the slides. | the lecturer just read from the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Poor context, no real examples. The guy just reads what is written on the slides without further explanations. | reads what is written on the | Slide | without further explanations. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Repeating slides | Repeating | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Great Slides! The slides were good enough to pass the exam. | Great | Slide | The slides were good enough to | Positive | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Great Slides! The slides were good enough to pass the exam. | Great Slides! The | Slide | were good enough to pass the | Positive | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Slides were informative, but the lecturer did not add anything to them. One could complete the course by purely reading the slides. | | Slide | were informative, but the lecturer did | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Slides were informative, but the lecturer did not add anything to them. One could complete the course by purely reading the slides. | the course by purely reading the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | The course was very basic and there was nothing new in the videos compared to the document(PDF) . Instructor was only reading the slides. | . Instructor was only reading the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Map Reduce needs more crisp explanation. Too much content explained in short slides. Scope for improvement | Too much content explained in short | Slide | Scope for improvement | Negative | 0.8 | 4.0 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | It is a good short course to get an idea about Cloud Computing, Big Data and CDN. 2 Points to the gentle instructor, Please try to elaborate more outside what is written in the slides. and the other point, please revise the Cloud Computing quiz as it focused on dates and history rather than focusing on the core of the subject. | outside what is written in the | Slide | and the other point, please revise | Negative | 0.69 | 3.0 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Should be lecture by Professor instead of BS student. The content was not well organized. Also should prepare slides and explain the Swift for more details. More exercises needed in each weeks lecture. Hopefully, this course should improve next time. | not well organized. Also should prepare | Slide | and explain the Swift for more | Negative | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I have just started with the course and the introductory slides I found are perfectly designed. Thanks. | with the course and the introductory | Slide | I found are perfectly designed. Thanks. | Positive | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Great course, the slides and classes are clear and didactic. Recommended for anyone interested in public health. | Great course, the | Slide | and classes are clear and didactic. | Positive | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| 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. | much every single word from each | Slide | and that was said in order | Negative | 0.85 | 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. | also had no time in between | Slide | to pause, write notes, and make | Negative | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| FOGKYF0gEeWK1woL5P9cGQ | Please provide powerpoint slides on lectures | Please provide powerpoint | Slide | on lectures | Negative | 0.64 | 5.0 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Pace and content of the course is just nice. However, it would be good if more lecture slides were provided. | would be good if more lecture | Slide | were provided. | Negative | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| Fq__yk2bEeS5fSIACy-OMw | The lecture quality should be dramatically improved. Even at 2x speed, I feel Iyengar should further practice is presentation and redo the videos. In the conclusion, Iyengar states that no textbooks are available for the field because it is "new", but an Amazon search shows several seem to exist, and many of the studies referenced in this course are years old, even more than a decade in some cases... so I think better materials for more organized slides must exist. I've taken more than 5 coursera classes, and this has been my least satisfying. ... I do appreciate the introduction this provided, for free, and plan to keep learning in this space, though not in this course sequence. | think better materials for more organized | Slide | must exist. I've taken more than | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| fZN4SVfiEeWsGQ6fKrurvQ | Simple and well explained, but perhaps more information should be put on slides behind the lecturer. | more information should be put on | Slide | behind the lecturer. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| gbsG0MYYEeSsuSIAC8uEUA | Broad spectrum over view useful to beginners as well as advanced learners. would have loved to be able to download slides along with Transcripts for later revision , Thank you UMCP and the Faculty ! | loved to be able to download | Slide | along with Transcripts for later revision | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Unfortunately, no tutors/instructors present to supervise the course, which made inconsistencies between course material (slides, videos) and solutions calculated for assignments horribly annoying to deal with, especially for someone like me new to the topic. Further, the solver addin (needed for the week 6 assignment) is not consistent across different excel versions and libre calc, which resulted in a whole lot of guesswork to pass this assignment. I'm sorry to say the course never came close to my expectations, despite the very interesting topic. Would not recommend. | which made inconsistencies between course material | Slide | videos) and solutions calculated for assignments | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The teacher in the first few weeks is hard to follow; it sounds like he reads from a paper and he barely writes anything on the slides. It sounds like every sentence he says is crucial to understand, which is hard to follow. The other teacher does a much better job at this. The course would also greatly benefit with exercise material so you get a better feeling of calculating these things. | he barely writes anything on the | Slide | It sounds like every sentence he | Negative | 0.92 | 2.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | I find far too theoretical, too dry; no examples, no exercise guidelines. It's almost having someone reading the slides to you. Still useful for someone like me that never done financial engineering, to find all the concepts in one place. Hence the two stars as oppose to one. | It's almost having someone reading the | Slide | to you. Still useful for someone | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | This course is conducted mostly more or less by reading just the slides. | or less by reading just the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Low quality slides. Monotone lecturing style. | Low quality | Slide | Monotone lecturing style. | Negative | 0.99 | 2.0 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The content of the course looked promising. But then I took a first look: the instructor is reading formulas from a slide. This is missing the whole point of a online class. There is no motivation for the formulars, no context why they are important. And from a learning point of view the course is very hard to follow. No real advantage compared to reading a book on that matter. I just took the "Economics of Money and Banking course", which is one of the best courses I ever attended (personally in class or online). There are other great courses on Coursera. And for easy introduction to some of the concepts Khan University courses are unmatched in accessability. Too bad that this course doesn't match up to the above examples. The topics would deserve that they are presented in a way that they can be understood by a wide audience. | instructor is reading formulas from a | Slide | This is missing the whole point | Negative | 0.69 | 1.0 |
| gpAI9GK4EeWFkQ7sUCFGVQ | I was surprised to see web-based learning has achieved such a great level, and this course is exactly the manifestation of it. Powerful slides, excellent teaching and valuable data- these three things make this course one of the best on Coursera! | exactly the manifestation of it. Powerful | Slide | excellent teaching and valuable data- these | Positive | 0.9 | 5.0 |
| gpAI9GK4EeWFkQ7sUCFGVQ | Very well-planned out course. One can see that the organisers put a lot of efforts into this (the slides, the guest speakers and the videos). I wanted to get a brief overview of this subject, but got so much more. Thanks!! | lot of efforts into this (the | Slide | the guest speakers and the videos). | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| 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. | very informative course. The mixture of | Slide | lecture, small tasks and question is | Positive | 0.86 | 5.0 |
| gSfwG3HcEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Overall good course. Clean and elegant style of presentation. Some videos had some echo problems with the sound. Also there were some english typos in some slides and in video quizzes that should be corrected. I would like to seen the slides for the presentations. Also if this is going to be a series of courses wouldn't it make sense to bundle it in a specialization? Nonetheless, congratulations and thank you for presenting this course in Coursera. | were some english typos in some | Slide | and in video quizzes that should | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| gSfwG3HcEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Overall good course. Clean and elegant style of presentation. Some videos had some echo problems with the sound. Also there were some english typos in some slides and in video quizzes that should be corrected. I would like to seen the slides for the presentations. Also if this is going to be a series of courses wouldn't it make sense to bundle it in a specialization? Nonetheless, congratulations and thank you for presenting this course in Coursera. | I would like to seen the | Slide | for the presentations. Also if this | Negative | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| gttJnUtZEeW4rRLEP0z9Bw | The course can be informative, but the presentation needs some work. All of the instructional videos were merely a person reading a Power Point presentation to the viewer. The "in class" examples appeared to be completely hypothetical and were also read to the viewer without any video demonstration of how the presented information works in an actual class. In addition, the written information in the videos was confusingly organized and had not been fully edited. In multiple videos, there were typos. In at least one video, the instructors had not fully deleted the sentences from a previous version of a slide. When the revised slide was presented to the viewer, a word from a previous version was in the middle of the sentence. In addition, the previous version was obviously about a different subject. I was disappointed and continually frustrated with this course, especially since the instructors required me to pay fifty dollars in order to take the module quizzes and the final assessment. I have no problem paying for a good product. However, the professionalism displayed in the course was incredibly lacking. | from a previous version of a | Slide | When the revised slide was presented | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| gttJnUtZEeW4rRLEP0z9Bw | The course can be informative, but the presentation needs some work. All of the instructional videos were merely a person reading a Power Point presentation to the viewer. The "in class" examples appeared to be completely hypothetical and were also read to the viewer without any video demonstration of how the presented information works in an actual class. In addition, the written information in the videos was confusingly organized and had not been fully edited. In multiple videos, there were typos. In at least one video, the instructors had not fully deleted the sentences from a previous version of a slide. When the revised slide was presented to the viewer, a word from a previous version was in the middle of the sentence. In addition, the previous version was obviously about a different subject. I was disappointed and continually frustrated with this course, especially since the instructors required me to pay fifty dollars in order to take the module quizzes and the final assessment. I have no problem paying for a good product. However, the professionalism displayed in the course was incredibly lacking. | of a slide. When the revised | Slide | was presented to the viewer, a | Positive | 0.68 | 2.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course developed by Andrew Ng is quite interesting, going to the essentials in order student get the big picture and the essential tools for building the backbone of future ML applications. Of course, being confident with mathematics principles and notations will be helpful but most of the time, it's not an issue if you have the minimal knowledge. What it lacks on Coursera is the next stage of this course where we could investigate further the technologies presented but in more technical way. Maybe we might see that in the future... Regarding course supports (videos, forums ...), they are of good quality and the fact Andrew used them by drawing on slides helps to have a better understanding. We could notice that there are few minor errors (eg: a "j" index which becomes "i" in J(theta) writing) and I think the technical slides on Back propagation could be improved if a dedicated slide to used mathematical notations / definitions. Sometimes, there are some errors which could induce some confusions. But these minors errors don't hide the impressive work done by Andrew. Regarding assessments, quizzes could be tricky if you don't got the "spirit" (not an exam habit in France) and coding exercises are well structured in order the student will focus on the core modules of the lesson and not on information flow. These exercises are inspiring if you're interesting in teaching and inspiring for Data Scientist Apprentices if you investigate the utils functions developed to support the exercise. Many thanks for this great course and I hope my two cents will help other people to attend it Bruno | Andrew used them by drawing on | Slide | helps to have a better understanding. | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course developed by Andrew Ng is quite interesting, going to the essentials in order student get the big picture and the essential tools for building the backbone of future ML applications. Of course, being confident with mathematics principles and notations will be helpful but most of the time, it's not an issue if you have the minimal knowledge. What it lacks on Coursera is the next stage of this course where we could investigate further the technologies presented but in more technical way. Maybe we might see that in the future... Regarding course supports (videos, forums ...), they are of good quality and the fact Andrew used them by drawing on slides helps to have a better understanding. We could notice that there are few minor errors (eg: a "j" index which becomes "i" in J(theta) writing) and I think the technical slides on Back propagation could be improved if a dedicated slide to used mathematical notations / definitions. Sometimes, there are some errors which could induce some confusions. But these minors errors don't hide the impressive work done by Andrew. Regarding assessments, quizzes could be tricky if you don't got the "spirit" (not an exam habit in France) and coding exercises are well structured in order the student will focus on the core modules of the lesson and not on information flow. These exercises are inspiring if you're interesting in teaching and inspiring for Data Scientist Apprentices if you investigate the utils functions developed to support the exercise. Many thanks for this great course and I hope my two cents will help other people to attend it Bruno | writing) and I think the technical | Slide | on Back propagation could be improved | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course developed by Andrew Ng is quite interesting, going to the essentials in order student get the big picture and the essential tools for building the backbone of future ML applications. Of course, being confident with mathematics principles and notations will be helpful but most of the time, it's not an issue if you have the minimal knowledge. What it lacks on Coursera is the next stage of this course where we could investigate further the technologies presented but in more technical way. Maybe we might see that in the future... Regarding course supports (videos, forums ...), they are of good quality and the fact Andrew used them by drawing on slides helps to have a better understanding. We could notice that there are few minor errors (eg: a "j" index which becomes "i" in J(theta) writing) and I think the technical slides on Back propagation could be improved if a dedicated slide to used mathematical notations / definitions. Sometimes, there are some errors which could induce some confusions. But these minors errors don't hide the impressive work done by Andrew. Regarding assessments, quizzes could be tricky if you don't got the "spirit" (not an exam habit in France) and coding exercises are well structured in order the student will focus on the core modules of the lesson and not on information flow. These exercises are inspiring if you're interesting in teaching and inspiring for Data Scientist Apprentices if you investigate the utils functions developed to support the exercise. Many thanks for this great course and I hope my two cents will help other people to attend it Bruno | could be improved if a dedicated | Slide | to used mathematical notations / definitions. | Negative | 0.78 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Despite I guess the course has a pretty good coverage of the ML basics, it is definitely just an introductive class. In particular I was surprised by the low quality of the material. The following are my notes and suggestions: -- I found the lectures highly redundant, with many unnecessary repetitions -- using a vector notation (like an arrow or a simple line on top of the letters) throughout the course would have make formulas much more readable -- too much hand writing on the slides while talking: a better set of slides with blocks of text shown at the right moment would be much smoother and readable -- very, very poor video editing (many times it's clear some parts of the videos were meant to be cut!!) -- the desire to create a format suitable for people with a scarce algebra preparation lead to use not the appropriate terminology, which would be more correct and easier to understand. Just realize that ML is basically applied math, and without a good math knowledge it is almost pointless to approach the subject | too much hand writing on the | Slide | while talking: a better set of | Negative | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Despite I guess the course has a pretty good coverage of the ML basics, it is definitely just an introductive class. In particular I was surprised by the low quality of the material. The following are my notes and suggestions: -- I found the lectures highly redundant, with many unnecessary repetitions -- using a vector notation (like an arrow or a simple line on top of the letters) throughout the course would have make formulas much more readable -- too much hand writing on the slides while talking: a better set of slides with blocks of text shown at the right moment would be much smoother and readable -- very, very poor video editing (many times it's clear some parts of the videos were meant to be cut!!) -- the desire to create a format suitable for people with a scarce algebra preparation lead to use not the appropriate terminology, which would be more correct and easier to understand. Just realize that ML is basically applied math, and without a good math knowledge it is almost pointless to approach the subject | while talking: a better set of | Slide | with blocks of text shown at | Negative | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course was great. Thanks! It would be wonderful if you could make the slides available. | wonderful if you could make the | Slide | available. | Positive | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Nice introductory course on ML. A few typos in the slides could/should be corrected. Test submission (though Octave) should definitely be improved. | ML. A few typos in the | Slide | could/should be corrected. Test submission (though | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very Good course. Good examples Excellent quiz and exercises Slides are also very clear and easy-understanding | Good examples Excellent quiz and exercises | Slide | are also very clear and easy-understanding | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | very good!! hope can download slides. | very good! ! hope can download | Slide | | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Dr. Ng does a great job transfering his knowledge and experience on the subject to the on-line students, describing in detail every equation and every subscript. Since I am new to Machine Learning, I will keep my notes from the Course as a reference. The only minus is that I had to pause many times the videos in order to write my notes. Maybe, it would be better if the slides were offered as downloads... Thanks a lot Coursera! Filoktimon Repoulias | it would be better if the | Slide | were offered as downloads. . . | Negative | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | A practical course by a capable professor. Too simple in terms of theoretical aspects, but Prof. Ng is very good at making abstract concepts and methodologies easy to follow and understand. Great course as an introductory to Machine Learning. If you are interested, and want to learn more about the proof and in-depth mathematics behind, go to Stanford's site for this course. There are lecture notes, slides and exercises that students use when taking the course at Stanford. | this course. There are lecture notes, | Slide | and exercises that students use when | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing Instructor. Every MOOC instructor should watch a few videos of Andrew teaching ML.Sharing Personal experiences, providing industry insights and making the course fun and real life oriented. Using a pen along with slides is very important. Just reading out and explaining slides makes lectures boring and many students drop out of courses for this reason. | oriented. Using a pen along with | Slide | is very important. Just reading out | Positive | 0.84 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing Instructor. Every MOOC instructor should watch a few videos of Andrew teaching ML.Sharing Personal experiences, providing industry insights and making the course fun and real life oriented. Using a pen along with slides is very important. Just reading out and explaining slides makes lectures boring and many students drop out of courses for this reason. | important. Just reading out and explaining | Slide | makes lectures boring and many students | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Andrew is a great instructor because he explains things clearly and I like the way he annotates his slides | like the way he annotates his | Slide | | Positive | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I really enjoyed learning this course! All the course material, including the slides, quizzes, programming problem descriptions, are so well prepared. I like those subtle animations used in those examples in the teaching slides. They just simply help! | All the course material, including the | Slide | quizzes, programming problem descriptions, are so | Negative | 0.7 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I really enjoyed learning this course! All the course material, including the slides, quizzes, programming problem descriptions, are so well prepared. I like those subtle animations used in those examples in the teaching slides. They just simply help! | in those examples in the teaching | Slide | They just simply help! | Negative | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course is absolute garbage. You get no feedback on your quizzes or assignments and the professor is one of the most boring I've ever seen. It's absurdly frustrating to repeatedly fail without any feedback as to why you're failing. The lectures are clearly from a math perspective, as the prof simply draws what he's talking about on the slides. His hand writing is poor, and he does a lackluster job of explaining what exactly he's doing. Finally, pure lecture with no notes is almost impossible to learn, as there's nothing to read and study. I'd rate this course a 1/10, take the course on iTunes from Caltech instead. | what he's talking about on the | Slide | His hand writing is poor, and | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Some mistakes on the slides but they are all corrected in the forums. High quality and insightful. | Some mistakes on the | Slide | but they are all corrected in | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Really really great course. Went to machine learning meetup where this course was constantly mentioned, so I decided to do it. Very happy I did. As a senior developer, I can now have a conversation with the data guys, and can even bring some ideas to the table. The way Andrew Ng teaches is also awesome: he has slides on which he draws with a pen which keep things interesting and make things easy to understand. The Matlab/Octave practical provides extra insight in the course material and is very well set up. | teaches is also awesome: he has | Slide | on which he draws with a | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| GukyRC_jEeWv_w7cMMH1Uw | Would be great to have the slides available for reference. Also, future iteration may consider going a bit deeper. I loved the examples given in the course. Many thanks! | Would be great to have the | Slide | available for reference. Also, future iteration | Positive | 0.95 | 4.0 |
| GY2Yx6DxEeSt6SIACzgCKw | The professor teaches by reading the slides and does not even bother to explain the concepts. The course contents might be interesting, but now I'm dropping this course because they are not explaining any concepts but are just giving facts to memorize. | The professor teaches by reading the | Slide | and does not even bother to | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Does not give much intuition around the subject. I found the lectures a bit uninspiring. Lots of powerpoint (just text, no images or visuals really) and the lecturer just underlined the words he was talking about as he read the powerpoint out. I found the Udacity Intro to Machine Learning course gave a much better intuition and understanding of this subject. We also had slides on how to split data into a training and testing set on pretty much EVERY lecture - what a waste of time! | of this subject. We also had | Slide | on how to split data into | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Overall, this is a good subject. However, some slides are not well organized. Many questions in assignment are too tricky. | is a good subject. However, some | Slide | are not well organized. Many questions | Positive | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| hbvvfJLaEeWBSw79YYA_8Q | The PowerPoint slides are informative yet lengthy and boring at times. I hope Coursera can do something to make the lecture more interactive and less monotonous. | The PowerPoint | Slide | are informative yet lengthy and boring | Negative | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| HcZv2HHtEeWrAxJQXw-8PQ | Overall, a good an edifying course; I feel as though I learned a number of things about pharma and the medical device industry through taking it. The only thing that detracts from my rating is the clarity of the lectures: Bryana Mayer's lectures were a bit dense and confusing (particularly the first few), and she often read directly from the slides. For some of the lectures, it was not clear as to why that particular information was being covered. Despite this, I was able to gather useful information; it just wasn't always completely clear or easy. | she often read directly from the | Slide | For some of the lectures, it | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| hESqA3EhEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Great course, right what I needed as I use with statistics and econometrics in development issues, but I needed to add the "spatial" element. I would give the 5th star, if the slide of the lessons were available thanks! | give the 5th star, if the | Slide | of the lessons were available thanks! | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Great course! But the pace and content can be improved on. Issuing of lecture slides in pdf would definitely help too. | be improved on. Issuing of lecture | Slide | in pdf would definitely help too. | Positive | 0.88 | 4.0 |
| Hr9lByyfEeWccAqzeA4VPw | This course has great potential as it is an extraordinarily timely topic, domestically and globally. The accessible required reading assignments were thought provoking and topical. Also, one of the required videos proved helpful, and a couple of the optional Ted talks were "must see's" for anyone involved in the non-profit sector. It was problematic that there was so little direction with respect to how one might access the required reading materials that were not linked into the course syllabus. In fact, one of the links provided simply directed the learners to a youtube video, extolling the virtues of the book wherein the required chapter was located. Another blatant colleague marketing technique occurred during the course of one of the required videos wherein the organizer interviewed an author about his book. (There was some helpful substantive information that came out of that interview, but for the most part, I felt as though I was watching an infomercial.) Requests for help fell on deaf ears, except for those of co-learners. A small, but annoying, flaw was that the professors were simply reading text from their slides, for the video component of the course--with an additional word thrown in, on occasion, for good measure. It would have been less distracting just to have the slides to read. I wish this course had been designed and taught to the standards I have come to expect from Coursera courses. It could have been one of the most valuable yet. | were simply reading text from their | Slide | for the video component of the | Negative | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| Hr9lByyfEeWccAqzeA4VPw | This course has great potential as it is an extraordinarily timely topic, domestically and globally. The accessible required reading assignments were thought provoking and topical. Also, one of the required videos proved helpful, and a couple of the optional Ted talks were "must see's" for anyone involved in the non-profit sector. It was problematic that there was so little direction with respect to how one might access the required reading materials that were not linked into the course syllabus. In fact, one of the links provided simply directed the learners to a youtube video, extolling the virtues of the book wherein the required chapter was located. Another blatant colleague marketing technique occurred during the course of one of the required videos wherein the organizer interviewed an author about his book. (There was some helpful substantive information that came out of that interview, but for the most part, I felt as though I was watching an infomercial.) Requests for help fell on deaf ears, except for those of co-learners. A small, but annoying, flaw was that the professors were simply reading text from their slides, for the video component of the course--with an additional word thrown in, on occasion, for good measure. It would have been less distracting just to have the slides to read. I wish this course had been designed and taught to the standards I have come to expect from Coursera courses. It could have been one of the most valuable yet. | less distracting just to have the | Slide | to read. I wish this course | Negative | 0.79 | 2.0 |
| hwiBZm0vEeWbyw5d8C-Blw | Good class - links and slides have not been updated recently. Frustrating to finish without the exact linkts to the data. | Good class - links and | Slide | have not been updated recently. Frustrating | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | A very good beginning to the topic. Using together with the notes and downloadable slides of the videos makes everything easier to comprehend | together with the notes and downloadable | Slide | of the videos makes everything easier | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| Ijr8rurHEeSb-yIACwuKNg | While the visual set up is well thought out (you can see the instructor, slides and writing space, the setup of course materials is too stringent for the beginning chemist. More time seems to be needed focusing on the basics of chemistry and chemistry math (such as how to read CH4, sig figs, etc) prior to testing on stoichiometry. | out (you can see the instructor, | Slide | and writing space, the setup of | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful slides for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy questions and exams. Not challenging at all | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful | Slide | for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy | Positive | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Good as overview, but pretty shallow. Only some slides to read through, no real exercises but constant reference to the standard project management book. Pretty fast click-through as start into project management. | overview, but pretty shallow. Only some | Slide | to read through, no real exercises | Negative | 0.98 | 2.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | O curso é ótimo, a única que coisa que faz falta é não poder ver as lições em slides no dispositivo móvel. | não poder ver as lições em | Slide | no dispositivo móvel. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I love this course. I love how I can slow down the video for the professor to speak slowly and she actually does so I can take notes. I also like how she provides you with a slide deck on the lecture so you can also go over that as well to learn (or re-learn) the information. Thank you! | how she provides you with a | Slide | deck on the lecture so you | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I watched the entire set of week one lectures, and sadly I do not think this is up to scratch with the rest of the material on Coursera. The presentation is not consistent: there are slides, web cam videos, animations, and it just feels like the course is a mish mash. The University of Adelaide is running a similar course on a well known competitor site, so I have signed up to that. | presentation is not consistent: there are | Slide | web cam videos, animations, and it | Positive | 0.64 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | test questions far too easy slide show lessons not well structured and too focussed on repetetive concepts | test questions far too easy | Slide | show lessons not well structured and | Negative | 0.71 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I think the discussion on initiating and planning projects could be improved to be a bit more comprehensive and It would be great if the lecture slides were downloadable. | would be great if the lecture | Slide | were downloadable. | Negative | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | The course is well organized and useful. The slide is illustrative and clear. | is well organized and useful. The | Slide | is illustrative and clear. | Positive | 0.82 | 4.0 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Doing this course 'Initiating and Planning Projects' gives learners, practical skills on Project management based on PMBOK methodology which is framed by PMI based on contributions from experienced professionals in the field. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp, clear and lucid style of communicating ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | and lucid style of communicating ideas. | Slide | are well designed. Video quality and | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Well basically tutors only providing slides, speech, forums and ebook in this course...rest is self-learning, self-understanding, self-asking... if not, then you'll not pass this course i think.. | Well basically tutors only providing | Slide | speech, forums and ebook in this | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| 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. | few times it seemed like the | Slide | jumped right in while skipping over | Negative | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's ok. After the first lesson, I should be able to provide a clear elevator pitch with a high level understanding of what I can expect to accomplish (4 or 5 steps) as a Data Scientist. Instead, there was one slide that touched on this quickly, somewhere in the middle. What are the problems, how do I solve them, give samples. | Data Scientist. Instead, there was one | Slide | that touched on this quickly, somewhere | Negative | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Good Introductory Class, all though I think some of the videos were too fast. Need to provide more explanation on some of the slides. | more explanation on some of the | Slide | | Negative | 0.74 | 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. | that were not covered in the | Slide | It took me a while to | Negative | 0.72 | 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. | alternative would be that in the | Slide | there some guidance in this matter. | Negative | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Nice course for Beginners, No complains regarding course material, however there is little bit audio issue in some slides as it is bit low. | little bit audio issue in some | Slide | as it is bit low. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Everything was fine. It would be nice to add one slide about tortoisegit | would be nice to add one | Slide | about tortoisegit | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| 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. | correspond to the information on the | Slide | I successfully passed the course, but | Positive | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Slides and videos are a bit insufficient in order to finish course projects. Apart from that, this course is awesome! | | Slide | and videos are a bit insufficient | Positive | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I think this course could have been done in two 30 minute videos. It jumps in with overviews but contain some high level items you won't understand until later in the course and it really doesn't give enough context to be meaningful at the time. It almost seems like it was thrown together without a clear mission of what should be in the introduction. Being a developer who has used some of the tools in this toolbox (Git, GitHub, Command Line) this intro really glosses over tools that most non developers won't understand. If I had a say in what should be in this intro it would be one video end to end of setting up the tools. The second video would be all about the history and logic and some of the applications we will be exploring without all the r formulas in the slides. | all the r formulas in the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The Data Scientist’s Toolbox is a great way to dip into Data Science and the methodology behind it. The course is very general, and makes an effort to cover the bigger scope of things without delving deep in any. More than anything, it's a great way to learn the components and uses of data science and set a framework for all that will be coming after. The materials are very well laid-out and almost feel like attending college classes. The visuals and slides are a little dry, but the pace is lively enough to maintain momentum at all times. | attending college classes. The visuals and | Slide | are a little dry, but the | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Quite simple. It could be more engaging. When downloading PDF slides, links in them should be clickable. | be more engaging. When downloading PDF | Slide | links in them should be clickable. | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The introduction was very precise and straight to the core concepts of data science. Please include a slide with the road map of becoming a data scientist. | of data science. Please include a | Slide | with the road map of becoming | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Hard to follow with a lot of technical intructions right off the bat with inadequate explanation, a lot of "read more about this at <insert URL>." Videos were boring and the instructor was invisible just reading off the slides. Not very engaging. | was invisible just reading off the | Slide | Not very engaging. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I'm doing this training for the second time, now as a beta-tester. Particular comments about lecture content, problems, etc. have been put in every lecture. General comments, in short: 1) Related to the new platform and UI design: _ It is cleaner and simpler than the previous one. I like it, BUT... _ It lacks of some useful features: saving intermediate results in quizzes before submit them; calendar; limited number of subforums. _ The most relevant flaw: there are not downloadable versions of lecture slides. Unacceptable! No way to check most of the links we saw in slides (URLs not visible). _ Description and steps in course project appear "too packed" together. I prefer the former design. 2) Related to content: _ The course is mainly for preparing students for the rest of data science specialization program. When you said "toolbox" you mean the concrete toolbox you will need to do the program. Some people expect to have a general introduction to data science but that is only a half of the content. I think this is clear enough in the presentation but for some reasons there are people in forums who protest the content, so maybe you should insist more in this fact. _ I would like to suggest some kind of reorder of material: week 2 is all about installing a running tools and week 3 about key aspects of data analysis. Maybe you can split both types of content between wk2 and wk3 to make wk2 more appealing for not technical oriented students. _ Git is a source of problems for a good portion of people. See my comments in lectures about how Git is explained. | are not downloadable versions of lecture | Slide | Unacceptable! No way to check most | Negative | 0.7 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I'm doing this training for the second time, now as a beta-tester. Particular comments about lecture content, problems, etc. have been put in every lecture. General comments, in short: 1) Related to the new platform and UI design: _ It is cleaner and simpler than the previous one. I like it, BUT... _ It lacks of some useful features: saving intermediate results in quizzes before submit them; calendar; limited number of subforums. _ The most relevant flaw: there are not downloadable versions of lecture slides. Unacceptable! No way to check most of the links we saw in slides (URLs not visible). _ Description and steps in course project appear "too packed" together. I prefer the former design. 2) Related to content: _ The course is mainly for preparing students for the rest of data science specialization program. When you said "toolbox" you mean the concrete toolbox you will need to do the program. Some people expect to have a general introduction to data science but that is only a half of the content. I think this is clear enough in the presentation but for some reasons there are people in forums who protest the content, so maybe you should insist more in this fact. _ I would like to suggest some kind of reorder of material: week 2 is all about installing a running tools and week 3 about key aspects of data analysis. Maybe you can split both types of content between wk2 and wk3 to make wk2 more appealing for not technical oriented students. _ Git is a source of problems for a good portion of people. See my comments in lectures about how Git is explained. | of the links we saw in | Slide | (URLs not visible). _ Description and | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I would like to report some major issues with the new interface. 1) We don't have access to the slides anymore. This is a major issues since some of the slides content important links. These links are not shown in the transcript (I've double checked). 2) When we try to download the videos, subtitles or transcript, the resulting file name is the same for all content of the same type. More specifically, all videos are named "index.mp4", all subtitle files are named "subtitles.vtt" and all transcript files are named "subtitle.txt". This makes it more difficult for the student to save the files. In the previous version I would only right-click and saved in the right directory. Now, I have to right click, type the right name (which could be long sometimes) and then save the file. 3) In the previous interface, it was possible to see all the threads we were subscribed to. It is no more the case. It is not a problem right now, because there is not a lot of posts, but in cases where the number of post increase, it will be a pain to go through the list of threads and find the ones of interest. Please ignore the review for now, I couldn't submit my comments without reviewing the course. More comments may follow later... | We don't have access to the | Slide | anymore. This is a major issues | Negative | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | I would like to report some major issues with the new interface. 1) We don't have access to the slides anymore. This is a major issues since some of the slides content important links. These links are not shown in the transcript (I've double checked). 2) When we try to download the videos, subtitles or transcript, the resulting file name is the same for all content of the same type. More specifically, all videos are named "index.mp4", all subtitle files are named "subtitles.vtt" and all transcript files are named "subtitle.txt". This makes it more difficult for the student to save the files. In the previous version I would only right-click and saved in the right directory. Now, I have to right click, type the right name (which could be long sometimes) and then save the file. 3) In the previous interface, it was possible to see all the threads we were subscribed to. It is no more the case. It is not a problem right now, because there is not a lot of posts, but in cases where the number of post increase, it will be a pain to go through the list of threads and find the ones of interest. Please ignore the review for now, I couldn't submit my comments without reviewing the course. More comments may follow later... | major issues since some of the | Slide | content important links. These links are | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Great course! Definitely my best of the series. Highly detailed with very pointed insights. Slides were also very helpful in ensuring retention of knowledge. Great stuff- bravo! | Highly detailed with very pointed insights. | Slide | were also very helpful in ensuring | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| 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). | (videos - content and speed - | Slide | support documents, quizzes). | Positive | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Great! well-organized the final project, and I loved the fact that we had access to the slides at the end of the lesson. It had great value for me. Were very usefull | that we had access to the | Slide | at the end of the lesson. | Positive | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| iXq6zSWTEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Shame that the format was changed and the quizzes and assignments were not open. Teaching was as great as the first 2 courses, and slides were useful. | as the first 2 courses, and | Slide | were useful. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I'm sorry to say this is a poor course. The audio is bad, the sound editing is bad, the "videos" are mainly static slides that sometimes aren't even showing what the audio is talking about. There are no worked examples or annotated slides. As an example, there's no discussion of the difference between WordPress.org and WordPress.com. The only time that is mentioned is when they touch on plugins, where they say you can't use them if you started with WordPress.com! The additional lectures by guest website designers were the most interesting part, but they were supposed to be after the final project. I just gave up after less than an hour and went and played with WordPress myself. Created a website in 2 days, but with no help from this course. | the " videos" are mainly static | Slide | that sometimes aren't even showing what | Negative | 0.92 | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I'm sorry to say this is a poor course. The audio is bad, the sound editing is bad, the "videos" are mainly static slides that sometimes aren't even showing what the audio is talking about. There are no worked examples or annotated slides. As an example, there's no discussion of the difference between WordPress.org and WordPress.com. The only time that is mentioned is when they touch on plugins, where they say you can't use them if you started with WordPress.com! The additional lectures by guest website designers were the most interesting part, but they were supposed to be after the final project. I just gave up after less than an hour and went and played with WordPress myself. Created a website in 2 days, but with no help from this course. | are no worked examples or annotated | Slide | As an example, there's no discussion | Negative | 0.87 | 1.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | out mid-word as they switch between | Slide | I found it difficult to make | Negative | 0.63 | 2.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | star because the links underneath the | Slide | contain some valuable information, so if | Negative | 0.66 | 2.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I normally struggle to give poor reviews to free online content, but there are so many glaring fundamental issues with the presentation and content of this course, that it I feel it's important to warn people not to waste their time with this course in it's current form. The mapping and planning lectures raise some good points, but the rest give only the most basic overview of the topic at hand, glossing over steps enough that you would probably learn just as much watching youtube, or looking around inside wordpress on your own. The delivery of the lectures needs a lot of work, with distracting, erratic pauses between words, and the sound frequently cutting out mid-word as they switch between slides. I found it difficult to make it through more than 15 minutes of content. I gave more than 1 star because the links underneath the slides contain some valuable information, so if you can be bothered trawling through the slides you can gleam some knowledge there. Hopefully the creators of the course take on board the many negative reviews and give a major overhaul to the course, to bring it in line with the quality of almost all other content on Coursera. | can be bothered trawling through the | Slide | you can gleam some knowledge there. | Negative | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | Not enough teaching from the professors , just presentation slides. Which kind of reduced the human component of learning. | from the professors , just presentation | Slide | Which kind of reduced the human | Positive | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| jA4AZLlTEeWfYA612mWHZw | I can't believe this course is aimed at people with no experience in building a website. The videos are actually slide shows and use too few screenshots. Had this been my very first introduction to how a website was built I would never have progressed any further than these lessons. Much more in-depth information is necessary, including step by step screenshots of various processes. Terrible course. | a website. The videos are actually | Slide | shows and use too few screenshots. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| jcbwGG00EeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | I think that presentation slides should be offered to students. These slides will cointain information that is given by the expositor. Also, it is possible to offer a toolkit pages in each module to faciltate teaching.. | I think that presentation | Slide | should be offered to students. These | Negative | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| jcbwGG00EeW9CAqYJHF3zQ | I think that presentation slides should be offered to students. These slides will cointain information that is given by the expositor. Also, it is possible to offer a toolkit pages in each module to faciltate teaching.. | should be offered to students. These | Slide | will cointain information that is given | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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 | negative aspect was not having the | Slide | A lot of the topics covered | Positive | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| 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 | very fast and not having the | Slide | to review the materials made my | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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 and also did not provide | Slide | what was somewhat frustrating also. Also, | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | So close but yet so far ... Course concepts are interesting and the programming assignments are fun but the presentation can be greatly improved. Criticisms include: (i) The course isn't self contained. Physical concepts like 'resultant moment', 'inertial and body-fixed frame' and 'torque' are used without definition. Mechanics is not listed as a prerequisite but it should be. (ii) Lectures are very mathematical but proofs, intuition and good problem sets are all missing. Listening to a math lecture without doing challenging problems or deriving mathematical results to build intuition can be a waste of time. Check out John Cochrane's Asset Pricing 1 and 2 or Tim Roughgarden's Algo 1 and 2 for great examples of thoughtful problem sets and intuitive derivations. (iii) Way too much powerpoint! Speed reading a static powerpoint slide overloaded with dense mathematical formulas without using pointers or animations to focus the students attention is a recipe for confusion and frustration. I find hand written derivations, even when the handwriting is a little sloppy, much easier to follow than a static page of formulas plus a sound track. Hand written derivations impose a natural pace and focal point to the content. Check out Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra, Sebastian Thrun's Artificial Intelligence for Robotics and Andrew Ng's Machine Learning for examples of good derivations of mathematically sophisticated material. (iv) The programming assignments while fun were somewhat ad hoc and disconnected from the lecture material, specifically, the main task of every single assignment was to hand tune a pd controller. No systematic approach was ever described for performing this task. | powerpoint! Speed reading a static powerpoint | Slide | overloaded with dense mathematical formulas without | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | All in all the material, videos and assignments were very interesting and they made up an exciting course. However, some of the slides lacked sufficient information on notions or did not make references to supplementary sources. The assignment material (mainly pdfs) sometimes had typos which made solving them a bit confusing and more time consuming without actually being very difficult. Also for both slides and assignments the notations were not always consistent and/or variables disappeared from equations without clear explanations. I hope in the next offering of this course there will be improvements on these aspects. | exciting course. However, some of the | Slide | lacked sufficient information on notions or | Positive | 0.72 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | All in all the material, videos and assignments were very interesting and they made up an exciting course. However, some of the slides lacked sufficient information on notions or did not make references to supplementary sources. The assignment material (mainly pdfs) sometimes had typos which made solving them a bit confusing and more time consuming without actually being very difficult. Also for both slides and assignments the notations were not always consistent and/or variables disappeared from equations without clear explanations. I hope in the next offering of this course there will be improvements on these aspects. | being very difficult. Also for both | Slide | and assignments the notations were not | Positive | 0.97 | 3.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | not explained, just dropped in the | Slide | -there are many inconsistencies in notations | Positive | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | tool -supplementary notes are not available | Slide | for the main lectures are available | Positive | 0.63 | 4.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | the presenter to break down the | Slide | pack into parts corresponding to the | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall a good course. But I would suggest the following updates: -there are many formulas in the course that are not explained, just dropped in the slides -there are many inconsistencies in notations (for instance the Kv, Kp used sometimes, other times Kd and Kp) -programming labs should be given in an incremental approach; ex. instead of just requesting a full solution for a given problem, a stepwise approach where the functions are built up to produce intermediate results and slowly add complexity to reach that final goal is much more efficient as a learning tool -supplementary notes are not available -slides for the main lectures are available but they are attached to the videos; it would be better if they are added as an item in the course outline. Many other courses on Coursera do the same thing. Also it would spare the presenter to break down the slide pack into parts corresponding to the videos; just place the whole slide pack for a lesson. | the videos; just place the whole | Slide | pack for a lesson. | Negative | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| KoJTHEpJEeWJHwqqqPAooQ | As it is, unfortunetly I can only rate it as a 2/5. The lectures are presented in a reasonable way, but this is a somewhat technical course, for wich additional materials would need to be mandatory. There are no slides for the lectures, the instructor mentions chapters of a book and does not provide the materials to students pursue a more effective way of studying the materials. Also, the quizzes are excessively challeging taking into consideration that the only resource availble to students are the videos. In my opinion, presenting a course that only has videos is not an effective way of learning. To make this course more effective and to allow students to learn more effectivelly and get some learning objectives, more material besides the videos must be made available. As it is, no more than a 2/5 is possible to rate this course. | to be mandatory. There are no | Slide | for the lectures, the instructor mentions | Negative | 0.75 | 2.0 |
| KqKtbzXyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The course is quite short (videos are usually only 3-7 minutes long) and therefore could be completed very quickly and/or need quite little time investment. I did not like that they do not have any written materials cause at some points they go over written slides very quickly and it is tricky to follow and understand. On the other hand, there is a lot of repeats and therefore you will understand everything in the end. | some points they go over written | Slide | very quickly and it is tricky | Positive | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| KqKtbzXyEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Loved this course. It provided a wonderful framework for thinking about the social media landscape. I found it had just the right combination of videos, slides and articles to keep me engaged. Thank you! | just the right combination of videos, | Slide | and articles to keep me engaged. | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| l-VzSGYDEeWq4RLQvtY_lQ | The most challenging course of the specialisation, as the concepts are fairly technical and the quizzes demand a bit more "thinking around the corner". Sean Pinder's videos and slides are excellent. The quality of the exam materials was not quite up to par (several issues were reported by users and fixed later on). | corner" . Sean Pinder's videos and | Slide | are excellent. The quality of the | Positive | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| L7stsPOKEeSlpiIAC7NwBA | Great course, value tools and information. Would only recommend that there me more video explanation of the material that is in the session slides. | material that is in the session | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I couldn't purchase the course but I did all the assignments and followed along with the lectures and the instructions. The part I liked the most was the project based way of learning. The slides were well prepared. All in all it was a good and faster way of getting an intro into HTML and Javascript. | project based way of learning. The | Slide | were well prepared. All in all | Positive | 0.72 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Professor is really goooood! He explains the material from the slides, just as if you were in an actual class, i.e. he doesn't read from some screen. Assignments are challenging but easy at the same time because you submit the full versions in incremental steps. Good learning experience. However, I feel the course is a bit expensive for a three week period. | He explains the material from the | Slide | just as if you were in | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This is a pretty good course for learning basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. I already had some experience with these three languages, so consider that when reading this review. I found that the amount of information they cram into this three week course was pretty substantial, which I think is a positive aspect of the course. They don't just teach you what you need to complete the exercises, they teach you a lot of things that even more experienced users of this language may have forgotten. That being said, I don't think the amount of information covered is realistically anyone could retain in three weeks. I would instead see this course as a crash course as to what features are available with these three languages, then save the course slides as sort of a reference for when you go off on your own. My favorite part of this course is that the exercises are unique and fun. The HTML assignment is sort of boring, but that's because HTML is boring, but the exercises that use javascript are a lot of fun. To conclude, I think this course would be great for brand new web developers and also for people who just need a refresher. Good luck! | three languages, then save the course | Slide | as sort of a reference for | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I liked a lot that there are many short topic-specific videos and that I could download the self-explanatory slides. The concept of reviewing other participants' assignment worked well. | that I could download the self-explanatory | Slide | The concept of reviewing other participants' | Negative | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course is one such model: in particular could not be better structured. David Rossiter is clear, synthetic, attractive .. All the ingredients to make you want to take the course until the last slide and the last word has been formulated. | take the course until the last | Slide | and the last word has been | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | This course is for the absolute beginner who has never heard of programming before, yet it makes an easy slide into web development for experienced software developer as well. The professor is simply awesome, lectures are perfectly organized (although a bit lengthy more than needed sometimes) and assignments are totally on point for beginners as well. I wish it was a bit more complicated and challenging, but for the targeted level, I guess it was ok. | before, yet it makes an easy | Slide | into web development for experienced software | Positive | 0.91 | 5.0 |
| m0Du-7_DEeWn-wqIckNy5Q | Some slides are a bit childish. | Some | Slide | are a bit childish. | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| M7W0H9_dEeS2ayIAC7NlsA | O conteúdo é muito bom, mas a tradução do conteúdo é muito ruim. Há capítulos com legendas apenas em inglês, alguns poucos com audio em portugues, em alguns capitulos no meio das legendas em portugues há slides em ingles. Enfim, é nítido que quem fez a tradução e introduziu as legendas não revisou o trabalho. | meio das legendas em portugues há | Slide | em ingles. Enfim, é nítido que | Neutral | 0.50 | 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??? | come for a programming course the | Slide | with code are so poorly formated? | Negative | 0.99 | 3.0 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very good course, the content is great and well organized. The slides with code are a bit of an embarrassment for the University of California. The code is presented on what looks like a power point slide with bullets so the formatting and alignment is totally messed up, and then there are no shortage of typo's and code errors. But, the material is very good and Ira Pohl does an excellent job presenting it. All in all a great course and exactly what I was looking for. | is great and well organized. The | Slide | with code are a bit of | Positive | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| M9dntkEoEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very good course, the content is great and well organized. The slides with code are a bit of an embarrassment for the University of California. The code is presented on what looks like a power point slide with bullets so the formatting and alignment is totally messed up, and then there are no shortage of typo's and code errors. But, the material is very good and Ira Pohl does an excellent job presenting it. All in all a great course and exactly what I was looking for. | what looks like a power point | Slide | with bullets so the formatting and | Negative | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| 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 have a feeling like all | Slide | are taken from some scientific books | Negative | 0.85 | 2.0 |
| maX993EhEeWi0g6YoSAL-w | This course deserves more attention and love from learners. Despite the late launch, it is evident that a lot of efforts have gone into producing this course with engaging slides and comprehensive programming assignments with autograders included. | into producing this course with engaging | Slide | and comprehensive programming assignments with autograders | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | The course has a very important content. But I believe that it could improve it's quality, develop better slides, the teacher could be more dynamic. Other features like innovative assignments based on real life, partnerships with companies to provide content, and everything that could be a differential to the course will be awesome. | could improve it's quality, develop better | Slide | the teacher could be more dynamic. | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | A disconnect between Video Lecture - Transcript (horrid form !) - Slides - Test questions. Information flow should be more fluent. | Transcript (horrid form ! ) - | Slide | - Test questions. Information flow should | Positive | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| MEgKOpw3EeWILQ7D3uPEMw | Great course! The content was produced very well. The course offers the slides as PDFs & makes other materials available for download as well. The information was extremely good & informative. I say this as someone who has taken multiple business classes already on entrepreneurship, as well as reading several books, & listening to many podcasts. The only things I would suggest as improvements are to in some of the optional content interviews at the end of the course it appears that they used a stereo recording which seems great but is a pain when you listen with headphones. You'll have only one headphone speaker with any sound. Also it would be great if the optional audio recordings at the end would be available for download or some other method. | very well. The course offers the | Slide | as PDFs & makes other materials | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| MEgKOpw3EeWILQ7D3uPEMw | Overall good course. The slides should've been presented in only one document per module - like almost all previous courses of Wharton. All of the optional videos with interviews had audio problems (I could only hear them from the left speaker). | Overall good course. The | Slide | should've been presented in only one | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| mKzzYp5YEeWVBgpelZA5Jw | The course if well-organized and the instructors do a very good job. However, three weeks of slides and theory and then only the last two weeks of seeing code hardly makes the course project-centered in my mind. Also, requiring learners to upgrade to run an autograder on a quiz is ridiculous! | good job. However, three weeks of | Slide | and theory and then only the | Positive | 0.65 | 2.0 |
| mTJHKj0pEeSGwyIACxCdDw | I thought the class was very well done as an introductory class. Although I thought there would be an introduction to characters also. I liked the laoshi and the slides. :) | I liked the laoshi and the | Slide | :) | Positive | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| mwj3ASWcEeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Very common part which we normally miss up have been carry out for review and study which can truly enhance the skill for management, however some of the part seem to be remain just theoretical and hardly bring out for practice base on my personally view as senior executive. Clear lecture presenting do career coach especially for fresh graduate. Slide show given for clear view and note make are great for study. Overall this course came in with great presentation and crystal clear information given. | career coach especially for fresh graduate. | Slide | show given for clear view and | Positive | 0.96 | 4.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Excellent combination of conceptual and practical quizzes. Providing the presentation slides is a great note-taking aid, as well as use of "ride-along" notebooks. The progressive use of the same dataset throughout the modules greatly aided focus on learning the algorithms. | and practical quizzes. Providing the presentation | Slide | is a great note-taking aid, as | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | An excellent and quite extensive foray into regression analyses from single-variable linear regression to nearest-neighbor and kernel regression techniques, including how to use gradient vs. coordinate descent for optimization and proper L1 and L2 regularization methods. The lecture slides have some questionable pedagogical and aesthetic qualities, and they could use some more polish from someone who specializes in teaching presentation methods, but the meat of the course comes from its quizzes and programming assignments, which are well split between practical use (via Graphlab Create and SFrame) and a nuts-and-bolts assignment that have you implement these methods from scratch. An extremely valuable course for someone who wants to use these for a data science application but also wants to understand the mathematics and statistics behind them to an appreciable degree. | and L2 regularization methods. The lecture | Slide | have some questionable pedagogical and aesthetic | Negative | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | great course, I learned a lot. Videos, slides, quiz, programming exercises, a lot of fun. | course, I learned a lot. Videos, | Slide | quiz, programming exercises, a lot of | Positive | 0.94 | 5.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I was only able to complete week 1 to week 3 thoroughly, and random check on other weeks due to limited time at my disposal at this moment. In general, I found the course to be very interesting and an excellent introduction to building predictive models . Particularly , i appreciate the way mathematical formulations was explained to carry along beginners in this areas. Nonetheless, I would suggest that the general notation slide in week 2 should include concrete data example in a table to explain the notations ie. x[j], xi[j], etc | would suggest that the general notation | Slide | in week 2 should include concrete | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | (Beta-Test review) Status: Still on the first week. The content is an easy follow, though it might seem to be a slight difficulty for those without a heavy background in calculus. So far, all the links (to the downloadable csv's and ipynb files) work well. All the videos have no apparent bugs and/or problems. I would also suggest to have the slides available for download as in the previous module. I don't think writing over the animation is a bad thing as long as it's still understandable. As an aside, I suggest editing out the swallowing sound you might occasionally hear whenever either instructor is speaking. To some, it seems a bit off-putting. Great course, overall. Thanks, Marvin | would also suggest to have the | Slide | available for download as in the | Positive | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| myQGkjlZEeWJaxK5AT4frw | Need to provide the slides for the course. The videos are excellent. | Need to provide the | Slide | for the course. The videos are | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| myQGkjlZEeWJaxK5AT4frw | clear, intelligent, excellent verbal an slide presentation, rel | clear, intelligent, excellent verbal an | Slide | presentation, rel | Positive | 0.89 | 5.0 |
| myQGkjlZEeWJaxK5AT4frw | Thank you very much for the course. It was very good - would have been perfect if the slides would have been provided :) Would be great if there would be a course: Influencing People part 2 | would have been perfect if the | Slide | would have been provided :) Would | Negative | 0.69 | 5.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Strong Points: -Course content is well-organized -Good assignments that enhance the understanding of concepts Weak Points: -Some of the presenters need to strengthen their presentation skills -Lectures slides aren't good enough | to strengthen their presentation skills -Lectures | Slide | aren't good enough | Negative | 0.86 | 4.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The problem sets are great and probably worth the price, but the lectures become very hard to follow after week 3 and the discussion forums are very disorganized - it's hard to find useful information. Some of the lectures have slides available, some don't; some of the lectures have somewhat-useful subtitles/transcripts, others have incomprehensible garbled messes (I don't know if they're machine-generated or just transcribed by someone with no understanding of the material/vocabulary - logarithm != algorithm!). I really like the problem sets, but some of the lectures are pretty rough, just a guy talking in front of some pseudocode for 10 minutes. The instructors seem friendly and engaging, though. | information. Some of the lectures have | Slide | available, some don't; some of the | Positive | 0.74 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Def a useful skills to have when starting to interview for jobs. This is a hard course to teach to begin with. I found the lectures really boring, too long, hard to understand and just not really motivated well. I think the homework problem are good, but they are very time consuming. You need to use various methods to find edges cases and though that might be a good skill to have as well, it's just too much to get done in one week and somewhat frustrating when you're only stuck in one test case. I think this could be an excellent course with a few modification on the slides and adding more motivations and making shorter homework problems that focuses on the main part of the material for that as oppose to things we've already covered in the previous week. At the moment, I don't think I'll continue this specialization the way it's designed. | with a few modification on the | Slide | and adding more motivations and making | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | Toolbox consists of a series of | Slide | containing slimmed down explanations on introductory | Negative | 0.99 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | followed up with programming assignments. The | Slide | are the centrepiece of the course, | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | read mathematical definitions verbatim from the | Slide | and move on. I was often | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | the presenters read verbatim from the | Slide | and motion with their hands to | Positive | 0.63 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the | Slide | the times the presenters go into | Positive | 0.64 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | scribble in the corner of a | Slide | lacking the clarity I've come to | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Algorithmic Toolbox consists of a series of slides containing slimmed down explanations on introductory algorithmic concepts, followed up with programming assignments. The slides are the centrepiece of the course, as the presenters rarely stray from the bullet points and pseudocode they're comprised of. I learned a lot during this course. Although, to gain confidence in your knowledge, this is a course that will require you to seek out additional materials to supplement your learning. Perhaps unsurprising being an introductory course, but the presenters struggle when faced with setting expectations. Throughout the course presenters often gloss over fairly complex concepts, treating them as they were trivial knowledge. This applies to mathematical definitions, proofs where most steps are skipped, tree diagrams without the context of their underlying theory, or bullet points used in place of what could be detailed explanations. All material is left equally weighted. Rather than providing explanations like: "We don't need to go into detail on this, only x concept from it is important for what we want to focus on. Reference this chapter in this book for more detail." presenters would read mathematical definitions verbatim from the slides and move on. I was often unsure of how much I would need to know about such concepts. In terms of communication ability, the presenters don't hold up against many of the free/low-cost services I'm accustomed to using, for example: MIT OpenCourseWare, Udacity, edX, Khan Academy, Code School, Treehouse, etc. Perhaps unsurprising, as these competing services often feature professional communicators rather than professional researchers. But the marketplace for quality online education is definitely becoming a competitive one. Users now expect nothing less than presenters with exceptional communication/teaching ability. In most videos the presenters read verbatim from the slides and motion with their hands to explain concepts that would be better broken down on a whiteboard. Rarely straying from the slides, the times the presenters go into more depth on a concept, you get a scribble in the corner of a slide, lacking the clarity I've come to expect when approaching complex concepts from master educators like YouTuber PatrickJMT or Khan Academy. After a couple weeks into the course, I just went straight to the slides, read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and skipped most of the course videos. But all things considered, the course served as a good curriculum to guide my focus through the introductory concepts, regardless of where I sought it out. | I just went straight to the | Slide | read MIT's Introduction to Algorithms, and | Negative | 0.96 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I agree with some of the reviews here. It's fantastic at the beginning of the course. Towards the end, unfortunately the professor's accent is heavy and sometimes difficult to understand. The subtitles don't help either because they were auto-generated. My brain had to take extra cognitive workload to decipher what was actually said before trying to understand the materials on the slides and everything else. I also didn't like the way index 0 and 1 is mixed in different lectures. Why shouldn't we stay consistent in pseudocode using index starting with either 0 or 1? The slides are confusing regarding this matter especially when you translate algorithms into code. Nonetheless, I liked the assignments overall. The course's instructors included some of very interesting problems and indeed helped understand the lessons better. I also liked the course structure and the carefully prepared slides. | to understand the materials on the | Slide | and everything else. I also didn't | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I agree with some of the reviews here. It's fantastic at the beginning of the course. Towards the end, unfortunately the professor's accent is heavy and sometimes difficult to understand. The subtitles don't help either because they were auto-generated. My brain had to take extra cognitive workload to decipher what was actually said before trying to understand the materials on the slides and everything else. I also didn't like the way index 0 and 1 is mixed in different lectures. Why shouldn't we stay consistent in pseudocode using index starting with either 0 or 1? The slides are confusing regarding this matter especially when you translate algorithms into code. Nonetheless, I liked the assignments overall. The course's instructors included some of very interesting problems and indeed helped understand the lessons better. I also liked the course structure and the carefully prepared slides. | with either 0 or 1? The | Slide | are confusing regarding this matter especially | Negative | 0.98 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I agree with some of the reviews here. It's fantastic at the beginning of the course. Towards the end, unfortunately the professor's accent is heavy and sometimes difficult to understand. The subtitles don't help either because they were auto-generated. My brain had to take extra cognitive workload to decipher what was actually said before trying to understand the materials on the slides and everything else. I also didn't like the way index 0 and 1 is mixed in different lectures. Why shouldn't we stay consistent in pseudocode using index starting with either 0 or 1? The slides are confusing regarding this matter especially when you translate algorithms into code. Nonetheless, I liked the assignments overall. The course's instructors included some of very interesting problems and indeed helped understand the lessons better. I also liked the course structure and the carefully prepared slides. | course structure and the carefully prepared | Slide | | Positive | 0.73 | 3.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The course starts very promising, but it gets worse week after week, culminating on a barely understandable week about dynamic programming. That’s when I gave up and decided to write this review instead, with just one assignment missing to complete the course. Some of the teachers aren’t native english speakers, which is fine, but their english is very hard to understand. I found myself having to watch some portions of the videos over and over again in order to understand what was being said. I tried reading the transcripts instead, but the they’re even worse! It seems that they were automatically generated from the videos, thus suffering with the poor pronunciation. The teachers use mathematical sophistication that feels unnecessary, but to be fair, they do mention it on the FAQ as part of the necessary background. However, even though it’s an online course, they barely use any teaching method besides very raw slides, some dry mathematical proofs and someone speaking about the content. The only resources offered to help learning are a few open source visualizations. I expected much more. The only good aspect from this course are the assignment checkers, which allow you to write your solutions in multiple languages. I deeply regret the money and time I spent on this course. | any teaching method besides very raw | Slide | some dry mathematical proofs and someone | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | the content if very good, but lecturers are terrible. you better read slides and read any book you like. watching their videos it wast of time. | lecturers are terrible. you better read | Slide | and read any book you like. | Negative | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| NDBJAUWDEeWbNhIvIryYow | This is a fantastic course about the basics of Investment Management. While it is an introductory course, it does not shy away from some basic maths and includes some very interesting and instructive spreadsheet exercises. The quality of the presentations, subtitles and slides is outstanding. The quizzes are challenging but always within the content of the lectures. I strongly recommend this course to anybody interested in investment management who is not afraid of some basic maths. Moreover, I strongly encourage the team, that organised this MOOC, to create more specialized and in depth courses, maybe even a Specialization. | quality of the presentations, subtitles and | Slide | is outstanding. The quizzes are challenging | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Well structured content and great explanation on concepts. I really like the concept challenge portion as it helps dig into the application of the concepts explained in the lecture. It would have been better if the lecture slides were available in pdfs. | have been better if the lecture | Slide | were available in pdfs. | Negative | 0.98 | 4.0 |
| ngZrURn5EeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Seems like the quality of this specialization goes down with every course. The instructor is not showing us the way we should think about developing programs in NodeJS, but he insists on using PowerPoint slides to show us how to code! It's 2016, and there are way better mediums for communicating with your students. Simply copying and pasting code and explaining what every line does is not the right way of teaching any concept, especially when you are dealing with a new technology. For the start, the instructor can actually type the code and explain what goes through his mind during each step. That way anyone can follow his problem solving methods and benefit from the course. I had to take other online courses on Code School and Pluralsight just to understand what's going on, and later come back to finish the homework. | but he insists on using PowerPoint | Slide | to show us how to code! | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Overall, it is very helpful, though there are some typos in the slides, and more practice would be better. | there are some typos in the | Slide | and more practice would be better. | Negative | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Excellent teaching and concise material on the slides!! ideal for beginners | teaching and concise material on the | Slide | ! ideal for beginners | Positive | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | for the instructor: redo your lecture | Slide | or point out to all of | Positive | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | all of the errors in the | Slide | It is not acceptable for you | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | all of the errors in the | Slide | are. You only pointed out to | Negative | 0.95 | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Poorly executed. Lost my interest very quickly. I thought that this course was going to be as enjoyable as Dr. Chuck's Python for Everyone given that both instructors are from the same institution, and both courses belong to similarly named specializations, that is "...For Everyone", but I ended up disappointed. My suggestion for the instructor: redo your lecture slides or point out to all of the errors in the slides. It is not acceptable for you to just say that they contain errors and not point out where all of the errors in the slides are. You only pointed out to one error in the slides by the way. Also, I personally believe that it would have been much more interesting if you had not read off a screen for your lectures; try speaking off the top of your head. | out to one error in the | Slide | by the way. Also, I personally | Positive | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | While I was disappointed that HTML forms weren't discussed, this course provided very solid information. A lot of slide and code typos were distracting though and it felt like the instructor was talking less to me (and more reading from a hidden screen), which dampened the overall experience a bit. But the way the instructor explained the course material was very approachable and easy for a beginner like me to understand. After taking this course, I feel like I'm one step closer to thoroughly understanding HTML5. | very solid information. A lot of | Slide | and code typos were distracting though | Positive | 0.88 | 3.0 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Colleen is a great instructor and her slides work with well the content. Very helpful way to get a beginning | is a great instructor and her | Slide | work with well the content. Very | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 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. | just lecturers reading parts of the | Slide | that you had already read, but | Negative | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| 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. | This course relies mainly on PDF | Slide | (if I wanted to read, I | Negative | 0.94 | 1.0 |
| 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. | online class by the professors. The | Slide | themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| 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. | as if someone took already prepared | Slide | from a course and just kind | Negative | 0.99 | 1.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The subject matter is good, but the course does not adequately explain behavioral finance concepts. Most of the course consists of slide decks to read. There is a dearth of video content. I expected better quality from a course provided through Duke University. | Most of the course consists of | Slide | decks to read. There is a | Negative | 0.81 | 2.0 |
| 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. | matter) and I am expecting thought-through | Slide | with clear definitions, clear practical examples | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 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. | this course is comprised of simple | Slide | with limited structuring, as definitions, exercises, | Positive | 0.74 | 2.0 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Accelerated course but really concentrated. Practical and clearly explained. Perfect alternance of slides/lecture videos. Easily understandable by with economics background and by other as well with thehelo of the slides. Definitely the best among similar classes on Coursera. | as well with thehelo of the | Slide | Definitely the best among similar classes | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course was well put together and worthy of a 5-star. The only issue I had was that they blew through the slides to re-focus on the speaker who was elaborating on the slides. This is very inefficient and very annoying. I often had to stop the video to absorb the written words or take notes when they could have easily continued to play audio for 3-4 seconds longer before going back to the close up of the instructors face--which honestly isn't necessary at all for this course. | was that they blew through the | Slide | to re-focus on the speaker who | Negative | 0.63 | 5.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course was well put together and worthy of a 5-star. The only issue I had was that they blew through the slides to re-focus on the speaker who was elaborating on the slides. This is very inefficient and very annoying. I often had to stop the video to absorb the written words or take notes when they could have easily continued to play audio for 3-4 seconds longer before going back to the close up of the instructors face--which honestly isn't necessary at all for this course. | speaker who was elaborating on the | Slide | This is very inefficient and very | Positive | 0.83 | 5.0 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Wonderfully presented and very informative. It would be helpful if there was a copy of all slides used during the presentations. | there was a copy of all | Slide | used during the presentations. | Negative | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very animated and enthusiastic instructor. Providing the lecture slides was very helpful. | and enthusiastic instructor. Providing the lecture | Slide | was very helpful. | Positive | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Good, but it lacks proper materials to come back to - slides are very heavy and not clear and transcript is missing connections to slides. | materials to come back to - | Slide | are very heavy and not clear | Positive | 0.77 | 3.0 |
| OmgIw0C2EeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Good, but it lacks proper materials to come back to - slides are very heavy and not clear and transcript is missing connections to slides. | and transcript is missing connections to | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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. | helpful if the printouts were 1 | Slide | per page, as on the page | Negative | 0.84 | 4.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | I love the way the slides and material is available. The examples of Design Thinking helped me understand more of every step. | I love the way the | Slide | and material is available. The examples | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Good course! The flow of the modules fit perfectly. But I wished they uploaded the lecture slides and the templates for the design thinking process. | I wished they uploaded the lecture | Slide | and the templates for the design | Negative | 0.77 | 4.0 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Thanks a lot Jeanne for making available this course on Design Thinking. It was a clear materialisation of the process for exploring opportunities for innovation. i also love the slides with great formalisations of some concepts. Maybe one more thing, it was very useful to have a short overview of previous week at the beginning of a new module. it is coherent with how we manage our MOOC learning behavior, with sometime a lack of time and long periods away from tje course. Joel. | for innovation. i also love the | Slide | with great formalisations of some concepts. | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| op_vMOGiEeWr4g7T_DyXNw | The slides are unclear and very very ugly and old style. The assignment is very specific to Linux based machine. Only one programming assignment. More theory than practices. The QCMs don't really help understand. They are just about remembering values. I woudn't recommande this course since it is more like a book then it is like a course. | The | Slide | are unclear and very very ugly | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| OrpXgQt0EeS5diIACoo5jQ | I tried very hard to keep up to it but the monotone and forceful assertions without much hands on or without any lighter moments so to say got me to slide off. I left and resumed and left in cycles, wanting to make good of the course but the over seriousness and authoritative way of teaching finally got the better of me. Sorry, not for me! :/ | so to say got me to | Slide | off. I left and resumed and | Negative | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| oSAFEslDEeWCSBJ1_yk7Tw | The structure of this course is really good. The slides demonstrates everything clearly. The speed that the instructor talks is good too. | this course is really good. The | Slide | demonstrates everything clearly. The speed that | Positive | 0.99 | 5.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | I found the videos, slides and shared websites very useful. Another great Coursera course. | I found the videos, | Slide | and shared websites very useful. Another | Positive | 0.73 | 5.0 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Resources Professor provides are very helpful and well-explained. Each presentation slide is clear and easy to understand. Overall, I am very satisfied with the course. I wish Professor included more exercises for us to write and have a peer review. | very helpful and well-explained. Each presentation | Slide | is clear and easy to understand. | Positive | 0.9 | 4.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent pace and great course material. I like having both the videos and slides to refer to, as it allows me to continue studying in environments where I can't play a video. The content turned out to be unexpectedly useful in my work, too. | like having both the videos and | Slide | to refer to, as it allows | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very good BASIC course to get familiar with python data structures. Teaching slides and video clear and pleasant. | familiar with python data structures. Teaching | Slide | and video clear and pleasant. | Positive | 0.7 | 4.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very basic if you have some programming experience. You can finish it in 2 days without a sweat. Very clear, great slides, not boring due to Professor's great sense of humor. | without a sweat. Very clear, great | Slide | not boring due to Professor's great | Positive | 0.81 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Great content for starters!! Slides are easy to follow. Lectures are never boring mainly due to the witty professor!! Love this course!! | Great content for starters! ! | Slide | are easy to follow. Lectures are | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent for beginners. Many a thanks to Dr Chuck, boy he really makes it easier to learn. Quiz and Assignment reiterates the slides taking out revision pain. Personally I liked the extra videos and Dr Chuck singing "I got my Mojo.." ya.. | learn. Quiz and Assignment reiterates the | Slide | taking out revision pain. Personally I | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Brilliant lecturer. Good and not boring lectures, clear explanations and excellent lecture slides. Highly recommended. | lectures, clear explanations and excellent lecture | Slide | Highly recommended. | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | A nice idea but very poorly done. This would be cool topic to learn about but it is just so poorly executed. Week 1 was just introduction. Week 2 seemed okay, reasonably interesting with a video that although was somewhat dated in style managed to grab my attention for the 40 or so minutes in length. However Week 3 is where I get off. A 16 minute video of slides, with only a couple of minutes of narration in total with what seems like about 20 links to random articles over the internet Links to articles to read would be fine if done well, but with very little to join them up and link them back to the subject at hand is a bit boring. Also the worst part - the slides aren't posted so in order to get to these articles I had to pause the video and letter by letter type them into the address bar. I gave up after the third article and hit leave course. | off. A 16 minute video of | Slide | with only a couple of minutes | Negative | 0.95 | 1.0 |
| pFHWsjyCEeW7GArkqhNhJw | A nice idea but very poorly done. This would be cool topic to learn about but it is just so poorly executed. Week 1 was just introduction. Week 2 seemed okay, reasonably interesting with a video that although was somewhat dated in style managed to grab my attention for the 40 or so minutes in length. However Week 3 is where I get off. A 16 minute video of slides, with only a couple of minutes of narration in total with what seems like about 20 links to random articles over the internet Links to articles to read would be fine if done well, but with very little to join them up and link them back to the subject at hand is a bit boring. Also the worst part - the slides aren't posted so in order to get to these articles I had to pause the video and letter by letter type them into the address bar. I gave up after the third article and hit leave course. | Also the worst part - the | Slide | aren't posted so in order to | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Course was great for helping me understand the various elements of the project I'm currently involved in. I do think the course could benefit from providing handouts that elaborate on what the instructor says and for the instructor to elaborate a bit more (he mostly seems to read or skim through slides...). | seems to read or skim through | Slide | . . ). | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This course seemed to me the most un-interesting course. The content though important was not taught in a way to engage the student. The professor basically read everything. I could have easily done with slides than a lecture. Hopefully, this course can be revised to make it more exciting, interesting and engaging. | I could have easily done with | Slide | than a lecture. Hopefully, this course | Negative | 0.99 | 2.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This is a great introduction to Project Management, clear language and examples with PMI concepts and definitions. I would just improve the slides PDF files, there is no need to put one slide for each action, if there is a list, each element of the list generates a new slide. Anyway content is great. Thanks a lot! | definitions. I would just improve the | Slide | PDF files, there is no need | Negative | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This is a great introduction to Project Management, clear language and examples with PMI concepts and definitions. I would just improve the slides PDF files, there is no need to put one slide for each action, if there is a list, each element of the list generates a new slide. Anyway content is great. Thanks a lot! | is no need to put one | Slide | for each action, if there is | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | This is a great introduction to Project Management, clear language and examples with PMI concepts and definitions. I would just improve the slides PDF files, there is no need to put one slide for each action, if there is a list, each element of the list generates a new slide. Anyway content is great. Thanks a lot! | of the list generates a new | Slide | Anyway content is great. Thanks a | Positive | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Good material and strong overview of project management. The only improvement I'd suggest is the instructor needed to slow down the delivery of his presentations. His quickly moved through the slides at numerous points (especially with the clicker). Other than that, it was a good course. | presentations. His quickly moved through the | Slide | at numerous points (especially with the | Positive | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | (really) basic keys, the teacher's speech has interesting tips not included in the slides. | interesting tips not included in the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Instructor seems uninterested or bored. Sometimes he only reads the slides without adding anything else to the content. Others, he goes quickly through a slide without any time to digest the information. Overall, intro level concepts are ok, but specifics about creation or handling of tools is left without deeper explanation | bored. Sometimes he only reads the | Slide | without adding anything else to the | Negative | 0.67 | 1.0 |
| PLnREdJzEeSeOiIACzWBkQ | Instructor seems uninterested or bored. Sometimes he only reads the slides without adding anything else to the content. Others, he goes quickly through a slide without any time to digest the information. Overall, intro level concepts are ok, but specifics about creation or handling of tools is left without deeper explanation | Others, he goes quickly through a | Slide | without any time to digest the | Negative | 0.64 | 1.0 |
| prHAajqwEeWXuQopUhAqaw | I will give it a 4, but 3.5 would be my review if the 3.5 mark would be available. Strenghts of the course: Solid and elegant presentations, good readings, and the interviews presented with the ICJ judge and the PCA secretary added value. Weakeness and Opportunites: No slides, excessivelly short course in video resources (discounting the interviews, it had about 20-40 minutes of videos, what is clearly insuficient, when benchmarking with other offerings in the MOOC 'arena') and allowing quizzes to be taken on a 2x per hour is not in my opinion adequate. It makes it too easy and fast to finish the course and does not create an incentive to review the materials. Leiden should focus in presenting more specializations in the educational fields that it has reputation - Law, Tax Law, International Studies, in order to capture more value from the current lack of offerings of specializations in that niche markets. Threats: There is a lot of offerings on the MOOC space, with a finite time availability to make choices. By having courses that are very short, there is the risk that people become inclined to chose other offerings that offer more video resources and other materials. Besides my opinion - I am a critic by design, thank you for continuing offering courses in this platform. I wish you luck. Ricardo Oliveira | added value. Weakeness and Opportunites: No | Slide | excessivelly short course in video resources | Negative | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| q6hZQfQtEeS_qSIACxODig | The topics are of interest however the course content could be presented better. In most instances it is hard to predict where the instructor is writing and is hard to read. Also writes over the slide material. | to read. Also writes over the | Slide | material. | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | The course material as presented appears to be at least four years old. History has proven many of Professor Shelton's conclusions to be wrong. Having Professor Shelton read his powerpoint slides is a very dull way to convey information. I expected more from Georgia Tech. | Having Professor Shelton read his powerpoint | Slide | is a very dull way to | Negative | 0.84 | 1.0 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | the best video and slide and funny straightforward way of teaching easy to understand | the best video and | Slide | and funny straightforward way of teaching | Positive | 0.97 | 5.0 |
| QKGzLQoYEeWKzSIAC7Uk8A | The format of the course is not very engaging. The instructor shows slides with generic statements and then reads them slowly. The case studies are quite artificial and the answers are too obvious. I was expecting more tricks how to apply this in practice. | not very engaging. The instructor shows | Slide | with generic statements and then reads | Negative | 0.94 | 2.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Nice introductory course for database management. Assignments are challenging enough for beginners like me but I like that. If I'm already 'investing' my time into something I expect to learn something in return. This course gave me that kind of reciprocity. Course would benefit from radically different approach to video-lessons. Reading from power-point slides which are written in the same manner, have identical structure tends to become tedious after a while. Professor seems nice and knowledgeable but a bit more relaxed and/or engaging approach would be beneficial to many. Oh, and peer-reviewed grading, wherever possible, should be replaced with an auto-grader. That's not a critique, though. Not quite sure if it's even possible with this kind of material. | approach to video-lessons. Reading from power-point | Slide | which are written in the same | Positive | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Excellent course, with good video lectures. However, the written course materials, especially in terms of slides and assignment instructions, suffer from poor grammar and an occasional lack of clarity. | course materials, especially in terms of | Slide | and assignment instructions, suffer from poor | Positive | 0.66 | 4.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Do not be fooled by the course description. You do need to know some basics before attempting the course. Be prepared to look a lot of things up independently or purchase the "optional" text book. There is virtually no moderator in this course and the instructor does not grade or comment on the discussions. Basically he is reading you PowerPoint slides and adding very little to the lesson by watching and listening to him do so. Your grades are based on what your peers (who are also trying to learn) think or interpret the correct answer to be based on their limited knowledge and discretion. I would not recommend this course for someone wishing to learn SQL as it is not the main focus, it is only a small part of the lessons. | Basically he is reading you PowerPoint | Slide | and adding very little to the | Negative | 0.91 | 3.0 |
| 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. | seems much different than the PPT | Slide | and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The | Positive | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The specialization is great, and the course breadth and topics described in each is equally good. For this course, however, I felt like I could have covered what was taught by myself with a book, i.e. I didn't feel like it was class room level engaging with the explanations. I realized this is a one way MOOC, but I've taken courses off and on since they came out, and some others felt more interactive. This was more of here's a slide, I will read what's on the slide and explain some topics. The assignments were not bad, but definitely took more time than stated (just keep that in mind). The other thing that would help immensely is having TAs in the course. It's possible that they may get some later, but I've felt I learned/got feedback a lot more in courses with TAs. That said, this is an excellent introduction to databases course, and there's not many of them out there. If I had to go it again, I would, and I also paid for getting the cert - if anything for career advancement and having it on your LinkedIn profile as a starter DB course. | This was more of here's a | Slide | I will read what's on the | Negative | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The specialization is great, and the course breadth and topics described in each is equally good. For this course, however, I felt like I could have covered what was taught by myself with a book, i.e. I didn't feel like it was class room level engaging with the explanations. I realized this is a one way MOOC, but I've taken courses off and on since they came out, and some others felt more interactive. This was more of here's a slide, I will read what's on the slide and explain some topics. The assignments were not bad, but definitely took more time than stated (just keep that in mind). The other thing that would help immensely is having TAs in the course. It's possible that they may get some later, but I've felt I learned/got feedback a lot more in courses with TAs. That said, this is an excellent introduction to databases course, and there's not many of them out there. If I had to go it again, I would, and I also paid for getting the cert - if anything for career advancement and having it on your LinkedIn profile as a starter DB course. | I will read what's on the | Slide | and explain some topics. The assignments | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Wonderful course. As an Electronic Engineer, I've always have a lack of Knowledge in Data Base structures. Nowadays, not only software applications but software based hardware solutions depend on this infra structure to warehouse data and information. Moreover, we live today in an Analytic world, deep mining knowledge to make decisions every day. This Course met all expectation I had and I want to get trough specialization track. By the way, professor Mannino is a great mentor and quality of support material (book, slides, assignment, etc.) is totally above the line. | and quality of support material (book, | Slide | assignment, etc. ) is totally above | Negative | 0.66 | 5.0 |
| 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. | he does teaching relevant material. The | Slide | are of sufficient quality however to | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Some content is good and informative but there's a big problem with the teacher accent (adding a "ch" at the end of half the words) and his diction (hesitating on the other half the words). Also it seems that the course was created in a rush and lacks a lot of polishing(*). Sometimes the course assumes a good level in computer science and then 2 minutes later it explains how to do a decimal to binary conversion! This makes many videos boring but the slides are not provided so you really have to view the videos entirely. I've followed much harder courses with pleasure but here it was torture to finish it. Also most of the course is just definitions of some specific terms and not practical explanations. I agree that defining a few words is important but here it's just too much. *: Some videos are in reverse order, some are stopped in the middle of a sentence, some quizzes are bugged and don't give credit properly and there's nobody to help students... | makes many videos boring but the | Slide | are not provided so you really | Negative | 0.92 | 1.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | No one responds to questions. Lectures are not as good as other courses in the specialization and no slides available. | courses in the specialization and no | Slide | available. | Negative | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| qqRBbiEREeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | The quality of the slides, video, and presentation in this course is much lower than those offered by this Speciality or coursera in general. Very disappointed in this. | The quality of the | Slide | video, and presentation in this course | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| r0e9gyUAEeWxbhIkPfddLQ | I really enjoyed the Professor's presentation style, and the format of the course (quizzes with one large assignment at the end). It would have been helpful however to have had the slides available for download. | helpful however to have had the | Slide | available for download. | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| r32oHRuLEeWxXBLj8jbgsw | I found some slides to be inaccurate which makes the material difficult to learn. Also I found the instructor's presentation style to be too abstract. I think a more practical style would be more suitable. | I found some | Slide | to be inaccurate which makes the | Negative | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The course material is good, and Casey always gives further reads and references. I specially liked to have book references and I started to read one of those. I found however a disconnection between the idea of using the MDA/DPE framework described in the course, and the actual projects which were more into creating the set of documents used in game design to collect the details, create a better picture, and think better about the game. In some way, the iterative process of coming back to the idea, from document to document, helped to refine the game, but it happened more as something natural. I wished we would have had some sort of checklist to evaluate and apply during the design process the framework. As feedback to the instructor, I think he needs to stop using the ending word "right?" to finish his sentences. At some point, of the course it became really difficult to follow, right?. right?. right? ... ufff ... Also, I believe he knows a lot, but a bit of preparation and flow in his lectures would be appreciated. Maybe the use of some sort of autoclue, would help. Last, but this could be more for the course editors, the instructor has good slides and material, but usually during the lectures the slides disappear (just in the moment one need to focus his attention in the written material) and the instructor appears in first plane. I think you could keep the instructor in a PIP box all the time, and perhaps put him in first plane only at the beginning and end. | course editors, the instructor has good | Slide | and material, but usually during the | Positive | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | The course material is good, and Casey always gives further reads and references. I specially liked to have book references and I started to read one of those. I found however a disconnection between the idea of using the MDA/DPE framework described in the course, and the actual projects which were more into creating the set of documents used in game design to collect the details, create a better picture, and think better about the game. In some way, the iterative process of coming back to the idea, from document to document, helped to refine the game, but it happened more as something natural. I wished we would have had some sort of checklist to evaluate and apply during the design process the framework. As feedback to the instructor, I think he needs to stop using the ending word "right?" to finish his sentences. At some point, of the course it became really difficult to follow, right?. right?. right? ... ufff ... Also, I believe he knows a lot, but a bit of preparation and flow in his lectures would be appreciated. Maybe the use of some sort of autoclue, would help. Last, but this could be more for the course editors, the instructor has good slides and material, but usually during the lectures the slides disappear (just in the moment one need to focus his attention in the written material) and the instructor appears in first plane. I think you could keep the instructor in a PIP box all the time, and perhaps put him in first plane only at the beginning and end. | but usually during the lectures the | Slide | disappear (just in the moment one | Positive | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Excellent course: My only (minor) disapointment is that the slides are not available | only (minor) disapointment is that the | Slide | are not available | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This is a good overview to R Programming, though the lectures leave much to be desired, at least for a programming beginner. Watching the videos left me confused about key concepts, which I absorbed much better through the Swirl interactive exercises, the discussion forums and other examples online. Of course we are supposed to be "hackers," but I enjoyed this course much more once I just turned off the video, read through the slides and focused on other areas where I could learn the concepts. Also, the discussion forums were great for helping with key issues, and the homework assignments were also outstanding for making sure you absorb and apply concepts. So it's worth taking - just keep in mind the videos may not be for everyone... | off the video, read through the | Slide | and focused on other areas where | Negative | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | More examples are expected to give. Please don't write too much explanations in PPT during the speech. It is hard to focus on the talking and the slides at the same time. More pictures or graphs are recommended to replace the sentences. | focus on the talking and the | Slide | at the same time. More pictures | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course is not set up right, the assignments ask you to do things that aren't explained until the next weeks content, its kind of discouraging. In the end, it does teach you the basics of R, its just too bad that the way to get there is aggravating. The reason I still only give it 2 stars is because of the quality of the courses itself. There are many, many 1 and 2 minute videos, these could've easily been combined. The teacher seems unprepared in his lectures, he stutters and repeats a lot and makes a weird noise between slides. This shouldn't be necessary with pre-recorded lectures. The assignments and quizzes are also poorly written and contain spelling and sloppy mistakes, which doesn't make sense because the material isn't new. It all just makes it seem like the teacher doesn't really care and just wants to sell the course to a lot of people without putting in much effort. If you are not following the specialization I would not advise this course for beginners. I'm quite surprised to see the course get such high ratings. | and makes a weird noise between | Slide | This shouldn't be necessary with pre-recorded | Negative | 0.63 | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Teaching R programming can't be with reading from slides, the swirl library was helpful but not enough to grasp R, interactive learning with programming should be the way to go. I spend a lot of time learning from tutorials online.. Note: I am an experienced programmer with Python C#, and I found it difficult to learn this way. | programming can't be with reading from | Slide | the swirl library was helpful but | Negative | 0.63 | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Quiz and especially assignments were poorly written. Spelling mistakes in slides is simply unacceptable in high-level academia, in my opinion. Especially for a course designed for a global audience. | were poorly written. Spelling mistakes in | Slide | is simply unacceptable in high-level academia, | Negative | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| 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. | this course. I went through the | Slide | and I didn't really feel like | Negative | 0.72 | 1.0 |
| 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. | they had an hour worth of | Slide | talking about different trees and how | Negative | 0.73 | 1.0 |
| 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. | the many gaps left by the | Slide | They were definitely more helpful than | Negative | 0.64 | 1.0 |
| 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. | were definitely more helpful than the | Slide | show, but I still felt like | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The first 2 weeks have too many videos, which make it difficult to follow. This breaks the flow of the lectures and makes a lot of unuseful repetitions. The slides only have words and are hard to follow, no graphs or illustrations, this means that you rely on the voice of the lecturer to guide you, which is difficult sometimes. Furthermore, the code presented is not run 'live', and results are often lacking, which makes comparison with 'my own results' hard to do. Summary: Not that its a bad course (SWIRL is a great tool), just look for another course that's easier to follow. | a lot of unuseful repetitions. The | Slide | only have words and are hard | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | in starting going good .hope for next slide i am not good in programming please make for easy for new student .. | going good . hope for next | Slide | i am not good in programming | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | not the model of learning that is encouraging or sticks. hard for a student (even one who has a programming background) to sit through hours of slides explaining what the functions and definitions in the language do without a layer of use context upfront. The content jumps from specific examples to unrelated specific definitions without carrying a sense of integrating the new knowledge with any past knowledge in the course. the whole course seems disjointed. would have been much more effective as learning through examples and to be taught functions and definitions as they come up in problem solving. | background) to sit through hours of | Slide | explaining what the functions and definitions | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you have no programming experience in R, this is not the course for you, There is no link with the programming assignments and course slides. But a practice assignment is proposed at the beginning of the course in week 2. | with the programming assignments and course | Slide | But a practice assignment is proposed | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | To many text on the slides. Video resolution is not adopted for smartphone (Asus zenfone 5) | To many text on the | Slide | Video resolution is not adopted for | Positive | 0.66 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | 1) This course is NOT for beginners in R programming. Huge gap between lectures and assignments. Swirl lessons are cool, but anyway they don't explain enough. 2) I understand that studying is not always a joy, but lectures of this course are boring. First, slides come with brief comments of instructor. And second, it seems like the instructor speaks with no preparation as there are a lot of stammers, tongue slips, "sort of", "kind of" etc. It annoys a lot... | of this course are boring. First, | Slide | come with brief comments of instructor. | Negative | 0.93 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | It was a good class to begin with however it would have helped to tailor it more towards newcomers to programming language in general. I also would have like it if Roger would have highlighted or circled, or something to specify where in the slide he was talking about. I felt that at times it was hard to follow where exactly he was talking about and what part of the code/function he was mentioning. Im a visual learner and that would have been greatly beneficial. | something to specify where in the | Slide | he was talking about. I felt | Negative | 0.85 | 3.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Slides and videos are a bit insufficient in order to finish course projects. Apart from that, this course is awesome! | | Slide | and videos are a bit insufficient | Positive | 0.92 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Too short, too simple, too theoretic. I found of little interest the slides, partially interesting the swirl exercise, interesting the programming assignment. I would like to have a longer course with more practical examples. | I found of little interest the | Slide | partially interesting the swirl exercise, interesting | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Reading quickly slides | Reading quickly | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I rate this course as the beta-testing (not that I had completed this course prior the beta started). 1) the course is still very good with a lot of explanations and examples 2) I liked the part about debugging because we don't see often this topic when learning a new language. 3) I liked (but it's only a cosmetic thing) that all the slides have the same template/organization ; it's easier later when we looked back at the lessons to find what we search. 4) one (very) minor comment : I watched the videos with subtitles (english) and sometimes it also writes when the instructor thinks "loud", or repeat a word several times | a cosmetic thing) that all the | Slide | have the same template/organization ; it's | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| RO728xoIEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | The content includes interesting and useful Java programming examples. The lecturers are generally on top of their subject matter and can speak confidently without visible notes. The tests are thorough and you won't get away with only half-knowledge. If you take all the lectures and study the slides, you will generally get to the necessary level of understanding. | all the lectures and study the | Slide | you will generally get to the | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| RO728xoIEeWg_RJGAuFGjw | Amazing course! Very clear explanation of data structures and some basic algorithms. Very good preparation for the interviews. The only drawback is that the lecture slides are not available for downloading. | only drawback is that the lecture | Slide | are not available for downloading. | Positive | 0.83 | 4.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | great course. instructor used simple language, applied concepts and good examples. lecture slides are well prepared. | applied concepts and good examples. lecture | Slide | are well prepared. | Positive | 0.79 | 5.0 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I like the slides, because they are really interesting! | I like the | Slide | because they are really interesting! | Negative | 0.68 | 5.0 |
| RUyctXVFEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Good course with details on certain topics. It will be better if we could have the slides presented for download for future reference. The amount of time the slides are show at times is insufficient to copy down all the notes. | better if we could have the | Slide | presented for download for future reference. | Negative | 0.87 | 4.0 |
| RUyctXVFEeWIfhKr_WcYsQ | Good course with details on certain topics. It will be better if we could have the slides presented for download for future reference. The amount of time the slides are show at times is insufficient to copy down all the notes. | reference. The amount of time the | Slide | are show at times is insufficient | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| SG_K6nEmEeWxvQr3acyajw | This course is very good. It would have been nice to have the slides hence four stars. | have been nice to have the | Slide | hence four stars. | Negative | 0.67 | 4.0 |
| sK74dCWgEeW8-A6tkjXxWQ | Extremely interesting course, providing useful reminders in a world of blurred lines, and highlighting some key principles of what true leadership must be, and why it is so much needed. And as usual with CBS, materials (videos, slides, readings) were great. | as usual with CBS, materials (videos, | Slide | readings) were great. | Positive | 0.88 | 4.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I dislike this course because I have to complete so many assignment in one week. Instructions could have improved and slides could have improved rather than using chalkboard. Sorry there are a number of times I have to rewatch the videos and still dont understand. Hence I even have to place myself in another slot because I could not finish the assignment. Please improve on this module so that it is more enjoyable for learners who really want to learn. Thank you. | week. Instructions could have improved and | Slide | could have improved rather than using | Negative | 0.97 | 1.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I did learn a few helpful tips for analyzing data with excel - particularly how to do a regression analysis in excel which is something I didn't know and is not intuitive. But for a course that is supposed to teach you how to analyze data in excel, there are actually very few lectures that actually show you how to do anything in excel. So much time is spent on how to calculate stuff by hand, without even mentioning how it translates to excel. Also the lectures have a lot of errors that were not corrected in a professional way. Just a random slide put in as an afterthought. The lectures got a bit disorganized towards the end, like the professor was in a rush and then forgot to relate everything to actual business analysis. The final project was especially difficult as not much was explained - I had to read the forums to figure out what I was actually supposed to do. | a professional way. Just a random | Slide | put in as an afterthought. The | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | PROS: - Classification lecture is good; -Weekly assignments are challenging enough CONS - No slides provided. Professor draws on an eletronic chalkboard (with a very bad handwriting) and you need to keep going back to videos when you are doing the homework. For me, this shows lack of professionalism and laziness - Some excel sheets are provided. But they are very messy and badly formatted, matching the messy handwriting in the videos. AND, the instructions are for MAC! No instructions for PC are provided whatsoever. I never used MAC, so I had a very hard time! - Very few examples real examples are provided; - You learn math concepts, not Excel skills! Except for the LINEST function, which is very handy, BUT it's NOT TAUGHT in the videos. I had to google the function to learn it. - They say to complete each piece of the final assingment after you finish the respective week related to that piece. But they only say that as you start week 6! - The course doesn't provide sufficient material for the final assignment. You get stuck without knowing how to get to answers; - Some answers to the final assignment are not correct, you check the answer sheet, and the results aren't present in the test! OVERALL: I'd never recommend this course to anyone. I only took it because I'm plannening to finish the specialization. I've taken several Online Courses (5+ on Excel), and this is the worst and most frustating one by far! | are challenging enough CONS - No | Slide | provided. Professor draws on an eletronic | Positive | 0.83 | 2.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | very useful, but hopefully, there will be some slides for learning. | but hopefully, there will be some | Slide | for learning. | Positive | 0.65 | 5.0 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | absolutely one of the worst courses... I am deleting it from my list. no slides make it harder to follow. | deleting it from my list. no | Slide | make it harder to follow. | Negative | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| SzQW47gfEeW2iwpbOuagWQ | the lessons were too long in duration and i was really bored because the teaching didn't have anything engaging me to be more eager to listen and all the slides were with the same background and design and there were no pictures or animation or fun stuff to create some kind of diversity in the progress of the course. | eager to listen and all the | Slide | were with the same background and | Positive | 0.73 | 2.0 |
| SzQW47gfEeW2iwpbOuagWQ | Easy to read slide materials with concise presentation videos. | Easy to read | Slide | materials with concise presentation videos. | Positive | 0.77 | 5.0 |
| t1gZRTXyEeW6RApRXdjJPw | equally excellent experience would request if you could please share slides of all the courses it will help for future reference | request if you could please share | Slide | of all the courses it will | Neutral | 0.50 | 5.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The slide set is too brief, was expecting more details with examples & visuals | The | Slide | set is too brief, was expecting | Negative | 0.65 | 3.0 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Would give this course 5 stars to be honest. It's just that the lecture slides are not informative enough (only course outlines are there) & look like they weren't made seriously. | honest. It's just that the lecture | Slide | are not informative enough (only course | Negative | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| TcSA6RwWEeWBKhJRV_B8Gw | The videos did not seem very interactive. The teacher just read the slides. Good as an introduction, but not very hand-on course. | interactive. The teacher just read the | Slide | Good as an introduction, but not | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| 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. | in explaining the materials using clear | Slide | and easily understandable graphics and figures. | Positive | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | I enjoyed the course very much. It was clear, it included the explanation of its basic concepts for anyone who was not familiar with everything, and it came with graphs that backed up many points argued. I certainly recommend it to anyone who wants to start understanding the global financial crisis. What I did not like were last 2 lessons by Secretary Geithner, which I found very general and in contract to the detailed slides of Professor Metrick. Nevertheless, this is a great course. | and in contract to the detailed | Slide | of Professor Metrick. Nevertheless, this is | Positive | 0.89 | 4.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | This course seems to require a high level of foundation knowledge that I don't have. I had to leave the course before completion because of that. In fact, most of the videos were too complex to understand without prior knowledge on the matter and the deadlines are quite tight to have time to research all the topics. I believe the course content is quite interesting; but too complicated. I would appreciate less text and abstract drawings on the slide, maybe an intro with images (maybe 3D) of the human body to give a little bit of background on what's going to be discussed in the class... | text and abstract drawings on the | Slide | maybe an intro with images (maybe | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The structure is a bit confusing, and the review is not quite as intensive as I would like. Otherwise, it's awesome. The videos are good, the instructors speak at speeds just right, most of the slides are sparsely worded and well illustrated, the concepts are explained in depth... Awesome is the word. | speeds just right, most of the | Slide | are sparsely worded and well illustrated, | Positive | 0.99 | 4.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Course material reference readings were good but videos were pathetic. It was more like a high school kid reading the slides. | a high school kid reading the | Slide | | Negative | 0.76 | 3.0 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Videos are very brief - slide presentations of course outline. One has to depend entirely on reading materials to understand the course. | Videos are very brief - | Slide | presentations of course outline. One has | Positive | 0.83 | 2.0 |
| U-SKLJVlEeWF6gpQJiw6hQ | The content, although very basic, is interesting, and some of the teacher's insights do stimulate discussion, but the video quality is low, with non matching slides, etc. | quality is low, with non matching | Slide | etc. | Negative | 0.89 | 3.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Too much version specific details. Instructor was reading slides vs explaining the technologies ( telling a story ) The Quiz part cant be more lame | version specific details. Instructor was reading | Slide | vs explaining the technologies ( telling | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | I feel that I wasted my time and money on this course to be very honest. Should have requested a refund when I could. The professor really doesn't put in the effort like other professors on Coursera. He is literally reading out the content on each slide. The content isn't very enlightening either, it's just facts about mobile technology and their release dates. One can read that up on wikipedia I honestly think this course should be taken off this platform so no one else falls for it as I did. If you're reading this before you enroll, don't do it, don't waste your time and money on this. | reading out the content on each | Slide | The content isn't very enlightening either, | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | the lecture gave industrial terms and key words which is good but it is mainly reading from the slides, no elaboration or illustration. | it is mainly reading from the | Slide | no elaboration or illustration. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | repeating slides | repeating | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | There's a lot of detailed information here, but it's surface level at best. I don't feel I have a better understanding of how smartphones work. Although I am now more familiar with the tech components of a few smartphone models and the timeline of iOS/Android OS development, I am not able to connect this information outside of base facts. I'm not even sure how the smartphone components fit together, or what they actually do. It would be a really interesting course if there were more examples, such as how smartphone components work together or a deeper comparison between the iOS and Android systems is used when discussing the development timeline of each model, instead of pure cognitive knowledge being read from a slide. Maybe these concepts are explored further in the other courses for this certificate, but as a stand alone introduction to smartphone technologies the information is poorly imparted. | cognitive knowledge being read from a | Slide | Maybe these concepts are explored further | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Sorry but this is awful. Literally just reading from some very high level slides no dept to the course. I cannot recommend this course in its current state. | reading from some very high level | Slide | no dept to the course. I | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Honestly, this course was a waste of time. The professor seems to have gathered some information about the version history of iOS and android platforms, thrown it onto some slides, and then reads from those slides. There is no discussion of the context of those technologies. | android platforms, thrown it onto some | Slide | and then reads from those slides. | Negative | 0.73 | 1.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Honestly, this course was a waste of time. The professor seems to have gathered some information about the version history of iOS and android platforms, thrown it onto some slides, and then reads from those slides. There is no discussion of the context of those technologies. | slides, and then reads from those | Slide | There is no discussion of the | Negative | 0.92 | 1.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Information in this course is thorough and comprehensive. The material is entirely composed of the specifications, release and feature development, and comparison of Android OS and iOS. The instructor shows slides and reads the slides in their entirety. There is no additional information the instructor provides that is not already included in the slide content. The teaching is not very stimulating. But the instructor does cover the material completely. | OS and iOS. The instructor shows | Slide | and reads the slides in their | Positive | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Information in this course is thorough and comprehensive. The material is entirely composed of the specifications, release and feature development, and comparison of Android OS and iOS. The instructor shows slides and reads the slides in their entirety. There is no additional information the instructor provides that is not already included in the slide content. The teaching is not very stimulating. But the instructor does cover the material completely. | instructor shows slides and reads the | Slide | in their entirety. There is no | Negative | 0.72 | 4.0 |
| UA9HkQ8QEeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Information in this course is thorough and comprehensive. The material is entirely composed of the specifications, release and feature development, and comparison of Android OS and iOS. The instructor shows slides and reads the slides in their entirety. There is no additional information the instructor provides that is not already included in the slide content. The teaching is not very stimulating. But the instructor does cover the material completely. | is not already included in the | Slide | content. The teaching is not very | Negative | 0.75 | 4.0 |
| URpKtPs6EeSnBSIACi-PoQ | really I liked this model in which the slide is always appearing and the teacher seems very knowledgeable and interested in the subject. I enjoyed the class in which he was shown the lesson he gave to his students, was very cool to see their interaction with the subject and gave more movement to the course. I liked also that whatever the teacher says is on the slides, so I lost less time taking notes and paying more attention to what he says, giving more agility to the course. | liked this model in which the | Slide | is always appearing and the teacher | Positive | 0.92 | 5.0 |
| URpKtPs6EeSnBSIACi-PoQ | really I liked this model in which the slide is always appearing and the teacher seems very knowledgeable and interested in the subject. I enjoyed the class in which he was shown the lesson he gave to his students, was very cool to see their interaction with the subject and gave more movement to the course. I liked also that whatever the teacher says is on the slides, so I lost less time taking notes and paying more attention to what he says, giving more agility to the course. | the teacher says is on the | Slide | so I lost less time taking | Negative | 0.79 | 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. | an audio reading, please include some | Slide | pictures, tables so that the matter | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | A very interesting course about the basic concepts of astronomy with lots of additional funny videos and slides. Thanks a lot to professor Impey and everybody who created it! | lots of additional funny videos and | Slide | Thanks a lot to professor Impey | Positive | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Comprehensive, interesting and very useful course. The professor is excellent. The topic is presented from a different and very smart perspective. Unlike some other courses, the book is very useful. I just propose that you make the slides shown in the videos available for download as a part of the course material. | just propose that you make the | Slide | shown in the videos available for | Positive | 0.71 | 5.0 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The lectures are fairly good. However the course could have been made more valuable by either providing the slides used in each module or excerpts from the recommended book could have been provided instead of just an Amazon link to purchase the book. | more valuable by either providing the | Slide | used in each module or excerpts | Positive | 0.76 | 5.0 |
| V5SinKHsEeSqoSIACzsKQg | I thought the course was intended for health professionals and others with interest in medicine but both form and content were not particularly informative nor well prepared. The lengthy interviews were interrupted every third word, rather peculiar style of the lecturer and scant amount of information were all a bit of a disappointment. The entire course could be probably condensed and deivered over 2-3 hours. On the more positive note I thought some slides were interesting. I intend to complete as I paidfor the cert but find it hard to recommend this course to anyone, sorry. | more positive note I thought some | Slide | were interesting. I intend to complete | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| 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. | difficulty even to read their own | Slide | However, the worst part of the | Negative | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | Course was great. I wish there was more coding and more examples as well as the videos showing more examples rather then slides with text of the properties. | videos showing more examples rather then | Slide | with text of the properties. | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| Vh4RJTk8EeWJaxK5AT4frw | Quite easy to follow and with access to course slides easy to review when needed. | follow and with access to course | Slide | easy to review when needed. | Positive | 0.82 | 5.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Pros: Excellent material, great that slides are available for download Cons: The videos are much too long and have too much detail that could just be added as footnotes in the slides. | Pros: Excellent material, great that | Slide | are available for download Cons: The | Positive | 0.93 | 4.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Pros: Excellent material, great that slides are available for download Cons: The videos are much too long and have too much detail that could just be added as footnotes in the slides. | be added as footnotes in the | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Bad quality slides and presentation. not possible to use headphone since it was on mono not stereo. Interesting topic but not well executed to fit online learning | Bad quality | Slide | and presentation. not possible to use | Negative | 0.76 | 1.0 |
| WChOZHTVEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Great course and excellent refresher. Dr. Whiteman provided slides for all modules with spaces to write down the examples as following through the course. Use of props were excellent also, as my prof didn't use any props when I did this in Uni many years ago! | and excellent refresher. Dr. Whiteman provided | Slide | for all modules with spaces to | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 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. | 26 words of text on the | Slide | Really? ! ? ELEVEN MINUTES. 26 | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| we5nljlYEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The course content was somewhat scattered and lacked focus. I think the whole topic of the talent pipeline was completely lacking structure and cohesiveness. Cheri's presentations were not as engaging as the others and her slides were poorly prepared - often difficult to read and not necessarily related to the topic at hand | engaging as the others and her | Slide | were poorly prepared - often difficult | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| we5nljlYEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Quite good in average. Will be better to have always or very often the slides in background. Few presenters were not much interesting. Good examples given, but sometimes I do not see how proposition can be used on daily basis | have always or very often the | Slide | in background. Few presenters were not | Positive | 0.71 | 3.0 |
| X-3RoamkEeWu-gqgbeGTiQ | Instructors tend to talk too fast and read off the slides verbatim instead of thoroughly explaining the topic | too fast and read off the | Slide | verbatim instead of thoroughly explaining the | Negative | 0.92 | 3.0 |
| XgJjBB9pEeWS6wrbVw_uEw | During the lectures not all the slides were well revised and the peer assessments should include more specific guides. | During the lectures not all the | Slide | were well revised and the peer | Positive | 0.73 | 4.0 |
| xj2LNEUVEeWE9A7XSkBY3w | The deliver papers are great but slides are poor. In overall, a good course to begin learning about Data Collection and Analysis. | The deliver papers are great but | Slide | are poor. In overall, a good | Negative | 0.76 | 4.0 |
| XJUJYyzXEeWWqBIFfWmDPQ | Good overview, but would like to see more context (why is this important to know?). The history is interesting, but how does it affect my apps today? Lots of typos and grammar errors in the knowledge checks. Would like to see slides with text so I can read and listen. | knowledge checks. Would like to see | Slide | with text so I can read | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | In general, this course is great! Thank you so much for it. Great lectures, great videos, animations and slides. One thing I didn't like is the assumption, that cooking at home will do so much help in slowing down the obesity epidemic. Here in Ukraine most of us don't eat out, but obesity is prevalent nevertheless. | Great lectures, great videos, animations and | Slide | One thing I didn't like is | Positive | 0.64 | 4.0 |
| XRy7uCAeEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Proof reading needed, for the slides and for the quizzes. Overall, this is a low content course delivered in a rather boring and uninformative way. | Proof reading needed, for the | Slide | and for the quizzes. Overall, this | Neutral | 0.50 | 2.0 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | Unfortunetly I can only give a 3/5. There were more things that I didn't like and think that should be improved. What I liked: Positive to see Illinois keep presenting specializations on Coursera. The material was ok, with clean presentation style. The case studies is a very positive resource to have in the course to think critically. What I didn't like: The course is excessivelly short, with only 30-40 minutes of videos per module. Previous courses in both specialization - digital marketing and improving videos have at least 1.5 to 3 hours of video materials. A huge gap. Also if I benchmark against the top specializations from Wharton and U. Michigan (Business Foundations, Business Analytics, Leading People and Teams and Finance: Valuation and Investing) all of them pack a 1.5 to 3 hours of video lectures. There is a huge gap. Also I didn't found the quizzes challeging. In a digital world content is king - both in quality and quantity. You have quality, but are missing the quantity. Unfortunetly I see a trend - the other course of the managerial economics specialization also is very short. A minor thing that I also didn't like was the form that the slides were presented. As in previous specializations - in my opinion all of the module slides should be in the readings section in only one document, instead of divided in small pieces per video lecture. I hope that yu accept my critic as constructive because I have liked most of Illinois courses and was very impressed by the quality and extensive set of videos in the Improving Business speciaization. | like was the form that the | Slide | were presented. As in previous specializations | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| XupniISSEeWcSw7mZ7gPOw | Unfortunetly I can only give a 3/5. There were more things that I didn't like and think that should be improved. What I liked: Positive to see Illinois keep presenting specializations on Coursera. The material was ok, with clean presentation style. The case studies is a very positive resource to have in the course to think critically. What I didn't like: The course is excessivelly short, with only 30-40 minutes of videos per module. Previous courses in both specialization - digital marketing and improving videos have at least 1.5 to 3 hours of video materials. A huge gap. Also if I benchmark against the top specializations from Wharton and U. Michigan (Business Foundations, Business Analytics, Leading People and Teams and Finance: Valuation and Investing) all of them pack a 1.5 to 3 hours of video lectures. There is a huge gap. Also I didn't found the quizzes challeging. In a digital world content is king - both in quality and quantity. You have quality, but are missing the quantity. Unfortunetly I see a trend - the other course of the managerial economics specialization also is very short. A minor thing that I also didn't like was the form that the slides were presented. As in previous specializations - in my opinion all of the module slides should be in the readings section in only one document, instead of divided in small pieces per video lecture. I hope that yu accept my critic as constructive because I have liked most of Illinois courses and was very impressed by the quality and extensive set of videos in the Improving Business speciaization. | my opinion all of the module | Slide | should be in the readings section | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| xx-VwD-OEeWBrBIWi3mmCw | There is quality implicit in the approach taken, but in my opinion, this course is excessively short, having only 20-25 minutes of videos per week, what is very limiting. Also there is no slides of the material covered what I find not adequate. To fully grasp the theories underlyind in the lectures, slides would be determinant. Just watching videos and doing quizzes is not a very effective form of learning. | very limiting. Also there is no | Slide | of the material covered what I | Negative | 0.74 | 2.0 |
| xx-VwD-OEeWBrBIWi3mmCw | There is quality implicit in the approach taken, but in my opinion, this course is excessively short, having only 20-25 minutes of videos per week, what is very limiting. Also there is no slides of the material covered what I find not adequate. To fully grasp the theories underlyind in the lectures, slides would be determinant. Just watching videos and doing quizzes is not a very effective form of learning. | the theories underlyind in the lectures, | Slide | would be determinant. Just watching videos | Negative | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | It is too hard to understand what he is saying, his accent is impossible to follow. Besides, the lectures are not dynamic, it is just him reading the slides with the most monotonous and boring voice ever. I took the first course of the specialization with David and this is the complete opposite. I would love to see the whole 5 courses with David and not only the first one. | it is just him reading the | Slide | with the most monotonous and boring | Negative | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I audited this course and did the assignments independently. This course focuses on examining Bootstrap's CSS and Javascript components in much detail. Towards the end one is introduced to NPM and Bower. Concepts are explained through a project. Nearly all major components of Bootstrap were covered, many of which are often ignored in other courses I have taken. The course materials (the slides) are very well made. I like the pace at which this course goes and the instructors are very active and helpful on the discussion forums. | have taken. The course materials (the | Slide | are very well made. I like | Positive | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | -I like the teacher a lot. He speaks understandable, at the right speed and he explains well in my opinion. -The slides contain just the right information. I like the practical approach especially. -Assigment was a bit easy, but still covered the essentials. | explains well in my opinion. -The | Slide | contain just the right information. I | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The lecture is well organized, slides are very clear and easy to follow. After each class, there is a clear instruction on exercises available both in PDF format and video format, which is very helpful for beginner like me. | The lecture is well organized, | Slide | are very clear and easy to | Positive | 0.98 | 5.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | So many powerpoint slides.. It's very boring course. The tutor just read slides without deep explanations, wikipedia much more interesting. It's just observing course, theoretical 95%. | So many powerpoint | Slide | . It's very boring course. The | Negative | 0.88 | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | So many powerpoint slides.. It's very boring course. The tutor just read slides without deep explanations, wikipedia much more interesting. It's just observing course, theoretical 95%. | boring course. The tutor just read | Slide | without deep explanations, wikipedia much more | Negative | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Good course! It will be much better if the slides can be packaged in a zip file for the learners to download. | will be much better if the | Slide | can be packaged in a zip | Negative | 0.87 | 5.0 |
| yE4SeOsyEeWaMA7Pe7xMzw | Main issues I encountered in the course: - many videos end with a suggestion to "refer to the suggested materials for more information". Which are these materials, and where can they be found? - the slides could use some diagrams here and there, as the constant text screens are monotonous and make understanding harder in some cases - the course does not settle on a balance between breadth and depth of information. Some aspects are presented at a very high level, yet using very specialised terminology and concepts. For instance, context switching when describing the disadvantages of microkernels, or pre-emptively scheduled systems - I have a CS background and had no problem with these aspects, but I am aware I am highly subjective. It's a case of "chicken and egg", where if you understand the low level concepts you probably don't need the course, and if you don't understand them you also can't understand the high level concepts. - At the end of the Week 3 videos describing the three OSs, it is said "In order to know the details on how to write a program and run applications in Riot/Contiki/TinyOS, please come back to our lectures who have more detailed videos." Which lectures are these, and where can they be found? - the only practical exercises in the course (Week 4) are only vaguely related to the course's targets ----- All this being said, it is an ok introduction to the embedded OS world, if you bring your own CS and OS background knowledge. | can they be found? - the | Slide | could use some diagrams here and | Negative | 0.68 | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | The slides are very difficult to follow. It could be better designed | The | Slide | are very difficult to follow. It | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Many videos lacked associated pdf slides so confusing to watch. Some topics on slides were not covered in videos. A supplemental video for those would be great even of optional. Brian Cato is a good presenter, however, more examples needed to be done showing how to work out various statistical problems both by traditional method and using R. | Many videos lacked associated pdf | Slide | so confusing to watch. Some topics | Negative | 0.69 | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Many videos lacked associated pdf slides so confusing to watch. Some topics on slides were not covered in videos. A supplemental video for those would be great even of optional. Brian Cato is a good presenter, however, more examples needed to be done showing how to work out various statistical problems both by traditional method and using R. | confusing to watch. Some topics on | Slide | were not covered in videos. A | Negative | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | Very poor lessons: a lot of theory for a brief period like a one-month course. The material (both on the slides and on swirl) is not explained in a clear way and so it results as very confusing mess of concepts. LOTS of typos, especially in the LittleBookInference. This course needs a careful revision by the authors. | course. The material (both on the | Slide | and on swirl) is not explained | Neutral | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This is 3rd time I a trying this course. Labeling someone just reading the slides out loud as a course is ridiculous. I have to express that this is horrible, Please don't callout a course. Call it Audio Slides. I have a Master's degree in engineering and have won scholarship all my life. This is the first time I am trying out on-line course. The courses were okay till I came to this sections mostly done by Brian Jaffe. Knowing and teaching is two different things, Brian! I will continue, with help from other materials outside the course. But I have ti rate this as 1 star. | course. Labeling someone just reading the | Slide | out loud as a course is | Negative | 0.69 | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | This is 3rd time I a trying this course. Labeling someone just reading the slides out loud as a course is ridiculous. I have to express that this is horrible, Please don't callout a course. Call it Audio Slides. I have a Master's degree in engineering and have won scholarship all my life. This is the first time I am trying out on-line course. The courses were okay till I came to this sections mostly done by Brian Jaffe. Knowing and teaching is two different things, Brian! I will continue, with help from other materials outside the course. But I have ti rate this as 1 star. | callout a course. Call it Audio | Slide | I have a Master's degree in | Negative | 0.73 | 1.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | I am left feeling this course needs work. I don't know if it's the pain of switching to the new platform or what, but the total lack of any support from the TA/instructor team is frustrating. Add to that the fact that Brian skips from slide to slide very quickly often not providing adequate explanations and you'll be re-watching the videos many times over. Several of the videos have blatant errors in them, like the fast that the fourth video of a week also contains the entire third video... again. Such things should not have passed a half decent QA test. More than anything this specialization should not be marketed as "no previous experience needed". You need to know some statistics. And by some, I mean do the whole thing on Khan Academy first. | the fact that Brian skips from | Slide | to slide very quickly often not | Positive | 0.77 | 2.0 |
| YfjiOHROEeWLqw7zlLhRzQ | I am left feeling this course needs work. I don't know if it's the pain of switching to the new platform or what, but the total lack of any support from the TA/instructor team is frustrating. Add to that the fact that Brian skips from slide to slide very quickly often not providing adequate explanations and you'll be re-watching the videos many times over. Several of the videos have blatant errors in them, like the fast that the fourth video of a week also contains the entire third video... again. Such things should not have passed a half decent QA test. More than anything this specialization should not be marketed as "no previous experience needed". You need to know some statistics. And by some, I mean do the whole thing on Khan Academy first. | that Brian skips from slide to | Slide | very quickly often not providing adequate | Positive | 0.67 | 2.0 |
| yJFvuj06EeWBrBIWi3mmCw | In my opinion the positive thing of this course is bringing a very important area to Coursera. But there are some things that I believe could and should be improved. First, Duke has presented courses that have a lot of content, and it is a bit disapointing to only see two modules on this course. At least four modules should be presented. Also the weekly content should be more extended. In most parts of the course there are a lot of technical concepts, and the course lacks any type of resources. It should had been included the lecture slides and also external sources for further student development. Just having the videos to learn doesn't provide - again in my opinion, a very engaging learning experience. A small detail - in part of the course page the course is entitled Oil & Gas Industries, while in another place is entitled Oil & Gas Industry. A small detail but it should be corrected. This is my opinion. | should had been included the lecture | Slide | and also external sources for further | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| yn4BHt70EeWDLBKS83bB7Q | A nice course for beginners that include basics of communication, satellite segments and services. Please include slides when the course reruns in future and additional study resources for better understanding of concepts. | satellite segments and services. Please include | Slide | when the course reruns in future | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | Wonderful course. It was very well written with all major topics covered. Bonus video and Panelists Interview were also very helpful. However I would like to mention a small mistake in the week 4th's lesson, slide no. 3.23 has a network diagram, which has last activity written A instead of I. It changes the calculation for complete forward and backward pass. Also, Margaret explained the network forward and backward pass with the value of first day as 1. However in the lesson it was taken as 0, which again changes the formulas she described in the video. It's not difficult to understand the difference but it somehow breaks the harmony. | mistake in the week 4th's lesson, | Slide | no. 3. 23 has a network | Negative | 0.74 | 4.0 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | I don't really like the format. I want lectures from the instructor, not animation and slides. | from the instructor, not animation and | Slide | | Neutral | 0.50 | 3.0 |
| YOH__fNOEeSbSyIACxeWxg | Doing this course 'Budgeting and Scheduling projects' gives learners, a practical approach to Project management based on PMBOK methodology. Prof Margaret Meloni is a great teacher. Students will enjoy her crisp and clear communication of ideas. Slides are well designed. Video quality and sound quality is also great. You will encounter lots of good quality reading materials. Quizzes will help you to test your knowledge as you progress. Overall, an excellent course fit for project managers and project team members who work for construction projects. Also good for the aspiring project managers. Thanks to Prof Margaret and UC Irvine for the great course. | crisp and clear communication of ideas. | Slide | are well designed. Video quality and | Positive | 0.94 | 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 :( | for topics which interested me. Also | Slide | are very useful 3. The forum! | Positive | 0.95 | 5.0 |
| yQcuJCOcEeagwg7hVay0BQ | I really liked the videos and the lecture slides. I think the assignments were really good as well, but had the feeling sometimes small but important informations were missing or not placed well enough. I read the description for the 8puzzle half a dozen times, but that this is not actually solving the task in the optimal amount of moves but rather in some arbitrary amount of moves (we just output the optimal moves) somehow escaped my attention. | liked the videos and the lecture | Slide | I think the assignments were really | Positive | 0.68 | 4.0 |
| 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. | seems much different than the PPT | Slide | and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The | Positive | 0.68 | 3.0 |
| zKZY59dlEeSQOCIAC0ELFw | Videos were a little slow. I would prefer more slides and factual information to memorize and then videos as an option to hear opinion and real time experience. | little slow. I would prefer more | Slide | and factual information to memorize and | Positive | 0.85 | 4.0 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | A very engaging approach to online teaching, that is very effective at keeping you from zoning out while staring at boring slides of text with someone speaking over top of it. I wish more online learning courses would follow this example. | zoning out while staring at boring | Slide | of text with someone speaking over | Negative | 0.96 | 5.0 |
| ZNeGqEC2EeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | I found this course very helpful and understandable ...The slides are very beautiful designed ..I had never learnt Statistics in this way! The examples are related to our daily life! It makes everything easier to learn... Thank you very much all who works on this course from University of Amsterdam | and understandable . . . The | Slide | are very beautiful designed . . | Positive | 0.93 | 5.0 |
| _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. | even within videos. Some videos / | Slide | are great and full of information, | Positive | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | I have to admit, this course greatly disappointed me from the beginning. The main reason is its title; it should have been "Macroeconomics of the USA". The instructor focuses too heavily on the US economy, which is partially understandable due to its significance, but I personally got tired of the endless supply of facts (and opinions) about US Presidents and their choices on US Macroeconomic Policy over the last 80 years. Other than that, the main concepts of Macroeconomics are presented with adequate detail. I had very little background in Economics but managed to grasp them rather easily. The presentations are pretty dull, however, with the professor mainly reading through the slides (which mind you are NOT in downloadable form). All in all, it's not a bad course, but there is great room for improvement. | the professor mainly reading through the | Slide | (which mind you are NOT in | Negative | 0.82 | 3.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Engaging presentation; maybe slides resolution could be improved | Engaging presentation; maybe | Slide | resolution could be improved | Neutral | 0.50 | 4.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Nice Course. However, it will better to have the slides. It is hard to review a specific concept with videos. | it will better to have the | Slide | It is hard to review a | Negative | 0.79 | 4.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Great course. Very easy to understand, effective slides, somewhat challenging tests, clear voice by the professor, professionally done. The only gripe I have is feeling like I did not learn as much as I wanted to. I do not think this is reflective of the professor or his style, it may have to do more with the subject. Macroeconomics is a social science, not much intense, groundbreaking material. Overall good, I would suggest it if you want a broad understanding of macroeconomic theories, the history, and its implications. | course. Very easy to understand, effective | Slide | somewhat challenging tests, clear voice by | Positive | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Presentation slides could've been better prepared. The quiz could've thrown the right answers after finishing. But it was very informative overall | Presentation | Slide | could've been better prepared. The quiz | Negative | 0.84 | 3.0 |
| _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. | in quiz are exact from the | Slide | I think there could have been | Negative | 0.92 | 4.0 |