| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating | Contradiction-Based_MOY | Contradiction-Based_Ci |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Great videos and testing structure. Great feedback to all of my questions in the forums too. 7 hours a week seems about right for me, with the recommended reading and watching the videos. However the course got continually harder and harder and by the time I was at the final exam I was really worried. In the end it got a bit difficult and stressful but I do feel it was valuable, and like I said, getting the feedback, even on weekends in the forums, helped a lot. | Great feedback to all of my | Question | in the forums too. 7 hours | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | quiz questions (either directly in the | Question | and answer choices, or indirectly in | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | quiz questions was on a quiz | Question | about inference. I failed the question, | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | question about inference. I failed the | Question | and understood why I failed based | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | content litterally minutes after failing the | Question | (and one mentor actually rightly corrected | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | actually rightly corrected me). But the | Question | " correction" (the explanation text you | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | in calculating one figure per research | Question | without any attempt at deriving trends | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | the course contents. Most of the | Question | in the peer review assignment have | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | Does the narrative address the research | Question | . But when the research question | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | when the research question is a | Question | of the type " What it | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | A very nice intro to the topic! The course is problem-oriented and introduces important concepts in relation to questions that will interest the student. It also gradually introduces R and its use for statistics analysis. I recommend it. | introduces important concepts in relation to | Question | that will interest the student. It | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | This is a brilliant course that makes statistics and probability as approachable, engaging and clear as humanely possible. Prof. Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel explains every subject very clearly, and has included some very effective quizzes and lab exercises. I first encountered R markdown files in this course and have used them constantly ever since. My only tiny point of criticism is that the non-graded exercise quizzes are way easier than the real quizzes, and do not really prepare you at all to the more complex questions in the actual quizzes. It's a petty and unimportant kind of criticism in an otherwise wonderful course. If everyone taught stats like Prof. Cetinkaya-Rundel, this important subject would have been a whole lot better understood and utilized globally. | at all to the more complex | Question | in the actual quizzes. It's a | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.73 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I feel that Teacher Kang is really good with visual aids. I love how varied the tests are! I can feel the different parts of my mind lighting up with information because of the wide variety of questions. She seems kind and very passionate about her work. Because of this course, I started looking into Yonsei University. 감사합니다, 성생님! | because of the wide variety of | Question | She seems kind and very passionate | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 1.13 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | This really is a great course, it has a lot of content to learn, is concise, easy, and practical. Also the staff does his best at explaining doubts and questions. If you like Korean, or want to start learning Korean this is a must. | his best at explaining doubts and | Question | If you like Korean, or want | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 1.13 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I learned Korean nearly 20 years ago and decided to work through this course as a refresher. The course is fairly well done. The pace is a little aggressive, which is fine if you take your time to learn each lesson before moving on. Language courses are not the kind where you can just listen and then take the quiz. Slow down. Practice. By week four the speakers in the audio files were speaking on a level where I was having difficulty distinguishing some of the words. In particular, the differences between the 20th and 21st of the month can be somewhat challenging for a beginning speaker of Korean. On the quizzes, I slowed down and repeated some of the audio. Even so, I missed a few questions. I think the course should take more care in producing the audio files and planning the questions. Some of those my be nearly impossible for beginners to get correct. | Even so, I missed a few | Question | I think the course should take | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 1.13 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | This is a fabulous copyright course for academic professionals! If you've ever had questions about copyright law in an academic context, take this course! | academic professionals! If you've ever had | Question | about copyright law in an academic | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.58 | 1.11 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | is, that the quizzes display the | Question | that were asked, instead of just | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.58 | 1.11 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | and flexible. Aside from including the | Question | asked for each quiz after submission | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.58 | 1.11 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | A whole lot of information to absorb, that I will definitely agree with! If there was anything I wish went into more detail, there would be two things. 1) Yo / Yeoman: This part of the course was more of an "Obligatory" lecture, just to say it's mentioned. I watched that one video many times over, but still ended up going to YouTube for actual "training" on the ins and outs. I know time is constrained in MOOC's and you don't get the full load of knowledge you would in a traditional school. However, my thoughts are that either give us an exercise so we can at least have that as experience in using it, or just remove it completely. The lecture was put together as a sort of "Follow Along", but it really felt rushed and more of an "Obligatory" thing than an actual lesson. 2) Give us more detail on the difference between Services and Factories. Keep in mind that I still have Multi-Platform Mobile App Development, and Server Side Development with Node.js still to go, so I don't know if these are explained more in those courses. As it stands right now, I -still- don't know the difference between a factory and a service, or even what a provider is. When should I use a factory? When should I use a service? Which is better suited for what task? All those questions I do not have an answer for after this course, which feels a bit short for me. | suited for what task? All those | Question | I do not have an answer | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Angular JS is a crucial component of all of the internet. Hardly a website exists without it and it's clear that Angular will go places. However, this course fails on a few crucial levels. As such, my review might look scathing and I'll detail why in a minute, but I want you to know that this course is quite possibly invaluable when it comes to web development. Besides, the fixes that would need to be made on the instructor's side are minor, but when working without those fixes, things get infuriatingly frustrating rather quickly. There are errors in the code supplied by the instructor that need to be pointed out by students, scripts sometimes don't work, explanations are sub-par when explaining things such as $scope. There are parts that are seemingly there to pad out the lessons such as Task Runners. Sometimes, doing things exactly the way shown in the video with additional fixes by both the professor and students, it still doesn't work. Some exercises are an hour long for something that won't be quizzed in the end. Understanding that this review was made about a new course that covers something rapidly changing and not persistent, I still did learn a lot of valuable things and I would recommend this course to everyone involved in web development. However, be prepared to question your own sanity, your skills, the software you use, software in general and just despair at times. All in all, it is a price worth paying for the amazing knowledge you gain. | web development. However, be prepared to | Question | your own sanity, your skills, the | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Very confusing course, unclear example, too theoretical (very limited relevancy to business questions) Also, presentation format could be improved (tables are not intuitive to read/understand) | theoretical (very limited relevancy to business | Question | Also, presentation format could be improved | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.75 | 0.86 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | web exprience and how the final | Question | were set up. It gave a | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.86 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | differently on the same set of | Question | (this needs to be really looked | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.86 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | the first time I answered the | Question | a certain way, it marked me | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.86 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I liked the course, it opened my eyes to new ways of thinking, and I'm continuing the advanced competitive strategy course. The approach of making models and calculations to see what the best strategy for a given company is, can help greatly with making sense of a chaotic world. Minor points to better the course: The lectures are sometimes too simple, especially the examples given can be sped up, up the ante ;)!. In the quiz one whole answer is false if one of the sub-answers is false, especially with 10 answers to give, I sometimes had a hard time to pass a question due to this reason, can this be resolved a bit? Say for example, a question is passed if 80% of the sub-answers are correct? Overall... thanks dear Tobias for having me in your class! Greetz Floor | a hard time to pass a | Question | due to this reason, can this | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.86 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Fantastic course except for the quiz questions. Many of them can be interpreted in a way that an answer different from the intended one can work too. | Fantastic course except for the quiz | Question | Many of them can be interpreted | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.86 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | all video lectures feel like they are just read from a paper and it takes a lot of effort to follow and engage. It is the 4th course I'm taking to get ma digital marketing specialisation and is far off the poorest. The slides don't make much sense and a lot of times I have to research stuff again on other websites to actually get the point. The quiz questions are sometimes not related to the topic. It seems like, the professor does not know enough about the subject to speak freely and engaging about the topics. I'm quite disappointed about this course and can not recommend it. I think the course should be worked over. A great example of how to do it right is Aric Rindfleischs lecture, which was engaging, challenging and very well structured | actually get the point. The quiz | Question | are sometimes not related to the | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Not up to my expectations. Compared to the previous modules in this specialisation, the lectures are dry, the presenter is not focused and slides are sometimes mixed up. The reading material is great and a definite plus is that it is free. But the lectures should be more practical (not just the bullet points of the book), and the weekly assignment should not be a chapter summary question. The course developers should have taken the time to develop a case study for each topic, like in the first module in this spec. I highly recommend reviewing and improving the content. | should not be a chapter summary | Question | The course developers should have taken | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I enjoyed the difficulty of this course, however at times the questions seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find the information that the questions referred to. I believe some refinement is due here, but the difficulty was satisfying difficult compared to previous courses! | this course, however at times the | Question | seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I enjoyed the difficulty of this course, however at times the questions seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find the information that the questions referred to. I believe some refinement is due here, but the difficulty was satisfying difficult compared to previous courses! | to find the information that the | Question | referred to. I believe some refinement | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | This was my least favorite of the course. The questions were out of order, the videos and lectures were terrible and dry | least favorite of the course. The | Question | were out of order, the videos | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | For multiple modules, the questions were out of order. Some of the videos didn't seem polished to the point that it made me think it was not the final edits? Also, from other Coursera courses, I really valued interviews and summaries that highlighted the key points (vs a summary of the topics convered). Finally, the module quizzes didn't seem to highlight the key points, but instead had questions specific to not-so-important details (e.g., which agency created the MB campaign). | For multiple modules, the | Question | were out of order. Some of | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | based on impressions after module 1: -quality of lectures: just dry material from books. not engaging - repetitions (videos in reading materials and in lecture) sometimes feeling that it is waste of time -quizz questions are hardly connected to lectures disappointed and discouraged. give a try to module 2 and will see. | it is waste of time -quizz | Question | are hardly connected to lectures disappointed | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Some times the questions in the test were in my opinion irrelevant to the material. | Some times the | Question | in the test were in my | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | I appreciate the fact that this course doesn't go into the fine detail on how to code everything, I believe there is still more information on the coding and data management practices that could be included in the course content. In addition to that, I feel the course could use the following adjustments to make it better: 1 - Have Python students grade other Python students and SAS students grade other SAS students. While it is nice to get exposure to another language, it is more than enough to learn one at a time. 2 - Add quizes and/or other well formed questions that are graded (automatically, not peer graded) to help enforce the concepts being taught. 3 - Make the assignment instructions/expectations more clear. I feel there are times when the grading criteria don't exactly match the requested assignment. While people follow the spirit of the assignment, the grading questions may ask for slightly different or additional items. 4 - Certain aspects of statistical analysis are glossed over and should be covered in more depth in the training videos. While I like the short videos for brevity, I would prefer to watch 10-15 minutes more content and really feel like the material was well covered. | spirit of the assignment, the grading | Question | may ask for slightly different or | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.82 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Choosing an actual research question allows you to find a topic of interest. This makes the content more meaningful and accelerates understanding of the concepts. | Choosing an actual research | Question | allows you to find a topic | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.82 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Simple and powerful Course. If you are a beginner. Just follow the instructions and Assignment Schedule. The course may seem a bit easy, if you are good at math and have some prior programming experience, yet you can be surprised with what new you learned by the end of the Course, considering the time you spend. Also you develop sound reasoning to answer your own questions regarding handling and presenting Data. The clarity you develop is worth it. | sound reasoning to answer your own | Question | regarding handling and presenting Data. The | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.82 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | The course has its positives, but overall does not perform well instructing on the use of the two statistical software offered (SAS & Python). At the beginning they offer multiple data sets to use and formulate a research question, but all the examples utilize only one data set and do not cover the differences you might face with the other data sets - leading to a lot of missed opportunities. Additionally, the tutorials for using the statistical software do not lend themselves towards a thorough understanding and more to a route learning. | to use and formulate a research | Question | but all the examples utilize only | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.82 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc questions in videos. More hype content than a course. This is not the way to learn Python, seriously don't take this one | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc | Question | in videos. More hype content than | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.8 | 0.82 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great instructor, made the course really fun. I'm a beginner programmer but Dr. Severance explained things really well. Also, the Mentors and community of students in the forums were super helpful when I had questions. Looking forward to the next course! | were super helpful when I had | Question | Looking forward to the next course! | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The lectures are very good. But the Discussion forum became a "hidden question - mistic answer" panel lately. Could we get some non-scored assignments to discuss them openly with mentors and to learn more ? | Discussion forum became a " hidden | Question | - mistic answer" panel lately. Could | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I think sometimes it got very confusing some of the examples being the exact same from chapter to chapter. It was nice having a ground for it but i started to question why would you use this method instead of the one we used before for hours and rate specifically. | for it but i started to | Question | why would you use this method | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course is not that much helpful for those who want to do work for coding. I mean the level of toughness of questions is not too good to compete any coding competition. | mean the level of toughness of | Question | is not too good to compete | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Thanks Chuck. It was really nice classes. I have enjoyed a lot. Specially you are asked me a question to answer :) . I am from Bangladesh. I wonder if there is anybody from completed the same course from here! | Specially you are asked me a | Question | to answer :) . I am | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Everything was great but I wish there was more exercise questions to solve, at least as a homework. could've been in the book at the end of each chapter as a chapter questions /projects. Because I believe more exercise help to understand concept better. | I wish there was more exercise | Question | to solve, at least as a | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Everything was great but I wish there was more exercise questions to solve, at least as a homework. could've been in the book at the end of each chapter as a chapter questions /projects. Because I believe more exercise help to understand concept better. | of each chapter as a chapter | Question | /projects. Because I believe more exercise | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great way to learn the basics. Much better than the book on its own. Nice style, simple explanations, and helpful coursemates to answer questions and discuss topics with. Highly recommend. | explanations, and helpful coursemates to answer | Question | and discuss topics with. Highly recommend. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | All of the review I've read were that the course was great, so maybe it is me that was the problem. However, as I would go through the written material, I would try to work the problems given as examples, and when they did not work, I was confused and wondered why the example given to teach us would not work. I asked for help a number of times, providing screen shots of the results I got trying to duplicate what the example was supposed to show, and page numbers of where the example was presented in the course materials. One former student basically said that I should not be trying to duplicate the examples, but just accept the concept they were trying to show. Another did a good job of explaining one of my questions, but then all replies to my question ceased. I decide to drop out of the class and try teaching myself, as I have done on everything I have learned about computers since my 1st computer in 1983. I have been very impressed with other courses given by Coursera members, but this one was not one of them. All of the other submissions praise the course, so maybe it is just me, but none of the other submissions mentioned any actual things the course had done - just that it was great. | job of explaining one of my | Question | but then all replies to my | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | All of the review I've read were that the course was great, so maybe it is me that was the problem. However, as I would go through the written material, I would try to work the problems given as examples, and when they did not work, I was confused and wondered why the example given to teach us would not work. I asked for help a number of times, providing screen shots of the results I got trying to duplicate what the example was supposed to show, and page numbers of where the example was presented in the course materials. One former student basically said that I should not be trying to duplicate the examples, but just accept the concept they were trying to show. Another did a good job of explaining one of my questions, but then all replies to my question ceased. I decide to drop out of the class and try teaching myself, as I have done on everything I have learned about computers since my 1st computer in 1983. I have been very impressed with other courses given by Coursera members, but this one was not one of them. All of the other submissions praise the course, so maybe it is just me, but none of the other submissions mentioned any actual things the course had done - just that it was great. | but then all replies to my | Question | ceased. I decide to drop out | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed this course and felt like I actually learned the material. The only reason I didn't give this course 5 stars, is that due to the issue of giving away the answers to quiz questions, there were a couple of quiz questions that I couldn't understand and unfortunately still don't. I think this is an area that could be improved. | giving away the answers to quiz | Question | there were a couple of quiz | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed this course and felt like I actually learned the material. The only reason I didn't give this course 5 stars, is that due to the issue of giving away the answers to quiz questions, there were a couple of quiz questions that I couldn't understand and unfortunately still don't. I think this is an area that could be improved. | there were a couple of quiz | Question | that I couldn't understand and unfortunately | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The content inside this course is well tought through. Questions and asignments holds high quality. If you haven't been in contact with Python before, this might be the first step for you, and when I say first step, then I really mean first step. | this course is well tought through. | Question | and asignments holds high quality. If | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Just finished the course "a little bit" ahead of February. Would have been a resounding five-star review but some "mentor" thought it necessary to hijack a thread by a student asking about the necessity of more than one "break" in a while loop to lecture about what constitutes pseudo-code and what does not on a non-assignment question. This didn't contribute to the original posters question. Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are always a real pleasure! | what does not on a non-assignment | Question | This didn't contribute to the original | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I enjoyed this course. Thank you, Mr. Charles Severance for elaborate teaching and for making the sessions interesting with all the questions asked and time given for students to pause - think and continue. Since I had prior experience in programming I found it easy to clear this course. I will be enrolling for the next course in Python offered by you. This is my first Coursera course and I am impressed! | the sessions interesting with all the | Question | asked and time given for students | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | It is just amazing course for student who want to start learning. The content of this course is arranged such that student is completely understand why you study this course? and all those type of questions.. | course? and all those type of | Question | . | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | There should be section for more challenging and difficult questions , so that we can improve our problem solving ability without breaking the flow. | section for more challenging and difficult | Question | , so that we can improve | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.94 |
| 8GTGgDxOEeWdUgozVKt3nw | This is a rather pleasant course with a mix of advantages and disadvantages. For me, the advantages outweigh the negative sides. It slides on the surface of things, though, so don't expect to get too much 'in the know' after it. What I liked (and you might too) -> Short, visually engaging, clear in their purpose videos -> Interesting recommended/required literature/video content to solidify the concepts presented in the videos -> Comfortable layout of the transcripts so you can DL them and check them out as PDFs -> The course is focused on a very interesting, dynamic topic -- and lives up with a dynamic, fun and engaging approach What I didn't like that much -> Quizzes had some rather easy questions and as a whole weren't that serious. You can retake them -- you need to rely on your honesty to assess how much you've learned. -> The brisk nature of the videos is nice, but sometimes the narrative would jump from one point to another too abruptly. I still recommend the course for those who want to get their feet a little bit wet when it comes to innovation, digital affairs and basic entrepreneurship concepts. | -> Quizzes had some rather easy | Question | and as a whole weren't that | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 0.92 |
| 8GTGgDxOEeWdUgozVKt3nw | One of the best organized courses I have taken at Coursera. The videos set the stage for concepts in the course, this is followed by reading material which again comprises of public videos and articles. And the finally the test is not just on videos but also on the reading material and the beauty of how the questions are framed to test if you have really "understood" (not just crammed) the concepts. | and the beauty of how the | Question | are framed to test if you | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 0.92 |
| 8GTGgDxOEeWdUgozVKt3nw | My suggestions: ** videos: pace is way too fast, and without much visuals and a clear structure/plan, hard to fully grab in one view. I don't think your 5mn max duration really makes sense. When the content is of interest, better to make it longer to improve clarity. Positive: you provide written/text versions of your videos. ** support documents: way too many and not always relevant ** quizzes: i don't think that asking us the name of a founder etc. really test anything about our understanding of our lesson. Too many irrelevant questions. All in all, it seems you applied one of the rules you discuss in this course: release fast, and adjust later on based on customers' feedback.. Unsure this is the right approach when it comes to online learning. I had higher expectations vs. Mines Telecom. | of our lesson. Too many irrelevant | Question | All in all, it seems you | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.86 | 0.92 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | be learned, is not diluted where | Question | are left in the students head | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.77 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | have to present results and projects, | Question | and answers to higher ups and | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.77 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | This is a great course and a daring venture for what is really an art form, beyond it's scientific requirements. This part of the specialization needs a little refinement. I posted this in the discussion forum. · 7 days ago · Edited First of all.....these guys running this data science department have their hands full. They are teaching live classes for students who have spent OODLES (lots) of money to attend this prestigious college . Johns Hopkins is about as good as it gets for a medical degree. Then they are doing experiments and other data science for the research division of Johns Hopkins which is also as good as it gets........THEN they are doing these MOOC courses on top of all their other responsibilities......Dr. Leek is a University of Washington Alumni, which is also top notch for Data Science. The video lesson is flawed, there is no denying it. But I must say these teachers are very open to improvement in the course and your comments on what could be better done are received and acted upon, so I would include them in your thank you letter to the teachers. ALSO I think these MOOC courses are best done by all members of the department contributing. Truly this field IS a team sport. I feel this course was good, but the videos need to be edited and scripted, so unnecessary language, which dilutes the core knowledge, that must be learned, is not diluted where questions are left in the students head about content when being tested. I learned long ago in a college calculus class that if your mark isn't perfect, it's OK, so long as you pass with a high score......even if it is the teachers fault. The course could use better video production with teleprompter scripting......maybe some AV students at Johns Hopkins could get on board. it will happen eventually I'm sure. You want to take a course that is absolutely one of the best courses I've taken anywhere and truly the best online. Try the number one business course on Coursera: GROW TO GREATNESS, either part 1 or 2, University of Virginia, Darden School Of Business...........A team created course with one helluva a teacher who is a business person, researcher and award-winning writer. I would recommend this course to ANY student and especially E-Teachers. The problem with this course is that there is a lot of information that can be included but may not be absolutely necessary as a "core concept". Needless to say, the more technical skills any employee has, the more insight they will have into their teammate's skills, as well, as the overall mission of the data department and the business it serves. I'm more of a tech and infrastructure person, I'm not real passionate about coding. I find it tedious. The more I learn about it, the more I enjoy it, albeit, from a distance. I can't see myself creating great blocks of scripts, but the more I know about how they are created AND what rules the code in a project must abide by, the better my skills will be as a data center manager. So I'm trying to learn as much as possible about R, Python, and companion programs like ggvis for creating visualizations. I'd say visualizations are an essential skill for a data manager, since you have to present results and projects, questions, and answers to higher ups and other departments. this link comes from the resource section of this course: https://www.datacamp.com/courses/ggvis-data-visualization-r-tutorial This link or URL is of much more value to me, than a flawed test question and a reduction in my 100 percent average in the specialization. Without this lesson, in this course, I would not have this valuable resource. Another great link, which has a great FREE print publication as well: http://www.processor.com/ ...these people have been advising data center managers longer than just about anybody ! Verbally and in the transcript are some nebulous statements that point toward the main idea, that concept being: the more any employee, on any data science or technical team member IS, a "jack of all trades", the better. So that could have been included in some more general way on the quiz, because really that is pretty much a general rule, I've found, working in ANY capacity in the tech industry. I have done a great deal of audio editing, working at numerous radio stations, with Adobe Audition. With others like: Pro Tools, or any other really good quality AV digital editor the result is streamlined, near seamless, audio-video, or one or the other. You just learn how to read and edit wave forms of all kinds. Years ago, in Dallas, Texas, attending Richland College. I learned a valuable lesson. I was taking a college level Calc-Trig math class being taught by the regular professor's WIFE. I don't know if the professor was sick, but this woman, who was teaching the class for the whole semester, frankly, was not qualified. I had always been considered an illiterate by my high school math teachers, a married couple who, frankly, were highly abnormal even on the geekiest scale. These people were acting like they were a world above most people in the class. Needless to say, I assumed, by their "adult" opinions, they were sent by God Himself, to educate me thru denigration. I was amazed, how 10 years later, in College math how well I was doing. I was carrying a 100 percent average ! So midterm this faux professor declares, "I'll be prefiguring all the arithmetic to be easy, so you won't have to bring your calculators !" SO I DIDN'T.......and of course the teacher's wife proclaims....."I didn't have time to make the arithmetic easy so you'd better use your calculators !" I literally had pages and pages of figuring in handwriting accompanying my 3 page test. The result was a C plus on the test. I angrily told the sub teacher "I did not bring a calculator to this test because you said it wouldn't be necessary, therefore I must be allowed to redo this test with a calculator !" She of course relented, "No that won't be possible...that's not a bad grade...." she continued, "what are you worried about ?"........ I was so peeved, I was going to drop the class. It was too late in the semester, and I was so disgusted with this woman's cavalier dismissal of my perfect grade that I just stopped going to class. The result was a failing final grade. Who ultimately suffered from this dilemma ? That, albeit, unfairly was me.....who created this "academic" tragedy, by the aggravation of a deeply flawed situation. Once again, that would be me. | to me, than a flawed test | Question | and a reduction in my 100 | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.77 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | I think the questions in this course do not map as well as they could to the lectures. But, overall it's very helpful. | I think the | Question | in this course do not map | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.77 |
| 8LAp90EaEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | I really enjoyed this course and I have found a lot of similarities with issues and challenges that I face every day at work. This has been very useful to me bot as a way to get inspired on new ideas and techniques, and as a way to confirm what I am already doing. However, there were few occasions where I found the quizzes not to be clear enough. In some instances this was due to the fact that the question asked required some extra knowledge that couldn't possibly be achieved only by reading the course material or listening to the class. I was lucky I new the answers because of my personal experience but it seemed quite unfair in my opinion. Also lectures materials are very short and don;t provide any extra information. In other cases, the answers, especially when there were multiple answers didn't seem to be clear enough and sometimes contradicting what I had listened in the class. I don't remember specific cases at the moment, however I have left feedbacks throughout the course. You should have my feedbacks where I mentioned specific questions that in my opinion were confusing. Hope this helps, Giacomo | due to the fact that the | Question | asked required some extra knowledge that | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.77 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | A very poor course. The teacher just ask questions in order to stimulate students, but doesn't teach anything. Incorrect terminology (Ah-ah? Please, study Aaron Allston works before inventing other words). Test are cool. | poor course. The teacher just ask | Question | in order to stimulate students, but | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.89 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | Unlike the other two lecturers in this course, this module's lecture is very very bad. I always felt like coming back and learning more with the other two lectures but with this one I had to force myself to complete the lessons. First of all his English is bad, sometimes you cant understand what he means even with subtitles. He repeats many things through out the course and he tries to teach by asking questions all the time. As a guy who takes and make his own notes, I found it really difficult to put together a sentence he was saying. It seems that nobody proof read his lectures before posting it on coursera. I feel that it was done blindly and in a rushed way. If possible can you please change the videos and also the script. Please make it more understandable. | he tries to teach by asking | Question | all the time. As a guy | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.89 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I learned next to nothing from this course; the professor just rambles on and on jumping schizophrenically from aspect of aspect. One moment he's talking about physics, and in the same sentence he's suddenly talking about whether the game should have a crafting system. Some of the information even seems out of touch. He doesn't state any information with certainty because he always tends to add "or not!" or "...maybe!" after sentences, leaving you to wonder if there's anything left to take away from the lessons. The entire course could be condensed down into a "list of questions to think about while designing your game world" - it really doesn't contain anything more than that. Sometimes entire segments are dedicated to trivial things (such as "your game could have invisible walls!"), whereas in other segments he works through a hundred different questions without going in-depth to any of them. Speaker is hard to understand due to his lack of proficiency with the English language and the subtitles are often incorrect. On the plus side, you will learn what a "ha-ha" is. | down into a " list of | Question | to think about while designing your | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.62 | 0.89 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I learned next to nothing from this course; the professor just rambles on and on jumping schizophrenically from aspect of aspect. One moment he's talking about physics, and in the same sentence he's suddenly talking about whether the game should have a crafting system. Some of the information even seems out of touch. He doesn't state any information with certainty because he always tends to add "or not!" or "...maybe!" after sentences, leaving you to wonder if there's anything left to take away from the lessons. The entire course could be condensed down into a "list of questions to think about while designing your game world" - it really doesn't contain anything more than that. Sometimes entire segments are dedicated to trivial things (such as "your game could have invisible walls!"), whereas in other segments he works through a hundred different questions without going in-depth to any of them. Speaker is hard to understand due to his lack of proficiency with the English language and the subtitles are often incorrect. On the plus side, you will learn what a "ha-ha" is. | he works through a hundred different | Question | without going in-depth to any of | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.62 | 0.89 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I was a little bit dissapointed with this course because, in my opinion, it is not structured well, it is just an amount of questions we need to think about. It has ended but I have the feeling I still have no good idea about what is world design for video games... | it is just an amount of | Question | we need to think about. It | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.89 |
| a0fzUULWEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | The course is very complete on it's subjects and points, but should have more slides and some times be more grafic about some examples, this makes the lessons boring and harder to follow because there is a massive amount of informations. Also have too much questions on the quizzes. | of informations. Also have too much | Question | on the quizzes. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.86 | 0.93 |
| a0fzUULWEeWZtA4u62x6lQ | Very well designed and implemented course. Practical and pragmatic. Videos interesting and easy to watch. Smart questions and quizzes that promote learning. The work load is not too demanding, but leaves you feeling like you earned the passing scores. Just right. Highly recommended. | interesting and easy to watch. Smart | Question | and quizzes that promote learning. The | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 0.93 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | This is a great overview of terrorism and counter-terrorism, and identifies the many flaws due to lack of knowledge policymakers still make in dealing with this phenomena. The rigor of the course is challenging but not impossible. I like that a section on Foreign Fighters has now been added to further enhance the course. I will use this knowledge to apply to another topic I am researching - gang dynamics and gang violence, which I believe shares many similarities. My only criticism is of the final, which I found to ask several questions about some obscure facts and did not truly test for the body of knowledge in my opinion, hence the 4 not 5 stars. | which I found to ask several | Question | about some obscure facts and did | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.87 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | This will answer many questions you have about what is going on these days regarding terrorism. | This will answer many | Question | you have about what is going | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.87 |
| A0IYf6jOEeSnlCIAC1EMbw | It is a great theme, but at many points the course focuses on "who said what", regarding authors and papers, and emphasizes this type of question throughout all the tests. I think a longer course where these statements and papers could be properly discussed and explained would easily be a 5-star rating. The instructor clearly knows a lot on the subject and the material is top quality. | papers, and emphasizes this type of | Question | throughout all the tests. I think | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.87 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very well structured and extremely clear videos and also helpful staff and mentors to our questions. Assignments were very diverse and challenges us to fully understand the concept and functions of the program. | helpful staff and mentors to our | Question | Assignments were very diverse and challenges | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | This course was ultimately frustrating to take. There is a gap in the material presented and the skill set needed to complete the assignments. Using optional methods to complete this course, such as to use the textbook and forums, is too time consuming (deciphering a text book) or insulting (forum mentor responses). To to solve the assignments, it usually involved trying to 1. refreshing yourself in math concepts not used by a beginner or non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the poorly written questions were asking, 3. scouring the textbook or internet for functions or strategies never covered in the lecture, 4. having snarky and unhelpful remarks by mentors. The unprofessional behavior of the mentors was especially hard to handle. Even from the early week's lectures we learned about semantics, and how simple mistyping could lead to programming errors, so I wrongly assumed the mentors would understand that some of us would probably make simple errors. For example, in the final homework I had a simple mistake, but since we cannot show code, it led to more frustration and a mentor basically just saying "we covered this already." I'm well aware of what we covered, but if someone is stuck on a problem, there needs to be a much better way of helping that person. I did not want to write in the forums after my initial foray in the forum led one mentor to just tell me "your logic is wrong", and the spout the same simple strategies of the lecture that could not help on the complex assignment. There probably will not be anything fixed with this course since it seems like it has been the same for years now. Please fix the questions, stop using Project Euler, and let people directly message code to mentors. Will probably save time rather than try to blindly (and frustratingly) explain code over and over again. Ultimately, I felt that unless someone either has previous experience in coding, or has no work to do other than to do this course, it still is not worth it to just obtain a certificate. | deciphering what exactly the poorly written | Question | were asking, 3. scouring the textbook | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Homework assignments are much more difficult and time-consuming than the contents of the lectures, especially for the last three weeks. Fortunately, the tutors are very patient and respond to your questions quickly. | very patient and respond to your | Question | quickly. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | The teachers and TAs are really helpful when you asked questions online. | are really helpful when you asked | Question | online. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Excellent course, it makes programming look easy. The lessons are very clear and the tutors are always ready to help with any question one may have. | always ready to help with any | Question | one may have. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 1.1 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I would suggest this really very good introductory course as a starting point to everyone interested in different philosophical questions. | to everyone interested in different philosophical | Question | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | very interesting course, it provides several question and relative theory in history. And it would make you to think. So i like this course. | very interesting course, it provides several | Question | and relative theory in history. And | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Great course, excellent topics... they are about interesting themes and questions in the world. Thanks | they are about interesting themes and | Question | in the world. Thanks | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | very nice introductory course looking at questions of | very nice introductory course looking at | Question | of | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | From an engineer perspective this was hard to see obvious value in but i enjoyed the thought provoking topics. Some of the tests were very hard and the questions were not directly form the lectures while others were. Some presenters were hard to understand due to accent. | tests were very hard and the | Question | were not directly form the lectures | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I almost gave this two stars, but the content of the course is excellent, and I didn't want to take away from that. To start off, for an introductory class, this covers a large amount and variety of material. It might be better served to break it up into even smaller sections over the course of something like ten weeks or even twelve instead of cramming it all into seven weeks. The lectures are enjoyable, but often they consist of nothing but the professor speaking. There are so many new terms, definitions, and ideas being introduced that it would help if these lectures also included slides or graphs with some of these ideas being broken down, as you would have in a regular class on a projector or on a chalkboard. Frequently, the practice quizzes are just the same questions from the video lectures repeated over again, and offer very little prep for the actual quizzes, which are painfully pedantic for a non-credit course. Every section has a different style of quiz, which is hard to prepare for. I am someone who usually tests well and have been struggling with most of these, even when I read all of the handouts and take notes. So, if this same course could be broken up over a slightly longer time and the quizzes could be more uniform, the lectures contained some slides, the course would be a brilliant introduction to philosophy overall. It's got all of the meat there, the presentation just makes it tough to digest. | practice quizzes are just the same | Question | from the video lectures repeated over | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | A very good introduction to major branches of Philosophy. While some questions on assignments were rather vague, and some lectures rather dull (I don't think I bothered watching the videos from the third week on... just relied on the- excellently put together!- handouts). Overall, a great course to take for a beginner to the world of Philosophy :D | major branches of Philosophy. While some | Question | on assignments were rather vague, and | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | course because Philosophy asks and points | Question | that are really interesting. These questions | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | questions that are really interesting. These | Question | make you view and question life | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | These questions make you view and | Question | life with different points of view. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I gave this course 5 stars because the content does match the description, a general overview of the topic of Philosophy. It introduces the student to the concepts involved with the study of and the approach to Philosophy from various topics. It does not go into any specific philosophers very deeply, and instead focuses on the general study or overview of what is going on in the "philosophical world" as of 2013. The course has not been updated, from what I can tell from that time. The Forums are "there" and the class is "supposed" to be live, but it did not have that feel to it. It was more of a "study on your own" experience and yes, we have a forum area. i found it not to be very active after the first week, (introductions were encouraged) but perhaps taking this course over the Christmas holiday (that fell in the middle of the course) was not the best time. I am near the end of the course and have put a lot of time effort and extra reading into it, but it does not seem this will be rewarded i.e by a certificate with distinction, at least there does not seem to be active involvement to that extent. 2-3 of the lectures had "extra"videos" of the professors addressing forum questions, but I do think these were outdated or from the first run of the course (?) as they seems to be talking about topics that were not necessarily in the forums at the time. I cannot determine that for certain, but, it was my impression. I would HIGHLY suggest purchase of the book that goes with this course, due to week 6, when clearly the topic is not entirely covered in the notes nor the lecture (my opinion only) and the book was needed to get thru the quiz. The professor that week had an accent and spoke very fast, and even listening in a slower speed did not seem to help much. The book is a worthy purchase, look for it on EBAY, or Amazon or a Used Book website. The book does go deeper on all topics and again, especially for week 6 and it is looking like possibly week 7 as well are best studied with the book as well as notes provided by the course. Again, this is an overview course, and it is interesting. If you are looking to study specific philosophers in depth - this is not the course. It is the course however to take before taking others or to review or learn what is going on in the area this area of study and it did hold my interest. As others have commented the final week touches upon time travel and the professor has introduced interesting aspects that involve the philosophical in this unit. Each week a different instructor presents information so you are switching learning styles weekly which is, I think made a more smooth transition if you actually have the book and the chapter that the instructor wrote. I would recommend it for at least another 6 mo to a year - after that (say 2017 perhaps the lectures should be freshened up, as new information may be out there, or at least they should tape something that says, "yes this was originally taped in 2013, however the info is still on target" or if not then add a lecture that updates the course to the latest in that area of philosophy. Overall, this being my second Coursera class I have found it to be of high quality, and worthy of my investment to obtain the certificate that is offered. And I do thank all of the professors who participated in this collaboration, it is again, a very interesting course that I think is a "must take" course if one is to really understand what is "going on" with Philosophy. | videos" of the professors addressing forum | Question | but I do think these were | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Very interesting but the video ended abruptly when I was expecting a question. There appears to be no link to the next part of the course. I would have found a facility to rewind helpful. | abruptly when I was expecting a | Question | There appears to be no link | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It was very informative and interesting. Provided some very intriguing questions for reflective thinking. | and interesting. Provided some very intriguing | Question | for reflective thinking. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | An excellent course that makes you ask and answer really important questions about life. | you ask and answer really important | Question | about life. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Very good teaching strategy. Takes you through ideas and gives you examples. Has a couple of questions each video to keep your attention. It is a very interesting subject, even if the teaching was bad, but the lectures add even more by taking their time with concepts. Keep doing what you're doing. I would take other courses by this school if they were similarly designed. Thank you. | you examples. Has a couple of | Question | each video to keep your attention. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Such a eye-opener. Philosophy was a hobby until I ran into this course. It structure my thinking. It made me realize the schools of thought that have tackled the questions I've dived into are as many angles to view a given issue. | of thought that have tackled the | Question | I've dived into are as many | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Amazing introduction to the basics of philosophy - I wish I had such in university or at some other early point. It shows you breadth, scope and problems philosophy deals with. Course tries to maintain simplicity and clarity of explanations even for very complex things and this is exactly what you need for a subject which is normally deemed too complex for beginners or gives an explanations which for uninitiated do not add clarity and rather raise even more questions. Loads of fun and topics which may make you think more and induce your curiosity. | clarity and rather raise even more | Question | Loads of fun and topics which | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It seems I have failed at week three without having to ask for the answers for three questions. | ask for the answers for three | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | An absolute delight to understand Philosophy in such creative manner.I recommend this course to anyone who questions -existence, our knowledge, and to everyone looking for a better understanding within their respective fields. | recommend this course to anyone who | Question | -existence, our knowledge, and to everyone | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | The course content is very superficial. The pass mark is very high for a course I had taken because of a mild interest. You have to get 80% to pass. One unit in particular was very confusing. It took me 7 attempts to pass it as I had no idea what the first question was about and there was no guidance as to what I was doing wrong. | had no idea what the first | Question | was about and there was no | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I enjoyed this course very much. Like many survey courses that are well-conceived, this one stimulated enthusiasm for learning more about some of the topics. So much so in my case that I have enrolled in another course from the University of Edinburgh relating to philosophy and science. I expect it will be equally thought provoking as its delivery involves some of the same faculty. I believe this course would be improved if there was a mechanism for constructive feedback on missed exam questions that illustrate how the questions at hand are integral and in context to the presentations and supplemental readings (some of which I pursued). Simply referring a student back to the course outline does not assist learning when a student does not understand why a chosen answer is incorrect in context. I realize this is a tall ask for an online course. In my own experience as a university faculty member having developed computer assisted instruction and simulations (physiology and anesthesiology) there is no replacement for contact and conversation with an engaged teacher whose interest lies in helping people learn. That said, I reflect that my constructive comments are made in light of my overall satisfaction that this course has succeeded in stimulating interest in learning more about the interface and complementary nature of science and philosophy. Borrowing a phrase from the course itself, "well done". | exam questions that illustrate how the | Question | at hand are integral and in | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | A great introduction to many philosophical areas, well planned, well tested and with very good professors. The only downsides were a couple of slightly ambiguous questions (which, having just watched an hour of philosophical teaching one could easily start wondering what they technically meant) and, to utter frustration, lack of a statement of accomplishment. Nevertheless, if philosophy is of it's own right your target, it is a course well worth taking. | were a couple of slightly ambiguous | Question | (which, having just watched an hour | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It is a very entertaining broad introduction to the topic of philosophy in general. The lecturers are very knowledgeable and are very good teachers. However, I wish there would be a more detailed treatment of the topics in question. I look forward to their future course on Philosophy of Science, as I believe that by focusing on a more narrow topic, they will be able to go a bit more in depth. | detailed treatment of the topics in | Question | I look forward to their future | Positive | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 1.04 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Great course with useful tips and organized materials. However, some of the materials (recommended tools, hyperlinks, etc) are outdated so it would be great if they can refresh them. Also, the in-course quizzes are too easy to the point it seemed quite stupid - please include more meaningful questions in the in-video quizzes. | stupid - please include more meaningful | Question | in the in-video quizzes. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Even though the theoretical part was well put together, case study questions were too vague and should have been better thought out. This part of the specialization did not meet my expectation. | was well put together, case study | Question | were too vague and should have | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Extremely well designed course in my opinion. Very clear and to the point information delivered well. Great introduction to the subject. Assignments were not too daunting and enough resources were offered that directly related to the questions asked. | offered that directly related to the | Question | asked. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | I am not impressed with this course so far. The quizzes and assignments are out of order with the materials being presented - the questions on each come from readings and lecture content that have not been introduced to the audience at that particular point in the course. The first module was a very, very basic outline of a generic analysis process, and really has nothing to do with digital marketing analytics in particular. | the materials being presented - the | Question | on each come from readings and | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Great course. Like the slides and the way it structured. It could be broader if not so Google centralized and more international. For example in Russia there is Yandex.ru (ya.com) which controls 75% of search market and in China there is Baidu and others and no Google and Facebook. These questions is not highlighted in the course. | and no Google and Facebook. These | Question | is not highlighted in the course. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.88 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | covers the basics of finance, compounding, NPV, IRR, questions are practical. | basics of finance, compounding, NPV, IRR, | Question | are practical. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.02 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | One of the more challenging courses I believe because it requires a background in accounting and proficiency in Excel. The questions really challenge you and your mastery of the lectures. | accounting and proficiency in Excel. The | Question | really challenge you and your mastery | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.02 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | course material or teaching. 5- All | Question | were boring and calculation-intensive, and I | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.02 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | the whole boring set of 10 | Question | just to tell me that it | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.02 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | While Professor Kaul's enthusiasm and passion for finance is inspiring, his lectures are not entirely helpful come time to face assignments. He often rambles through the material, spending more time talking about his life rather than the material at hand. When he decides to finally talk about the material, it presented in a disorganized and confusing fashion. If he developed a disciplined schedule with material that was on par with the assignments, this course would not have been nearly as frustrating; challenging assignments, I agree, are crucial for learning the material well. I just wish I didn't have to spend more time browsing the internet finding material pertinent to answering his arbitrarily open-ended questions. | pertinent to answering his arbitrarily open-ended | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.02 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Nice simple course with simple questions | Nice simple course with simple | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A bit too much math in the questions, although it seemed (in the videos) that we could skip it. I'm very visually oriented (and also a MENSA member), and I would have explained more with graphics. Or at least not have to much 'equations' in the questions. | bit too much math in the | Question | although it seemed (in the videos) | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A bit too much math in the questions, although it seemed (in the videos) that we could skip it. I'm very visually oriented (and also a MENSA member), and I would have explained more with graphics. Or at least not have to much 'equations' in the questions. | have to much 'equations' in the | Question | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Immensely enjoyed a highly technical course diligently presented in a very comprehensive way. It answered many questions I had in my mind but had not been answered | very comprehensive way. It answered many | Question | I had in my mind but | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | An exciting adventure through the most recent discoveries in the worlds of astronomy, astrophysics and related sciences. Without requiring any mathematics or physics skills, the course is useful for amateurs like myself trying to understand the fundamental questions and possible answers about the origin of our universe, its laws and structure as well as its fate. It is a pleasure to follow professor Murayama clarify these wonderful subjects. | myself trying to understand the fundamental | Question | and possible answers about the origin | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.0 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | While the course materials themselves were very useful, the quizzes didn't feel like an effective test of the material and consisted of very few questions, which didn't leave room for error (especially problematic because some questions were subjective). | material and consisted of very few | Question | which didn't leave room for error | Negative | -0.8 | 0.0 | 0.64 | 0.72 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The extra/outside content provided is great. As others have stated, but clearly not adjusted, some of the quiz questions aren't clear items covered in the material (which is frustrating). | not adjusted, some of the quiz | Question | aren't clear items covered in the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.64 | 0.72 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | I think the teacher was very welcoming, but the content was less than enough to answer the quizzes. In the quizzes, every answer choice was correct and there wasn't any possible way to discern. What the teacher said and complemented with the lectures didn't match with the question answers. So, my score is "2". | the lectures didn't match with the | Question | answers. So, my score is " | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.64 | 0.72 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | There wasn't a lot of information inside the video and the test's questions hade multiple possible answer. However, the links to ressources such as HarvardReview or Inc.com were pretty good and usefull. | inside the video and the test's | Question | hade multiple possible answer. However, the | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.64 | 0.72 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The teacher of this course talks toooo fast ! I`m for example a french educated student, so I prefer to take courses with a teacher who talks in a comprehensive way in which I can understand everything he says in order to proceed in my work and then to benefit everything in this course. Concerning the quiz, in the all of the quiz there is questions not related to what already said from the teacher or in the articles required to read. I red the articles coupes of time but in a specific questions, the answers, it seems, that we should answer from our own memory because badly it`s not mentioned in any article or in the video of the teacher. Thanks | of time but in a specific | Question | the answers, it seems, that we | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.64 | 0.72 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Less required reading and more targeted lectures would make it great. It often seemed that the questions in the quiz weren't properly covered in the material provided. | great. It often seemed that the | Question | in the quiz weren't properly covered | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.64 | 0.72 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | Great course! My only complaint is that on the last quiz, the information given in the lesson and the quiz questions do not match up, making it a guessing game between two answers on some questions. Such as, the lesson might say something happens between the 1940's and 60's, but then possible answers on the quiz might be 1940-50's or 1950-60's. You get many chances on the quizzes though, so it's really not a big deal, just a nuisance. The heart and lung anatomy section was explained better in the videos than in my university lectures! | in the lesson and the quiz | Question | do not match up, making it | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 0.98 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | Great course! My only complaint is that on the last quiz, the information given in the lesson and the quiz questions do not match up, making it a guessing game between two answers on some questions. Such as, the lesson might say something happens between the 1940's and 60's, but then possible answers on the quiz might be 1940-50's or 1950-60's. You get many chances on the quizzes though, so it's really not a big deal, just a nuisance. The heart and lung anatomy section was explained better in the videos than in my university lectures! | game between two answers on some | Question | Such as, the lesson might say | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 0.98 |
| ClCx1sbdEeShXyIAC5MC2w | a brief list of summaries on historical events of veterinarian and Dick college would help in learning the 5th session. Putting questions like those in the final quiz doesn't make as much sense... other quizes are wonderfully set. great entry course to be a veterinarian. | in learning the 5th session. Putting | Question | like those in the final quiz | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | This course is excellent. It uses lecture, practice and question effectively to let learners master in Grammar and Punctuation. Greetings Mubashar Rehman | excellent. It uses lecture, practice and | Question | effectively to let learners master in | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good course, although no proctor or supervision at all. No place to go for questions or help. Please be aware this is primarily designed for non-native english speakers. This was not clear to me when I joined. And although the content is thorough, it is dull and the assignments uninspiring. If you want to know more about grammar, good (be sure to bone up through, because she assumes a lot about what you might remember from high school and for those of us over 40 ... hmmm). If you want to feel inspired to write something of value and interest to yourself or others, not so good. Over all I would not recommend this course or series of courses. And would suggest seeking out a course that has some kind of proctor or supervisory help available. | all. No place to go for | Question | or help. Please be aware this | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good one , some parts was even useful for what I was seeking for - IELTS General Writing Flash Practices and in-Video Questions was interesting too | General Writing Flash Practices and in-Video | Question | was interesting too | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good contents and practise question to help understand the knowledge and concept. | Good contents and practise | Question | to help understand the knowledge and | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | A great course, put together in a manner to make learning easy. A lot of practice questions not only made the courmade the concepts very clear | learning easy. A lot of practice | Question | not only made the courmade the | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | This course is helpful and I have learned quite a bit about punctuation and sentence structures. However, while things like tense are important, to be able to differentiate 12 tenses contributes relatively little to typical academic writing. Rather, I have had trouble with seemingly simple questions such as when to use past tense and when to use present tense in a literature review. But these aspects are probably the most useful when it comes to pracital writing. It would be helpful if these issues are addressed. Also, the use of articles is a common weakness for a lot of students (to "the" or not to "the"). It is helpful to include this component too. | have had trouble with seemingly simple | Question | such as when to use past | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Great course, with extensive exercises and relevant questions and follow up. | course, with extensive exercises and relevant | Question | and follow up. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.59 | 0.98 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | has way many blank gaps and | Question | and all these questions are clarified | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.64 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | gaps and question, and all these | Question | are clarified by students - each | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.64 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | I think the course covers pretty good range of topics and gives you a good information. I really liked the peer review assignments and I think they put pressure on you to achieve the goals and learn from them. I definitely did not like the multiple answer questions or the last assessment. The questions are not well presented and there is a clear violation of the help and error recovery heuristic for me. I also did not like the video set-up. The quality of the course material is really poor and disappointing. I would like to believe that on a UI course people would have come up with a better and more intuitive set-up. Finally, I would like to have a document in the course resources that students can download and keep that contains all the information we taught like quick reference guide. Again we can download the videos but when you are looking to fins something specific searching in 2-3 videos is not fun at all. | did not like the multiple answer | Question | or the last assessment. The questions | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.64 | 0.84 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Great course! the final exam is very odd though, the "correct" answers didn't fit easily in what was taught. several subjective questions | in what was taught. several subjective | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.64 | 0.84 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | Was a better course than the other reviewers tended to complain about. Taking the examples literally might not be the best actionable route to completing a lot of the quizzes and final exam, its mostly theory on how to build sustainable and efficient systems while at the same time ensuring the security of them has the least effect on the usability of the information system or applications in mind. Some of the videos were somewhat off topic and seemed to not actually be related to what was on the quizzes at the end of the weeks topic. Some questions on quizzes weren't explained or only hinted at in the videos only to be the main topic in the next week. Other than that, a solid course. | end of the weeks topic. Some | Question | on quizzes weren't explained or only | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.71 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | I think this was a very well-thought out course. In my opinion, it was well presented, contained very useful information, was accessible to someone with a limited background in cybersecurity, and used plenty of real examples to back-up its claims. An area that could use improvement is testing: some of the quizzes provided questions that seemed hard to follow, particularly the "choose | testing: some of the quizzes provided | Question | that seemed hard to follow, particularly | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.71 |
| dPkbnh6zEeWP0w4yK2369w | Videos with guest speakers were unhelpful. Also, quizzes were not accurate and poorly written questions. | were not accurate and poorly written | Question | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.61 | 0.71 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Thank you very much for the course - it was really interesting and I've found some useful techniques to be used in my work. However, there are some moments to be improved to make course better: correct questions statements and lack of communication between partipants (there were a lot of interesting topics to discuss but only very few users were involved in discussions, thus, discussion were very poor). But still thank you very much again!!!:)) | improved to make course better: correct | Question | statements and lack of communication between | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.84 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It is pretty solid. I can see that issues with quiz question ambiguity and under-checking of learning criteria are getting better. Problems were not serious, they are better in this course than in the last, and they are better in the next one, and they are better in the next one than this one. | can see that issues with quiz | Question | ambiguity and under-checking of learning criteria | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.84 |
| EdKScTVwEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Amazing course introducing real and workable concepts. I will be applying this to my workflow immediately. Only downfalls being a little ambiguity in some questions and some `multiple choice` questions only allow one answer (radio buttons). Thank you! | being a little ambiguity in some | Question | and some `multiple choice` questions only | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.84 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Really nice course to clear the concepts regarding the new existing technologies and all the related terms. The tests and mid lecture questions really helped in testing the grasp of the course. | terms. The tests and mid lecture | Question | really helped in testing the grasp | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 0.77 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | very high level syllabuses, limited application description of BD, poor quiz and questions designed | description of BD, poor quiz and | Question | designed | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.77 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | While testing the questions should be increased. | While testing the | Question | should be increased. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 0.77 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | quiz alone with 10 or less | Question | is not enough. The course ramps | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | a web based course since the | Question | often are exactly what i want | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | ? (2) Some of the quiz | Question | I don't find useful. For this | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | in order to answer the quiz | Question | since they are really in depth. | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | the way to learn. But some | Question | are quite artificial, for example, there's | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice | Question | about " what are the different | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Was pretty good overall. I feel there was a lack of in-lecture questions in the first few videos. That aside, great course. | there was a lack of in-lecture | Question | in the first few videos. That | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I'm dropping this course because it's just SO poorly conceived. Three weeks in, and I can't really articulate what I've actually learned (which leads me to believe that the answer is "not very much"). The major problem is that this course has no clear objective. And I don't mean that the individual lessons don't have objectives - I actually mean that the entire course doesn't know what it wants to be and the instructors seem to have bypassed this critical question. I have a background in Python, and I was under the impression that this course would teach me how to program in Swift (seems like a fairly straightforward goal). But it isn't that at all. If I were to summarize this course (perhaps a little uncharitably, because I'm annoyed at the time I wasted) it would be: some dudes with a computer talk about some cool features of a programming language. I'm fairly baffled by the fact that there was no thought put into which examples might best illustrate the features they were trying to teach. Which-examples-might-best-illustrate-the-feature-I-am-trying-to-teach is pedagogy 101. They would regularly work through examples just to conclude "actually that's a bad example". This is pretty strong evidence that there was no lesson planning involved. There were also no practice exercises, no posting of pieces of illustrative code, and hence, no way to actually get good at programming in Swift (unless it's self directed, in which case - why bother with the formality of taking a course on Coursera?). | seem to have bypassed this critical | Question | I have a background in Python, | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Unfortunately the course is not very well thought out. The lecture videos are poorly organized, concepts are not presented in the proper context and lack sufficient detail/depth, little thought or effort was put into designing the examples in the videos, there are no actual coding exercises until the last week, there are no examples of elegant code, nor thoughtful examples of good vs. bad code, the quizzes contain questions that are poorly worded and ambiguous (and I think some actually have the wrong answers and are contradicted by other online resources). It's very high level, and they hand-wave important concepts. I really don't see how this class can actually teach you to build a robust high-quality app. You're probably better off just reading some of the official documentation online. | vs. bad code, the quizzes contain | Question | that are poorly worded and ambiguous | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | poorly planned, irrelevant to the subject test questions. | planned, irrelevant to the subject test | Question | | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | This course is poorly designed. What course on a programming language jumps first into how to use the debugger and what went wrong with a program? You are not introducing Swift, you are introducing xcode (and doing a terrible job of it). Also, I have been using xcode and Swift for 8 months now and producing some really good work, but I could only get 3/7 on your quiz because you have written questions with the purpose of tricking people instead of reinforcing or checking knowledge of the content. When you teach a new application, consider introducing the interface first. Explain what the various areas are, what they are needed for, and how to control them. This orients the user in the application and helps them to find their way around when they are trying to reinforce your teachings later. The presentation for this course is so unprofessional. It's like a running commentary on a movie instead of an educational presentation. I felt like I was listening to two geeks stuffing around and having a good time, instead of people who are professional teachers! I'm so incredibly disappointed with this course. Back to the wonderful work of Paul Hegarty from Stanford University on iTunes University and YouTube for me. University of Toronto - you should really consider what your teaching staff are doing before you unleash them on the world. | your quiz because you have written | Question | with the purpose of tricking people | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Very interesting course, isn't too geeky and mathematical, unlike many other astronomy courses. The only thing bothering me was the inability to learn the correct answers and explanations to quiz questions. Some of those were rather mindboggling. | correct answers and explanations to quiz | Question | Some of those were rather mindboggling. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.9 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Thank you!! Very organized and easy to follow. The questions at the end of the week encouraged me to explore more about the subject matter. | organized and easy to follow. The | Question | at the end of the week | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.52 | 0.9 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | As a quick overview to modern astronomy and cosmology this is a very worthwhile course. Highly informative and well presented. Material is detailed enough to provide an understanding of the topics covered and hints at more complexity to encourage further exploration. Marked down to four stars solely on the basis of the review questions. Some of these are ambiguous or have a lack of clarity. Otherwise this course, given the level and time allocation, would rate 5 stars. | on the basis of the review | Question | Some of these are ambiguous or | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.9 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | The course lives up to its title. We indeed confront the "big questions" of modern astronomy: where did the universe come from, what is it made of, what is its future. The presentation is lively and engaging. Relevant topics are touched upon just enough to understand how to approach each question, without any feeling that dense physics is being discussed, as befitting the "highlights" term in the course title. The course structure is very enjoyable and illuminating, and the weekly exercises are superb. Highly recommended. | We indeed confront the " big | Question | of modern astronomy: where did the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.9 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | The course lives up to its title. We indeed confront the "big questions" of modern astronomy: where did the universe come from, what is it made of, what is its future. The presentation is lively and engaging. Relevant topics are touched upon just enough to understand how to approach each question, without any feeling that dense physics is being discussed, as befitting the "highlights" term in the course title. The course structure is very enjoyable and illuminating, and the weekly exercises are superb. Highly recommended. | to understand how to approach each | Question | without any feeling that dense physics | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.9 |
| euRJEycxEeWP8AqYi9cmiw | Too much time required. The first Quiz had almost nothing covered in the video lectures. I saved all transcripts and was unable to answer the questions. The Sim's... I have never seen anything like that and again - it most certainly wasn't covered in the lectures. Disappointed in this course. It took 3 hours for each segment of the first week... not 3 to 4 as was stated. Leaving this course. | and was unable to answer the | Question | The Sim's. . . I have | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.52 | 0.9 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | The organization of this course was very good. I liked the themes and their order. I thought the videos could have been longer and more substancial, but the reading were great. I got confused on one of the assignments in which the questions of the given chapter were supposed to be answer. There were 3. I must have misunderstood or have another file, because no one I read had such question and I got not so great reviews. I think this should be looked at. Either way, thank you for this opportunity! | of the assignments in which the | Question | of the given chapter were supposed | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | The organization of this course was very good. I liked the themes and their order. I thought the videos could have been longer and more substancial, but the reading were great. I got confused on one of the assignments in which the questions of the given chapter were supposed to be answer. There were 3. I must have misunderstood or have another file, because no one I read had such question and I got not so great reviews. I think this should be looked at. Either way, thank you for this opportunity! | no one I read had such | Question | and I got not so great | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Solid and to the point. It will not get you ready to do a research, but it will give you the tools to design a solid enough draft or question for a research, | design a solid enough draft or | Question | for a research, | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | I like the first E-tivity where we were asked to do the reading and listen to the video then come up with our own research question. I wished the rest of the course had continued along the same line where we can create a possible framework of what our research would have looked like by utilizing the ideas developed during the videos and readings. | come up with our own research | Question | I wished the rest of the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | It's a really good course to learn general parameters of research. However I think the E-tivity 3 wasn't clear some people did a summary from the reading, some others answered the questions from the reading and me tried to do a connection between the videos and the reading. These misunderstandings can have impact in the evaluation from the partners | the reading, some others answered the | Question | from the reading and me tried | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Excellent course to know and distinguish different approaches to the research question.. | distinguish different approaches to the research | Question | . | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | thanks a lot for this course i think that it will help me to progress in research practice and to publish researches and to learn how to find answers to burning questions in my mind | how to find answers to burning | Question | in my mind | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | Good content but would have preferred if it was more interactive. There is no way to discuss in detail and debate over a topic. I still have many questions unanswered and forum is very inactive. Wish there was a thread for each topic where people could just discuss their perspective. Overall good content but lack of interaction makes it incomplete in my opinion. | a topic. I still have many | Question | unanswered and forum is very inactive. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.97 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I undertook this marketing course as a marketer keen to make sure I was up to date and thinking about new ideas. It was a shame redlaser.com is no longer active, however I'm sure there are other tools, the course content just needs to be updated. I liked the Quad elements but found the Quizzes a bit frustrating particularly when they asked questions for which the answer was covered in the next topic. Overall however, time well spend. Thanks to Aric and team. | bit frustrating particularly when they asked | Question | for which the answer was covered | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.97 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I like this course because it has diferent activities. Its not about answering treaky questions but true learning and working around new interesting concepts. The must complete style. By far the best Coursera Ive took. | activities. Its not about answering treaky | Question | but true learning and working around | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.97 |
| FDKAdNsuEeSEcyIAC2mPOQ | I give this course 5 stars! I learned a lot and I like the hands on activities. The only thing I would change is how the assignments are graded. I know that they're graded by our peers but I don't think that everyone knows how to correctly grade assignments. I received some low scores and I disagree with them. I answered all of the questions with enough detail to be at least "good." | them. I answered all of the | Question | with enough detail to be at | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.97 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | sure I could answer the quiz | Question | Either the quiz questions were bad | Negative | -0.8 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | the quiz questions. Either the quiz | Question | were bad or it was taught | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I enjoyed hearing about epidemiology, but didn't find the quizzes very useful. I was expecting more practice doing computation or examining case studies. The lectures also had no time in between slides to pause, write notes, and make sure I understood what was just said. I liked that the lectures were well organized and the review questions in between the topics of discussion. | were well organized and the review | Question | in between the topics of discussion. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Nice course with the correct approach on the basics of Epidemiology. Only one minor issue, i think the focus on the historical aspects, although interesting, was a bit too much in the lectures and the tests. Being able to define OR or CI should be more important than questions on history. Overall, great work! | CI should be more important than | Question | on history. Overall, great work! | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I thought this was a good basic level introduction course. One suggestion is to update the quiz section to be able to click on the questions that were answered incorrectly and see the correct answer with explanation (after passing). | be able to click on the | Question | that were answered incorrectly and see | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | There is no real flow between videos and questions, not easy to follow. Good efford, good content, just wrong methodology for online training for 2015. | no real flow between videos and | Question | not easy to follow. Good efford, | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | The content was really neat and definitely not something I had been exposed to before. I really liked the quantitative parts of the course and wish there had been more time spent on that and more quiz questions on that. The reason I am ranking this 2 stars is that I felt the quizzes were unreasonably difficult (or perhaps they had bugs). Week 2 quiz I had to take multiple times and really couldn't figure out what the correct answer was. Looking at the discussion boards I believe my sentiment is shared. I have taken multiple coursera classes (Astronomy, Astrobiology, Calculus) and these are by far the most difficult quizes I have encountered. | spent on that and more quiz | Question | on that. The reason I am | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | I found the course very informative, there was quite a lot of information in there for only six weeks of study but it didn't feel overwhelming either. Professor Marc van Oostendorp was very engaging in his presentation of the material, and I liked the fact that his students were there to ask questions as well. I also liked how the language informants were used - I was able to practice what I had learned in the other videos by analysing their speech patterns. Overall, I was quite impressed by this course. | his students were there to ask | Question | as well. I also liked how | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | I really liked it ! It was a challenge for me personally ! Getting the questions wrong on quizes really discouraged me but then I would keep going and not give up ! Awesome !!! | for me personally ! Getting the | Question | wrong on quizes really discouraged me | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course is a lightweight introduction to Linguistics. If you are absolutely new to linguistics, it will provide you with enough information for further research and self-development. There are some really interesting facts provided by the required reading of the course. What I mostly liked about the course is the list of additional literature. What I mostly didn't like are quizzes - I little bit too reliant on the question formulation. The only quiz that I really liked was about syntactic analysis of informants' sentences. | little bit too reliant on the | Question | formulation. The only quiz that I | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | VERY good content and classes! Some questions in the quizzes are confusing, and there was the trouble with the required reading for Week 3. The first Honors assignment is confusing - specially its very last input question. | VERY good content and classes! Some | Question | in the quizzes are confusing, and | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Some of the material could be a bit more analytical, and there were a few problems with the quiz questions. Other than that, perfect! Great introduction to linguistics. Thank you for your hard work! | a few problems with the quiz | Question | Other than that, perfect! Great introduction | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course was often confusing and the quizzes came down to a question of trial and error. I found this very frustrating. Although the topics were interesting, I didn't find them very well presented in spite of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. But there was a lot of ambiguity and bias and the inability to discuss except through the forums was off-putting. It wouild be good to know why answers were wrong in the quizzes particulalry when you had put a lot of effort into studying them. In the final exam, there are questions which are evidently wrong, both in their wording and in their marking and nothing has been done to remedy this in spite of the complaints in the discussion page. | the quizzes came down to a | Question | of trial and error. I found | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course was often confusing and the quizzes came down to a question of trial and error. I found this very frustrating. Although the topics were interesting, I didn't find them very well presented in spite of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. But there was a lot of ambiguity and bias and the inability to discuss except through the forums was off-putting. It wouild be good to know why answers were wrong in the quizzes particulalry when you had put a lot of effort into studying them. In the final exam, there are questions which are evidently wrong, both in their wording and in their marking and nothing has been done to remedy this in spite of the complaints in the discussion page. | In the final exam, there are | Question | which are evidently wrong, both in | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Material is excellent and very interesting. Test questions can be confusing and poorly phrased. | is excellent and very interesting. Test | Question | can be confusing and poorly phrased. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | - but the quality of the | Question | is questionable. Sometimes the answer is | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | for this is that there are | Question | being asked, which weren't even touched | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I like how this specialisation evolves... as in the previous block, it does not give you all details, but merely sets the direction. The homework assignments are quite good and, if executed properly, will teach you a lot. The only complaint - frequent ambiguity of multiple choice quiz questions. | frequent ambiguity of multiple choice quiz | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Stuff is explained thoroughly, all documents are provided, teaching staff answers the questions in discussions. I've learnt a lot! Thanks to teachers! | are provided, teaching staff answers the | Question | in discussions. I've learnt a lot! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Fq__yk2bEeS5fSIACy-OMw | Great course! The only change i would ask for: after the test, could you let us see the correct response to the questions we got wrong? Thanks! | see the correct response to the | Question | we got wrong? Thanks! | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.72 |
| Fq__yk2bEeS5fSIACy-OMw | With a biology background I had some difficulty following this course. That is understandable, as a lot of it relies in mathematical modelling and statistics. I still felt like some exam questions relied on material not yet lectured, which would sometimes leave me at a loss as to how I should have gotten to the right question in the first place. The lectures could have been structured differently, so as to facilitate engagement - I found myself easily losing focus and having to repeat the videos. Despite its shortcomings, the course is still a powerful introduction to Systems Biology. | I still felt like some exam | Question | relied on material not yet lectured, | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.72 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | The course material was interesting, but the TOTAL lack of support forces me to give it only one star. I left the following complaint in the general forum for this course 2 months ago. Neither Coursera, the instructor or any moderator ever responded. Many people were not able to run the software supplied in the course because of bugs, but the solution was left to the student. I have taken good courses on line before, but this is not one of them. It seems that the Dr. Tucker Balch and/or the moderators have totally abandoned this course, but Coursera keeps offering it and collecting money. The neither instructor or nor the moderators have posted on the Meet and Greet Forum. The instructor and/or moderators have ANSWERED NO QUESTIONS posted on ANY forum. The QSTK (software) BUGS have NOT BEEN ADDRESSED by the instructor or the moderators. Only students have answered these forum questions. "Computational Investing Part II is coming shortly." That is what they said 3 years ago. Further evidence of abandonment. | instructor and/or moderators have ANSWERED NO | Question | posted on ANY forum. The QSTK | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.56 | 1.08 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | The course material was interesting, but the TOTAL lack of support forces me to give it only one star. I left the following complaint in the general forum for this course 2 months ago. Neither Coursera, the instructor or any moderator ever responded. Many people were not able to run the software supplied in the course because of bugs, but the solution was left to the student. I have taken good courses on line before, but this is not one of them. It seems that the Dr. Tucker Balch and/or the moderators have totally abandoned this course, but Coursera keeps offering it and collecting money. The neither instructor or nor the moderators have posted on the Meet and Greet Forum. The instructor and/or moderators have ANSWERED NO QUESTIONS posted on ANY forum. The QSTK (software) BUGS have NOT BEEN ADDRESSED by the instructor or the moderators. Only students have answered these forum questions. "Computational Investing Part II is coming shortly." That is what they said 3 years ago. Further evidence of abandonment. | Only students have answered these forum | Question | " Computational Investing Part II is | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.56 | 1.08 |
| fTnuinwaEeS7SCIACxCljA | Terrible. Nobody seems to monitor the forum. No response to questions posted. I want to rate zero but there is no such option available. | monitor the forum. No response to | Question | posted. I want to rate zero | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.56 | 1.08 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Was very educational, learn't a lot and the great thing was having to implement the theory learn't in the notes and lectures during the assignments. The "curve" ball questions were great too as it forced you to apply understanding thus teaching you to apply your knowledge based on the core principles learn't. | the assignments. The " curve" ball | Question | were great too as it forced | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 0.98 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Excellent course for students with some finance background. Content is nicely paced and well illustrated through models and examples. The quizzes range from straight forward application to challenging (given there is no feedback on where you got a question incorrect). | feedback on where you got a | Question | incorrect). | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 0.98 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | nice challenging course with very good lecture videos and supporting material. the questions tested the material very well and were just challenging enough for my taste. Also the teachers were explaining the material very well. | lecture videos and supporting material. the | Question | tested the material very well and | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 0.98 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The course provides a very thorough introduction on the basic models and mechanisms by which various financial products are priced. One issue I had, was that the quiz questions sometimes used terminology or jargon for which the link with the material covered in the videos was not always immediately obvious. Also, the course, especially the later modules, heavily relies on Microsoft Excel, which some people might not be willing to pay hard cash for. It is possible to pass by doing the assignments with e.g. Python, but it's a lot of work, and not for the faint of heart. | I had, was that the quiz | Question | sometimes used terminology or jargon for | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.98 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Three stars for course structure, two stars less for every poor course material which doesn't contain any guidance to test questions. | doesn't contain any guidance to test | Question | | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.98 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Im really fascinated with this course. By the way, i think some quiz have few mistakes as the module about pricing swaptions in the calibration model. The answer the professor gave is not 13300 or 19400, but 1330 or 1940 respectively. The quiz#6, the answer for the question 1 and 2 is multiple, its between a range and i cant complete it, please check the parameters again. | The quiz#6, the answer for the | Question | 1 and 2 is multiple, its | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 0.98 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | About me: I studied computer science in Dortmund, Germany in the 90ies. I recommend this course to everyone who wants to have a very good understanding of machine learning. A little bit of advice, if you have never learned linear algebra on a university level, you should at least try to get a basic understanding of it before starting this course. I was happy that I remembered stuff, learning it from scratch in 1 or 2 weeks would be difficult, I assume. +: * Mathematical basics of machine learning are very well explained * Andrew Ng is a very good professor, he explains the topic very well and thoroughly * It is not limited by using a special framework or language * The support in the forums, and the transcription of the talks, and all the material that is given to you is really excellent. -: * I would be happy if the programming exercises would be a bit more fun, currently it feels like translating / transforming math formulas into octave, which is fine, but not very fun. Having said that I am only in week 4, perhaps this will happen later * some text questions in the multiple choice quizzes require a precise understanding of the english language, especially in regards to math, I am not a native speaker, so these questions feel especially hard for me | will happen later * some text | Question | in the multiple choice quizzes require | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Just completed the course myself and I have to say this is a great course for anyone who wants to get a comprehensive understanding of Machine Learning. First of all, the content of the course is very well structured. It covers a lot of machine learning algorithms and also includes a lot of practical applications. Professor Ng is very gifted in teaching and he can explain some difficult topics in very simple terms. I also found he is very engaging and the quick questions inserted in the middle of the videos are very helpful to keep the students focused on the lecture. The programming assignments are at the right level of difficulty, and I found the instruction for each assignment works like a great summary of the corresponding materials. Didn't use their discussion forum much, but for a couple times I used, the mentor was able to respond in a very timely manner. Overall, this is a great course and I am so happy to be able to take it myself. Thank you, Professor Ng! | is very engaging and the quick | Question | inserted in the middle of the | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course material and programming assignments were very helpful, but the test grader is not helpful, I was not allowed to post questions I had on the forums (nor provide meaningful answers) because of the strange version and interpretation of the Honor Code, and the mentor Tom Mosher was unhelpful bordering on outright rude. | I was not allowed to post | Question | I had on the forums (nor | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Well-explained, clearly structured, useful practice and well designed review questions. Really helpful! | useful practice and well designed review | Question | Really helpful! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The videos are of a helpful length and they are organized into lessons with constructive quiz questions and assignments interspersed to make a student progress logically and incrementally through the course. I found the mentors' guidance helpful to bridge the gap between video lectures and programming assignments. | organized into lessons with constructive quiz | Question | and assignments interspersed to make a | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Perfectly explained! And a nice community. Questions are being answered within 30 minutes. | Perfectly explained! And a nice community. | Question | are being answered within 30 minutes. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Although this course was recorded in 2011, I have found it incredibly valuable. Professor Andrew Ng presents exceptionally well providing a strong logic and clear thought allowing you to follow along and understand. Additionally, due to the fact that this was recorded in 2011, I think allows people like myself who don't have much experience with the ML topic to learn the basics as it was taught then. Many times, topics get very confusing as they grow and evolve. The level of information and concepts presented are fantastic and I've gotten so much out of my time and efforts. Thanks to Professor Ng and all of the moderators and mentors that are still active answering questions. | mentors that are still active answering | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is the best to way to start with Machine Learning. Andrew NG has explained all the topics in a really interesting manner for student with all kind of background. Also He has taken care to answer all the question probably a student can have while attending this class. Overall a wonderful experience and Now I am really feeling Welcomed By the field of Machine Learning :-). Thanks a lot Andrew NG, Thanks a lot Coursera. | taken care to answer all the | Question | probably a student can have while | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Awesome/Excellent/Outstanding !!! This course was my first step in Machine Learning en route to data science. The videos explain difficult concepts in easy to understand words with examples. The assignments will make you think real hard and they do a great job to ensure that you get basics down and give you wings to implement an algorithm to a real world data set. The discussion/forum/wiki_page is very helpful and thanks to the Mentors for immediate help with questions on the forums. Many thanks to Professor Ng. | the Mentors for immediate help with | Question | on the forums. Many thanks to | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Phenomenal. Andrew explained concepts that I thought were so difficult with ease and clarity. Now I'm thinking "Oh, it was so simple!" The mentors did a great job responding to questions and aiding. The first few lessons are a grind- easily spend more than 2 hours on the first problem of the first problem set. Week 6 was brutal. But that was the pivoting point; after that, the knowledge just stuck with me and became more intuition. The problem sets after week 6 took maybe an hour or two *total*, which shows the progression you can make if you stick it out. Thank you Stanford for this amazing course! | did a great job responding to | Question | and aiding. The first few lessons | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Awesome course, great teacher. very useful material, quizzes, assignments, review questions and intutions throughout the course | very useful material, quizzes, assignments, review | Question | and intutions throughout the course | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing course: rather slow-paced but quite in-depth, great pedagogy, various quizzes and little questions in the videos that maintain interest and rhythm throughout the course. The programming assignments are also very well built, allowing people to focus on the core aspects of machine learning by taking care of all the language-specific environment. | great pedagogy, various quizzes and little | Question | in the videos that maintain interest | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I benefit a lot from this course. Most of details in this course are designed from practical perspective, so if you as a beginner want to learn ML well, you are highly recommended to take all questions and programming assignments. | are highly recommended to take all | Question | and programming assignments. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course and a great instructor. Basic linear algebra and obvious motivation can help you get through this class. Amazing moderators who quickly response within hours to your questions how naïve it may so | quickly response within hours to your | Question | how naïve it may so | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | There are a number of issues with this course, and more generally Coursera. While the course does cover the material, it uses non-standard mathematical notation. This can be very confusing and seems as if it is purposefully so. There are several mathematical abstractions used that perhaps have a purpose in later machine learning applications but seem unnecessary here. Another issue is that the course assumes the use of Octave which is not available for Windows users apparently. It also allows the use of MatLab but the quiz questions are in Octave which means the quiz is not necessarily testing understanding of the course material as it is Octave. Generally, the opportunities for feedback to Coursera are highly limited. A colleague once took a course online (through another platform). Some of the course material was objectively wrong. However, there was no ability to submit feedback. I have the sense that this could easily happen with the Coursera material. It totally undercuts the apparent validity of the platform. | use of MatLab but the quiz | Question | are in Octave which means the | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is a fantastic course! I have a computational physics/chemistry background but had no prior machine learning experience. This course allowed me to gain a solid foundation in machine learning. The lectures are very well paced and the exercises and revision questions well thought out. Enough real-world context is given to prevent things from being too abstract, but the great bulk of the time is spent actually learning how to apply machine learning. Well worth the money. Thanks Andrew! | paced and the exercises and revision | Question | well thought out. Enough real-world context | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course. Covered many key machine learning concepts, was clear and easy to follow. Great support from both staff and other students with questions. | both staff and other students with | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Fantastic. Andrew Ng is a naturally charismatic teacher with a knack for anticipating issues which his students may encounter and assuaging them before they become sticking points for later understanding. By their nature, online courses cannot benefit from students asking questions of their instructors so it is doubly important that instructors be aware of areas which may confuse students and take anticipatory action to avoid this- this is only one of Ng's strengths. Beyond this, Ng is simply an enthusiastic instructor whose passion for his subject is contagious. He also conveys a genuine sense of understanding the student's process of coming to grips with more difficult portions, often explaining what has confused him before (though, given his expertise, one may wonder just how much these areas actually give him difficulty). All things considered, the biggest disappointment is that there are not more courses available with Ng as the instructor. | courses cannot benefit from students asking | Question | of their instructors so it is | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I'm about 3/4 into the class. Before the start I knew close to nothing about the subject. Prof. Ng has done an outstanding job in presenting the subject, explaining the underlying theory, and assigning problems and exercises that deepened my understanding. He is a highly organized teacher and excellent pedagogue. Special thanks to the course TAs as well who are very responsive to comments and questions, and have prepared great materials that always helped me to completed the assignments. This is a textbook example of a great online class that is fun to attend. Well done! | are very responsive to comments and | Question | and have prepared great materials that | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This was my first class on Coursera and I couldn't have been more happier about it. Content is very well presented, mathematics standing behind various ML models is served to the listener with just enough details to understand it, but not to add any confusion. Assignments are great and really help you to understand how algorithms works. The only thing I'd change is questions about Octave in Quizes. Octave is very nice tool, no doubt, but I personally want to stick to R language and I really didn't want to memorize certain functions or syntax that Octave is using. Great job! I can recommend this class to anyone with a clean conscious. | The only thing I'd change is | Question | about Octave in Quizes. Octave is | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good videos. reasonable quiz questions. good programming assignments. | good videos. reasonable quiz | Question | good programming assignments. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | My CS friend recommended me to take this course to learn more about how to use data in business, after he heard that I wanted to program an app for food. he warned me about the great deal of math involved (mainly linear algebra). me being a physics/engineering major I naturally got even more excited (it turned out that he was right, and it would also be a huge plus to know multivariate calculus, and I can see myself struggle with the concepts had I not studied both these topics to bits in school). incidentally, this was my first online coursera experience. I can tell you it will be life changing experience. No longer do I have to physically travel somewhere to listen to lectures or hand in assignments, nor download lecture notes off of the school server. This is a 24/7 always on always available service, with the best TA's to answer your questions if you get stuck on homework assignments and quizzes. Everything in the coding assignments tests your knowledge of the course lectures and is designed such that you can complete it in the shortest possible amount of time while reaping the maximum amount of benefit. It is "easy" sense does not require you to grind through mundane things like looking for your own training set data or writing code to plot and visualise the data, but it is "hard" in the sense that very often it takes an hour (or more) of studying the lectures and thinking to figure out how to solve the problem in the most efficient way as possible which often involves writing a single line of vectored matlab/octave code. It is more of an overview of the most important topics in machine learning, but will be a great springboard to go in depth into each aspect of it. Lastly, Andrew often offers wonderful insights into the day to day of machine learning professionals in his lecture videos, so I would advise watching every single minute of them to get the most out of the course instead of aiming to race over the finish line (which can be tempting at times when the deadline approaches) | the best TA's to answer your | Question | if you get stuck on homework | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course offers informative lectures with good explanations, a set of quizzes with well-posed questions and even programming exercises that are evaluated online using Octave. Highly recommended! | a set of quizzes with well-posed | Question | and even programming exercises that are | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course that holds one's hand through the field of ML and provides a hands on guide through the in-video questions, quizes & assignment tutorials. A great confidence builder. | hands on guide through the in-video | Question | quizes & assignment tutorials. A great | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It is pretty fast paced as well in depth course on Machine Learning. First five weeks are hard and mainly focused on building foundation while rest of the weeks teaches very useful technique to broaden the knowledge. Professor Ng has done awesome job as well as all the mentors. There is so much information on the group discussion, I hardly had to post anything as most of the answers to my questions are already there. wiki page is great and I did read it before taking any quiz. Some quizzes are super hard and I had to attempt few times to pass those. | most of the answers to my | Question | are already there. wiki page is | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was great! Andrew Ng did a wonderful job of explaining the material and keeping it engaging. The questions on the quizzes were relevant and provoked thought, not just recall. The programming assignments were interesting and have you implement actual ML algorithms. If Andrew offered another class, I'd take it! | material and keeping it engaging. The | Question | on the quizzes were relevant and | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I like the way this course is designed. The lectures are very articulate. The thing that impressed me most about the Professor is; Students who doesn't have sound calculus and vector algebra understanding also can complete this course easily. Assignments are application oriented and some are challenging too. The Questions in Quiz assignments are in such a way that they test your understanding of that particular lecture and the summary of it. | and some are challenging too. The | Question | in Quiz assignments are in such | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course content is very dense but the questions and exercices help you master the topics as you are progressing. Interesting class. | content is very dense but the | Question | and exercices help you master the | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | An extremely useful course designed very beautifully and presented in a very lucid manner. The assignments help in bringing out the technicalities of the course very efficiently. And the quiz questions help a lot in gaining intuition. However, it MUST have a sequel.. another course that takes students deeper into Machine Learning concepts and tools of the trade. | course very efficiently. And the quiz | Question | help a lot in gaining intuition. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The programming exercises aren't really all that challenging...just implement the formulas provided in the course or in the assignment itself, and you're mostly done. I hate the questions on the quizzes that are "Select all the following that are true..." The only questions I ever got wrong on quizzes were of that sort. | you're mostly done. I hate the | Question | on the quizzes that are " | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The programming exercises aren't really all that challenging...just implement the formulas provided in the course or in the assignment itself, and you're mostly done. I hate the questions on the quizzes that are "Select all the following that are true..." The only questions I ever got wrong on quizzes were of that sort. | true. . . " The only | Question | I ever got wrong on quizzes | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The concepts are explained masterfully with a focus on understanding rather than high-level mathematics which most of these topics invariably deal with. Plus the exercises give a real feel for the practical questions that Machine Learning can solve and the method that practitioners use most often. | a real feel for the practical | Question | that Machine Learning can solve and | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Really well structured. Very clear and concise lectures. Interesting and useful assignments - much better than multiple-choice questions, whilst still being correctable by software. | assignments - much better than multiple-choice | Question | whilst still being correctable by software. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I thought this was an excellent course and only have positive feedback for it. The lecture contents were interesting and well tied to exercise questions and programming assignments. The programming assignments were challenging overall but forced me to really learn the details of each machine learning algorithm. When things got a little too frustrating, such as for the neural network backpropagation assignment, the forums provided ample direction for me to move forward. | interesting and well tied to exercise | Question | and programming assignments. The programming assignments | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was very nicely done. Dr Ng's videos and narrative were excellent. They were long enough to convey the material properly and short enough not to loose my attention. Assignments were very good as they left you just enough room to fail, learn and ultimately succeed. The quizzes were thought provoking. On the questions that stated "choose all that apply," I would suggest that some form of feedback be provided so that the test taker could know which ones were incorrectly selected/not selected. Perhaps partial credit would be good instead of 0/20 with one wrong selection. Feedback, perhaps an explanation, would be appropriate on all questions incorrectly answered. I would also suggest a pdf document that showed how to do the various matrix operations in octave with an example or two. This would include basic and advanced operations. I know linear algebra, I just didn't know the syntax in octave and this cost me 3-5 hours over the whole course. Now off to do some simple applications here at work like spam filter and anomaly detection to start. Thanks for an excellent course. | explanation, would be appropriate on all | Question | incorrectly answered. I would also suggest | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course for a beginner in Machine Learning. Nice explanation of concepts with good examples followed by programming assignments. I like the way of using an intuition to understand a new learning theory. Questions in quizzes will help check/improve basic concept of the learning algorithms with real world problems. | to understand a new learning theory. | Question | in quizzes will help check/improve basic | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I liked this course very much: The lectures follow up in a logical, natural way and the topics are very well explained. Personally, I had more problems with the quizzes (5 questions each) than with the programming assignments. The examples were interesting and the instructions so clear and detailed that I found it rather easy to do the programming. Another point that is worth to mention: The instructor, Andrew Ng, has not only an agreeable voice and speaks an easy-to-understand english (important for me as a non-english speaker) - He "transports" in addition his own passion for the subject and gives a lot of applicable advices. | more problems with the quizzes (5 | Question | each) than with the programming assignments. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | a. very good coverage of standard algorithmic approaches. b. good suggestive guidelines on specifics of algorithms like issues / details one need to be careful, need not to bother etc.. c. broad coverage of examples.. d. tricky questions...good to experience... Overall I liked this course content and the breadth of coverage. Based on the difficulty i experienced let me place some points of improvements that would help every student.... e. could have dealt some specific examples in full (from definition to implementation) as part of video lecture which would helped better understanding of the problems, algorithms, impact of specifics, implementation issues, analysis methods, inferences that could be derived, final expected solution. f. expecting feedback on exercises.... not only correct or incorrect but reasoning for the responses could be of great help in better understanding.... g. downloadable videos could contain in video quiz... h. Octave content could be increased..... i. audio of the lectures needs fine tuning, hissing sounds could be filtered. For some of the lectures subtitles does not match at all... Thank you very much for coursera.... Thank you very much Prof. Andrew Ng..... Looking forward for mor courses related to ML by you.... | coverage of examples. . d. tricky | Question | . . good to experience. . | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Andrew Ng is an excellent tutor and has a real talent for exposition. I find I'm getting the depth, rigor and keen interest that this subject commands, but not at the expense of clarity. I also find the quizzes to be conducive to my learning. In a modest number of questions, the most important points are covered completely. | learning. In a modest number of | Question | the most important points are covered | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course provides a very structured introduction to the subject of Machine Learning. Every week includes programming assignments in MATLAB/Octave. These come with templates and precise instructions. With a little experience in any programming language the assignments should be no problem. The assignments are well planned to keep the motivation up. Really great job! Learners should be familiar with vectors and matrices. Even though all the concepts are explained, being confident with the math will shorten the time for debugging the code immensely. The course team answers technical and other questions VERY quickly. Thanks again! | course team answers technical and other | Question | VERY quickly. Thanks again! | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very interesting content, very well explained. Minor issues: some quizzes or questions appear a little early sometimes regarding the order of the videos though, and subtitles are not always correct. | explained. Minor issues: some quizzes or | Question | appear a little early sometimes regarding | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Overall, an awesome course. It covers many useful algorithms and approaches to machine learning, and presents the material in an easy to understand manner. The assignments really reinforce the material and give you a chance to try out the lessons learned in the lectures. The only downside to this course is that it doesn't cover some of the more theoretical aspects of machine learning. After participating in this course, it is natural to ask "what questions can't we solve with machine learning?" "What defines something as machine learnable?", or "What are the mathematics behind this method?" These are small problems with an otherwise amazing course. In fact, I would say that this course is more useful than quite a few you can take an accredited university. | is natural to ask " what | Question | can't we solve with machine learning? | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Before starting this course, I had no previous knowledge of machine learning and I had never programmed in Octave and I have little/no programming skills. This is a 11-week course and so I was not sure if I would make it to the end (or even get through the first week) but I was keen to learn something new. Positive Aspects: The course is extremely well structured, with short videos (and test questions to help us verify if we have understood the concepts), quizzes and assignments. Prof. Andrew Ng presents the concepts (some very difficult) in a clear and almost intuitive manner without going too much into detail with mathematical proofs, making the course accessible to anyone. The mentors were fantastic and provided prompt responses, links to tutorials and test cases, which all helped me get through the course. Negative Aspects: Searching the Discussion Board for something specific was no easy task. I would have liked to have known the answers to some of the questions in the quizzes that I got wrong. What I loved about this course: Learning how powerful vectorization is, it allows us to write several lines of code in one single line and can be much faster than using for-loops. I was wowed several times. Prof. Andrew Ng is a great teacher. He is also extremely humble and very encouraging. During the course he often said, "It's ok if you don't understand this completely now. It also took me time to figure this out." This helped me a lot. He also said, "if you got through the assignments, you should consider yourself an expert!" and I laughed silly. By no means do I feel like an expert but now I have a basic understanding of the different types of learning algorithms, what they could be used for and more importantly this course has generated a spark in me to use this tool for things that I find interesting and for that I am very grateful. I don't think a teacher has ever thanked me for assisting a class. This is a first-time! So thank you Prof. Andrew Ng and everyone who worked to put this course together. Also, special thanks to Tom Mosher (mentor). My best MOOC so far! | structured, with short videos (and test | Question | to help us verify if we | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Before starting this course, I had no previous knowledge of machine learning and I had never programmed in Octave and I have little/no programming skills. This is a 11-week course and so I was not sure if I would make it to the end (or even get through the first week) but I was keen to learn something new. Positive Aspects: The course is extremely well structured, with short videos (and test questions to help us verify if we have understood the concepts), quizzes and assignments. Prof. Andrew Ng presents the concepts (some very difficult) in a clear and almost intuitive manner without going too much into detail with mathematical proofs, making the course accessible to anyone. The mentors were fantastic and provided prompt responses, links to tutorials and test cases, which all helped me get through the course. Negative Aspects: Searching the Discussion Board for something specific was no easy task. I would have liked to have known the answers to some of the questions in the quizzes that I got wrong. What I loved about this course: Learning how powerful vectorization is, it allows us to write several lines of code in one single line and can be much faster than using for-loops. I was wowed several times. Prof. Andrew Ng is a great teacher. He is also extremely humble and very encouraging. During the course he often said, "It's ok if you don't understand this completely now. It also took me time to figure this out." This helped me a lot. He also said, "if you got through the assignments, you should consider yourself an expert!" and I laughed silly. By no means do I feel like an expert but now I have a basic understanding of the different types of learning algorithms, what they could be used for and more importantly this course has generated a spark in me to use this tool for things that I find interesting and for that I am very grateful. I don't think a teacher has ever thanked me for assisting a class. This is a first-time! So thank you Prof. Andrew Ng and everyone who worked to put this course together. Also, special thanks to Tom Mosher (mentor). My best MOOC so far! | the answers to some of the | Question | in the quizzes that I got | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course is a highly valuable one. It has been organized extremely well. The instructor provides a lot of motivation around Machine Learning and its uses and explains everything in a very simplistic way that even a non Linear-Algebra expert can understand. Furthermore, there were also mentors that had been really helpful by responding to questions and providing unit tests and test cases for the programming assignments in order to make the debugging an easier task for those attending the course. | been really helpful by responding to | Question | and providing unit tests and test | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This was by far the best class I have had so far on Coursera. I feel that I now have a really good understanding of linear and logistic regression and neural networks as well as the other learning methods that we touched upon. I thought that the quizzes and assignments were very appropriate and helped me to further cement my understanding that I gained through watching the video. Professor Ang explains the material very clearly. I always walked away feeling that any questions I might have were answered completely in the videos or in the discussions. I would highly recommend this class to anyone who wants to have a good understanding of Machine Learning. | always walked away feeling that any | Question | I might have were answered completely | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very well put together course. The lectures are logically structured and well presented with lots of meaningful and current examples. The Matlab programming assignments have been well thought out to incrementally step the student up through the different capabilities. 'Select All that Apply' quiz questions will likely drive you crazy as there is no feedback on no feedback on failed questions to understand where your mistake(s) was/were which means you spend hours more pouring over the videos/notes to try and better understand possible options for a subsequent attempt. | capabilities. 'Select All that Apply' quiz | Question | will likely drive you crazy as | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very well put together course. The lectures are logically structured and well presented with lots of meaningful and current examples. The Matlab programming assignments have been well thought out to incrementally step the student up through the different capabilities. 'Select All that Apply' quiz questions will likely drive you crazy as there is no feedback on no feedback on failed questions to understand where your mistake(s) was/were which means you spend hours more pouring over the videos/notes to try and better understand possible options for a subsequent attempt. | feedback on no feedback on failed | Question | to understand where your mistake(s) was/were | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.41 | 1.17 |
| gZ6cbKKkEeW1Bw7HN8tFsw | Professor Meyer gave exemplary lectures while explaining a variety of different philosophical schools. I found the course interesting and enriching primarily due to the high quality of the lectures given by Professor Meyer. The questions during the lectures were helpful and the quizzes were short and effective in testing learning. May Professor Meyer live long and continue to teach! | lectures given by Professor Meyer. The | Question | during the lectures were helpful and | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.04 |
| gZ6cbKKkEeW1Bw7HN8tFsw | Outstanding course for those who don't fear the important questions, such as: "What makes a good life?". Don't miss it! | those who don't fear the important | Question | such as: " What makes a | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 1.04 |
| gZ6cbKKkEeW1Bw7HN8tFsw | Clearly presented.course which focuses only on the principal question and themes of each of the 4 philosophies. I found it extremely valuable as it structured in a logical way these issues and also related themt modern life. My only criticism relates to the grading method of the final assignment 0 or 1 is far too simplistic. | which focuses only on the principal | Question | and themes of each of the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 1.04 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | Unlike the rest of the modules in this specialisation, this one was well taught, a good blend of theory and practice and well paced. There were still a few issues with wording in quizzes (and some where there seemed to be two identical answers to one question, where one would be considered right and the other wrong - purely chance). In addition, the lack of consistency in how to submit assignments across the specialisation is frustrating, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a way to show how to use github or something like that, but it shouldn't be the case. | be two identical answers to one | Question | where one would be considered right | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.75 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course allows you to implement practical solutions using machine learning algorithms without having to know the mechanisms behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately questions in the discussion forum were quite rare and many questions were not resolved during this course. | forum were quite rare and many | Question | were not resolved during this course. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.75 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The quizes do not match a 100% with the lecture videos. There are some weird questions. My algorithms' outputs deviate from answers some times, which is due to different software versions. Quizes are not very educating this time. Courses by Brian Caffo were much better. | lecture videos. There are some weird | Question | My algorithms' outputs deviate from answers | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.75 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Very informative with plenty of real-life (or credible fictional) examples to better understand the concepts that were introduced. The pace was agreeable and the subjects diverse. Special mention should go to the instructor (Prof. Tobias Kretschmer), who did a terrific job! I liked the question format as well, though it could have been more challenging by not giving away the answers after an end-of-module quiz even if you didn't pass. That being said, the course is well worth 5 stars! | a terrific job! I liked the | Question | format as well, though it could | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | content was not as interesting as in the first course, but still good overall. Questions were also less analytical challenging as the first course. But I still enjoyed the course as the professor was explaining the subject clearly and the videos were compact and enjoyable. | first course, but still good overall. | Question | were also less analytical challenging as | Positive | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | while the task of summing up a lot of information in a minimum sized presentation is always a very difficult task, the structure of the material presented was not optimal. This in turn made it difficult for me personally to actually connect the weekly information presented with the overall meaning and the objective of each module. The "why" and "how" of most modules fit to the meaning we are forming (up to week 5 -the point I am leaving this class) is not evident. Last, some of the questions contained ambiguities that could not be reasonably clarified even going back and reviewing the material of the specific segment. Thank you for the offered class in any case. | not evident. Last, some of the | Question | contained ambiguities that could not be | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | quizzes. I got a number of | Question | wrong simply because I could not | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | explained. I would suggest more definitive | Question | and reduce multiple choice questions or | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | While the course was overall well developed, there are certain language challenges to overcome especially with understanding the wording of quizzes. I got a number of questions wrong simply because I could not understand the phrasing, and lack of explanations on quizzes makes for a lot of difficulty to evaluate progress. And I get the reason for not including answer explanations, at the same time I'm literally comparing answers to the module transcripts and could not possibly infer multiple choice answers based off how the topic was explained. I would suggest more definitive questions and reduce multiple choice questions or at least define the question in a more narrow, specified manner to minimize confusion. I'm taking this course for fun, I have an MBA and love strategy, so the topics are not new by any means, but if I can't understand what you're trying to say I would imagine non-business backgrounds would find the questions very difficult. | questions or at least define the | Question | in a more narrow, specified manner | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Suitable neither for absolute beginners nor as a stand-alone course. For example, there are things that the quiz questions refer to that haven't been covered in the course, but you can't even look them up because they haven't given you the necessary terminology to find relevant information about them on google. This means that you'll be left looking through a minefield of resources that include the code in the quiz question but are actually about something else. I have now started using Lynda instead, and am seeing all the bad habits I've picked up and the holes left in my knowledge. Normally I prefer Lynda to Coursera for the assignments and the quizzes, but not in this case... | there are things that the quiz | Question | refer to that haven't been covered | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Suitable neither for absolute beginners nor as a stand-alone course. For example, there are things that the quiz questions refer to that haven't been covered in the course, but you can't even look them up because they haven't given you the necessary terminology to find relevant information about them on google. This means that you'll be left looking through a minefield of resources that include the code in the quiz question but are actually about something else. I have now started using Lynda instead, and am seeing all the bad habits I've picked up and the holes left in my knowledge. Normally I prefer Lynda to Coursera for the assignments and the quizzes, but not in this case... | include the code in the quiz | Question | but are actually about something else. | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Great way the info is presented. When we get the summary quizzes we sometimes get questions on subject matter that we did not cover and need to research the answers. I do like the assignment so far as it puts into practice what we have learned during the module | the summary quizzes we sometimes get | Question | on subject matter that we did | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I've learned a good deal about coding in HTML, CSS and JavaScript through this course. My only complaints are that the lecturer often whizzed through typing portions of the code during his lecture that I had to use more time than my schedule allotted reviewing the video slowly, and that some topics in the test questions didn't match any portion of the lecture. | that some topics in the test | Question | didn't match any portion of the | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Pretty awesome, nice people teaching and colleagues, a good feedback on every question, and also gave a good basis on the HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript development, but I would like to have more pure javascript solutions instead of jQuery. | colleagues, a good feedback on every | Question | and also gave a good basis | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Very low level , im sorry but this cant be even considered a good intro to HTML,CSS im going to stop wasting my time watching this. no chllange in the assignments or questions , + more of an overview of the basics then the basics .. | no chllange in the assignments or | Question | , + more of an overview | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | many question in the quiz wasn't covered in the video lectures. I enrolled in this course looking for refreshing my info about the 3 subjects and hopefully gaining new in-depth info about them but the information presented during the course was very trivial and only covered few parts about the main 3 subjects | many | Question | in the quiz wasn't covered in | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Sometimes the teacher only shortly mentions things and then goes on with major exlanations about other things. Which is fine because I assume he will go deeper into the material later on. But when we had to do the final exam (for week 2), they asked questions about "what happens if there are two commands in the brackets" (like this .changeme .changemeagain). The teacher never ever mentioned that the first command is the most important one and the second is a kind of 'fallback', for example. And even if he did mention it, it was only a kind of sidenoteand did not seem that important. So, all in all, I really do like this course, but instructions aren't always super clear. | exam (for week 2), they asked | Question | about " what happens if there | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | This course needs an overhaul. There are mistakes in some code examples and quiz questions are sometimes ambiguous. While I appreciate the work that has gone into making this MOOC, there are better courses available on Coursera to learn this material. | in some code examples and quiz | Question | are sometimes ambiguous. While I appreciate | Positive | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | There was a lot of questions on the tests that were never covered in the videos. | There was a lot of | Question | on the tests that were never | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.85 | 0.89 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | returned that way. On certain occasions, | Question | on one quiz were graded correct | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | then the exact same type of | Question | on another quiz was graded incorrect. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Course seems fundamentally sound. Prof is enthusiatic and obvioulsy highly qualified. Really appreciate the proofs he provides such as the geometric development of the trig derivatives, the chain rule, and the fundamental theorem. I'd give it 5 stars for content and clarity. I am disappointed that some of the lectures were out of sequence with the quizzes and I really found that entering the answers to quizz questions was difficult. In some cases the tool misled me i.e. when the question indicated E should be entered for Euler's constant but the grading tool required e. Also in one instance the grading tool didn't recognize the right answer and I believe the correct answer wasn't even available as one of the choices. | that entering the answers to quizz | Question | was difficult. In some cases the | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Course seems fundamentally sound. Prof is enthusiatic and obvioulsy highly qualified. Really appreciate the proofs he provides such as the geometric development of the trig derivatives, the chain rule, and the fundamental theorem. I'd give it 5 stars for content and clarity. I am disappointed that some of the lectures were out of sequence with the quizzes and I really found that entering the answers to quizz questions was difficult. In some cases the tool misled me i.e. when the question indicated E should be entered for Euler's constant but the grading tool required e. Also in one instance the grading tool didn't recognize the right answer and I believe the correct answer wasn't even available as one of the choices. | misled me i. e. when the | Question | indicated E should be entered for | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have never seen anybody who taught like Prof. Jim Fowler !!!!.Only he tells the "WHY" hidden behind every question. -Videos were FUN. -Practice Quizzes were making our understanding more clear about each topic. -End quizzes were extremely helpful. -Taking notes from his videos is "WORTH". THANK YOU | the " WHY" hidden behind every | Question | -Videos were FUN. -Practice Quizzes were | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | The teacher is Excellent. The materials used in teaching are very good. I liked the use of colors, the explanations in very details, and not skipping calculations. I liked the explanation behind everything, on how this is used in real life. I liked the enthusiasm of the teacher. He likes what he is doing and he loves Math. I think the limits subject should be taught in more details. I would liked it more if every theorem would have a proof. I think the use of epsilon/delta in practice was too little in this course, and should be expanded (it looks like this is a course for engineers rather than for mathematicians). The most painful problem in this course are the exercises, in 2 aspects. The first aspect: in many cases the exercises repeat themselves in a slightly different form - the diversity of of exercises should be expanded. The second aspect: exercises which require my typing have a lot of parsing issues, which are not clear, and are frustrating: example from integrals: the system would expect an answer like this one: (x)*(E^x) - E^x+C and would not accept a correct answer like this x*E^x - E^x+c. In this sense, I recommend using questions with multiple answers, and leave the open answers only for the cases where you need to type something where there are no parsing issues expected, such as typing numeric values. Thank you for this course. I liked it. | In this sense, I recommend using | Question | with multiple answers, and leave the | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This course is the only reason that I am currently flourishing in my college mathematics courses with 4.0s, but even more importantly, enjoying it. Prior to this, mathematics had always evoked a feeling of distress, but I now marvel in its ability to make us less intimidated by the universe's complexity and vastness, although it certainly does not answer every question. I almost feel guilty learning all of the things which took the whole human civilization thousands and thousands of years to contrive, and am humbled by the geniuses who had discovered all of the finite crucial mathematical theorems which ultimately gave way to an infinite amount of physical discoveries and insight, explaining "the complex visible by some simple invisible", as Jean Perrin once said. | it certainly does not answer every | Question | I almost feel guilty learning all | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Has a bit too many errors in the questions, and there's no proper introduction to new signs. | bit too many errors in the | Question | and there's no proper introduction to | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | It was a really fun course; I have started to understand how the power rule, etc can be used to differentiate functions and also learning new methods to integrate (Riemann Sum) and differentiate! Sadly, I wish there were extra questions that you could attempt to consolidate your knowledge! | Sadly, I wish there were extra | Question | that you could attempt to consolidate | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I recommend you this course. This course is very nice. Lectures are very easy to understand even if you are first time of calculus. But I think the questions are too little to exercise enough. Anyway thanks for the instructor. He's very nice and passionate guy. | of calculus. But I think the | Question | are too little to exercise enough. | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This course is very impressive to me. I get many experiences in answering the questions. Thanks | get many experiences in answering the | Question | Thanks | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I enjoyed it. Jim Fowler does well, his enthusiasm and the time and effort he (and whatever filming and editing team he has) have put into the presentation is impressive. Difficult for me to rate it as a maths course - how would I know whether it covers what it needs and have anything meaningful to stay about the standard of it. I felt I understood what was going on, I passed the quizzes. Maybe that's all good? Occasional bug in the quizes - nothing you can't work around (eg totally blank question but four answers to choose from.) The mathematical symbol rendering doesn't work on the mobile app at all. | can't work around (eg totally blank | Question | but four answers to choose from. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.0 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A thoroughly inspiring, empowering, exciting, and enjoyable course. During the course, I found myself wanting to rush on to the next part because I was delighted to find answers to questions I've had for years and other pearls of wisdom, but on the other hand I also wanted to linger and revel in the process of making. I most heartily recommend this course to anyone looking to start out in graphic design, or who, like me, enjoys hobbies such as card making and creative embroidery. | was delighted to find answers to | Question | I've had for years and other | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This course does go over some of the basics of graphic design, but I expected it to be a lot more rigorous. The assignments are incredibly simple, and I think that there should be no optional assignments in the class. The reason I'm taking this class is because I have a hard time motivating myself to learn on my own, so I need something that will really push me. I only spent about an hour a week completing this course, and I believe that you can't learn something by only spending an hour a week on it. Also what's the point of having mentors if they don't engage with you? I know I could have contacted them if I had a question, but I didn't because it was so easy. I wouldn't mind getting feedback from a professional graphic designer though if they're available. Also seeing how many students misinterpret the assignments, it makes me nervous that they are the ones grading mine. | contacted them if I had a | Question | but I didn't because it was | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I totally liked the hands-on approach and the nice presentation of the material. On the other hand, I felt a little left alone since there was no didactically planned interaction beyond the peer reviews. Furthermore, a forum for discussion is nice, but it's a little sad if no one can answer course related formal questions, you misinterpret the instructions, and therefore receive a low grade. | one can answer course related formal | Question | you misinterpret the instructions, and therefore | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Some tough assignment questions which lead to much longer homework time than anticipated, so you need to leave ample time to complete the assignments. But, great class over-all. | Some tough assignment | Question | which lead to much longer homework | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Very good. Questions were good enough for testing the knowledge and lof students. | Very good. | Question | were good enough for testing the | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | The course is very basic, videos contain a lot of repetitions and quiz questions are too easy (in addition, I believe that there are too much negative questions). I believe that this course should be called an Introduction to the basics of Nutrition and it's only for complete newbies. There are no insights in specifics of child nutrition besides general concepts of balanced diet and some tips how to make your kids be more enthusiastic in eating vegetables. | a lot of repetitions and quiz | Question | are too easy (in addition, I | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | The course is very basic, videos contain a lot of repetitions and quiz questions are too easy (in addition, I believe that there are too much negative questions). I believe that this course should be called an Introduction to the basics of Nutrition and it's only for complete newbies. There are no insights in specifics of child nutrition besides general concepts of balanced diet and some tips how to make your kids be more enthusiastic in eating vegetables. | that there are too much negative | Question | I believe that this course should | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | I am really disappointed with the content of this course. If what you're looking for is the most basic of information on making better choices and remembering to wash your cutting board after handling raw meat, maybe this course is for you. If, however, you come to this course wanting specific information about how to build great meals for babies, toddlers, and young children, or you'd like to know how their needs change over time, this course is not for you. I was hoping for information like how to teach your toddler to chew/eat difficult things (ex: whole apples). I wanted to know at what age/weight you switch to 2% milk. I wanted to know how many calories a meal should be based on height and weight and how that changes over time. I wanted to know medically verified tips on getting the right amount of each nutrient into a toddler's diet and what, if any, extra vitamins should be added. I wanted tips on weaning if you're still nursing a toddler... I guess I just wanted more. In addition, the quizzes are so easy as to be silly. Actual quiz question and correct answer: Which is NOT a good way to approach grocery shopping if healthy choices are desired? Answer: Visit the supermarket hungry and walk through the candy aisle first. COME ON! Did I need a Stanford University course to tell me that one?!?!? While the instructor is knowledgeable, this course is geared toward someone with NO knowledge, not someone who wants to gain a deeper understanding. The videos are painfully slow (am I waiting for a doodle here???) and I could read the entire course worth of transcripts in under a half hour rather than go through all of the videos. And the recipes... good god! I don't think that someone interested in learning more about child nutrition is needing a slow tutorial on how to make basic oatmeal on the stove top. If she'd upped the game- showed basics and then talked about the benefits of adding, say, chia seeds, different fruits, flax, etc. and how best to make a basic bowl of oatmeal into a complete breakfast, that would have been a useful topic. I'm just hugely disappointed. This course is best suited to perhaps a health department; not to someone seeking college level information about a topic that matters to their children's lives. | as to be silly. Actual quiz | Question | and correct answer: Which is NOT | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | This was a good introduction to Coursera for me. Some of the information I already knew, but it was good to learn the "why" behind some of it. There were a few of the quizzes that contained questions from videos that hadn't been covered yet. Her information about food allergies was good, I would like to see her offer a class on just that topic. | few of the quizzes that contained | Question | from videos that hadn't been covered | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Worst course ever. I stopped partway through. Too many links to outside stuff. Tests/quizes were not based on what was presented in the lessons. Test design is horrible, too many negative questions. Glances over the good true information about nutrition to tell us about free range farms, farmers markets, etc., which most people do not have access to or can not afford. Giving it 1 star is being nice People who sponsored it should get their money back. | design is horrible, too many negative | Question | Glances over the good true information | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.69 | 1.09 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Could be in much greater depth. Loved the video lectures: more please! Perhaps a second video lecture per week that delves into greater detail, so that the level of discussion is more in line with the PMBOK. The quizzes were simplistic, which is fine, but the final was literally just questions from the quizzes pasted together (all were repeats!) This sad fact undermines the integrity of the final as an actual test of ability and comprehension. | but the final was literally just | Question | from the quizzes pasted together (all | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.77 | 0.83 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful slides for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy questions and exams. Not challenging at all | for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy | Question | and exams. Not challenging at all | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.77 | 0.83 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I really appreciate to learn this course - I've got a lot of answers for my daily questions. | lot of answers for my daily | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 0.83 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | you shouldn't email the teachers with | Question | and that online questions should be | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | teachers with questions and that online | Question | should be of a certain standard, | Positive | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | think teachers should be available for | Question | even if its only through the | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's a good first step into getting the right programs, learning key vocabulary, and interacting with important websites/programs at a very introductory level. If you are not from a math/statistics background you can still complete the course but you will not understand the previews for later courses completely, that is ok! But consider getting the eBook with this course. My only complaint is the quizzes, it often feels impossible to get a 5/5 based on only what you get from the lectures, there's always 1 question that is completely over the top compared to the other 4, but you can do the quizzes 3 times every 8 hours and just trial and error the 1 gotcha question on each quiz. | from the lectures, there's always 1 | Question | that is completely over the top | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is perfect for really newbie. However, it also answers the question of "What is Data Science?" | newbie. However, it also answers the | Question | of " What is Data Science? | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is a good first into to the topic. I think that the additional reading from the book and the Git manual will supplement it very well. My only complain is that in the first quiz, there was a question regarding some R packages used in Machine Learning that were not covered in the slides. It took me a while to find those so I had to take the first quiz 3 times. I think this question should be revised to guide the student as to how to find these packages. Another alternative would be that in the slides there some guidance in this matter. Otherwise, I liked to course and the final assignments. | the first quiz, there was a | Question | regarding some R packages used in | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | most part of this course is a duplicate of the "R programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher quality is very bad. not original, boring, dividing this in "4 weeks" is too ridiculously long, this should be done in 1 week to enable users to take more time for the "R programming". this course should be free. don't lose too much time on it, it's doable in a day or a weekend and move on to "R programming". asking for so much money to see how to install R and github is a shame. feels like this course has been added just to have a round number for the specialization. even the survey in the end asking for feedback starts with a question not adapted to moment it's been asked "did you get a certificate?" of course i did not as i've just finish the course and now wait for my peers to review my final submission. | asking for feedback starts with a | Question | not adapted to moment it's been | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The first week's quiz is really difficult and I had to go through the lecture material several times. Because of the great number of very short lectures it is difficult to find an asnwer to sought question. | to find an asnwer to sought | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Basically if you take this course you are paying money to create an account on a website and download some software (both of which you can do for free). The rest of it is a preview of the other courses in the series. The quiz questions don't correspond to the information on the slides. I successfully passed the course, but I didn't really learn anything. Now I am debating on whether or not to continue to the R programming course after reading through the reviews of that course. | courses in the series. The quiz | Question | don't correspond to the information on | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Really solid introduction to the subject matter. This course gave me a better understanding of how to go about finding the questions which need to be answered, which is fundemental to the study of data science. Also, it gave me a wonderful tutorial on where to find help and how to ask for help which I found very useful. | how to go about finding the | Question | which need to be answered, which | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Very informative course. The Quiz questions however may not be necessarily be in the course content. | Very informative course. The Quiz | Question | however may not be necessarily be | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | First experience got me hooked. I love coursera. This course, even though an introduction taught me a lot and showed me an error of my ways in everyday life. One question in the 3rd Quiz was very confusing to answer. But that's about it. I hope the rest of the specialization carries on forward in a similar maybe even better pattern. | my ways in everyday life. One | Question | in the 3rd Quiz was very | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | From the basic layout of the course you would assume it's for beginners since it covers step-by-step instructions to install software and run command on command line window. But on the other hand, many advanced concepts are slipped in this course without even basic introduction. I remember in one class, "data dredging" is discussed for about 2-3 minutes. But the instructor did not give a brief description about what it is, instead it just goes on about when you do not have clear question in your mind, you would run the risk of data dredging. I think the course could be organized in a better way. But I do appreciate the instructors' hard work of putting up such a 10-course specialization. | when you do not have clear | Question | in your mind, you would run | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Robert Wright does an excellent job presenting Buddhist ideas and putting them into context with modern psychology studies. I felt he offered a unique and scientific approach to the discourses and very much enjoyed his interviews and insights. The questions at the end of every lecture were very helpful to solidify new concepts. I look forward to digging deeper into supplemental materials. | enjoyed his interviews and insights. The | Question | at the end of every lecture | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | this course has changed my life, I have learned so much and have a new passion for evolution psychology, it has answered life long questions. | psychology, it has answered life long | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | As I followed the course my interest grew, because great questions arise, and the connections between Psychology and Buddhism are clear, an exiting discovery for me. Also, professor Wright is an excellent orator, so the lectures was clear and pleasant. | course my interest grew, because great | Question | arise, and the connections between Psychology | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Excellent! I thoroughly enjoyed the professor's explanations and all the guest speakers he invited to give their input. He is very dedicated and answered many questions in his office hours, with humor and genuine care. Also, Frasier and Milo are impossibly cute. | is very dedicated and answered many | Question | in his office hours, with humor | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Loved this course. It was a lot of fun. The Prof. really cares about the subject and how his students contribute to his own understanding of it. (He takes a lot of time reading students' comments and replying to them during "office hours.") He also reaches out to experts in both psychology and Buddhism and shows you his dialogue with them. Finally, the guiding questions for the assignments are a good challenge and the instructions for structuring the paper very clear. I didn't have time to write the papers but will as soon as I've the time. Bonus: you get to meet his dogs, and they're awesome. | dialogue with them. Finally, the guiding | Question | for the assignments are a good | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Loved the professor. Do not like essay questions. | the professor. Do not like essay | Question | | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Answered many of my questions! | Answered many of my | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Very delightful course as it is more than well taught and full of interesting data, opinions and experiments. The videos are very helpful and provide us of a large names to look for and read about. The resources are pretty enough and interesting. Office hours have been a discover: great questions from students and "being at home chatting with Robert" feeling all around. I appreciate so much Robert´s enthusiasm and above all, his natural and funny way to explain course concepts with his dogs or with his attachments to dark chocolate or powdered sugar doughnuts. Many thanks to Robert and to all the technical stuff for providing us this course with all the work they had done. | hours have been a discover: great | Question | from students and " being at | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.11 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok. Unfortunately: At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code. The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught. The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition. If you do take the course I'd want you to know: You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs. There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up. On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration. To conclude: This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it. | There are no " gotcha" quiz | Question | If you are confused by getting | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | in Matlab. That said, the last | Question | in the last exam, was an | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | felt like a " shake out" | Question | I passed the course and had | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | did, made it through that last | Question | in multiple random fashions. The material | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | the last part of the last | Question | as my concern is that there | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I had very high hopes for this course. I was actually planning to purchase the specialization - just as a thank you gesture. Unfortunately, there is very little to be grateful for here. In this course, you get a series of super short lectures giving you an overview of the math and physics behind the aerial robotics. I can't be the judge (since I hold a degree in this area), but I don't think you'll be able to get much if you aren't familiar with the topics yet. And you most certainly won't learn anything new if you had some previous training. And then suddenly there are assignments. That have almost nothing to do with the lectures, but require quite a bit of Matlab programming (did I mention you won't be taught any Matlab in the process?) To make things worse, the assignments are rather poorly explained. By the way, you won't get any replies from the course team - they even ignore questions about errors in lectures. The course looks very sloppy. As if someone forced the team to put together something for Coursera. A huge disappointment :( | course team - they even ignore | Question | about errors in lectures. The course | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I think there needs to be more association elaborated between the video lectures and the questions being asked during the lectures. It seems these questions are asked before the lecture itself tends to touch the point of it. Secondly, it was a bit difficult to associate the assignment write-ups to the lectures. Obviously they were relevant but this should be more clear in text and video. | between the video lectures and the | Question | being asked during the lectures. It | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | I think there needs to be more association elaborated between the video lectures and the questions being asked during the lectures. It seems these questions are asked before the lecture itself tends to touch the point of it. Secondly, it was a bit difficult to associate the assignment write-ups to the lectures. Obviously they were relevant but this should be more clear in text and video. | during the lectures. It seems these | Question | are asked before the lecture itself | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | This course covered a lot of material, provided a well-rounded intro to the physics of 3D motion in the quad rotor context, included excellent supplemental videos to explain some of the tough mathematical concepts, and included well-designed practical assignments. The bridge between lecture and assignment, particularly the trajectory planning question in the last assignment, could be refined as the course iterates, although the material I found myself struggling through that very tough problem may be that which I retain most from this class. Over all an excellent class, and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. | and assignment, particularly the trajectory planning | Question | in the last assignment, could be | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective. Some issues however - 1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves. 2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question. 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is". 4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so. Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon. | good enough to answer a particular | Question | 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective. Some issues however - 1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves. 2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question. 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is". 4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so. Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon. | weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One | Question | asked " why" and the answer | Negative | -0.8 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Very interesting course. Lectures were very informative however some test questions, especially in first quiz, where not covered directly in course materials. | were very informative however some test | Question | especially in first quiz, where not | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 0.82 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | Professor Noor is very friendly and clear in his lectures. He also answers questions in the discussion foruns with speed and detail. I was able to learn a lot from this course and challenged myself to a heavier load of lectures than I had expected because they were not boring at all. My only caveat is that the questions in his quizzes can sometimes be unnecessarily confusing because of wording or tricks. | in his lectures. He also answers | Question | in the discussion foruns with speed | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.53 | 0.88 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | Professor Noor is very friendly and clear in his lectures. He also answers questions in the discussion foruns with speed and detail. I was able to learn a lot from this course and challenged myself to a heavier load of lectures than I had expected because they were not boring at all. My only caveat is that the questions in his quizzes can sometimes be unnecessarily confusing because of wording or tricks. | My only caveat is that the | Question | in his quizzes can sometimes be | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.53 | 0.88 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | very interesting. I regret that we are not allowed to discuss the exam questions (of course after the dead line) for a better understanding. | not allowed to discuss the exam | Question | (of course after the dead line) | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.53 | 0.88 |
| k9p3Qh8kEeWP0w4yK2369w | I thought I knew a bit about Genetics & Evolution when I enrolled, but the first Genetics lecture showed that I was wrong! Prof Noor has taught me a lot about Genetics. He is an engaging and inspiring lecturer. It is also obvious to me that he takes a keen interest in the students, as he has been quick to reply to questions that I have asked in the forums. I'm looking forward to the Evolution lectures. I am not sure why I enrolled for this course, since I was sure I already knew the material, but I am glad that I did. I recommend the course if you belong to any of the following categories: people who think they know the subject; people who don't think know it, but are interested; everybody else (because I think you will find Prof Noor inspiring. | has been quick to reply to | Question | that I have asked in the | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.53 | 0.88 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course is very interesting for junior -wannabe- web programmers. It uses the main structures of HTML and JavaScript and lets the user exercise through questions and assignments. Best option if someone wants to be a web developer! | and lets the user exercise through | Question | and assignments. Best option if someone | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Omg ,I wish I had these professors to teach us in our college.I have started loving HTML<CSS and Javascript.Being a total newbie to programming I have loved how clear and slow and easy to understand the videos are. Thank you so much and looking forward to completing the entire series. PS:the questions in between the lectures are very helpful and assignments are very very helpful too. | to completing the entire series. PS:the | Question | in between the lectures are very | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Everything they teach is in very good flow and interesting. The question they ask in between the video is also a good one for better understanding. I cannot find more better than this one. It make you want to learn more, watch more. It's my first experience in coursera, everything they do is awesome, like the weekly assignment, time given to complete the task which is make you want to do more........Thumbs up to this course lecture and Coursera team too. | very good flow and interesting. The | Question | they ask in between the video | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Not very good explain javascript. After this course I had many questions about this language, I not understood it enough. | After this course I had many | Question | about this language, I not understood | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I love the way that the course is explained and designed. The questions during the videos helped me to understand every concept. Now, I feel better programming using HTML and JAVASCRIPT. | course is explained and designed. The | Question | during the videos helped me to | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The teaher of this class is excellent gives example and answers in all your questions and doubts about the how and why everything happens.I think it's a lesson you have to watch if you want to learn how to build your website or your app(wep app) !! | example and answers in all your | Question | and doubts about the how and | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course deserves to be registered and followed. It worth for newbies to learn these technologies HTML, CSS and JS. The course follows with lectures, practice questions and weekly assignment which make the learner keep interested during the course. Instructor is an Intelligent and Awesome personality. He teaches really very well.. Recommended for Newbies !! | The course follows with lectures, practice | Question | and weekly assignment which make the | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Very good course - requires dedication, concentration and hard work. I think that I got a lot, but still long way is in front of me. It depends what are you searching for in online course - that is crucial question, for my vision this was perfect choice, right to the target. Thanks a lot! | online course - that is crucial | Question | for my vision this was perfect | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Structured Course that gives beginner to intermediate level expertise. Short course, so there is not much time to give challenging assignments that would prepare you for a job or industry level skill in this topic. The student enrollment was limited (compared to my other courses on Coursera) and hence the discussion forum was not active. There is no TA or instructor participation in discussion forum; hence my advanced questions in forum (intended to learn beyond the course) went unanswered. You can learn this all on internet, but the instructor nicely covered 3 topics in 3 weeks, which is helpful. | in discussion forum; hence my advanced | Question | in forum (intended to learn beyond | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.42 | 1.09 |
| LWzwe3KxEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | Learned so much. Great course - good mix of video instruction, mini quizzes & questions, graded quizzes etc. to keep your attention. Also, the information is current and practical. Definitely recommend. | of video instruction, mini quizzes & | Question | graded quizzes etc. to keep your | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| LWzwe3KxEeWKsgrp3VnvAw | I would like only 1 question wrong be acceptable as in the first course - I appreciate when the certificate confirms rigor and value. | I would like only 1 | Question | wrong be acceptable as in the | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | A disconnect between Video Lecture - Transcript (horrid form !) - Slides - Test questions. Information flow should be more fluent. | ! ) - Slides - Test | Question | Information flow should be more fluent. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | The instructor is sub par,. Questions are a bit vague | The instructor is sub par, . | Question | are a bit vague | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| MdNTKtdhEeSgyyIAC4cL9g | In my point of view the course overall is a bit superficial (even though the decision-making part was very interesting indeed). More importantly, the course lacks one of the richest tools in MOOCS: peer interactions - people voicing their opinions and sharing experiences. Besides that: some of the questions in the quiz looked very ambiguous and there are some editing mistakes in the videos. | experiences. Besides that: some of the | Question | in the quiz looked very ambiguous | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Thank you very much for this course. I think I now have a good understanding of what Astrobiology is and how it is possible to look out for life on other planets. Hopefully some of the big questions of astrobiology will be answered :) | planets. Hopefully some of the big | Question | of astrobiology will be answered :) | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.81 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Very interesting material, and very well explained. The course is slightly out of date, and a couple of the test questions were poorly worded (mostly, these were corrected), but overall it is educational and fun to participate in. I enjoyed it and I learned even more about something that interested me. | and a couple of the test | Question | were poorly worded (mostly, these were | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.81 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | In no way is there enough information given to be able to complete this quiz questions. A total frustration to try to figure out. You can't even figure out what datasets you are expected to analyze! You have to pick one from hundreds that are available! UPDATE: Revising my rating to 3. Course and material improved as course progressed. Week1 very discouraging, but I'm glad I stuck with it. Other weeks were very good. | be able to complete this quiz | Question | A total frustration to try to | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | complains in discussion forum about quiz | Question | 5) No feedback for solving the | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | even after the deadline. 6) Quiz | Question | required methods and logical constructs that | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | I liked the relevance of quiz | Question | to real life genomic questions, but | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | life genomic questions, but all quiz | Question | were outstandingly difficult, because of both | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.71 | 0.88 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | was to learn to decode test | Question | 2 and the most glaring omission, | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course start from problems. So this great to motivate the content and let student know why. However, there are lot of confusion questions that lead to miss understand the exercise problems. | However, there are lot of confusion | Question | that lead to miss understand the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Useful to get a first understanding but do not feel comfortable to use any of it in real case scenarios. Could give solutions at the end of the whole course to see best coding, and unsolved questions. | to see best coding, and unsolved | Question | | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This is an amazing and brilliant course for machine learning. If you've done Andrew Ng's course, most of this material will feel familiar, but definitely has a lot more detail. Each sub-topic under regression is taken with a decent level of detail, with sufficient quiz and assignment questions to drill important concepts into your head. The lectures are lucid and concise, even the optional ones that cover more advanced concepts of the underlying math. As an aside, I would like to clarify to any reader that, when they say you can use other tools, they aren't being a 100% honest. After a few assignments of using Scala and R, I quickly realized that using their iPython notebooks is the simplest and most straightforward way of clearing this course. Eventually, the assignments are such that using any other tool can cause a lot of strife. Brilliant course. Looking forward to the next one. | detail, with sufficient quiz and assignment | Question | to drill important concepts into your | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I had already done "Algorithms: Design and Analysis Part 1", so this course was not as good as that one. This course had lot of programming questions, which I find very good to have for any course. I just hope next courses of the specialization will be beneficial for my career. | This course had lot of programming | Question | which I find very good to | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.89 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Overall is good course with many exercises, forum is supportive, however mentors/instructors never answered my questions (i guessed they bothered only with the very first session when course was launched) Language is sometimes overly complicated and hard to grasp the main principles of the algorithm (e.g. dynamic programming week 5) I watched youtube to understand same ideas but explained in much simpler way. | supportive, however mentors/instructors never answered my | Question | (i guessed they bothered only with | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.89 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The best online class I've taken so far: not only because of the clear explanation and easy-to-follow videos, but also the effort the professors have put int answering most of the questions, especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered more than half of the questions within short amount of time. This is very rarely seen in other moocs. | put int answering most of the | Question | especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 0.89 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The best online class I've taken so far: not only because of the clear explanation and easy-to-follow videos, but also the effort the professors have put int answering most of the questions, especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered more than half of the questions within short amount of time. This is very rarely seen in other moocs. | answered more than half of the | Question | within short amount of time. This | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 0.89 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course comes with great explanation but the graded assignments sometimes seem pointless as they look irrelevant to the topic, There are unnecessary questions asked in quizzes i.e whether you have completed your assignment or not. These sort of questions never evaluate what we have accomplished | to the topic, There are unnecessary | Question | asked in quizzes i. e whether | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.96 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course comes with great explanation but the graded assignments sometimes seem pointless as they look irrelevant to the topic, There are unnecessary questions asked in quizzes i.e whether you have completed your assignment or not. These sort of questions never evaluate what we have accomplished | assignment or not. These sort of | Question | never evaluate what we have accomplished | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.96 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I like this class. I found the answers there on many tricky programming questions such as memory allocation for objects. I will recommend this class to all my friends who is interested in computer science. | answers there on many tricky programming | Question | such as memory allocation for objects. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.96 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course was a really comprehensive package explaining all the basic concepts of Object Oriented Programming . The instructors clearly explains the concepts of inheritance , polymorphism , searching , sorting etc. relating it as much as possible to real world examples. The concept challenge questions clearly helps you to understand the subtle nuances that the instructor wants to explain . The quiz are easy .The only thing that i found hard was to complete was the final assignment as i had minimal programming experience with data structures but if you stick to it , you will definitely make it , just like me :) | real world examples. The concept challenge | Question | clearly helps you to understand the | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.96 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Good course, ideal for the first half of a second course in computer science. A little java experience is recommended buy you'll probably be ok if you have program in a statically type programming language before because you can pick up java very quickly. The lectures are very good, I think that the teachers are excellent expositors but I feel that they could be more detailed. The project is about representing earthquakes in a map and you are always increasing the complexity. Finally you need to add your own extension which I found an excellent opportunity to test your imagination and your capacity to create new things. The only cons of the course for me is the way assignments are evaluated. I think it has to do with the fact that they are interactive. You have to answers questions in a Quiz related to the week content and the project. But the are not very demanding, therefore they do not reflect how much you really know. In general I recommend taking this course if you are in self study journey in computer science, even more the specialization start to get more interesting and demanding in the follow up courses, more complete and detailed. | are interactive. You have to answers | Question | in a Quiz related to the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.96 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Some of the questions are not Java related ones at all which I couldn't see much of a helping point, e,g. What are the coordinates of rio de janeiro?. There were also a few of questions that I found a bit confusing because the code provided is plain white and it's a bit hard to focus on it. I'd rather want to customize the color of the presented code just like modern IDEs do. Everything else seems rather okay and intuitive. So far so good, guys :) | There were also a few of | Question | that I found a bit confusing | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.96 |
| NiK99anHEeS88iIAC1WehA | Coming from a construction background with no policy work whatsoever besides personal interest, it was amazing to be able to understand the message that the speakers were conveying. Besides some cluelessness on the US senate system, every other topic was relevant to international audiences. Best part was the weekly schedule that was recently in place, it help to keep pace on progress as sometimes it feels overwhelming as we try to answer every question that was posted after each video. | as we try to answer every | Question | that was posted after each video. | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| NiK99anHEeS88iIAC1WehA | This course was higly informative. Throughout this course, new things will be learned and lessons are pretty understandable. What I like most about this course, is that there were actual students, asking questions, which put me into atmosphere of real university. Thank you, Professor Warburg and all the staff and lecturers that were invited! | that there were actual students, asking | Question | which put me into atmosphere of | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I would have given this course 5 stars if not for the final exam, which is to look at a jpeg and then write code to make a web page look exactly like the jpeg. The issue is that there are many ways to get a page to look like the image and you will still fail the exam. The course creators have realized this and you now have supporting questions that you can pass the course on even if your page code is not validated as correct. In my opinion there are so many better ways this final exam could have been handled, for instance i would have like to have seen a few more questions in the exam, and once passed you could see a forum area open up for us all to paste our code in or link to a page where we could discuss with teachers and moderators etc. personally I believe that sort of approach would add more value. The above being said the content of the course is excellent for beginners with an eye opening focus on accessibility and good content on the DOM structure. The course will provide you with a good set of tools to get a basic page up on the internet. | to have seen a few more | Question | in the exam, and once passed | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A great course. You can learn a lot if you're willing to dive in yourself beyond the lectures. My only fault is that some of the quiz questions didn't really seem relevant to useful material learned in the course (ie, what year html was implemented etc.) | is that some of the quiz | Question | didn't really seem relevant to useful | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | The caliber of | Question | in the quizzes is quite advanced. | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | pedagogy. In order to answer the | Question | and prepare the requested page of | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | elsewhere in order to answer the | Question | In that case, I began wondering | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The weakest part of this coursera - are quizes - full of question, which check detailed facts from lecture instead of testing skills | - are quizes - full of | Question | which check detailed facts from lecture | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Very good basic introduction. The final project was a little challenging because some of the questions used coding that wasn't reviewed in either the textbook or in the lectures. The lectures were otherwise very informative and well-structured. | little challenging because some of the | Question | used coding that wasn't reviewed in | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | fix that, but the additional eight | Question | were basically a transcript of the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | was the 'staff'. I got my | Question | answered nine days after I posted | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This is absolutely NOT for beginners. There is no way you can possibly do this class in under 10 hours a week. The presentations are sloppy and vague. There is absolutely no support, unless you count snark from the aids who check into the message boards once and a while to tell you your question is stupid. This woman chatters on way to fast and if you use the slower speed setting on the videos, it crashes every time. I am not happy that I wasted money on this class. It offers nothing to prepare you to actually do any real life HTML coding. I highly recommend either purchasing a book to learn on your own or take a class elsewhere. The Coursera platform is garbage. The app crashes and it doesn't seem to cooperate well with Safari so I have to lug around my laptop in order to get through this nonsense. | a while to tell you your | Question | is stupid. This woman chatters on | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A good intro to the HTML material, which is an entry level into coding in itself. Since its intro it doesn't cover the vast array of of available tricks accessible within the language and there may be instances where you have to seek tips elsewhere on the internet. By the end of it all you should be able to build some basic HTML elements. With that, there are still some tidbits about the basics of HTML (tags) that I still have questions regarding importance/use of. | HTML (tags) that I still have | Question | regarding importance/use of. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Nice course. Could focus a little bit more on coding, rather than ask some informational-only question in the quizzes | coding, rather than ask some informational-only | Question | in the quizzes | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It was a very good course. I understood everything. My only complaint is that the tests questions were repetitive and so it would be easy to cheat on a second or third attempt and also the final quiz should have been more about writing your own code. I think what should have been tested was the end product by the autograder rather than the exact code. I'm not sure how that would work but it would result in a more precise grade rather than the 87.5% everyone gets and also help the student write his/her own code rather than proofreading and selecting others. I did thoroughly enjoy the course and am looking forward to Course two of the series on CSS3. | only complaint is that the tests | Question | were repetitive and so it would | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A very simple, but effective intro to HTML. Looking forward to CSS3!! Take the time to read the optional chapters in the free book PDF as some of the questions in the assignments are not mentioned in lectures, but are explained in the book. | book PDF as some of the | Question | in the assignments are not mentioned | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This is a very "pediatric" way to learn HTML basics and how to get started on your developer career. Both content and examples are pretty straight forward. Evaluation system should be reviewed and interaction with teacher, other than blog, should be open when there's an issue/question with specific questions. | when there's an issue/question with specific | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It may be a 5 weeks course with a more slow learning, because we see some tags in a second and it passes. And the autograder works really bad. I do not know where I fail but I failed all the questions. A peer grader would be nice for the final project. | fail but I failed all the | Question | A peer grader would be nice | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | This course was actually quite helpful for learning Chinese, and it provides fascinating information about Chinese culture. Besides learning the language, you'll learn about holidays, foods, and art, and you'll hear Chinese music. Unfortunately, I could not give the course a good rating because I found some quiz questions impossible to complete. This questions required answers to be typed in Pinyin or in Chinese characters. However, the course gave no information on how to type the Pinyin tone marks or Chinese characters into the response boxes. I tried asking about this in a discussion forum, but got no answer. | rating because I found some quiz | Question | impossible to complete. This questions required | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 0.78 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | This course was actually quite helpful for learning Chinese, and it provides fascinating information about Chinese culture. Besides learning the language, you'll learn about holidays, foods, and art, and you'll hear Chinese music. Unfortunately, I could not give the course a good rating because I found some quiz questions impossible to complete. This questions required answers to be typed in Pinyin or in Chinese characters. However, the course gave no information on how to type the Pinyin tone marks or Chinese characters into the response boxes. I tried asking about this in a discussion forum, but got no answer. | quiz questions impossible to complete. This | Question | required answers to be typed in | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 0.78 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | The testing in this course is horribly crafted. Not is it only too easy, thus not actually testing students what is learned, the answers for some of the questions are incorrect. On the very last quiz, I was not able to finish the course because the answer for one of the questions was incorrect. In answering how to translate "South," the answer should be "nánbian," but when I selected this option, it was marked wrong. Therefore, I have to wait 7 more hours before selecting an incorrect answer to complete the course. | the answers for some of the | Question | are incorrect. On the very last | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 0.78 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | The testing in this course is horribly crafted. Not is it only too easy, thus not actually testing students what is learned, the answers for some of the questions are incorrect. On the very last quiz, I was not able to finish the course because the answer for one of the questions was incorrect. In answering how to translate "South," the answer should be "nánbian," but when I selected this option, it was marked wrong. Therefore, I have to wait 7 more hours before selecting an incorrect answer to complete the course. | the answer for one of the | Question | was incorrect. In answering how to | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 0.78 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course is very helpful, learned a lot of things, It rises a lot of questions for own company and how it should go. I will be happy to reccomend this course to my friends and colegues. Thanks, Mr. Austin | things, It rises a lot of | Question | for own company and how it | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | A great course all round! The concepts are simple and well presented for those who haven't studied strategy before, but lots of room to learn through the discussion in the videos and additional reading for those of us who have seen this subject before. The test format I though was a bit over-simplified. I would have preferred to see slightly longer, more demanding tests, perhaps with a different question format. In particular, I found the questionnaire for the capstone project much too simplified - giving all or nothing points means we can't differentiate between people who only just achieved the point (or achieved it partially) and others who achieved it well. Needs an intermediate option. | demanding tests, perhaps with a different | Question | format. In particular, I found the | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | This is a highly recommended course and the content is second to no other on Coursera at the time of this review. I have taken all of the courses in the series from Copenhagen Business School, as well as nearly all other business management courses offered for other institutions. This specific course on Strategic Management is the single most informative and current material of all of the options. It does not answer every question or address every concept you would need to know to run a major corporation, but it is a fantastic overview of past and present methods of business strategy, and is of value to any business minded individual. I highly recommend this course and the entire series from CBS. Enjoy! | options. It does not answer every | Question | or address every concept you would | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Content is great. The final project pier feedback/grading could be upgraded. Prefer only one person reviewing in depth than 3 using multiple choice questions. Scales might work better. | depth than 3 using multiple choice | Question | Scales might work better. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course is very interesting but there is a problem with the quizzes, it doesn't accept correct questions. If needed I can provide a screen shot of the problem in one of the quizzes. Hope that all this will be fixed and I'll be able to take the course again. | the quizzes, it doesn't accept correct | Question | If needed I can provide a | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| ODnbKv_6EeSa0SIACyGBQw | This course is wonderful and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. BUT, it is not well monitored, the peer review process is broken and questions are not answered, making it frustrating. For example, I wrote an essay and received a non-passing grade. I re-wrote it and submitted it. The comments back were very good, but the grade remained a non-passing one. Very difficult to figure it out. I posted a request for clarification and received no response. So, course GREAT, administration of course, not so much. | peer review process is broken and | Question | are not answered, making it frustrating. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| ODnbKv_6EeSa0SIACyGBQw | I absolutely loved the course content and the style of the instructor. The only feedback I'd extend is more variety in the writing assignment prompts, and a little more specificity in the quiz wording. Some of the questions seemed phrased in an unclear way. | the quiz wording. Some of the | Question | seemed phrased in an unclear way. | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | Interesting course with well-organized lectures and graphics. I enjoyed the diversity of case studies, and especially hearing about countries other than the US and organizations other than large corporations with big budgets. The practice grading of the final project was well done and illuminating. It was effective in helping me understand the grading criteria better. It would be helpful if the printouts were 1 slide per page, as on the page the type is small and difficult to read. Small, weekly assignments such as posting a reflection question in the forum could be helpful. One guest presenter spoke too quickly, so I was thankful for the transcript. It would be nice if those auditing the course could also participate in the final assignment w/ peer feedback. | assignments such as posting a reflection | Question | in the forum could be helpful. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.73 |
| opCIcU3SEeWeiwqPB940Pw | I am two weeks into the course and really like it. The ideas and concepts mentioned are quite profound. And hope to apply them soon enough in both my personal and professional life. One additional thing which would really like seeing in the course is use of questions just to ascertain our mastery over concepts. Something like the other course which I am taking concurrently -- Think again: How to understand arguments. Where intermediate quizzes ensures that learners are understanding what the intention is followed by 'Share your thoughts' questions to express your views and discuss specific course material with other learners. I feel this mix of quizzes and sharing really helps in learning the course. | is followed by 'Share your thoughts' | Question | to express your views and discuss | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.73 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Very basic. Tricky quiz questions. There seems to be multiple right answers. | Very basic. Tricky quiz | Question | There seems to be multiple right | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.68 | 0.74 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Testing choice isn't great. Writing a letter, outline, etc. and submitting it for peer review would have been more productive. Furthermore, some questions in Week 2 test are confusing, the original meaning the test designer is trying to convey is, which dictates what the right answer is, isn't clear, giving too much room to interpretation not allowing the answer to be empirically right. | have been more productive. Furthermore, some | Question | in Week 2 test are confusing, | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.68 | 0.74 |
| oZwETNccEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The information was very helpful. I would have benefited from quiz explanations I kept getting the same two questions wrong on quiz 2. | I kept getting the same two | Question | wrong on quiz 2. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 0.74 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent Way to learn Python. I am completely new to programming, but able to complete the course with in the time and now I am comfortable with the basics python programming. Charles made it a simple thing. His way of teaching, taking it step by step is very nice. Assignments are simple and at the same time ensures that we are good to go to next chapter. Support for questions while doing assignments is great. Thanks to University of Michigan for allowing us completing assignments as well, without payment. This is very great. Giving chance to every one to complete assignments and in addition providing support during assignments is actually shows the social commitment of University that education should be available to every one . | go to next chapter. Support for | Question | while doing assignments is great. Thanks | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | This course was challenging for me as a beginning programmer but it was taught very well. The professor and the book are awesome. If you have a question there is always a Mentor with coding experience around who can help. | are awesome. If you have a | Question | there is always a Mentor with | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | learned a lot. dont forget to read the book its great. the class is a good pace and dr chuck is a great teacher. wish mentors answered more questions on the forums | great teacher. wish mentors answered more | Question | on the forums | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very applicable to real world development, but well thought out and executed for all levels to learn. Being a Data Engineer, I had a difference of opinion on one of the SQL questions exams, but all in all great job! | opinion on one of the SQL | Question | exams, but all in all great | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Awesome second course from Chuck. He explains the material well and provides a great foundation in Python and coding. The mentors are responsive and helpful when you have questions, and the exercises are a good level of challenge but not so difficult they are frustrating. | responsive and helpful when you have | Question | and the exercises are a good | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Again like in Getting Started with Python course, I wish there was a way for us to get explanations for quiz questions after we complete a quiz, so we can fully understand them. I wish we could have something similar for when we complete the coding assignments, the worked exercises are helpful, but it would be helpful after we complete an assignment to have a code to compare ours to, to see the differences and to make sure we understand exactly what Dr. Chuck was getting at. There were several assignments that I completed, but not in the correct way, so the next weeks assignment was more difficult than it should have been. | us to get explanations for quiz | Question | after we complete a quiz, so | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Hello, The course has been designed in a way which can help a person who doesn't even know Programming. I do appreciate that! But, just one question that I have is, why the deadlines for the Assignments are designed in such a way that Week1 of Introduction Course, and the Advanced (Object Oriented Programming) have the same deadline? | do appreciate that! But, just one | Question | that I have is, why the | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.46 | 1.09 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Great course.... with lots of practice questions. | . . with lots of practice | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: Information is perfect for anyone looking at Business Intelligence as a career field, or already in the career field itself. I found the first week to challenge my on-the-job knowledge of a fuller set of concepts and general terminology. Cons: The wording on the quiz questions, in some cases, seems much different than the PPT slides and the instructor's language. UPDATE: The wording is a significant challenge, even when advancing into the more complex topics. I have had many differences of opinions on the solutions based on wording in the requirements. | Cons: The wording on the quiz | Question | in some cases, seems much different | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Not enough implication from the instructors in the course. Students are left alone with the material, without any answers to there questions on the course. Peer review process subject to personal interpretation and leading to frustration for the students. That's quite unfortunate as this provides a bad experience whereas the course might have been good without that. | material, without any answers to there | Question | on the course. Peer review process | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: The course content covers a lot of relevant topics on Database Management. Things like Basic SQL queries, Database Normalization, Conceptual and Logical databases, and making ER diagrams are covered in the course. Cons: Prof Mannino is a bit robotic in his reading out of long sentences and the constant pace of talking. There is tons of repetition of sentences and words mere seconds after they were just spoken. The lectures seem to be a collection of bullet points. The assignments and the peer review structure is really a low point. There's no specific grading rubric - so points allocation is random and based on your peer's assessment. I had many instances where my right answers were marked as wrong. There is nothing you can do to correct it. Moreover, the questions are iterative and thus the same apparent error carries on and you get multiple wrong scores. Assignments need to be submitted in documents. Separate documents for each question !! At times, even a one-line answer needs to be in a separate document. Pictures of database diagrams need to be pasted in said documents. It was a bit frustrating to take screenshots all the time. Especially when you make a small correction, and have to take screenshots AGAIN, then paste it AGAIN, and upload AGAIN !! Summary: Take the course for it's content, and use the assignments as good practice. Don't take the grading seriously. Also, focus on the content rather than the delivery by the professor, and you will still be able to get some value out of the course (and the specialization by extension) | in documents. Separate documents for each | Question | ! ! At times, even a | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Good but with some errors in assignments and not real support via the forum - some question has not been answered | support via the forum - some | Question | has not been answered | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The lecture videos have a format that is a bit over structured. It feels like the instructor takes as much time asking and answering an often contrived "motivation" question as he does teaching relevant material. The slides are of sufficient quality however to make viewing the lectures optional. . I would have appreciated having all the courses documents in single zip file. | answering an often contrived " motivation" | Question | as he does teaching relevant material. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | A solid course, I feel well versed in the fundamentals of database design. The 'opening question' bits are rather superfluous though. | fundamentals of database design. The 'opening | Question | bits are rather superfluous though. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is one of the best courses I have ever taken. It is fun and yet, it is very detailed and, yes, it takes a bit more than 2-3 hours per week. You will learn much more than using Tableau. You will learn to ask the right questions and you will also learn how to present your data analytics results to the C-suite or whoever asked for it. I highly recommend this to anyone, beginners and experienced business / data analysts. | will learn to ask the right | Question | and you will also learn how | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I will start with you do learn a lot from the videos (and the stuff you learn is very valuable), it's the absence of staff or professor involvement that is a problem and why I am not giving 5 stars. Outside of quizzes which are graded by computers, your "practice" assignments (which aren't practice because you can't check your answers before a test, super awesome when you can't really ask for help), final project and forum questions are graded or answered by other students. If you have any confusion, either it will go unresolved or be worsened by potentially wrong answers from other students which I saw happen many, many times. Maybe I am expecting too much from an online learning platform? In all, I feel like while I did learn, I perhaps learned some wrong practices too. So while the videos are great, the actual teacher involvement is poor. Coursera - I am not sure how you and the university work together, but is it totally strange to desire some input from your professor? | for help), final project and forum | Question | are graded or answered by other | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is an excellent course. You are given a six month license to use Tableau as well as practice data for the assignments and exercises. It is very practical and informative. It covers more than just Tableau. The first week is about framing data questions and working with stakeholders. The second and third week cover Tableau. The last week gives some very helpful tips for giving effective presentations. The final assessment will go over all of these things, so be prepared to put them to use if you want the final certificate. | first week is about framing data | Question | and working with stakeholders. The second | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Tableau is garbage and their assignment practice questions don't work | is garbage and their assignment practice | Question | don't work | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The material is very interesting with well-made videos. Great course to get an introduction to Tableau. The downside for me was that some videos were rushed with as they had too much content, and quizzes could be much better, I found the questions not really up-to-par with the course content. | be much better, I found the | Question | not really up-to-par with the course | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The algorithms presented in this course are interesting. However, the quizzes contain some questions that have no apparent relation to the content of the lectures, and some questions about details of the presented algorithms which are explained in neither the lectures, nor in the papers from which the lectures are derived. Also, most of the sample implementations will not run on a modern computer. They only work on Windows with Java 6 installed. | interesting. However, the quizzes contain some | Question | that have no apparent relation to | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 0.9 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The algorithms presented in this course are interesting. However, the quizzes contain some questions that have no apparent relation to the content of the lectures, and some questions about details of the presented algorithms which are explained in neither the lectures, nor in the papers from which the lectures are derived. Also, most of the sample implementations will not run on a modern computer. They only work on Windows with Java 6 installed. | content of the lectures, and some | Question | about details of the presented algorithms | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.63 | 0.9 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The lectures were good but when it came to quizzes and assignments, we do not know what to do? The questions were very complicated and not stated in the Lectures | not know what to do? The | Question | were very complicated and not stated | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.63 | 0.9 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | Interesting material, and good assignments. However this is no assistance when by TAs if you have questions, which is important since there is no feedback on assignments and hard to know where you went wrong. | when by TAs if you have | Question | which is important since there is | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 1.1 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | Lack of support from course teaching staff in answering student's questions. | course teaching staff in answering student's | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.74 | 1.1 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | TA's do occasionally provide answers to | Question | The total amount of time TA's | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.74 | 1.1 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | amount of time TA's spend answering | Question | is just really poor. Don't expect | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 0.74 | 1.1 |
| r8zaNVu-EeW0ugrg2GGh4Q | The course is very bad and feels thrown together at the last minute. Learning A* and Dijkstra's algorithm is great however the assignments require you to learn not just the little details but to "discovery" techniques not even mentioned in the course material. In addition, you must have strong matlab programming skills and be familiar with much matlab functionality in order to debug some of the assignments. You must have more knowledge concerning matlab than any of the course material or pointers provides. Meaning that beginners will NOT pass this course. The automatic grader provides no feedback at all except pass or fail. This is unfortunate as it can look like your code is working correctly but, the grader is using some edge cases to grade the code but will not include any information indicating what to look for. This is really atrocious. Although the TA's do occasionally provide answers to questions. The total amount of time TA's spend answering questions is just really poor. Don't expect even well asked questions to be answered at all. In addition, the coded template quality upon which your own code depends is horrible and thrown together. You will spend way too much time analyzing it for clues as to what went wrong. Sadly, enough all of these issues have caught up with me and I was unable to pass assignment 2 part 2. Even, though everything looks like it works and achieves the desired goal and even works with all of my own test cases. The grader is merciless. Perhaps, in the feature more time can be devoted to make this course better and I can spend more time learning how the algorithms and maths work rather than matlab and the automatic grader. At this time I don't feel like my money was well spent on these courses. I don't think I would like to risk another 50 dollars learning matlab and debugging the automatic grader on any of the other courses in this specialization. That is very disappointing as I really am passionate about learning robotics and looked forward to the other courses as well. | poor. Don't expect even well asked | Question | to be answered at all. In | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.74 | 1.1 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Very interesting course, well designed, using animated fun-makers to shoot out questions that you will probably do it yourself. Course content easy to understand. Very suited for non-accounting major analyst who wants to get some background in accounting analysis.. | using animated fun-makers to shoot out | Question | that you will probably do it | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | While I enjoyed this course and the topics covered, I don't feel like the course content matched what the course description stated it was supposed to. I enrolled in the Business Analytics Specialization course with a focus on analyzing a business from the inside, not outside. Of the 4 weeks of the course, I'd say that only week 4 was valid from an internal perspective but it was kept very high level. I'd say this course could be good for a specialization in business market analysis, but not as advertised. I also found the cartoon classroom questions to be very annoying, almost as bad as fingernails on a blackboard. | I also found the cartoon classroom | Question | to be very annoying, almost as | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Lot of considerably complex and dry (accounting and statistics!) subject matter covered at a high level without much discussion! Quiz questions are unnecessarily complex - which (IMHO) will discourage / turn off those who are new to this subject matter in completing this course. The last week is pretty interesting though! I am taking the full business analytic course - and find that the quality and complexity of content is all over the place!! Some are way too simple and some are highly complex. | high level without much discussion! Quiz | Question | are unnecessarily complex - which (IMHO) | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | It's ok. Bushee is very knowledgeable and a very enthusiastic teacher, but his lessons are too dense compared to the content in the rest of the Wharton BA programs. I actually like all the detail, but I think it's covered too quickly and the course should probably be made longer to deal with it all. There are ratios and balance sheet jargon just flying at you at a breathless pace. It would be better to focus on a few key ones and then walk through the examples a little more slowly. The quizzes were extremely tricky with too many choose more than one answers. It was difficult to find the parts of the video to review missed questions because 1) the transcripts are machine generated and make it difficult to search specific words and 2) it's difficult to remember where the concept was covered because there was so much in each video. The last week felt very disconnected from the first week and like it belonged in a different course almost. It was pretty good, though. I liked how it contained specific examples and charts. | of the video to review missed | Question | because 1) the transcripts are machine | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Excellent online course that caters to a wide spectrum of audiences with different learning backgrounds. Also love the cut scenes to the classroom where students make funny comments or ask questions haha | students make funny comments or ask | Question | haha | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | would be effective. Or, perhaps a | Question | that relates strategy specifically to the | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | I think having specific problems or | Question | will enhance the learning experience rather | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | even though I struggled with the | Question | where there are multiple correct responses. | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | want to remind students that the | Question | may change from quiz to quiz. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | of these on-demand courses, the quiz | Question | do not change and students may | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the habit of not rereading the | Question | they have gotten correct on previous | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the lectures – some in-line quiz | Question | might help. This would also help | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz | Question | 9 -, the double negative wording | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the double negative wording of the | Question | and the correct response may cause | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.86 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I probably have to rate this course 5 stars just for the supplementary reading materials provided. There's a lot of great information provided here. This course helps formalize a process that highly talented people just do intuitively. With the information within, you're able to better understand different aspects of your creative process. At times, the professor's delivery can be a little distracting (he has quite a few awkward pauses in the middle of thoughts, and uses the phrase, "right?" a little too unconsciously). I also found some of the lecture material difficult to connect in a practical sense. Some aspects of the design, play, experience model could use better examples in lecture to make the points more concrete. It is a deep model, and they do in fact point you to a whitepaper published on it so there is that, but just for the sake of the lessons; the examples need better explanation. The quizzes were easy, but challenging in the wrong way. Often, questions are posed that weren't ever directly answered in lecture or the materials, and sometimes they are worded in ways that make it difficult to pinpoint what they are looking for. It would be nice to see student responses to the free-response questions make a comeback in future lessons or at least know that they could possibly carry into the material used to teach the next incoming class. The assignments follow a logical progression, and again are supplemented with great materials. The review system is a little wonky. I've posted in the boards about this. They need to make the criteria more clear. The community activity is pretty low. I'm not sure how this can be addressed, but overall this is a great course and perfect second stop on the journey towards the Game Design and Development specialization. | challenging in the wrong way. Often, | Question | are posed that weren't ever directly | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I probably have to rate this course 5 stars just for the supplementary reading materials provided. There's a lot of great information provided here. This course helps formalize a process that highly talented people just do intuitively. With the information within, you're able to better understand different aspects of your creative process. At times, the professor's delivery can be a little distracting (he has quite a few awkward pauses in the middle of thoughts, and uses the phrase, "right?" a little too unconsciously). I also found some of the lecture material difficult to connect in a practical sense. Some aspects of the design, play, experience model could use better examples in lecture to make the points more concrete. It is a deep model, and they do in fact point you to a whitepaper published on it so there is that, but just for the sake of the lessons; the examples need better explanation. The quizzes were easy, but challenging in the wrong way. Often, questions are posed that weren't ever directly answered in lecture or the materials, and sometimes they are worded in ways that make it difficult to pinpoint what they are looking for. It would be nice to see student responses to the free-response questions make a comeback in future lessons or at least know that they could possibly carry into the material used to teach the next incoming class. The assignments follow a logical progression, and again are supplemented with great materials. The review system is a little wonky. I've posted in the boards about this. They need to make the criteria more clear. The community activity is pretty low. I'm not sure how this can be addressed, but overall this is a great course and perfect second stop on the journey towards the Game Design and Development specialization. | see student responses to the free-response | Question | make a comeback in future lessons | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Great content and great teacher. But I found the assignments and the quizzes not that great. I reckon the questions and corrections were a bit subjective and time consuming. | not that great. I reckon the | Question | and corrections were a bit subjective | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | After the excellent first course in the specialisation, this was quite a disappointment. I realise that the subject matter in this course will inevitably involve abstract concepts and subjective opinions, but I didn't really 'get' the way that Casey was presenting the subject given that there were quizzes and assignments to follow. That's not to say that the videos aren't interesting. But, given their rambling style, they would be much more useful as reference material rather than driving the course, in my opinion. Many of the questions in the quizzes felt like they'd been added simply to make them up to the correct number. Some were so loose that you could write any answer and I'm sure you'd get a mark! Also, I'd say not to even start this course unless you have a clear idea for a game. The assignments require you to produce design documents that are tedious, going on impossible, to write without some firm rooted idea to start from. Maybe if you really want to be a game designer then this will be the course for you. If you are doing the course out of curiosity, for fun, or to learn how to control Unity, I'd give it a miss. | in my opinion. Many of the | Question | in the quizzes felt like they'd | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A pretty nifty course for game design. I loved getting to work on the documentation planning for the game I was creating. Simple and easy to follow. Some of the quiz questions were a bit tricky as I had spent more time than I though I would, going back to the lectures to review the questions. | to follow. Some of the quiz | Question | were a bit tricky as I | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I learn a lot by doing assignments and reviewing other people's assignments. The important con of this course was some of its quizzes' questions which was ambiguous or badly framed. | course was some of its quizzes' | Question | which was ambiguous or badly framed. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Not very informative content, some parts are interesting but not worth the money. The worst thing is, all assignments are writting work that are evaluated by colleagues, meaning, it is purely objective, to the extent that one question asks if my uploaded file is in a readable format, example pdf, txt...etc and two out of three marking my pdf file as not!!! and not even leaving a comment why they are giving that bad score on obvious things! | objective, to the extent that one | Question | asks if my uploaded file is | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Very helpful information with lots of solid, practical advise (prototype! test!) and a few important questions to think about (genderfication? accessibility?) when designing. Excellent learning experience for game design documentation. Quite worth the time and effort. Thank you! | test! ) and a few important | Question | to think about (genderfication? accessibility? ) | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This was actually pretty hard. I felt like the questions asked in the quiz were considerable above and beyond what was taught - and the amount of R itself taught felt like being thrown in the deep end. | pretty hard. I felt like the | Question | asked in the quiz were considerable | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | so then to expect to answer | Question | where you had to program seemed | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I was initially going to give this 3 stars but it would have been a biased score as I found the programming assignments too hard otherwise everything else was great, so I've added a star to counter my own bias. The programming assignments for a novice like me who has only completed the Data Scientist Toolbox course (which was the only prerequisite as far as I know but may have missed this in the opening spiel) would have significant difficulty completing and comprehensively understanding the programming assignments in any meaningful way (i.e. to reuse the knowledge in a different context or question). I completed all of the videos, swirl programming tasks, took fairly decent notes, exams/tests and still had to look elsewhere for much more guidance than I would have thought necessary on the programming assignments as I found them too hard to do on my own. I am not that smart though and this review can only capture part of my own subjective experience. Other than that, as I really enjoyed learning about R and analysing data in general as well as the way Robert Peng's teaching style and demeanour I really enjoyed it. Trying to work out if my failure to understand and reapply is a lack of my fully grasping the material and if so whether to continue grappling with R and programming in general. I've started the third course of the specialisation so will give you more feedback once I'm done there. Thanks very much for the course and keep up the good work. | knowledge in a different context or | Question | I completed all of the videos, | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I really struggled - coming from a zero programming background. I recommend tons of reading, practical exercises, swirl is a bit of a savior and so is stackoverflow. Even with all of that, I struggled to get my mind to think like a programmer and structure the thoughts into plans for the assignments and tests. I think there needs to be a course before this that teaches one what the first step of solving a programming-related problem; eg one that focuses on flow charts, breaking down the question, etc... It literally is like learning a new language : you need to keep reading and practicing and watching/listening to others do it until you start to get it. | on flow charts, breaking down the | Question | etc. . . It literally is | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you are planning to learn R, then go and buy a book. This course is a complete scam. At least don't pay any money. The reasons; 1.) They advertise that you need couple of hours of study per week. That's a lie, you have to study much more than that unless if you know a little R programming. 2.) The quiz questions are totally unrelated from the lessons. They teach you the basic stuff but they expect you to accomplish intermediate quizzes. 3.) The instructor has no idea how to teach. May be he is trying to prove something. I couldn't really understand his motives. If you really want to teach that's simple. You do couple of extra videos and teach whatever you are asking in quizzes, or tell us to read a certain material. He didn't do any of them which means he either doesn't know how to teach or this specialization is a complete scam. 4.) And I don't really understand what coursera is doing by the way? What kind of a business model is this. I was planning to enroll many specializations but now I am not going to do it. So think about how much they are loosing. Where is the quality assurance. Just because one guy comes up to you and say that he teaches this and that do you believe them? MY ADVICE TO YOU: DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS SPECIALIZATION. AND FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE BAD REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | R programming. 2. ) The quiz | Question | are totally unrelated from the lessons. | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | A very challenging course for a beginner, but if you are ready to invest time and effort, you will definitely manage it. A point that should definitely be mentioned is that the course is not self-sufficient, so to speak: you will need to do a lot of additional research, googling, ask questions on forums and maybe even take additional courses in parallel in order to make it to the end. But once that steep learning curve is overcome, you will enjoy all the benefits and, above all, will be well-armed to continue in the specialization. | lot of additional research, googling, ask | Question | on forums and maybe even take | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I have some programming experience, but I often could not understand the questions being asked in the programming assignments. Not because of my skill level, but the lack of clarity in the directions. I felt that I learned a lot while taking this course because it held me accountable, but the course design could be much smoother. | I often could not understand the | Question | being asked in the programming assignments. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Very nice and interesting! I learnt a lot. I wish I could make better use of discussion forums. Some questions and few concepts remained unanswered/ not clear, however it was a fantastic experience overall. | better use of discussion forums. Some | Question | and few concepts remained unanswered/ not | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Excellent organisation of the course! The content is also well thought and presented. i personally clarified many vague questions related to variables, measurements and research ethics. I did have the quantitative methods course at the university, in any case some blank spots were left, so this course was helpful. It is a useful course for revising, but I do not know how total beginners feel about it. If I were a beginner I would have some difficulties probably. It could relate to my personal "slowness" to grasp material like this. Thank you Annemarie! I really like your lecturing/teaching style. | presented. i personally clarified many vague | Question | related to variables, measurements and research | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | One of the best courses! Good in-lecture questions. :) | of the best courses! Good in-lecture | Question | :) | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I really enjoyed this course overall (and it was somewhat easy for me because I have some background in this already), but there were some technical issues especially regarding accessing assignments. It would be nice if there was a more robust group of volunteer tutors/teaching assistants or something to answer questions or deal with these technical issues, especially the final exam not working for a while for me and some other people. But, I enjoyed the illustrations (drawings) and cute examples, and also the lecturer did a pretty good job on camera. I would probably give this course a 4.5 if possible, but I am hesitant to give it a full 5 points because of the technical issues. Anyway I would recommend the course to someone who wants a survey of quantitative methods to prepare for future study. | tutors/teaching assistants or something to answer | Question | or deal with these technical issues, | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | What can I say? Although it was a tough course but sometimes things were tough, it felt so incredibly fruitful each week. I think the main reason was because even though there were so many quizzes and the assignments which required so much time, they were carefully crafted in a way which helped build my abilities in a progressive manner. There was definitely a close alignment between instruction (video) and the assessments (quizzes/exams). You'll never be asked questions you weren't prepared to answer because of the aforesaid alignment. As I also work in a department which dabbles in educational research, I found the concepts thought in this course directly applicable to what's done in practice. Because the concepts were communicated so clearly, I could readily see examples of them in my everyday work! | assessments (quizzes/exams). You'll never be asked | Question | you weren't prepared to answer because | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The actual educational value of this course is quite high. The score I can offer it in good faith is dragged down by the additional "assignments" like "Write you own quiz question!" and the expectation to review the quiz questions thought up by other students. Such things in a scientific course are unnecessary and may actually be counterproductive because of the reliance upon other students and their grasp of the material. If they are to remain part of this course, they really should be treated as supplementary and not required to complete the course. It really detracts from the experience for those of us who come here to learn and not to socialize. | like " Write you own quiz | Question | " and the expectation to review | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | Nicely explained with easy to understand examples. Quite hard for those who have never studied research methods. Very dense information. I found one or two questions in the weekly quiz that I couldn`t answer with the knowledge available in the videos. | information. I found one or two | Question | in the weekly quiz that I | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 0.92 |
| ru6DZ3Q6EeWi0g6YoSAL-w | I love all your online sources. I think the information is presented well and with logical questions to test the information. I like how the presenter was clearly knowledgeable and spoke with excitement. He was very engaging. The visuals are great. The fossils are great. The extra time and effort put into the materials is obvious. | is presented well and with logical | Question | to test the information. I like | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.92 |
| ru6DZ3Q6EeWi0g6YoSAL-w | Very interesting and compelling course, and I liked the questions every few minutes during the lectures as that helps me to retain information. My only complaint is that the lecturer's manner of speaking is very rhythmic and repetitive and that makes it kind of hard to lose track of his words. | compelling course, and I liked the | Question | every few minutes during the lectures | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.92 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | Excellent class with a rich variety of instructors from multidisciplinary array of fields, lots of extra information and pretty much any question answered! | extra information and pretty much any | Question | answered! | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.59 | 0.97 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | This was one of my first online courses and I think the lecturers did an excellent job of conveying the material especially through this medium. They were also quick to respond to any questions that I had about lectures. I loved the material they presented as well. Great Course. I would definitely recommend it. | also quick to respond to any | Question | that I had about lectures. I | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.59 | 0.97 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | I liked the course, with its many different speakers and approaches. The one thing I missed the most was seeing the models in action. Even if the course isn't aimed at scientists or programmers, there are free online simulations where one can adjust model constants to see the effects interactively without any knowledge required. See NetLogo at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/, for which there are forest fire, disease spread in networks, cellular automatas and many other interactive simulations. Insight providing questions may involve finding the value of a parameter such as the epidemic can't spread, for instance. For more formula oriented optional exercises, I would recommend something similar to Differential Equations in Action from Udacity. It's a relatively easy course implementing the SIR model, physics and ABS. An exercise could be "modify the simulation to consider X% germs get resistant after each antibiotic treatment" (either in NetLogo, or Python). | many other interactive simulations. Insight providing | Question | may involve finding the value of | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.59 | 0.97 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | It's good for undergraduates, and people returning to academia (say, before starting a Master's course). It's a very short simple introduction. I kind of wish it had more examples of language to use in academic writing, contrasting good and bad examples. Some of the quiz questions and final exam questions need some proofreading. The videos from about week 3 to 4 have poor sound quality, but still understandable. | bad examples. Some of the quiz | Question | and final exam questions need some | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.71 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course provides a number of very useful tips for researchers, especially those whose first language is not English. There are a number of useful guides for new researchers to learn how to structure, phrase, and approach academic writing. However, there are also a few shortcomings of the course. Some of the material is overly subjective (giving rules for academic writing that are not necessarily applicable). Many of the assessment questions ask about issues which are either overly specific or simply incorrect (this is a very small percentage, but it is noticeable). The pace of the videos is also slow and oddly punctuated to the point that it can be difficult to follow at times. Finally, the course relies too heavily on academic writing for the hard sciences, rather than taking a broader approach, so some students may wish to keep this in mind when watching, as some advice may not be applicable to their own discipline. Overall, a recommended course for ESL academics, but could do with some improvement. | necessarily applicable). Many of the assessment | Question | ask about issues which are either | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.71 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course lacks for the practice exersises. Instead, the quizes are full of questions like "Present Simple tense is used to write about a special study implemented by a well-known scientist. True or false". The questions of this type are pointless. Still, the videos sometimes contain useful information. | Instead, the quizes are full of | Question | like " Present Simple tense is | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.71 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | It is best to have a strong statistical background before taking this course. Lots of statistical calculations and procedures. If you don't have a strong background in statistics , there is a good chance you will get lost at some point in the course. There is no questions that the instructor of this course is an accomplished mathematician, I just found it hard to follow his lectures as he got deeper into various statistical aspects of the course. | in the course. There is no | Question | that the instructor of this course | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The instructor should spend more time putting equations and concepts into concept, and tying them together. It often felt like values and questions were arbitrary. This is less about master data analysis in Excel, and more about gaining ground in a few key concepts, so the title is misleading as well. | It often felt like values and | Question | were arbitrary. This is less about | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concepts here are useful and Mr. Egger is a knowledgeable instructor but 1) this class is really about gathering information with Excel as the tool - you aren't learning anything about Excel functionality, so the title of this course is really misleading if you just want to become a stronger user in Excel 2) there is a huge disconnect between the video lessons and the excel worksheets used to complete the assignments and since many previous reviewers mentioned this, it seems like that's not going to change. 3) the disconnect between the lessons and the assignments wouldn't be an issue if the instructor could be bothered to respond to forum questions. Mine sat unanswered for 5 days as the deadline passed. You are NOT going to get support if you dont understand something. | be bothered to respond to forum | Question | Mine sat unanswered for 5 days | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | When the instructor for the course expresses amazement at the level of difficulty people are expressing in the forums that tells you a lot about how out of touch he is with what he is teaching and what is really required prerequisite knowledge. There is minimal actual instruction in excel-most often concepts are taught much like Khan Academy, on a digital blackboard. Nothing inherently wrong with that but when your course title has the word 'EXCEL' in it one would reasonably expect the instructor to actually demonstrate using excel. Nope, not here. If you've never heard of linear regression or Bayes Theorem don't bother with this course. Honestly. While those things may be easy to explain without the math they are very difficult concepts to implement and a simple 10 minute video won't clear the fog. You absolutely will not 'master' data analysis with this course. I've used Excel for over 15 years, daily, and to have the gall to say your course will 'master' something with a few videos is misleading and deceptive. If it wasn't for the TA/Mentors who do the lions share of work in the forums answering questions and deciphering the questions so students can understand them this course would be an abysmal failure. If you're wanting to jump on the data analysis/ scientist bandwagon look elsewhere. i.e. EdX has a great course on a true introduction to data analysis that is more in line with people's impression of actually using excel in that context. Now, having bashed the course I do believe the instructor to be a very competent and knowledgeable individual, but I feel he's been in academia too long and has grown accustomed to teaching those who've been in school continuously and still have algebra/ stats fresh in their minds vs. those who need to brush away the cobwebs. The course in more on the level of a 201 and in certain parts 401 level but not 101. | forums answering questions and deciphering the | Question | so students can understand them this | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Concepts are fantastic but the material developed to deliver the course is short of expectations, especially from a university. Excel sheets do not match what is demonstrated in video lectures, lots of confusion around how to complete tasks, quiz answer options not being correct, and missing Excel spreadsheets (e.g. video lecture says to refer to accompanying excel spreadsheet, but no spreadsheet available). Also, judging from past discussions by students, some inconsistencies around formulas being presented in video lectures versus assignment questions. could have been a great course, but the inconsistencies have made is very disappointing. | presented in video lectures versus assignment | Question | could have been a great course, | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I learnt a lot from this course. The first week seemed very straight forward and I was worried the course was a bit too rudimentary. From there it stepped up four or five gears and I had to work hard to reinforce the concepts and apply the concepts. A really great course for any analyst or anyone seeking the true insight in data. The discussion board is a wealth of knowledge and a good read with tutors posting very plain english easier to understand answers to questions. | english easier to understand answers to | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | It has a lot of problems, including: Not so many lectures about excel itself - most of the time you will be watching videos about statistic methods. The lectures are very superficial, even though the quizzes and projects demand a lot of knowledge and time. The course seems to have a staff of one man: the professor of the course rarely replies (even though he did at the beginning of the session) and all the work seems to be done by his assistant, who tries his best, but ends up not coping with all the questions asked at the discussion forums. | up not coping with all the | Question | asked at the discussion forums. | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.97 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I've only taken 2 classes with Wharton online. This and Intro to financial accounting. Financial accounting is awesome. It taught smoothly and explained things well. This class jumped around and didn't give full explanations and had questions on one quiz that we didn't learn until the next week. | didn't give full explanations and had | Question | on one quiz that we didn't | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | It's a good course, with quite a bit for a newbie to learn. Would have appreciated more in-depth examples in the lectures though, as I often found a gap in the lectures and the questions asked in the quiz. Even otherwise, good stuff. | gap in the lectures and the | Question | asked in the quiz. Even otherwise, | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I like the course but currently it has some issues. First and foremost problem is tests. There are some questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions require to know the information that is discussed later in course and so on. Also the lectures are quite short. Other than that course gives very nice introduction into using the spreadsheets in modelling | problem is tests. There are some | Question | that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I like the course but currently it has some issues. First and foremost problem is tests. There are some questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions require to know the information that is discussed later in course and so on. Also the lectures are quite short. Other than that course gives very nice introduction into using the spreadsheets in modelling | questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some | Question | require to know the information that | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Frankly speaking, it should be the most disappointing MOOC I have ever enrolled so far. The Professor's teaching is clear and comprehensible but the depth of the course content cannot meet the university level, especially from a worldwide renowned school like Wharton. Quiz is the most terrible part which seems like nobody could get it because of the ambiguous questions and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, like many other mates, am really grateful to Coursera for offering everyone this equal opportunity. But courses with that kind of quality but staggering price will destroy the company's brand. We all want Coursera to go further and better, but few people prefer monopoly businessman rather than prestigious professors and diligent intellectuals. | get it because of the ambiguous | Question | and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The lecturer was very slow, and some things were not explained very well (while very simple concepts were often over-explained). Also, I'm quite sure there were at least 2 errors in the weekly quizzes. One that comes to mind is a question that had identical options for two of the multiple-choice answers, but only one of them was correct (50/50 guess, more or less --- I had to take the quiz 3 times before I guessed right!). | that comes to mind is a | Question | that had identical options for two | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | not advanced calculus! Also, there were | Question | on the quiz that weren't even | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | or formatting variances, then change all | Question | to multiple choice where there's (maybe) | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This class is very easy. It is a decent introduction, but has very little content. It is clearly made to be accessible to people from all around the world, and takes the content very slowly. The test questions ask you to recite information from the video lectures and reading, rather than thinking critically. It seems like they are just trying to make sure you watched/read the content and understood it, rather than making sure you acquired the knowledge. I guess it would be hard to grade essay questions in a class this big, but the content could go a little faster. | the content very slowly. The test | Question | ask you to recite information from | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This class is very easy. It is a decent introduction, but has very little content. It is clearly made to be accessible to people from all around the world, and takes the content very slowly. The test questions ask you to recite information from the video lectures and reading, rather than thinking critically. It seems like they are just trying to make sure you watched/read the content and understood it, rather than making sure you acquired the knowledge. I guess it would be hard to grade essay questions in a class this big, but the content could go a little faster. | would be hard to grade essay | Question | in a class this big, but | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Love the pace of the course. The short videos. The summary. The essential question is the best part of the course triggering the need for getting deeper into analyzing what I am learning. | short videos. The summary. The essential | Question | is the best part of the | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | The teachers are clear and offer insight into the correct way students should be learning language. The essential questions offer a great way to stimulate critical thought and helps in the digestion of the material. | should be learning language. The essential | Question | offer a great way to stimulate | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions:) Thanks for your work!!! | point and reducing the amount of | Question | Thanks for your work! ! ! | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Well organised and helpful material. The lessons were easy to follow and posed thought provoking questions. Good for seasoned professionals and beginners. | to follow and posed thought provoking | Question | Good for seasoned professionals and beginners. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This course has great videos. I give it such a low rating to get your attention and point out some serious problems. This is a certification course in how to teach English as a second language. What was not apparent to me though is that you have to take 2 parts of the specialization before getting certified and it will take over a year! Also, there is close to no teacher participation in the module I took and there are no mentors or student teachers (that might change in future classes I would hope, but no guarantees) and there was close to zero feedback of my work or even in the discussion area and no authoritative feedback. Even the peer reviews require your classmates ONLY to judge you based on whether you actually tried to answer the question, if it was between one and three paragraphs and one other silly thing that I can't even remember now. No one is required to give actual feedback and a lot of the assignments were written by students in horrendous English, but that is not to be considered. With so many people taking this course for whom English is not a first language, even these very simple instructions were often misunderstood and people had problems with getting credit for their assignments. Also, even though the videos are really well-done, they are short and contain little information for the price. I figured that I was paying about $50 an hour for the lectures at regular speed. There are also little to no resource links etc. for further study so the lectures are pretty much the only thing you get. If you are a native English speaker who doesn't mind spending an entire year and the cost for well-done videos on the subject is not important, then this course if for you. If however you think this is going to cost only $200 and you would have interaction with teachers and you would get a certification in about half a year... I want to make sure you realize, that is NOT what this specialization is! If you are NOT a native English speaker, this course is designed well I think for people who do not speak English as a native language, who might even have a low level of English, yet who are teaching English already in foreign countries and would have difficulty acquiring certification any other way and therefore don't mind taking a full year to complete the course or the price and for whom not having someone give them feedback would be considered an asset. I have recommended it to friends who are not native speakers of English, but as a native speaker I found it slow, expensive and the assignments to be actually annoying. It's perfect though for my foreigner friends... as long as they understand it's real length and cost! THE CERTIFICATION WILL TAKE OVER A YEAR AND COST AROUND $400. | you actually tried to answer the | Question | if it was between one and | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | I learned some great techniques in this course, one in particular is to the 80/20 rule. Language teachers should allow learners to talk more, and teachers talk less! My only drawback is that I could not see my own responses to Essential Questions or feedback from my peers. | see my own responses to Essential | Question | or feedback from my peers. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This was a very interesting module, other than giving out imporant information to question ourselves as language teacher it encouraged us to think again and review how is it that we are really performing as teachers, are we asking the right questions? are we thinking of the best ways to enroll our students on leargning languages? are we wnjoying our labour? All of the lessons provided not only gave information to improve our classes but gave us the opportunity to wonder what can we do better and how can we be better as teachers. Thank you! | than giving out imporant information to | Question | ourselves as language teacher it encouraged | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This was a very interesting module, other than giving out imporant information to question ourselves as language teacher it encouraged us to think again and review how is it that we are really performing as teachers, are we asking the right questions? are we thinking of the best ways to enroll our students on leargning languages? are we wnjoying our labour? All of the lessons provided not only gave information to improve our classes but gave us the opportunity to wonder what can we do better and how can we be better as teachers. Thank you! | teachers, are we asking the right | Question | are we thinking of the best | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.72 | 1.07 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | I have already completed 3 modules, and I just love this course. The program, the videos and the quizes are all very well designed, the exam questions although a bit of higher level compared to the theory exposed, makes you think in real physiology and that's really great. You can see that this course is planned and designed with the real objective of teaching you physiology, and you can see the effort that's been placed here by both teachers in order to make this happen. So congratulations to both of you and to the University of Duke. Great job in general terms. | all very well designed, the exam | Question | although a bit of higher level | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | participation in the forum and answering | Question | on every subject. I was amazed | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | luxury of teachers replying to your | Question | and this actually motivated me to | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | And yes, come up with new | Question | :) By the end of the | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | of the course not all my | Question | were answered, but on the other | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | would even think of asking those | Question | about work of human body! Such | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | quizzes. Not all courses have practice | Question | after the lessons and it’s excellent | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | difficult to correctly reply to such | Question | only relying on information: you need | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | I would like to rate this fabulous course as excellent under Dr. Emma Jakoi and Dr. Jennifer Carbrey, brilliant instructersThank you very much for all the kind explanation given for my questions, and good video quizzes, enjoyable problem sets and mind provoking exams. Regards and lots of thanks. Indira Raghunathan | the kind explanation given for my | Question | and good video quizzes, enjoyable problem | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.64 | 1.16 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | I wish they spent more time on the content of videos and less on the silly effects and 30-second intro and outro sequences. Practically every question of the final comes word-for-word from a book not assigned in the module readings and not available for free to students for them to study. I won't be taking any other courses from this school if this course was an indication of quality. | intro and outro sequences. Practically every | Question | of the final comes word-for-word from | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Could have utilized video lectures more. Questions on final exam did not seem to relate to materials covered in course. Course seems to just comprise 1 or 2 minute long video lectures and then direct students to vast amounts of online reading material. | Could have utilized video lectures more. | Question | on final exam did not seem | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The course content does not follow the exam question is totally different what you learn from the two-minute video. You need to have the background in the field. This course should have gone through the beta test before release to the public. | content does not follow the exam | Question | is totally different what you learn | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | It's not exactly I was expecting. It covers lot of theory part. Some practical work in coding and security practicles would have added more value. I enjoyed the some material pdf suggested. However, I didn't liked "Accordingly to Microsoft" question and material. It was made 10 years back. Course content must be updated and more invovled tasks or discussions with Course makers. It looks like some videos are once made and kept as it is. I never saw actual teachers teaching something in this course, just browsing, reading and eassy writing. | didn't liked " Accordingly to Microsoft" | Question | and material. It was made 10 | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The videos and documents are not balanced with the quizzes. The quiz questions are sometimes verbatim sentences from one book with a missing word - which I find hardly a test of acquired knowledge. The course must rise above only a few definitions and rough concepts. Most of the video's hardly offer insights - they last only 2 minutes and cover a few of those definitions. This course has a lot of potential, but in its current format and content it was a disappointment. | balanced with the quizzes. The quiz | Question | are sometimes verbatim sentences from one | Positive | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The lectures were too heavy on Industry experts who quickly covered the important topics. I have taken many technology and business courses on Coursera with one or two professors covering the important content accented with industry and subject matter expert interviews. This format works best for consistency and learning, IMHO.. A student who is not in the Cybersecurity field will not gain insight into the meat of the material from the lectures. The final exam question material is almost exclusively absent in the lectures. One is required to read the cited material to gain the required information | from the lectures. The final exam | Question | material is almost exclusively absent in | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | One of the absolute worst final exams I've ever seen. Vague questions coupled with synonymous answers form a frustrating experience that ruins an otherwise decent entry in security topics. | final exams I've ever seen. Vague | Question | coupled with synonymous answers form a | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | So far, the best course I took. Very timely and relevant. Coming from a very technical/scientific background, this course taught me about the nuances of governance, policy-making, corporate responsibility among many other things. It is good to have a historical and global perspective of economic development, the aggregate of human activities and our impact to the planet. While it seemed bleak to accomplish the goals set forth to obtain sustainable development, Dr. Sachs ended in a hopeful note. We do need more people that will ask and answer the question: "Why not?" I wish to learn more, if not work to help sustainable development a reality. While the SDGs are interconnected, I hope there will be a more detailed online course about each to the extent that people can focus on one or two. For my part, I would like to learn more about the underpinnings of SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy. SDGs 12 and 10 also form my core personal values and causes. Now looking for related-reading materials. | that will ask and answer the | Question | " Why not? " I wish | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 1.07 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Some questions in the quiz do not have the proper data sources. Please review quiz questions, sources and answers expected. Thank you very much for this learning opportunity.< Sincere thanks and deep admiration and gratitude to Prof. Sachs for his genuine, continuous contributions to society. He is a true insporation to me. Kind regards, yullie matsouka | Some | Question | in the quiz do not have | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 1.07 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Some questions in the quiz do not have the proper data sources. Please review quiz questions, sources and answers expected. Thank you very much for this learning opportunity.< Sincere thanks and deep admiration and gratitude to Prof. Sachs for his genuine, continuous contributions to society. He is a true insporation to me. Kind regards, yullie matsouka | proper data sources. Please review quiz | Question | sources and answers expected. Thank you | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 1.07 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | Excellent course content but very poorly designed quizzes. More clarity is needed in formulating questions, since different pages have different values for the same data sets (even on the same website such as the World Bank indicator datasets) and it will be difficult for students to get the right answers. | More clarity is needed in formulating | Question | since different pages have different values | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.86 | 1.07 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | I really enjoyed this course. Very fluid, well organized and well-present. In my opinion, quizzes should not contain questions referring to the book, because not everyone (like me) can afford buying it. I would enjoy if Prof. Sachs could go deeper in the topics and explore them a little bit more and make student´s job a little bit more difficult. | my opinion, quizzes should not contain | Question | referring to the book, because not | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 1.07 |
| T_hpstgKEeSA2iIAC22KLw | This course is pretty much what i expected from an online course. I just rate it with four stars because: 1. Quiz questions are often just about interpreting world bank data and not about the contents of the course. 2. Having read Prof. Sachs book the course does not offer additional insights. | with four stars because: 1. Quiz | Question | are often just about interpreting world | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 1.07 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | I feel this course is designed in a way that may be too challenging to those who know nothing about music, sound, or biology. The quizzes dont really match the material covered and some of the questions are too ambiguous. The explanations are a little hard to follow as well. It does cover some interesting information about the relationship of music to speech. However, for someone a little more advanced in music and biology, I was hoping for more to be covered. I would have enjoyed more discussion of the history of modes and tuning systems, including more discussion of the Pythagorean comma (and how adjusted need to be made to intervals, especially in a chorus) and Kepler's work. I also would have enjoyed more discussion of rhythmic entrainment, the social cohesion hypothesis of the evolution of music, the roles music plays in human life, the way that bodies synchronize, and more about the relationship of music to emotional regulation, meaning, and personality. Im sure there is more as well. Giving this course 3 stars is generous in my opinion. | material covered and some of the | Question | are too ambiguous. The explanations are | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | I didn't understand very much of this course. Instructor relies heavily on the use of various charts. They were seldom explained in a way I could understand. Instructor seemed to believe that underlining things in the charts served as an explanation. After completing the entire course & listening to many of the lessons several times, I can't tell you "what we like to hear and why". Instructor speaks in a monotone with no emotion. Seems bored stiff. Seems like he's just talking, but his mind is elsewhere. Quizzes frequently contained questions for material to be covered in a future lesson | mind is elsewhere. Quizzes frequently contained | Question | for material to be covered in | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The course was alright in the sense that it was descriptive, however, the level of critical thinking suggested for the course was not actually indicative of the material presented. A lot of the material presented was great, but when the quiz came around, questions regarding the material were unequal. For example, in one quiz, there was a question about Galileo, but there was no mention of Galileo in the lecture for that week, and, a lot of the PDF'S were repetitive and not diverse in the material being taught. | but when the quiz came around, | Question | regarding the material were unequal. For | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The course was alright in the sense that it was descriptive, however, the level of critical thinking suggested for the course was not actually indicative of the material presented. A lot of the material presented was great, but when the quiz came around, questions regarding the material were unequal. For example, in one quiz, there was a question about Galileo, but there was no mention of Galileo in the lecture for that week, and, a lot of the PDF'S were repetitive and not diverse in the material being taught. | in one quiz, there was a | Question | about Galileo, but there was no | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | It is odd that a course that concentrates so vehemently on speech tone, as a segue to music would be taught by a monotone and mostly unenthused professor. Often verbose, but never succinct, I had to listen to his drone twice to glean anything of value. His tests were wrought with "gotcha" questions, having nothing to do with the important material of the course. As a physicist, I was very disappointed in his treatment of the important equations associated with the mathematics of music (mentioned as "too hard" to understand). There was nearly no mention of rhythm and its importance in music, as relates to biology and/or emotion, and no mention of how those rhythms relate to heartbeat. I am deeply disappointed, but I do hope this critique is seen as an opportunity to create a better course. | tests were wrought with " gotcha" | Question | having nothing to do with the | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| ujxZm0T9EeWhnQozdayc-w | The content was interesting, but the quizzes didn't relate to the lectures very often. It was as if there was a major piece missing in this course. One of the questions even referenced a book that was never mentioned or made available. Also, several of the musical sections seemed to be in the wrong place. I think maybe this is one of the classes that doesn't work well in this format. | in this course. One of the | Question | even referenced a book that was | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.53 | 0.76 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Very good instructor and good structure and pace to the class. Would have liked more real-life examples, and would have liked peer review questions that required more thought and strategy behind them. "Which channel do you like more" isn't really that intriguing a question. Instead, a different question could have been "How might you leverage each channel for different purposes?" | and would have liked peer review | Question | that required more thought and strategy | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.92 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Very good instructor and good structure and pace to the class. Would have liked more real-life examples, and would have liked peer review questions that required more thought and strategy behind them. "Which channel do you like more" isn't really that intriguing a question. Instead, a different question could have been "How might you leverage each channel for different purposes?" | more" isn't really that intriguing a | Question | Instead, a different question could have | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.92 |
| u_Rrw_tfEeSuiSIACwuNww | Assignments were uninspired and some questions were weird. Also, this textbook is horrible, and is presented in a very inconvenient format (PDF-only, two book pages per page of PDF so you can't effectively read it on a phone). | Assignments were uninspired and some | Question | were weird. Also, this textbook is | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.9 | 0.92 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | I think it's a great course that allows an individual to develop his skills and practice in everyday negotiation. It has a unique approach in visualization and towards the results you want to do in a negotiation and asks you a lot of questions: Should you negotiate? What is your goal? Is it legal? Ethical? Prof. Seidel videos are easy to watch and learn and makes you feel as if you were inside one of his classes,he shares his vast knowledge and experience and lets us practice a real life negotiation between students. I also bought his book, which summarizes and explains other aspects of the course. | and asks you a lot of | Question | Should you negotiate? What is your | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.03 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | I have so far, loved the examples given in this course ! The teacher gets you to be very interactive by asking you to answer some questions in the videos. The subject is interesting, and the way the courses are is a good way to make you quick learn about it. | by asking you to answer some | Question | in the videos. The subject is | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.03 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The way professor Mr. G. Siedel conducted the course is very practical and useful. Invites always to "think about answers" to complex questions and his new approaching techniques to negotiate with success are truly useful to analyze your behave negotiating, and therefore , improve in the negotiation techniques and knowledge of tools and different approaches to a negotiation. | " think about answers" to complex | Question | and his new approaching techniques to | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.03 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The course is very and very good and usefull, but it's easier for the attendants to take the quiz by the end of each Module and do the final test shorter (about 10-15 questions are enough) | the final test shorter (about 10-15 | Question | are enough) | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.03 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Course is interesting and provides basic knowledge of the subject. But often the tests require more information than provided in the questions or lectures. Also very less help is provided in the forums. | more information than provided in the | Question | or lectures. Also very less help | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | I feel that the lecture material lacks proper explanation of the key concepts but the questions in quizzes are good although the lectures should have been more conceptual rather than theoretical | of the key concepts but the | Question | in quizzes are good although the | Positive | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | The course was very good, but I guess there were too many quizzes, and the instructions / questions in the quizzes and other assignments are not unambiguous. That could be improved. Other than that I liked the course and the specialization very much. | many quizzes, and the instructions / | Question | in the quizzes and other assignments | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course, was really bad structured, was often the discrepancy between the information provided in the videos and the questions in the Quiz. Also a lot of time the system was very picky to take an answer like correct, just because the format used, for example e!=E in one equation, and because this was necessary a lot of guessing in order to find how the system take the answer by correct. But really the worst was the discrepancy between the video and the quiz, because my impression is that the videos were cut to fix in the time, but they were cut a lot, missing important information to be used in the quiz. | provided in the videos and the | Question | in the Quiz. Also a lot | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | requirement, if you miss only one | Question | in a quiz with 3 questions | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | question in a quiz with 3 | Question | there's already no chance to pass | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | trivia, a considerable number of the | Question | are very superficially related to not | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | of using multiple templates and a | Question | in its quiz was about an | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | cases where there are multiple choice | Question | which have incorrect answers accepted by | Positive | 0.7 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | there was no information in the | Question | itself to narrow down the possible | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | myself reverse engineering most of the | Question | just to try to find an | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | that we simply don't understand the | Question | or a question is answered correctly | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | don't understand the question, or a | Question | is answered correctly in essence , | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Despite the arguments of this module are extremely interesting and very useful for Robotics, I think the way they are treated is very poor. In my opinion lectures are so superficial that it is almost a waste of time to follow them. Lectures are completely useless and most of the time quizzes are note related with them. In order to solve quizzes you have not only to recover prior knowledge, that it is obvious, but also to search for new arguments somwhere in the web, in some other courses where contents are better treated and explained. In that contest what are the quizzes, what should quizzes have to test if no content is given? Moreover it often happen that without a clear support from the lectures, questions are confused and ambiguous. It is quite difficult to follow the teaching path and to enrich my knowledge. I think it is a very bad way to make a course and often the pleasure to follow disappears leaving a sense of frustration and futility. I arrived at the end of the course just because I'm doing the specialization otherwise I would have left in the middle of the first week. I'm very disappointed. | a clear support from the lectures, | Question | are confused and ambiguous. It is | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Good teachers but a lot of questions in the quizzes were very ambiguous and unrelated to the Course Content. | Good teachers but a lot of | Question | in the quizzes were very ambiguous | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course is a disappointment after the previous two courses in the specialisation. It tries to cover too many topics. As a result it provides a shallow introduction to many topics rather than deep coverage of any one topic. I do not feel I have learnt anything of substance. Many of the assignment questions are poorly written. To name one example, assignment 3.1.1 question 3 has at least three correct answers, but the grader accepts only one of them. I wasted hours trying to work out why it was marking my answer wrong. The lectures by the TAs are delivered in a "robotic" tone if you'll pardon the pun. They are reading off an autocue and it shows. | of substance. Many of the assignment | Question | are poorly written. To name one | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | The course served as a great introduction to legged robots and the templates that anchor them. The teaching staff was also very responsive to questions on the discussions forum which was immensely helpful. | staff was also very responsive to | Question | on the discussions forum which was | Positive | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.0 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The information, videos, links additional reading do provide important information. However this course is aimed at teachers and that is not clear from the title and much less with the small amount of articles that are related to teaching. This course also has lots of issues with its quizzes; getting no support from staff on technical matters or feed back on why a true or false questions is always wrong. | on why a true or false | Question | is always wrong. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | and assignment is just awful. The | Question | with multiple choice work wrong: marking | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | of the above" line. Also many | Question | are debatable, and there is no | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | The information is fascinating and the instructor is very interesting. It's a great course!! The only drawbacks are that there is so much reading to do (but you can succeed in the course and only do as much of the reading as you want to) and the 70 question final exam (but given that you can take it as many times as you want you can get any grade that you're willing to put in the time for). All in all I highly recommend this course. | you want to) and the 70 | Question | final exam (but given that you | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Very informative course. Mr. Picker also responds quickly to questions posted/asked. I would love for a special edition, to focus on law in the EU/UK | Mr. Picker also responds quickly to | Question | posted/asked. I would love for a | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Readings were not necessary for the course and quizzes were extremely difficult, seeming to be worded in an attempt to stump students, and many questions were not from the course lessons. Videos very dry and boring. | attempt to stump students, and many | Question | were not from the course lessons. | Positive | 0.6 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.81 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | is poor. There were numerous quiz | Question | that I think they just had | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.81 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | need to carefully look at the | Question | with the most incorrect answers and | Positive | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.69 | 0.81 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is a bit dry, but it's essential to writing effective survey questions. The course is well designed and easy to follow. Thanks to the University of Michigan and the University of Maryland for offering this interesting course. I hope to see additional offerings in survey research methods from these professors in the future. | it's essential to writing effective survey | Question | The course is well designed and | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.81 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | It is ironic that a course about virtual instruction is one of the worst online courses I have taken. The content was good, if a little outdated (hence the two stars vs only one), but the course design and delivery were lacking. The videos were excruciating for visual learners (or really any non-auditory learners). The video for Week 2, Lesson 2, for example, had a single static image on the screen for eleven minutes. Words were added to the image during that time, but all in all there were 26 words of text on the slide. Really?!? ELEVEN MINUTES. 26 WORDS. Give me a transcript or make it an audio file. Don't keep me chained to my laptop watching a static image for ELEVEN MINUTES! The instructor droned and was clearly reading from a script. She did not even use the video to highlight key terms or spotlight key references. Whenever she mentioned a reference I wanted to look at, I had to either hope it was on the course reference page (many of them weren't there) or try to figure out how to spell the author's name based on her pronunciation of it. It was just really, really hard to get through. The tests were also poorly designed. What states do x y or z. Who cares? I don't live in those states. Which online school has this policy? Again who cares? Maybe a question about why states/schools have different approaches or how outcomes differ between states/schools, but memorizing a laundry list of which state or school has which policies and practices is useless and did not advance the learning objectives in any way. | policy? Again who cares? Maybe a | Question | about why states/schools have different approaches | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.84 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | I found much of the content to be interesting and timely. However, I thought the quizzes were poorly written. There was no feedback, so as a learner it was hard to grow from errors. Also, there were many that required more than one answer, if you missed one, you missed entire question. Without feedback, it was difficult to know which one you missed. The week 4 lesson content was a bit dense for an introductory course. It was dry and could've been more global. Last, the large lesson assignment was only graded by peers with no feedback from the instructor. | you missed one, you missed entire | Question | Without feedback, it was difficult to | Negative | -0.6 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.84 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | one of the answers, the whole | Question | is marked wrong. Finally, many of | Positive | 0.6 | -1.0 | 0.61 | 0.84 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | It's a good course if you want to learn meteor but a lot of people would like to have support at discussions from a professor since a lot of questions stay unanswered or with wrong answers. | a professor since a lot of | Question | stay unanswered or with wrong answers. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.68 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Was only videos and 2 question quizzes until the very end. I was very surprised by the assignment at the end as it was never mentioned in any of the videos. Almost didn't finish it in time because it was due right after Christmas. Would like more hands-on assignments throughout the course instead of one at the end. | Was only videos and 2 | Question | quizzes until the very end. I | Negative | -0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.68 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Fabulous overview of the science of global warming! I really appreciated the step-by-step approach and the comprehensive coverage of the subject. Playing with the models was highly useful in most cases, though some of the quiz questions related to the models seemed to be overly finicky in the answers they'd accept as correct. In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed this course and will be using the knowledge I gained from it as I begin pursuing a Master's in environmental science this summer. | cases, though some of the quiz | Question | related to the models seemed to | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.86 | 0.94 |
| wmoTBzyAEeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | This course is addressing a critical subject matter. The material is great. I love the math. But these are my personal metrics: A 4-star course has a high level of student collaboration and teaching staff participation, a 5-star course has very responsive teaching staff. I love learning the material but the learning environment is disappointing. As the course progresses to the later weeks, the inconsistency between quizzes and lectures grows. Not greatly but enough to frustrate. Some quiz questions, with multiple choice options with only one correct answer, will not accept any answer. There are a few questions which are not covered in the video lecture (or covered in later weeks). Some answers can be found in the book (but the book supposedly is not required). Some answers can be googled but the answers vary wildly between sources. Mathematical Thinking from Stanford is the gold standard. | any answer. There are a few | Question | which are not covered in the | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.86 | 0.94 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | good course to understand keys questions and methodology to manage each step of data analysis process | good course to understand keys | Question | and methodology to manage each step | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.93 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course gives a really good guide on how to define data science questions correctly and how to work with sharp goals during the hole Data Analysis funnel from the definition of the Data Science question to the communication of it's results. | on how to define data science | Question | correctly and how to work with | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.93 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Personally not a big fan of Roger Peng's approach while teaching. The lessons get a bit confusing, and so does the questions from the quiz. Jeff Leek's approach is more calm and simple. Nevertheless, the course in general is really good. | bit confusing, and so does the | Question | from the quiz. Jeff Leek's approach | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.93 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Easy to understand what speaker is trying to explain, Good question design, not easy to pass all but really consistent with lecture content. | speaker is trying to explain, Good | Question | design, not easy to pass all | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.93 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Although the course was very useful, I couldn't complete the course due to an assignment. The assignment is very unrealistic and the graders don't give any feedback!! The assignment is open ended question and not difficult but took significant time, when I submit I was unable to pass. | ! The assignment is open ended | Question | and not difficult but took significant | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Excellent course to gain macroeconomic fundamentals, even for people without economics background. Wide range of questions in the discussion forum helps you clarify various queries you might have. Overall, i am very satisfied. | without economics background. Wide range of | Question | in the discussion forum helps you | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | the quizzes are poorly written. Some | Question | are asked at the end of | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | modules when the subject of the | Question | is not even introduced until the | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | the following module. Further, for some | Question | the right answer is either not | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some | Question | ask what answer is " most | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | several " NOT" or 'opposite answer' | Question | which are valid but confusing, so | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz | Question | set to clarify what you are | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Gayle was an outstanding lecturer. I have little economics background and I was able to follow all lessons quite well. Videos were of perfect length, not too long. I enjoyed the graphs, etc in presentations as well as the questions in the middle of a video (to see if we were paying attention). Quizzes were very helpful. The big assignment with the simulator took some time but was worth it. It brought together all ideas and I think it taught me a lot. This was my 1st coursera course so i think the bar is set very high. | in presentations as well as the | Question | in the middle of a video | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Very nicely and comprehensive taught. Material is supported with lots of graphs and multimedia that makes it more exciting. Short quiz questions are incorporated into the videos to keep the students alert, and the articles provided as a mandatory reading keep the link with the real world. I think the corse makers did a fantastic job! | makes it more exciting. Short quiz | Question | are incorporated into the videos to | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I really liked the structure and the content of this course but I didn't like the assignment questions. The questions went into too much detail instead of questions about understanding the topic. All in all it's a great course for people who want to get into SEO! | but I didn't like the assignment | Question | The questions went into too much | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.99 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | I really liked the structure and the content of this course but I didn't like the assignment questions. The questions went into too much detail instead of questions about understanding the topic. All in all it's a great course for people who want to get into SEO! | didn't like the assignment questions. The | Question | went into too much detail instead | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.99 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Great course, but it's a shame that there is no "your question" section after every topic, so that we could ask if something is not clear completely. Apart from that, I really enjoyed it and will keep on studying from related courses. | that there is no " your | Question | section after every topic, so that | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.99 |
| XEjjlXEkEeWhZxJhllGpHQ | Worth all the effort. Meticulously scripted to guide you through the complexities of SEO, with gentle repetition and some tough assessments that required me to go back over parts of the module until I understood it. A good system of multiple-choice questions and peer review as assessment. | it. A good system of multiple-choice | Question | and peer review as assessment. | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.99 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Videos are fun and informative. I think assignment questions sometimes are too scientific nevertheless for some people this can be even more exciting. | fun and informative. I think assignment | Question | sometimes are too scientific nevertheless for | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Could be added more technical question, but I understand that the course is trying to reach as much people as possible. However explaining a bit more details about minerals, which was not mention, would be good. Extending to flavonoids and some other stuff which most poeple is unaware would be interesting. | Could be added more technical | Question | but I understand that the course | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | This nice course helped me to understand the rock music in more systematical, organized way. The lecturer was very good, the visual part of the videos helped a lot, and supplementary materials too. The only disappointment I had with sometimes too specific questions in the quizzes, which meant that I must stop the video all the time to make an enormously specific notes, and this kinda spoils the integrity here. Nevertheless it was a great experience, and I definitely plan to go to the part 2 in the next year. | I had with sometimes too specific | Question | in the quizzes, which meant that | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 0.79 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | As a standard overview, the course is fine. However, the lecturer skirts around or hand waves away controversial or difficult subjects, and he's apparently afraid of offending anyone by getting too close to saying "fuck" or "sex" even in an academic setting. Additionally, this course won't introduce anyone to forgotten and erased artists of the past - women are largely absent from his history of rock, even though Janis Joplin and The Supremes didn't come out of nowhere. The quizzes are also too heavy on the trivia - "who published what when" questions rather than critical thinking questions about why or how. | - " who published what when" | Question | rather than critical thinking questions about | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.79 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | As a standard overview, the course is fine. However, the lecturer skirts around or hand waves away controversial or difficult subjects, and he's apparently afraid of offending anyone by getting too close to saying "fuck" or "sex" even in an academic setting. Additionally, this course won't introduce anyone to forgotten and erased artists of the past - women are largely absent from his history of rock, even though Janis Joplin and The Supremes didn't come out of nowhere. The quizzes are also too heavy on the trivia - "who published what when" questions rather than critical thinking questions about why or how. | when" questions rather than critical thinking | Question | about why or how. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.79 |
| XRy7uCAeEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | Horrible quiz questions. I found the distractors to be too similar to the answer, what is the point in having 4 possible correct answers? | Horrible quiz | Question | I found the distractors to be | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| XRy7uCAeEeWKeQ6ae81EbQ | The quiz questions were not clear enough sometimes. | The quiz | Question | were not clear enough sometimes. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | This course is wonderful ! Its great oportunity for career evolution. I learned very much ! When I did contacting a teacher (Eva) about some specific questions, she was super helpful and helped me with the issue. I appreciate the opportunity and the creation of the course. Thanks so much. | a teacher (Eva) about some specific | Question | she was super helpful and helped | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 0.9 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Very good course overall. There was a problem with the formulas in several quizzes, though. One couldn't get the app to reflect a formula properly, which resulted in the questions being qualified as wrong. Otherwise nice, interesting course Congrats, and thanks for sharing your knowledge folks! | formula properly, which resulted in the | Question | being qualified as wrong. Otherwise nice, | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.9 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Maybe I missed the pre-requisites - I was unable to complete some of the questions correctly because I did not see any examples of how to answer the questions calling for calculations of formulas. | unable to complete some of the | Question | correctly because I did not see | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.9 |
| Y1sD7WReEeSPwSIACy-XPg | Maybe I missed the pre-requisites - I was unable to complete some of the questions correctly because I did not see any examples of how to answer the questions calling for calculations of formulas. | examples of how to answer the | Question | calling for calculations of formulas. | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.9 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Definitely improved from the first course of this specification. Better feedback on errors regarding quizzes' questions and still really interesting assignments for peer review that help you to learn. Still missing a document or a file with all the notes that one can take away and use as a reference guide, hence only 3/5. | Better feedback on errors regarding quizzes' | Question | and still really interesting assignments for | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| YcfRNRoCEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course wasn't good. Many of the assignment instructions and questions were poorly written, and students clearly had trouble understanding what was asked of them. The assignments also weren't very deep or imaginative, and some of them requested very specific answers relying in keywords from the lectures rather than ensuring that the students had really understood the concepts. The design principles were introduced at such a surface level as to be just silly rather than useful. This was kind of a waste of my time. | Many of the assignment instructions and | Question | were poorly written, and students clearly | Negative | -0.6 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Great course, but the quizzes are not quite there yet. They focus too much on minor details and the questions are sometimes awkwardly phrased. | much on minor details and the | Question | are sometimes awkwardly phrased. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.82 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | This is an absolutely 5-star course. Educational, interesting, right-paced... It is very clear that the professor has a passion for the subject and is deeply knowledgeable. There are two questions after every video lecture, which focus on the most important parts of the lecture and also helps the student see if they understood the content. Reading assignments are relevant and interesting. End-of-the week quizzes are challenging, but can be completed very successfully if the student paid close attention to the subject. I would recommend this course to everyone who likes history or ancient cultures. I hope for a sequel, too! | is deeply knowledgeable. There are two | Question | after every video lecture, which focus | Negative | -0.6 | 1.0 | 0.66 | 0.82 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | A lesson with discussion about the question of quizz. | A lesson with discussion about the | Question | of quizz. | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.66 | 0.82 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Exceptionally informative as an introduction to Islamic studies. Could do with tightening up its question and answer format. | Could do with tightening up its | Question | and answer format. | Negative | -0.6 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Impressive analysis. This will truly push the intelligentsia to understand the core problems and ask questions. | understand the core problems and ask | Question | | Positive | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.65 | 0.88 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | On later parts the videos are poorly edited and less interactive. In one place practice quiz has wrong answer marked as right. (Whether it's a situational question or behavioral). | as right. (Whether it's a situational | Question | or behavioral). | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course seems patched together. The volume isn't consistent, even within videos. Some videos / slides are great and full of information, while others are just long periods of talking with one word or phrase on the screen and none of the information put in written form. Some of the questions occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, there are misspellings in the quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a question wrong and then, in the comments, noted the answer was right. Further, some of the videos seem to stretch out information to fill time. | in written form. Some of the | Question | occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, | Positive | 0.7 | -0.5 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | The subject is interesting and the instructors both seemed very competent. Still I wish the course had been better prepared as there were lots of sounds defects: you had to adjust the volume during each video which is tiresome. In the same idea, the questions during the course would pop up in mid-sentence, sometimes with too much anticipation with the subject at hand. Last, the questions in the assignments were sometimes not so much to check your understanding but your memory about a small detail like a % in a study that is already obsolete by the time we learn it... All in all a great course, with great instructors but still room for improvement as a mooc. | tiresome. In the same idea, the | Question | during the course would pop up | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course was a bit mediocre. The videos were often choppy, awkward, and cut off in the middle of sentences. The quiz questions were unclear and generally poorly written, and didn't make me think enough. I did enjoy the onboarding special topic section, and the quality was higher there. But the first 3 weeks need quite a bit of revision and fine-tuning. | the middle of sentences. The quiz | Question | were unclear and generally poorly written, | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| __JK5M3TEeSa0iIAC9RQCQ | Basic course and good for high school to undergraduates as the title suggest. Good for overview of managing your finance. Budgeting which is the cornerstone of managing money is well talked about. Very limited coverage on the investing portion and I disagree that intelligent speculation in the stock market is the way to educate individuals starting out on investment. I would prefer Dr Navarro teaching this topic and hearing his perspective on stock market. Asking people to cash out when a stock lose 10% is equivalent to selling low and buying high. A better question is has the business change when the stock price drops. A better read would be The intelligent investor. | low and buying high. A better | Question | is has the business change when | Positive | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.65 |
| __JK5M3TEeSa0iIAC9RQCQ | This course contained good information and it was discussed in a clear and easily understandable fashion. I was a bit disappointed though that the level was pitched quite low and so didn't answer a lot of the questions I have. If you have next to no financial literacy, however, this would be an invaluable course. | didn't answer a lot of the | Question | I have. If you have next | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.65 |