| Doc_id | Review | Left | Term | Right | Sentiment | Polarity | Rating | Contradiction-Based_MOY | Contradiction-Based_Ci |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | The retrieval part of this course is great, it deserve five starts. The clustering part was going well until it reached LDA. The LDA module is very poorly covered, and also very hard to understand. I had to watch the videos more than two times to try to figure out what was LDA, and a Quora article posted in the Forum could explain it much better. Then we get to the Hierarchical Clustering module, which was the most poorly module in all this specialization. There is only one video talking about HMM models, and Markov Chains deserve at least one week to even get started with it. And to complete, there is just one Assignment with only 3 questions. The specialization was going perfect until now. I am very disappointed with this course. I hope the last two courses are much better covered and not just ran over like this this one was. | just one Assignment with only 3 | Question | The specialization was going perfect until | Negative | -0.89 | 0.0 | 0.97 | 0.99 |
| -N44X0IJEeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Like all the courses in this specialization so far, the material has been good. The reason for only 4 stars rather than 5 is the difficulty in getting questions answered in a timely manner. There don't seem to be any active mentors for this class. | 5 is the difficulty in getting | Question | answered in a timely manner. There | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 0.97 | 0.99 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Great videos and testing structure. Great feedback to all of my questions in the forums too. 7 hours a week seems about right for me, with the recommended reading and watching the videos. However the course got continually harder and harder and by the time I was at the final exam I was really worried. In the end it got a bit difficult and stressful but I do feel it was valuable, and like I said, getting the feedback, even on weekends in the forums, helped a lot. | Great feedback to all of my | Question | in the forums too. 7 hours | Positive | 0.98 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | concepts are used in the quiz | Question | (either directly in the questions and | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | quiz questions was on a quiz | Question | about inference. I failed the question, | Negative | -0.78 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | question about inference. I failed the | Question | and understood why I failed based | Negative | -0.84 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | content litterally minutes after failing the | Question | (and one mentor actually rightly corrected | Negative | -0.75 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | actually rightly corrected me). But the | Question | " correction" (the explanation text you | Negative | -0.81 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | in calculating one figure per research | Question | without any attempt at deriving trends | Negative | -0.99 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | Does the narrative address the research | Question | . But when the research question | Positive | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | when the research question is a | Question | of the type " What it | Positive | 0.69 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | Very mixed feelings about this course. Generally speaking, the course lectures are informative and well organized. Mentors are reallly of great help, they are doing a great job, honestly: they are very active, they give good insights, they know the subject matter. But in the course lectures, there are occasions where concepts are used which were not formally introduced before their actual use. One example: in the lectures on probability, the first "slide" in the lecture talks about random processes, outcomes of random process,... On the next slide, the notion of probability of an event is introduced, but the very notion of "event" was never introduced. It is introduced in the accompanying book, but if it is the case that the book chapters should be read PRIOR to watching the course videos, that fact should be made clear. Further in the course on probability, some words are used "interchangeably" without the context making it clear why they can be used interchangeably. For instance, on some occasions, the concept of independent events is used, but then, later on, the discussion talks of independent processes. Which is which??? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? When do I need to use independent events as opposed to independent processes? The graded assignments are of varying quality. The most disturbing thing about them is that, on some occasions, concepts are used in the quiz questions (either directly in the questions and answer choices, or indirectly in the "correction" for the quiz after you have submitted it) that were never touched upon in the course. I have had two occasions of concepts not introduced in the course but used in the graded assignments. The first occurrence of a gap between course content and quiz questions was on a quiz question about inference. I failed the question, and understood why I failed based on the course content litterally minutes after failing the question (and one mentor actually rightly corrected me). But the question "correction" (the explanation text you receive after submitting, as justification for what the correct answer is) referred to the concept of "two-sided hypothesis test". Where did THAT come from?? I checked and rechecked the course videos, no mention at all of it. I checked the accompanying book, and the first mention of two-sided hypothesis test is way way way further in the book, in a chapter that is entirely focusing on inference. The second occurrence was in week 4. The course lectures cover two distributions: normal and binomial. The recommended reading in the book also focus on these two distributions (the recommended reading actually skips the section on geometric distribution, if I remember well). But in one of the quiz question, there was one of the possible answers referring to the geometric distribution. If it is the case that we are supposed to know and understand about geometric distributions, then the course content should cover the subject. Or at the very least, the course lecture should mention clearly that learners are advised to read about it in the accompanying book. The guidelines for the project assignment (week 5) are not all that clear as to what is expected from the learners. Sure, there are instructions on where to find the info, what structure should be followed,... There is also a very nice "example" project (designed by one of the mentors), which provides a lot of useful info (how to filter missing values from variables,...). But there is no real hint as to the depth of analysis we are expected to complete. This is definitely a source of confusion, not only for me, but also for a few other learners, from what I gathered in the discussion forums. The result is that the projects you get to review are of very disparate levels. Some end up in calculating one figure per research question, without any attempt at deriving trends or patterns, others do not include any plots at all,... The thing is that the peer review criteria do not really provide a good basis to ensure that learners did indeed assimilate the course contents. Most of the questions in the peer review assignment have a lot more to do with following a canvas and not so much with the course substance itself. For instance, some of the peer review criteria have to do with the narratives for computed statistics and plots. The criteria are: "Is each plot/R outout followed by a narrative", "Does the narrative correctly interpret the plots, or statistics", "Does the narrative address the research question". But when the research question is a question of the type "What it the IQR for income per state", for instance, the narrative can be very short: "IQR per state shows that the state with higher variability of income is...". So, the narrative meets the 3 evaluation criteria: there is a narrative, it does address the research question, and it does correctly interpret the statistics. But it is not particularly useful. I do understand that Internet-based peer review is challenging, and that you have to settle for "neutral" criteria that are easy to assess by learners. But the peer review grading "grid" as it currently stands is not "that" helpful in assessing whether the course contents has been assimilated. To conclude, when I took the course, my initial plan was to follow the entire specialization. But after having completed the first course of the specialization, I have radically changed my mind, and will look for alternatives "elsewhere" to get the knowledge/skillset that I am after. | narrative, it does address the research | Question | and it does correctly interpret the | Positive | 0.72 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | A very nice intro to the topic! The course is problem-oriented and introduces important concepts in relation to questions that will interest the student. It also gradually introduces R and its use for statistics analysis. I recommend it. | introduces important concepts in relation to | Question | that will interest the student. It | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 2dHcFsRdEeW2JxKnR3RyOw | This is a brilliant course that makes statistics and probability as approachable, engaging and clear as humanely possible. Prof. Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel explains every subject very clearly, and has included some very effective quizzes and lab exercises. I first encountered R markdown files in this course and have used them constantly ever since. My only tiny point of criticism is that the non-graded exercise quizzes are way easier than the real quizzes, and do not really prepare you at all to the more complex questions in the actual quizzes. It's a petty and unimportant kind of criticism in an otherwise wonderful course. If everyone taught stats like Prof. Cetinkaya-Rundel, this important subject would have been a whole lot better understood and utilized globally. | at all to the more complex | Question | in the actual quizzes. It's a | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I feel that Teacher Kang is really good with visual aids. I love how varied the tests are! I can feel the different parts of my mind lighting up with information because of the wide variety of questions. She seems kind and very passionate about her work. Because of this course, I started looking into Yonsei University. 감사합니다, 성생님! | because of the wide variety of | Question | She seems kind and very passionate | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.2 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | This really is a great course, it has a lot of content to learn, is concise, easy, and practical. Also the staff does his best at explaining doubts and questions. If you like Korean, or want to start learning Korean this is a must. | his best at explaining doubts and | Question | If you like Korean, or want | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.2 |
| 3G1aij8iEeWKOBLv1z6n9w | I learned Korean nearly 20 years ago and decided to work through this course as a refresher. The course is fairly well done. The pace is a little aggressive, which is fine if you take your time to learn each lesson before moving on. Language courses are not the kind where you can just listen and then take the quiz. Slow down. Practice. By week four the speakers in the audio files were speaking on a level where I was having difficulty distinguishing some of the words. In particular, the differences between the 20th and 21st of the month can be somewhat challenging for a beginning speaker of Korean. On the quizzes, I slowed down and repeated some of the audio. Even so, I missed a few questions. I think the course should take more care in producing the audio files and planning the questions. Some of those my be nearly impossible for beginners to get correct. | Even so, I missed a few | Question | I think the course should take | Negative | -0.72 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 1.2 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | This is a fabulous copyright course for academic professionals! If you've ever had questions about copyright law in an academic context, take this course! | academic professionals! If you've ever had | Question | about copyright law in an academic | Negative | -0.81 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.14 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | is, that the quizzes display the | Question | that were asked, instead of just | Negative | -0.91 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.14 |
| 487jV_KLEeS5LyIAC3lSsg | Organization of the class is clear and easy to follow. However, it might be better to place the Supplementary Readings after the Essential Readings for each unit. At times I would miss these required readings on the outline. Other times I would think they were required readings for the upcoming unit, when in actuality they were still part of the required readings for the previous unit. Most of the time, I come across the supplementary readings after the quiz has been taken. And when you're following the steps on the website the computer screen determines where you go once each step is completed. The quizzes at the end of each unit should be placed at the end of each unit. I appreciate the ability to take quizzes at least three times and that you use the same quiz for each time it is retaken. Something I would change about the quizzes is, that the quizzes display the questions that were asked, instead of just marking with a green check mark or red X next to the number and the question that was asked, once the quiz has been submitted. The videos and transcripts of those videos is very helpful. The videos are very clear and easy to understand. The content of the supplementary readings at times went over my head, but the content is both helpful and useful information.The due dates for each assignment was reasonable and flexible. Aside from including the questions asked for each quiz after submission I would change your policy of establishing the honor code. When attempting to have my picture taken along with my ID to establish identification my head didn't quite line up with the Head Frame displayed on my screen and the button needed to be pressed in order to take the picture. The button was either not visible or the head shot frame was too high up. I understand the need to establish ones identity during online classes, but wouldn't it be better to create a electronic pledge for the students to agree to? One that would uphold and honor the Coursera Honor Code; When someone is asked to type the same sentence repeatedly they're typing speed can increase because of the familiarity of that sentence. Also, the need to take more than one photo of the student before a quiz might make them feel uncomfortable. Especially, when the student is taking a quiz later in the day and may not exactly be "picture really". | and flexible. Aside from including the | Question | asked for each quiz after submission | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.14 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | There are steps that are missing at times which require you to scour for help. There are also quirks that aren't mentioned that other students have to point out. Unaddressed questions in the discussion board required escalation. Feels rushed and it's hard to learn for a beginner. Feels like you're just going through the motions and copy and pasting code. | students have to point out. Unaddressed | Question | in the discussion board required escalation. | Negative | -0.69 | -0.5 | 0.67 | 0.81 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | A whole lot of information to absorb, that I will definitely agree with! If there was anything I wish went into more detail, there would be two things. 1) Yo / Yeoman: This part of the course was more of an "Obligatory" lecture, just to say it's mentioned. I watched that one video many times over, but still ended up going to YouTube for actual "training" on the ins and outs. I know time is constrained in MOOC's and you don't get the full load of knowledge you would in a traditional school. However, my thoughts are that either give us an exercise so we can at least have that as experience in using it, or just remove it completely. The lecture was put together as a sort of "Follow Along", but it really felt rushed and more of an "Obligatory" thing than an actual lesson. 2) Give us more detail on the difference between Services and Factories. Keep in mind that I still have Multi-Platform Mobile App Development, and Server Side Development with Node.js still to go, so I don't know if these are explained more in those courses. As it stands right now, I -still- don't know the difference between a factory and a service, or even what a provider is. When should I use a factory? When should I use a service? Which is better suited for what task? All those questions I do not have an answer for after this course, which feels a bit short for me. | suited for what task? All those | Question | I do not have an answer | Negative | -0.78 | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.81 |
| 52blABnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Angular JS is a crucial component of all of the internet. Hardly a website exists without it and it's clear that Angular will go places. However, this course fails on a few crucial levels. As such, my review might look scathing and I'll detail why in a minute, but I want you to know that this course is quite possibly invaluable when it comes to web development. Besides, the fixes that would need to be made on the instructor's side are minor, but when working without those fixes, things get infuriatingly frustrating rather quickly. There are errors in the code supplied by the instructor that need to be pointed out by students, scripts sometimes don't work, explanations are sub-par when explaining things such as $scope. There are parts that are seemingly there to pad out the lessons such as Task Runners. Sometimes, doing things exactly the way shown in the video with additional fixes by both the professor and students, it still doesn't work. Some exercises are an hour long for something that won't be quizzed in the end. Understanding that this review was made about a new course that covers something rapidly changing and not persistent, I still did learn a lot of valuable things and I would recommend this course to everyone involved in web development. However, be prepared to question your own sanity, your skills, the software you use, software in general and just despair at times. All in all, it is a price worth paying for the amazing knowledge you gain. | web development. However, be prepared to | Question | your own sanity, your skills, the | Positive | 0.67 | -0.5 | 0.67 | 0.81 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | web exprience and how the final | Question | were set up. It gave a | Positive | 0.96 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | differently on the same set of | Question | (this needs to be really looked | Negative | -0.72 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I have mixed feelings about this course. From a instructor and content perspective, this is by far the best. Tobias is a great teacher and he explains the concepts very nicely followed up by quizzes. What I hated about this course was the web exprience and how the final questions were set up. It gave a feeling that the intent was to "get you" vusrses questions that were more to see if a student has understood the concepts. Some of the multiple choice answers were borderline and a rational mind could go either way. So my suggestion is to significantly rewamp your quizzes. From a technical perspective, the system did not capture my results the first time, It graded me differently on the same set of questions (this needs to be really looked into) for example the first time I answered the question a certain way, it marked me correct, however the same answer in the next attemp was marked wrong??? This lead to a lot of confusion (and I am not saying because the numbers in the answers were changed on different attemps but the content itself was marked differently). I loved this course and would have loved to attempt the advanced strategy course however but for the above reasons will not. Its dissapointing that although the instructure and content is world class the technical glitches are too many for a student to have a seamless, learning experience. Hope this helps and topics mentioned aboove would be seriously looked into. I want this course to be a success as this the one of the most insightful courses that I have taken. | the first time I answered the | Question | a certain way, it marked me | Positive | 0.97 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I liked the course, it opened my eyes to new ways of thinking, and I'm continuing the advanced competitive strategy course. The approach of making models and calculations to see what the best strategy for a given company is, can help greatly with making sense of a chaotic world. Minor points to better the course: The lectures are sometimes too simple, especially the examples given can be sped up, up the ante ;)!. In the quiz one whole answer is false if one of the sub-answers is false, especially with 10 answers to give, I sometimes had a hard time to pass a question due to this reason, can this be resolved a bit? Say for example, a question is passed if 80% of the sub-answers are correct? Overall... thanks dear Tobias for having me in your class! Greetz Floor | a hard time to pass a | Question | due to this reason, can this | Negative | -0.73 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | I liked the course, it opened my eyes to new ways of thinking, and I'm continuing the advanced competitive strategy course. The approach of making models and calculations to see what the best strategy for a given company is, can help greatly with making sense of a chaotic world. Minor points to better the course: The lectures are sometimes too simple, especially the examples given can be sped up, up the ante ;)!. In the quiz one whole answer is false if one of the sub-answers is false, especially with 10 answers to give, I sometimes had a hard time to pass a question due to this reason, can this be resolved a bit? Say for example, a question is passed if 80% of the sub-answers are correct? Overall... thanks dear Tobias for having me in your class! Greetz Floor | a bit? Say for example, a | Question | is passed if 80% of the | Negative | -0.83 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| 5Ih5rOq7EeODsBIxORBKNw | Fantastic course except for the quiz questions. Many of them can be interpreted in a way that an answer different from the intended one can work too. | Fantastic course except for the quiz | Question | Many of them can be interpreted | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | all video lectures feel like they are just read from a paper and it takes a lot of effort to follow and engage. It is the 4th course I'm taking to get ma digital marketing specialisation and is far off the poorest. The slides don't make much sense and a lot of times I have to research stuff again on other websites to actually get the point. The quiz questions are sometimes not related to the topic. It seems like, the professor does not know enough about the subject to speak freely and engaging about the topics. I'm quite disappointed about this course and can not recommend it. I think the course should be worked over. A great example of how to do it right is Aric Rindfleischs lecture, which was engaging, challenging and very well structured | actually get the point. The quiz | Question | are sometimes not related to the | Negative | -0.77 | -1.0 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | I enjoyed the difficulty of this course, however at times the questions seemed irrelevant and frustrating to find the information that the questions referred to. I believe some refinement is due here, but the difficulty was satisfying difficult compared to previous courses! | to find the information that the | Question | referred to. I believe some refinement | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | This was my least favorite of the course. The questions were out of order, the videos and lectures were terrible and dry | least favorite of the course. The | Question | were out of order, the videos | Positive | 0.9 | -0.5 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | For multiple modules, the questions were out of order. Some of the videos didn't seem polished to the point that it made me think it was not the final edits? Also, from other Coursera courses, I really valued interviews and summaries that highlighted the key points (vs a summary of the topics convered). Finally, the module quizzes didn't seem to highlight the key points, but instead had questions specific to not-so-important details (e.g., which agency created the MB campaign). | the key points, but instead had | Question | specific to not-so-important details (e. g. | Negative | -0.76 | -0.5 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | based on impressions after module 1: -quality of lectures: just dry material from books. not engaging - repetitions (videos in reading materials and in lecture) sometimes feeling that it is waste of time -quizz questions are hardly connected to lectures disappointed and discouraged. give a try to module 2 and will see. | it is waste of time -quizz | Question | are hardly connected to lectures disappointed | Negative | -1.0 | -0.5 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Incorrect references, subtitles that do not follow the video. Questions in the questionnaires that have not been studied and which one does not even know where to find references. The worst course of this certificate. | that do not follow the video. | Question | in the questionnaires that have not | Negative | -0.83 | -1.0 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 5_M54uIIEeSsKCIAC3iEqA | Some times the questions in the test were in my opinion irrelevant to the material. | Some times the | Question | in the test were in my | Positive | 0.86 | 0.0 | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | I appreciate the fact that this course doesn't go into the fine detail on how to code everything, I believe there is still more information on the coding and data management practices that could be included in the course content. In addition to that, I feel the course could use the following adjustments to make it better: 1 - Have Python students grade other Python students and SAS students grade other SAS students. While it is nice to get exposure to another language, it is more than enough to learn one at a time. 2 - Add quizes and/or other well formed questions that are graded (automatically, not peer graded) to help enforce the concepts being taught. 3 - Make the assignment instructions/expectations more clear. I feel there are times when the grading criteria don't exactly match the requested assignment. While people follow the spirit of the assignment, the grading questions may ask for slightly different or additional items. 4 - Certain aspects of statistical analysis are glossed over and should be covered in more depth in the training videos. While I like the short videos for brevity, I would prefer to watch 10-15 minutes more content and really feel like the material was well covered. | spirit of the assignment, the grading | Question | may ask for slightly different or | Positive | 0.78 | 0.0 | 0.85 | 0.97 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Choosing an actual research question allows you to find a topic of interest. This makes the content more meaningful and accelerates understanding of the concepts. | Choosing an actual research | Question | allows you to find a topic | Positive | 0.81 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 0.97 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | There is a lot of self-teaching with these courses because there are no professors present to reach out to with questions. In addition, the course staff do not always respond promptly nor are they fully knowledgeable about all aspects of error messages that may arise out of coding. At times the code that were provided in the lecture videos were out of date and a lot of time was spent on googling to find the updated code. This is definitely not a beginner coder course and I do not recommend it to anyone who has not coded before. | present to reach out to with | Question | In addition, the course staff do | Positive | 0.63 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 0.97 |
| 6JyoHjVOEeWBMQ5pdIoFkQ | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc questions in videos. More hype content than a course. This is not the way to learn Python, seriously don't take this one | Bad material, poor graphics, wrong mc | Question | in videos. More hype content than | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 0.85 | 0.97 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Great production values and more "meat" to it than the intro course. I like the scenario based questions. It still seems a little light on content, but the content that is present is good. | course. I like the scenario based | Question | It still seems a little light | Positive | 0.84 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | The course way OK, but it had some flaws. It was very general and could have gone into more detail, but that was intentional, I guess. No big deal. Then again, the difficulty was way too easy and the quiz questions should be tested for test wiseness. What I disliked the most: The way Scrum was introduced and mapped to the role of a "product manager" was very confusing. Still, not a bad course though. | way too easy and the quiz | Question | should be tested for test wiseness. | Negative | -0.78 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| 6lQZLjVvEeWfzhKP8GtZlQ | Amazing Course. So very enlightening and so very well taught. The quizzes help to reinforce the material learnt in the Lectures. The quiz question made it so that you had to constantly think critically to answer real world problem scenarios. Would recommend it to anyone to gain a good understanding of Software Processes and Agile Practices. | learnt in the Lectures. The quiz | Question | made it so that you had | Negative | -0.68 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great instructor, made the course really fun. I'm a beginner programmer but Dr. Severance explained things really well. Also, the Mentors and community of students in the forums were super helpful when I had questions. Looking forward to the next course! | were super helpful when I had | Question | Looking forward to the next course! | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The lectures are very good. But the Discussion forum became a "hidden question - mistic answer" panel lately. Could we get some non-scored assignments to discuss them openly with mentors and to learn more ? | Discussion forum became a " hidden | Question | - mistic answer" panel lately. Could | Positive | 0.82 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I think sometimes it got very confusing some of the examples being the exact same from chapter to chapter. It was nice having a ground for it but i started to question why would you use this method instead of the one we used before for hours and rate specifically. | for it but i started to | Question | why would you use this method | Negative | -0.98 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course is not that much helpful for those who want to do work for coding. I mean the level of toughness of questions is not too good to compete any coding competition. | mean the level of toughness of | Question | is not too good to compete | Negative | -0.88 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Everything was great but I wish there was more exercise questions to solve, at least as a homework. could've been in the book at the end of each chapter as a chapter questions /projects. Because I believe more exercise help to understand concept better. | I wish there was more exercise | Question | to solve, at least as a | Negative | -0.64 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Everything was great but I wish there was more exercise questions to solve, at least as a homework. could've been in the book at the end of each chapter as a chapter questions /projects. Because I believe more exercise help to understand concept better. | of each chapter as a chapter | Question | /projects. Because I believe more exercise | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Great way to learn the basics. Much better than the book on its own. Nice style, simple explanations, and helpful coursemates to answer questions and discuss topics with. Highly recommend. | explanations, and helpful coursemates to answer | Question | and discuss topics with. Highly recommend. | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | All of the review I've read were that the course was great, so maybe it is me that was the problem. However, as I would go through the written material, I would try to work the problems given as examples, and when they did not work, I was confused and wondered why the example given to teach us would not work. I asked for help a number of times, providing screen shots of the results I got trying to duplicate what the example was supposed to show, and page numbers of where the example was presented in the course materials. One former student basically said that I should not be trying to duplicate the examples, but just accept the concept they were trying to show. Another did a good job of explaining one of my questions, but then all replies to my question ceased. I decide to drop out of the class and try teaching myself, as I have done on everything I have learned about computers since my 1st computer in 1983. I have been very impressed with other courses given by Coursera members, but this one was not one of them. All of the other submissions praise the course, so maybe it is just me, but none of the other submissions mentioned any actual things the course had done - just that it was great. | job of explaining one of my | Question | but then all replies to my | Positive | 0.95 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | All of the review I've read were that the course was great, so maybe it is me that was the problem. However, as I would go through the written material, I would try to work the problems given as examples, and when they did not work, I was confused and wondered why the example given to teach us would not work. I asked for help a number of times, providing screen shots of the results I got trying to duplicate what the example was supposed to show, and page numbers of where the example was presented in the course materials. One former student basically said that I should not be trying to duplicate the examples, but just accept the concept they were trying to show. Another did a good job of explaining one of my questions, but then all replies to my question ceased. I decide to drop out of the class and try teaching myself, as I have done on everything I have learned about computers since my 1st computer in 1983. I have been very impressed with other courses given by Coursera members, but this one was not one of them. All of the other submissions praise the course, so maybe it is just me, but none of the other submissions mentioned any actual things the course had done - just that it was great. | but then all replies to my | Question | ceased. I decide to drop out | Negative | -0.68 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed this course and felt like I actually learned the material. The only reason I didn't give this course 5 stars, is that due to the issue of giving away the answers to quiz questions, there were a couple of quiz questions that I couldn't understand and unfortunately still don't. I think this is an area that could be improved. | there were a couple of quiz | Question | that I couldn't understand and unfortunately | Negative | -0.84 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | I really enjoyed my time with this online experience. Though I managed to get thru most of the course without having to post a question, I did realize in the end how easy and responsive the course TA's are in follow up. And there is also the community of other students whom I was able to learn from in seeing their questions and answer sessions. You have no idea how important it was for me to be able to review the material in snippets in my day and then review it again and again so that I could comprehend the nuances of the lessons. Amazing, I wish I had this when I was in my undergrad days. | to learn from in seeing their | Question | and answer sessions. You have no | Negative | -0.67 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The content inside this course is well tought through. Questions and asignments holds high quality. If you haven't been in contact with Python before, this might be the first step for you, and when I say first step, then I really mean first step. | this course is well tought through. | Question | and asignments holds high quality. If | Positive | 0.98 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Just finished the course "a little bit" ahead of February. Would have been a resounding five-star review but some "mentor" thought it necessary to hijack a thread by a student asking about the necessity of more than one "break" in a while loop to lecture about what constitutes pseudo-code and what does not on a non-assignment question. This didn't contribute to the original posters question. Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are always a real pleasure! | what does not on a non-assignment | Question | This didn't contribute to the original | Negative | -0.97 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | Just finished the course "a little bit" ahead of February. Would have been a resounding five-star review but some "mentor" thought it necessary to hijack a thread by a student asking about the necessity of more than one "break" in a while loop to lecture about what constitutes pseudo-code and what does not on a non-assignment question. This didn't contribute to the original posters question. Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are always a real pleasure! | didn't contribute to the original posters | Question | Despite that Dr. Chuck's courses are | Negative | -0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | The course is fantastic! Even though you have never heard about programming. The professor is awesome and really clear in his explanations. It seems to me like a real time lecture: whatever is my question, he answers it on the very next minute! :) | real time lecture: whatever is my | Question | he answers it on the very | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 7A1yFTaREeWWBQrVFXqd1w | There should be section for more challenging and difficult questions , so that we can improve our problem solving ability without breaking the flow. | section for more challenging and difficult | Question | , so that we can improve | Negative | -0.62 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | Course was ok. However, some of questions were not clear based on excerpt from support video. For example, quiz #1 question 7. Course was "general" overview of very important subject matter of Cyber Conflicts. Looking forward to a more specific and detailed course structure. PS: A course concerning Cyberwar in Space would be quite interesting. | Course was ok. However, some of | Question | were not clear based on excerpt | Negative | -0.95 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 0.94 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | Course was ok. However, some of questions were not clear based on excerpt from support video. For example, quiz #1 question 7. Course was "general" overview of very important subject matter of Cyber Conflicts. Looking forward to a more specific and detailed course structure. PS: A course concerning Cyberwar in Space would be quite interesting. | support video. For example, quiz #1 | Question | 7. Course was " general" overview | Positive | 0.71 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 0.94 |
| 8TKORJrSEeW6bw4ogk2HGQ | On the positive side I emphasise the importance of bringing this topic to a Coursera course. Also the readings were important and added value to the learning experience. On the other hand there are - in my opinion some aspects that made this course a not so rich experience. First, there are some audio issues in the videos. Second, the quizzes are excessively easy and the in video quizzes should not appear in the weekly assignments. If there are required readings, some of the quiz questions should relate to those readings. This way students had an incentive to go over those readings. But the most salient thing that made my experience very limited was the fact that one of the instructors - the one that presented most of the videos, was excessively nervous and all that he did was read the slides, in most cases not doing so naturally and committing errors, rephrasing, stopping, changing speed. I found it very, very difficult to follow along what he was saying. I had to focus only on the slides, otherwise I would get distracted. I think it is ok to be nervous or at ease, but the team should alerted him to this, and shoot the videos again and again until they had acceptable and balanced quality. A minor thing, I would like to had available the weekly slides to further reflection. I think the video issues that I've mentioned should been carefully planned before this course made it mainstream. This is my opinion. Hope it will help you for future improvements of the course and/or other offerings. Ricardo Oliveira | required readings, some of the quiz | Question | should relate to those readings. This | Positive | 0.92 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 0.94 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | Excellent On-line Course in Creative Writing developing Character. Amy Bloom was an exceptional Instructor, both in her lesson planning and video lectures and interviews, as well as in her caring monitoring of the class involvement, progress and questions. Thank you, Amy, for offering us your knowledge in such an interesting and engaging form! | of the class involvement, progress and | Question | Thank you, Amy, for offering us | Positive | 0.74 | 1.0 | 0.96 | 1.16 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | This was a great course...so much detail and she asked to many questions that it really makes you think and then helps you to determine how to apply it to your story. Amy Bloom was very easy to listen to and learn from. The assignments were thought provoking and definitely helped me to hone my writing skills. | detail and she asked to many | Question | that it really makes you think | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.96 | 1.16 |
| 9a6pC3gcEeWxvQr3acyajw | I didn't find this module very helpful and some of the assignments were truly confusing. I wish there was more "meat" in the sessions and more availability to access the lecturers more readily when there was confusion. I don't like the fact I pay money for other people to "assess" my work when half of them don't even read my submissions properly. Or the question. Or both. So if the lectures don't stretch me, I find my money spent unwisely. | read my submissions properly. Or the | Question | Or both. So if the lectures | Negative | -0.66 | -0.5 | 0.96 | 1.16 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | A very poor course. The teacher just ask questions in order to stimulate students, but doesn't teach anything. Incorrect terminology (Ah-ah? Please, study Aaron Allston works before inventing other words). Test are cool. | poor course. The teacher just ask | Question | in order to stimulate students, but | Negative | -0.85 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 1.03 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | Unlike the other two lecturers in this course, this module's lecture is very very bad. I always felt like coming back and learning more with the other two lectures but with this one I had to force myself to complete the lessons. First of all his English is bad, sometimes you cant understand what he means even with subtitles. He repeats many things through out the course and he tries to teach by asking questions all the time. As a guy who takes and make his own notes, I found it really difficult to put together a sentence he was saying. It seems that nobody proof read his lectures before posting it on coursera. I feel that it was done blindly and in a rushed way. If possible can you please change the videos and also the script. Please make it more understandable. | he tries to teach by asking | Question | all the time. As a guy | Negative | -0.78 | -0.5 | 0.82 | 1.03 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | I learned next to nothing from this course; the professor just rambles on and on jumping schizophrenically from aspect of aspect. One moment he's talking about physics, and in the same sentence he's suddenly talking about whether the game should have a crafting system. Some of the information even seems out of touch. He doesn't state any information with certainty because he always tends to add "or not!" or "...maybe!" after sentences, leaving you to wonder if there's anything left to take away from the lessons. The entire course could be condensed down into a "list of questions to think about while designing your game world" - it really doesn't contain anything more than that. Sometimes entire segments are dedicated to trivial things (such as "your game could have invisible walls!"), whereas in other segments he works through a hundred different questions without going in-depth to any of them. Speaker is hard to understand due to his lack of proficiency with the English language and the subtitles are often incorrect. On the plus side, you will learn what a "ha-ha" is. | down into a " list of | Question | to think about while designing your | Positive | 0.77 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 1.03 |
| 9p1NWzJzEeWFJhJQP1CW-Q | It's often not clear the point the professor of this course is trying to make. Instead he often seems to ramble pointing out a 100 little questions that a world designer might ask himself/herself during the process without ever focusing on any. The reader is left not knowing what the key take aways were | ramble pointing out a 100 little | Question | that a world designer might ask | Positive | 0.71 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 1.03 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very well structured and extremely clear videos and also helpful staff and mentors to our questions. Assignments were very diverse and challenges us to fully understand the concept and functions of the program. | helpful staff and mentors to our | Question | Assignments were very diverse and challenges | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very well done, I loved the lectures and enjoyed the assignments. I had no previous experience of programming and I found the explanation of the concepts very clear. The main critique for me is that ,for some of the problems, not having a background in physics might be..well..too challenging! It took me hours only to read about the theory behind the question, to find out the appropriate formula to use in the code, whilst writing the actual program was pretty quick. Other than that, I would certainly recommend the course. | read about the theory behind the | Question | to find out the appropriate formula | Positive | 0.68 | 0.5 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | This course was ultimately frustrating to take. There is a gap in the material presented and the skill set needed to complete the assignments. Using optional methods to complete this course, such as to use the textbook and forums, is too time consuming (deciphering a text book) or insulting (forum mentor responses). To to solve the assignments, it usually involved trying to 1. refreshing yourself in math concepts not used by a beginner or non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the poorly written questions were asking, 3. scouring the textbook or internet for functions or strategies never covered in the lecture, 4. having snarky and unhelpful remarks by mentors. The unprofessional behavior of the mentors was especially hard to handle. Even from the early week's lectures we learned about semantics, and how simple mistyping could lead to programming errors, so I wrongly assumed the mentors would understand that some of us would probably make simple errors. For example, in the final homework I had a simple mistake, but since we cannot show code, it led to more frustration and a mentor basically just saying "we covered this already." I'm well aware of what we covered, but if someone is stuck on a problem, there needs to be a much better way of helping that person. I did not want to write in the forums after my initial foray in the forum led one mentor to just tell me "your logic is wrong", and the spout the same simple strategies of the lecture that could not help on the complex assignment. There probably will not be anything fixed with this course since it seems like it has been the same for years now. Please fix the questions, stop using Project Euler, and let people directly message code to mentors. Will probably save time rather than try to blindly (and frustratingly) explain code over and over again. Ultimately, I felt that unless someone either has previous experience in coding, or has no work to do other than to do this course, it still is not worth it to just obtain a certificate. | deciphering what exactly the poorly written | Question | were asking, 3. scouring the textbook | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | This course was ultimately frustrating to take. There is a gap in the material presented and the skill set needed to complete the assignments. Using optional methods to complete this course, such as to use the textbook and forums, is too time consuming (deciphering a text book) or insulting (forum mentor responses). To to solve the assignments, it usually involved trying to 1. refreshing yourself in math concepts not used by a beginner or non-mathematician, 2. deciphering what exactly the poorly written questions were asking, 3. scouring the textbook or internet for functions or strategies never covered in the lecture, 4. having snarky and unhelpful remarks by mentors. The unprofessional behavior of the mentors was especially hard to handle. Even from the early week's lectures we learned about semantics, and how simple mistyping could lead to programming errors, so I wrongly assumed the mentors would understand that some of us would probably make simple errors. For example, in the final homework I had a simple mistake, but since we cannot show code, it led to more frustration and a mentor basically just saying "we covered this already." I'm well aware of what we covered, but if someone is stuck on a problem, there needs to be a much better way of helping that person. I did not want to write in the forums after my initial foray in the forum led one mentor to just tell me "your logic is wrong", and the spout the same simple strategies of the lecture that could not help on the complex assignment. There probably will not be anything fixed with this course since it seems like it has been the same for years now. Please fix the questions, stop using Project Euler, and let people directly message code to mentors. Will probably save time rather than try to blindly (and frustratingly) explain code over and over again. Ultimately, I felt that unless someone either has previous experience in coding, or has no work to do other than to do this course, it still is not worth it to just obtain a certificate. | for years now. Please fix the | Question | stop using Project Euler, and let | Negative | -0.82 | -1.0 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Homework assignments are much more difficult and time-consuming than the contents of the lectures, especially for the last three weeks. Fortunately, the tutors are very patient and respond to your questions quickly. | very patient and respond to your | Question | quickly. | Positive | 0.97 | 0.5 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Excellent course, it makes programming look easy. The lessons are very clear and the tutors are always ready to help with any question one may have. | always ready to help with any | Question | one may have. | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very good course, with clear explanations of the key concepts. However, I felt hindered in being able to complete all tasks in the homeworks each week as many questions alienate someone like me with little mathematics/physics background. I feel if the questions were more general I would have been able to perform better each week. Very good lecture content though. | the homeworks each week as many | Question | alienate someone like me with little | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| A4W_GyDjEeW5Rwo0txKkgQ | Very good course, with clear explanations of the key concepts. However, I felt hindered in being able to complete all tasks in the homeworks each week as many questions alienate someone like me with little mathematics/physics background. I feel if the questions were more general I would have been able to perform better each week. Very good lecture content though. | mathematics/physics background. I feel if the | Question | were more general I would have | Negative | -0.86 | 0.5 | 1.06 | 1.15 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I would suggest this really very good introductory course as a starting point to everyone interested in different philosophical questions. | to everyone interested in different philosophical | Question | | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | very interesting course, it provides several question and relative theory in history. And it would make you to think. So i like this course. | very interesting course, it provides several | Question | and relative theory in history. And | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Great course, excellent topics... they are about interesting themes and questions in the world. Thanks | they are about interesting themes and | Question | in the world. Thanks | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | very nice introductory course looking at questions of | very nice introductory course looking at | Question | of | Positive | 0.67 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | From an engineer perspective this was hard to see obvious value in but i enjoyed the thought provoking topics. Some of the tests were very hard and the questions were not directly form the lectures while others were. Some presenters were hard to understand due to accent. | tests were very hard and the | Question | were not directly form the lectures | Negative | -0.65 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I have really enjoyed this course and it has motivated me to learn more. I particularly liked the course as it showed us philosophy itself rather than a reiterated history of philosophy which is usual. It gave us hands on experience of problems and questions being asked. The accompanying book has also been of great value to me. It enabled me to read the lectures before listening to them and will be a useful handbook to keep me in touch with the issues covered. The questions and further reading at the end of each chapter is also of great value to me. A big thank you to all the team. I have been totally absorbed by the course. | hands on experience of problems and | Question | being asked. The accompanying book has | Positive | 0.63 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I have really enjoyed this course and it has motivated me to learn more. I particularly liked the course as it showed us philosophy itself rather than a reiterated history of philosophy which is usual. It gave us hands on experience of problems and questions being asked. The accompanying book has also been of great value to me. It enabled me to read the lectures before listening to them and will be a useful handbook to keep me in touch with the issues covered. The questions and further reading at the end of each chapter is also of great value to me. A big thank you to all the team. I have been totally absorbed by the course. | touch with the issues covered. The | Question | and further reading at the end | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | In as much as I enjoyed the course at times the dialect was difficult. However, the reason for 4 stars as opposed to 5 stars is due to a lack of ability to have receive an answer to a difficult question answered by an instructor as opposed to another class participant who necessarily did not have any better grasp of the question than myself. Given that I certainly enjoyed the course overall. | receive an answer to a difficult | Question | answered by an instructor as opposed | Positive | 0.81 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | In as much as I enjoyed the course at times the dialect was difficult. However, the reason for 4 stars as opposed to 5 stars is due to a lack of ability to have receive an answer to a difficult question answered by an instructor as opposed to another class participant who necessarily did not have any better grasp of the question than myself. Given that I certainly enjoyed the course overall. | have any better grasp of the | Question | than myself. Given that I certainly | Negative | -0.71 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I almost gave this two stars, but the content of the course is excellent, and I didn't want to take away from that. To start off, for an introductory class, this covers a large amount and variety of material. It might be better served to break it up into even smaller sections over the course of something like ten weeks or even twelve instead of cramming it all into seven weeks. The lectures are enjoyable, but often they consist of nothing but the professor speaking. There are so many new terms, definitions, and ideas being introduced that it would help if these lectures also included slides or graphs with some of these ideas being broken down, as you would have in a regular class on a projector or on a chalkboard. Frequently, the practice quizzes are just the same questions from the video lectures repeated over again, and offer very little prep for the actual quizzes, which are painfully pedantic for a non-credit course. Every section has a different style of quiz, which is hard to prepare for. I am someone who usually tests well and have been struggling with most of these, even when I read all of the handouts and take notes. So, if this same course could be broken up over a slightly longer time and the quizzes could be more uniform, the lectures contained some slides, the course would be a brilliant introduction to philosophy overall. It's got all of the meat there, the presentation just makes it tough to digest. | practice quizzes are just the same | Question | from the video lectures repeated over | Negative | -0.81 | 0.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | A very good introduction to major branches of Philosophy. While some questions on assignments were rather vague, and some lectures rather dull (I don't think I bothered watching the videos from the third week on... just relied on the- excellently put together!- handouts). Overall, a great course to take for a beginner to the world of Philosophy :D | major branches of Philosophy. While some | Question | on assignments were rather vague, and | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | questions that are really interesting. These | Question | make you view and question life | Positive | 0.69 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I really enjoyed taking this course because Philosophy asks and points questions that are really interesting. These questions make you view and question life with different points of view. Thank you. | These questions make you view and | Question | life with different points of view. | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I gave this course 5 stars because the content does match the description, a general overview of the topic of Philosophy. It introduces the student to the concepts involved with the study of and the approach to Philosophy from various topics. It does not go into any specific philosophers very deeply, and instead focuses on the general study or overview of what is going on in the "philosophical world" as of 2013. The course has not been updated, from what I can tell from that time. The Forums are "there" and the class is "supposed" to be live, but it did not have that feel to it. It was more of a "study on your own" experience and yes, we have a forum area. i found it not to be very active after the first week, (introductions were encouraged) but perhaps taking this course over the Christmas holiday (that fell in the middle of the course) was not the best time. I am near the end of the course and have put a lot of time effort and extra reading into it, but it does not seem this will be rewarded i.e by a certificate with distinction, at least there does not seem to be active involvement to that extent. 2-3 of the lectures had "extra"videos" of the professors addressing forum questions, but I do think these were outdated or from the first run of the course (?) as they seems to be talking about topics that were not necessarily in the forums at the time. I cannot determine that for certain, but, it was my impression. I would HIGHLY suggest purchase of the book that goes with this course, due to week 6, when clearly the topic is not entirely covered in the notes nor the lecture (my opinion only) and the book was needed to get thru the quiz. The professor that week had an accent and spoke very fast, and even listening in a slower speed did not seem to help much. The book is a worthy purchase, look for it on EBAY, or Amazon or a Used Book website. The book does go deeper on all topics and again, especially for week 6 and it is looking like possibly week 7 as well are best studied with the book as well as notes provided by the course. Again, this is an overview course, and it is interesting. If you are looking to study specific philosophers in depth - this is not the course. It is the course however to take before taking others or to review or learn what is going on in the area this area of study and it did hold my interest. As others have commented the final week touches upon time travel and the professor has introduced interesting aspects that involve the philosophical in this unit. Each week a different instructor presents information so you are switching learning styles weekly which is, I think made a more smooth transition if you actually have the book and the chapter that the instructor wrote. I would recommend it for at least another 6 mo to a year - after that (say 2017 perhaps the lectures should be freshened up, as new information may be out there, or at least they should tape something that says, "yes this was originally taped in 2013, however the info is still on target" or if not then add a lecture that updates the course to the latest in that area of philosophy. Overall, this being my second Coursera class I have found it to be of high quality, and worthy of my investment to obtain the certificate that is offered. And I do thank all of the professors who participated in this collaboration, it is again, a very interesting course that I think is a "must take" course if one is to really understand what is "going on" with Philosophy. | videos" of the professors addressing forum | Question | but I do think these were | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It was very informative and interesting. Provided some very intriguing questions for reflective thinking. | and interesting. Provided some very intriguing | Question | for reflective thinking. | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | An excellent course that makes you ask and answer really important questions about life. | you ask and answer really important | Question | about life. | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Very good teaching strategy. Takes you through ideas and gives you examples. Has a couple of questions each video to keep your attention. It is a very interesting subject, even if the teaching was bad, but the lectures add even more by taking their time with concepts. Keep doing what you're doing. I would take other courses by this school if they were similarly designed. Thank you. | you examples. Has a couple of | Question | each video to keep your attention. | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Such a eye-opener. Philosophy was a hobby until I ran into this course. It structure my thinking. It made me realize the schools of thought that have tackled the questions I've dived into are as many angles to view a given issue. | of thought that have tackled the | Question | I've dived into are as many | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Amazing introduction to the basics of philosophy - I wish I had such in university or at some other early point. It shows you breadth, scope and problems philosophy deals with. Course tries to maintain simplicity and clarity of explanations even for very complex things and this is exactly what you need for a subject which is normally deemed too complex for beginners or gives an explanations which for uninitiated do not add clarity and rather raise even more questions. Loads of fun and topics which may make you think more and induce your curiosity. | clarity and rather raise even more | Question | Loads of fun and topics which | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It seems I have failed at week three without having to ask for the answers for three questions. | ask for the answers for three | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | -0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | An absolute delight to understand Philosophy in such creative manner.I recommend this course to anyone who questions -existence, our knowledge, and to everyone looking for a better understanding within their respective fields. | recommend this course to anyone who | Question | -existence, our knowledge, and to everyone | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | The course content is very superficial. The pass mark is very high for a course I had taken because of a mild interest. You have to get 80% to pass. One unit in particular was very confusing. It took me 7 attempts to pass it as I had no idea what the first question was about and there was no guidance as to what I was doing wrong. | had no idea what the first | Question | was about and there was no | Negative | -0.92 | 0.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | I enjoyed this course very much. Like many survey courses that are well-conceived, this one stimulated enthusiasm for learning more about some of the topics. So much so in my case that I have enrolled in another course from the University of Edinburgh relating to philosophy and science. I expect it will be equally thought provoking as its delivery involves some of the same faculty. I believe this course would be improved if there was a mechanism for constructive feedback on missed exam questions that illustrate how the questions at hand are integral and in context to the presentations and supplemental readings (some of which I pursued). Simply referring a student back to the course outline does not assist learning when a student does not understand why a chosen answer is incorrect in context. I realize this is a tall ask for an online course. In my own experience as a university faculty member having developed computer assisted instruction and simulations (physiology and anesthesiology) there is no replacement for contact and conversation with an engaged teacher whose interest lies in helping people learn. That said, I reflect that my constructive comments are made in light of my overall satisfaction that this course has succeeded in stimulating interest in learning more about the interface and complementary nature of science and philosophy. Borrowing a phrase from the course itself, "well done". | exam questions that illustrate how the | Question | at hand are integral and in | Positive | 0.92 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | A great introduction to many philosophical areas, well planned, well tested and with very good professors. The only downsides were a couple of slightly ambiguous questions (which, having just watched an hour of philosophical teaching one could easily start wondering what they technically meant) and, to utter frustration, lack of a statement of accomplishment. Nevertheless, if philosophy is of it's own right your target, it is a course well worth taking. | were a couple of slightly ambiguous | Question | (which, having just watched an hour | Negative | -0.88 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | It is a very entertaining broad introduction to the topic of philosophy in general. The lecturers are very knowledgeable and are very good teachers. However, I wish there would be a more detailed treatment of the topics in question. I look forward to their future course on Philosophy of Science, as I believe that by focusing on a more narrow topic, they will be able to go a bit more in depth. | detailed treatment of the topics in | Question | I look forward to their future | Positive | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Auue1KA-EeS9VCIACyUcdg | Raise some philosophical questions for brain storming. However, not much direction of exploring further where philosophy should go. | Raise some philosophical | Question | for brain storming. However, not much | Negative | -0.87 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Great course with useful tips and organized materials. However, some of the materials (recommended tools, hyperlinks, etc) are outdated so it would be great if they can refresh them. Also, the in-course quizzes are too easy to the point it seemed quite stupid - please include more meaningful questions in the in-video quizzes. | stupid - please include more meaningful | Question | in the in-video quizzes. | Negative | -0.89 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.89 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Even though the theoretical part was well put together, case study questions were too vague and should have been better thought out. This part of the specialization did not meet my expectation. | was well put together, case study | Question | were too vague and should have | Positive | 0.83 | 0.0 | 0.78 | 0.89 |
| bGZkCuIJEeSqWiIAC0gGHw | Great course. Like the slides and the way it structured. It could be broader if not so Google centralized and more international. For example in Russia there is Yandex.ru (ya.com) which controls 75% of search market and in China there is Baidu and others and no Google and Facebook. These questions is not highlighted in the course. | and no Google and Facebook. These | Question | is not highlighted in the course. | Negative | -0.83 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.89 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | One of the more challenging courses I believe because it requires a background in accounting and proficiency in Excel. The questions really challenge you and your mastery of the lectures. | accounting and proficiency in Excel. The | Question | really challenge you and your mastery | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.22 | 1.39 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | course material or teaching. 5- All | Question | were boring and calculation-intensive, and I | Negative | -1.0 | -1.0 | 1.22 | 1.39 |
| Bq5Eo50bEeW_wArffOXkOw | The Worst Course EVER on Coursera: It is important to realize at the outset that I am a very avid learner and always give everything a chance to be completely tried out before giving a judgement, and unfortunately, this course is by far, the only bad course I've encountered on Coursera for the following reasons: 1- The professor wastes a whole week's module on explaining something trivial like the interest rate and compound interest rate without naming the necessary terminology that is commonly used. 2- To make things worse, he has a condescending perspective on students and wastes so much time glorifying himself in an upsetting manner that patronizes learners. 3- His demeanour is unprofessional and quite disturbing when he gives mentions at the end of the week that 'I can feel you. I can feel each one of you now' to the degree that even the camera-person filming him cuts his nonsense out. 4- After putting up with all his boring nonsense that I already know, despite being a linguist not a finance person, I gave him a chance and started doing his first 10-question Quiz, which was completely isolated from reality and unrelated to his course material or teaching. 5- All questions were boring and calculation-intensive, and I still gave him and a chance and went through the whole boring set of 10 questions just to tell me that it needs upgrading for such a banal and facile course. Now, I have an idea about the level of Teaching at Michigan University and I will recommend all my friends not to attend such a university due to the previously-mentioned reasons. A complete waste of space. | the whole boring set of 10 | Question | just to tell me that it | Negative | -0.98 | -1.0 | 1.22 | 1.39 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Nice simple course with simple questions | Nice simple course with simple | Question | | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.05 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A bit too much math in the questions, although it seemed (in the videos) that we could skip it. I'm very visually oriented (and also a MENSA member), and I would have explained more with graphics. Or at least not have to much 'equations' in the questions. | bit too much math in the | Question | although it seemed (in the videos) | Negative | -0.64 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.05 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | A bit too much math in the questions, although it seemed (in the videos) that we could skip it. I'm very visually oriented (and also a MENSA member), and I would have explained more with graphics. Or at least not have to much 'equations' in the questions. | have to much 'equations' in the | Question | | Negative | -0.71 | 0.5 | 0.77 | 1.05 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | Immensely enjoyed a highly technical course diligently presented in a very comprehensive way. It answered many questions I had in my mind but had not been answered | very comprehensive way. It answered many | Question | I had in my mind but | Positive | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.05 |
| bV6GUWEbEeSceSIACy-PDA | An exciting adventure through the most recent discoveries in the worlds of astronomy, astrophysics and related sciences. Without requiring any mathematics or physics skills, the course is useful for amateurs like myself trying to understand the fundamental questions and possible answers about the origin of our universe, its laws and structure as well as its fate. It is a pleasure to follow professor Murayama clarify these wonderful subjects. | myself trying to understand the fundamental | Question | and possible answers about the origin | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.05 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | While the course materials themselves were very useful, the quizzes didn't feel like an effective test of the material and consisted of very few questions, which didn't leave room for error (especially problematic because some questions were subjective). | material and consisted of very few | Question | which didn't leave room for error | Negative | -0.63 | 0.0 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Overly-remedial information, but that is not what earns this course such a poor evaluation from me. The poor evaluation comes from the composition of the review quizzes: The end-of-section quizzes ask questions to which there can be more than one correct answer, yet only a single response will receive credit. Example: "A recommended solution to a problem is valued by an executive because..." Followed by four possible answers: One of which is clearly incorrect while one makes an awful assumption. These two choices can be eliminated easily. However, the final two options are BOTH UNARGUABLY CORRECT, but only one was briefly mentioned in the material (reading or video), and thus only that one receives credit. Unfortunately, this demonstrates the course creators' desire to value a student's memorization of the instructor's own unique words over the student's assimilation of the course content and ideas. Course-takers beware, this course seems more tailored to stroking Ms. Bravo's ego than to you actually learning anything of commercial value. | review quizzes: The end-of-section quizzes ask | Question | to which there can be more | Negative | -0.62 | -1.0 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | There wasn't a lot of information inside the video and the test's questions hade multiple possible answer. However, the links to ressources such as HarvardReview or Inc.com were pretty good and usefull. | inside the video and the test's | Question | hade multiple possible answer. However, the | Negative | -0.72 | -0.5 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | The teacher of this course talks toooo fast ! I`m for example a french educated student, so I prefer to take courses with a teacher who talks in a comprehensive way in which I can understand everything he says in order to proceed in my work and then to benefit everything in this course. Concerning the quiz, in the all of the quiz there is questions not related to what already said from the teacher or in the articles required to read. I red the articles coupes of time but in a specific questions, the answers, it seems, that we should answer from our own memory because badly it`s not mentioned in any article or in the video of the teacher. Thanks | all of the quiz there is | Question | not related to what already said | Negative | -0.66 | 0.0 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| bzK7K9cYEeSV9iIAC0wBBw | Less required reading and more targeted lectures would make it great. It often seemed that the questions in the quiz weren't properly covered in the material provided. | great. It often seemed that the | Question | in the quiz weren't properly covered | Positive | 0.74 | 0.0 | 0.62 | 0.81 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | This course is excellent. It uses lecture, practice and question effectively to let learners master in Grammar and Punctuation. Greetings Mubashar Rehman | excellent. It uses lecture, practice and | Question | effectively to let learners master in | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good course, although no proctor or supervision at all. No place to go for questions or help. Please be aware this is primarily designed for non-native english speakers. This was not clear to me when I joined. And although the content is thorough, it is dull and the assignments uninspiring. If you want to know more about grammar, good (be sure to bone up through, because she assumes a lot about what you might remember from high school and for those of us over 40 ... hmmm). If you want to feel inspired to write something of value and interest to yourself or others, not so good. Over all I would not recommend this course or series of courses. And would suggest seeking out a course that has some kind of proctor or supervisory help available. | all. No place to go for | Question | or help. Please be aware this | Negative | -0.83 | 0.0 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Good one , some parts was even useful for what I was seeking for - IELTS General Writing Flash Practices and in-Video Questions was interesting too | General Writing Flash Practices and in-Video | Question | was interesting too | Negative | -0.79 | 0.5 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| 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 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | A great course, put together in a manner to make learning easy. A lot of practice questions not only made the courmade the concepts very clear | learning easy. A lot of practice | Question | not only made the courmade the | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | This course is helpful and I have learned quite a bit about punctuation and sentence structures. However, while things like tense are important, to be able to differentiate 12 tenses contributes relatively little to typical academic writing. Rather, I have had trouble with seemingly simple questions such as when to use past tense and when to use present tense in a literature review. But these aspects are probably the most useful when it comes to pracital writing. It would be helpful if these issues are addressed. Also, the use of articles is a common weakness for a lot of students (to "the" or not to "the"). It is helpful to include this component too. | have had trouble with seemingly simple | Question | such as when to use past | Positive | 0.73 | 0.0 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| CQk7JA46EeWuEBJhzy2uFw | Great course, with extensive exercises and relevant questions and follow up. | course, with extensive exercises and relevant | Question | and follow up. | Positive | 0.64 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 1.07 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | After teaching English for many years, I found answers to old questions and new challenges to work on. The course was worth every minute I invested in it. | years, I found answers to old | Question | and new challenges to work on. | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.08 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Some of test questions are vague and create a kind of misunderstanding. I hope this will be considered as a frienly advice, not a claim. | Some of test | Question | are vague and create a kind | Negative | -0.68 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1.08 |
| d64E7li7EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions (especially the one in the final tests like "who inspired the angel and devil debate ":) Thanks for your work!!! | I didn't enjoy much are some | Question | in the tests because sometimes they | Negative | -0.96 | 1.0 | 0.85 | 1.08 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | has way many blank gaps and | Question | and all these questions are clarified | Negative | -0.79 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.8 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | gaps and question, and all these | Question | are clarified by students - each | Negative | -0.7 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.8 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Interesting, though instructor's participation and help could have been more noticable. The course has way many blank gaps and question, and all these questions are clarified by students - each with his own understanding. I think the instructor must be a person to answer all the question about the course. Thanks. | a person to answer all the | Question | about the course. Thanks. | Positive | 0.69 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.8 |
| DDBg7AlXEeWTSSIAC0MDtg | Great course! the final exam is very odd though, the "correct" answers didn't fit easily in what was taught. several subjective questions | in what was taught. several subjective | Question | | Negative | -0.63 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.8 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | This course is very interesting . It provides clarity on fundamental questions about learning. Must watch for teach | . It provides clarity on fundamental | Question | about learning. Must watch for teach | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 1.21 | 1.26 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | This course was very boring and very frustrating. Long long slow lectures with lots, and lots, and lots of questions, and no answers. The briefest of comments on potentially interesting people or topics, but no links to enable those to be followed up. Quizzes on concepts not covered in the material. Conflicting descriptions of assessment requirements. Discussion moderators who continually referred you back to the course material which did not contain the information that people were looking for. Before taking this course I could find only one negative review, which I dismissed as probably being a minority. Having taken the course, I agree with that review wholeheartedly. I did learn a couple of things, despite everything, but I would not recommend this course. Please upgrade it substantially. | lots, and lots, and lots of | Question | and no answers. The briefest of | Negative | -0.81 | -1.0 | 1.21 | 1.26 |
| DmetrPp5EeScaiIAC9WIJw | The course changed my perception on education and now I do ask questions on why, how and what in relation to teaching. Many a times we remain silent and this is seen as acceptance of the system as it exists. | education and now I do ask | Question | on why, how and what in | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 1.21 | 1.26 |
| DzPiWTeDEeWCYBKNeFwojw | The content of the course is basically on how hotels distribute their contents (their rooms to sale). The different channels are explained, such as the OTA, brand.com, meta search, and direct channels. The course also includes a very interesting point of view from OTA where Expedia and Booking.com explains their offers to hotels. I would love to have the views from hotel too, which are missing here. The suggested readings are quite a lot, basically from the online sites, many from the hotel and travel industry (skift, for example). Those readings are very useful in digging deeper on the subject. The assignments, are, on the other hand, quite weak. It consists of 4 peer review assignments. The first week contains a pretty quantitative analysis, but the other 3 assignments are basically conversational and just repeating what you have learnt in the class. The non-noted quizzes were pretty easy, you almost no need to think deeper to answer those questions. | to think deeper to answer those | Question | | Positive | 0.75 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| DzPiWTeDEeWCYBKNeFwojw | In my humble opinion it is necessary to review some points in this module: 1) Video Content: Making more dynamic, switch between explanations and slides in full screen. Only explanations, it is very tiring to attend the classes. The video would be ideal as shown in week 4 of this Mooc: How the hotel shouldnt work with Expedia? or video: How to hotel shouldnt work with Booking.com? 2) Analysis requested: In the first week the requested analysis was of a very high level, it required knowledge of financial analysis and hotel area. In my case, I felt much difficulty because I do not have any knowledge in the hotel industry. And analyzing the exercise, I realized it was necessary to have knowledge of financial ratios of profitability and a certain familiarity in the hotel industry. I left a comment on the discussion board stating that I was not feeling safe to do the exercise. However, there was no demonstration by the teachers of the course. In short, I was not feeling prepared, let alone analyze colleagues. The first time, did not get the minimum score. The second time, with the longest time, I could better perform the exercise. But rather it was the result of review of financial ratios and other other accessories. I realized that those who examined me in the first and second time, had little or no idea about financial analysis. And another point that struck me was that one of the people who fell for me to analyze, was all in white and the person apologized for failing to do. With nothing to analyze, I did not think fair to give a low rating, so I preferred not to analyze. If the person left blank, something needs to be revised. When mounting a course, you have to take into consideration that there are different levels of students: beginner, intermediate and advanced in the subject matter. The first week was not to have been given is analysis. It could have been the third or fourth week of this Mooc, so it would have time for a further deepening of the matter addressed. 3) Amount of content: Adding the video, quiz and analysis, are about 30 content. It is very tiring and little time for such content. Could decrease the amount of video and quiz, relocating to another week course or Mooc. 4) Feedback: Teachers need to leave a contact way (facebook, twitter, etc.) and be active in Coursera forum or leave a wizard to ask questions when needed. 5) Notes: He missed the weight of the notes. I found a little confusing the allocation of notes. 6) Curriculum: Missed curriculum (biography) of teachers. No contact information. 7) Books: Missed suggestions of books in the hotel industry. Anyway, these are only observed points in order to contribute to development of course. Thanks for listening. | or leave a wizard to ask | Question | when needed. 5) Notes: He missed | Negative | -0.91 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | Really nice course to clear the concepts regarding the new existing technologies and all the related terms. The tests and mid lecture questions really helped in testing the grasp of the course. | terms. The tests and mid lecture | Question | really helped in testing the grasp | Positive | 0.69 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | very high level syllabuses, limited application description of BD, poor quiz and questions designed | description of BD, poor quiz and | Question | designed | Negative | -0.77 | -0.5 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| eLzp7w-NEeWPhwrBf2tcNQ | While testing the questions should be increased. | While testing the | Question | should be increased. | Negative | -0.63 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | The material itself isn't bad, but the course instructors never respond to questions. What's the point of the class if I can't get my questions answered? | the course instructors never respond to | Question | What's the point of the class | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 1.12 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | The material itself isn't bad, but the course instructors never respond to questions. What's the point of the class if I can't get my questions answered? | class if I can't get my | Question | answered? | Negative | -0.86 | -1.0 | 0.82 | 1.12 |
| ENhHCTboEeW8ZAoCexam_w | There is a lot of self-teaching with these courses because there are no professors present to reach out to with questions. In addition, the course staff do not always respond promptly nor are they fully knowledgeable about all aspects of error messages that may arise out of coding. At times the code that were provided in the lecture videos were out of date and a lot of time was spent on googling to find the updated code. This is definitely not a beginner coder course and I do not recommend it to anyone who has not coded before. | present to reach out to with | Question | In addition, the course staff do | Positive | 0.63 | 0.0 | 0.82 | 1.12 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | An ok introduction to Swift Programming, but I can see people who do not have previous development experience struggling with this course. Also lecturers were virtually nonexistent on the forums to help with questions which is disappointing since it is a paid course which implies you are paying for their time and effort not just the certificate. Best advice for people taking this course is to get through the material as early as possible and give yourself as much time as possible to work on the project, don't wait till the last week to work on it. Would also suggest the following changes to improve the course and help people understand the material better: 1. Have a programming exercise to complete at the end of every week to prove you have understood the material taught, a quiz alone with 10 or less questions is not enough. The course ramps up way to quickly with the project if all you have been doing is following the videos, students should be practicing and proving they know the work far more often. 2. Provide a clearer project brief since it was clear many people did not understand all the requirements. 3. Provide a video of what the final project should do in general to make it even clearer. Overall I didn't have a bad experience with the course, just disappointed that it was really bear bones, there were too few opportunities to prove your understanding, it was poorly managed and the lack of interaction from the lecturers a massive problem when they are being paid to help out, not just provide videos and forget about the students. | quiz alone with 10 or less | Question | is not enough. The course ramps | Negative | -0.92 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very disappointed. Having coding assignments weekly would have been very helpful. The quizzes often asked for information that was never presented in the lessons. The instructors were never present in the forums to answer questions. The final project asked us to do things that hadn't even been mentioned in the course materials. I would not recommend this course to anyone. The only reason it got 2 stars instead of 1 was because I did learn some Swift. | present in the forums to answer | Question | The final project asked us to | Positive | 0.84 | -0.5 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | ? (2) Some of the quiz | Question | I don't find useful. For this | Negative | -0.74 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Very knowledgeable educators. Course is given in a q&a style which is very very good for a web based course since the questions often are exactly what i want to ask. However, think the course can still be improved, especially in the following aspects. (1) examples in the course are not thought through ahead. Instead, educators came up with them on the spot. that way it may not be the best example to convey the message, plus the videos are made unnecessarily long in this way. Think it's good that for a programming course to show real time programming sometimes. But to do this all the time is a bit too much and therefore inefficient. Comparing to some other courses, think this one could really benefit if the educators could give some thought on how to teach, especially to think from a student perspective. For example: about the capability of overwriting and defining new operators, the example given was to define a knife operator and to overload plus operator to stew vegetables. Both examples do not make much sense to me. Although i did understand that it's nice that one can define his/her own operation/operator, when the examples came I actually got confused -- how do i stew vegetables with code?? (2) Some of the quiz questions I don't find useful. For this course I need lots of time to complete the quiz in contrast to other coursera courses I did. This is because i need to actually read the documentation in order to answer the quiz questions since they are really in depth. In this way, to do the quiz is actually the way to learn. But some questions are quite artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice question about "what are the different ways one can find help..." (3) Finally, I find the video and the quiz very abstract. that it's very difficult to follow without making a line of code myself... Also it is not clear what the educators expect as a pre-requisite for taking this course. Sometimes things are explained as if the listeners have no programming background at all. some other time, a concept is explained so fast I wonder whether i should have known objective-C in order to follow this course... | artificial, for example, there's a multi-choice | Question | about " what are the different | Positive | 0.69 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Was pretty good overall. I feel there was a lack of in-lecture questions in the first few videos. That aside, great course. | there was a lack of in-lecture | Question | in the first few videos. That | Negative | -0.97 | 0.5 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | I'm dropping this course because it's just SO poorly conceived. Three weeks in, and I can't really articulate what I've actually learned (which leads me to believe that the answer is "not very much"). The major problem is that this course has no clear objective. And I don't mean that the individual lessons don't have objectives - I actually mean that the entire course doesn't know what it wants to be and the instructors seem to have bypassed this critical question. I have a background in Python, and I was under the impression that this course would teach me how to program in Swift (seems like a fairly straightforward goal). But it isn't that at all. If I were to summarize this course (perhaps a little uncharitably, because I'm annoyed at the time I wasted) it would be: some dudes with a computer talk about some cool features of a programming language. I'm fairly baffled by the fact that there was no thought put into which examples might best illustrate the features they were trying to teach. Which-examples-might-best-illustrate-the-feature-I-am-trying-to-teach is pedagogy 101. They would regularly work through examples just to conclude "actually that's a bad example". This is pretty strong evidence that there was no lesson planning involved. There were also no practice exercises, no posting of pieces of illustrative code, and hence, no way to actually get good at programming in Swift (unless it's self directed, in which case - why bother with the formality of taking a course on Coursera?). | seem to have bypassed this critical | Question | I have a background in Python, | Negative | -0.79 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | Unfortunately the course is not very well thought out. The lecture videos are poorly organized, concepts are not presented in the proper context and lack sufficient detail/depth, little thought or effort was put into designing the examples in the videos, there are no actual coding exercises until the last week, there are no examples of elegant code, nor thoughtful examples of good vs. bad code, the quizzes contain questions that are poorly worded and ambiguous (and I think some actually have the wrong answers and are contradicted by other online resources). It's very high level, and they hand-wave important concepts. I really don't see how this class can actually teach you to build a robust high-quality app. You're probably better off just reading some of the official documentation online. | vs. bad code, the quizzes contain | Question | that are poorly worded and ambiguous | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | poorly planned, irrelevant to the subject test questions. | planned, irrelevant to the subject test | Question | | Negative | -0.63 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| eUI0xjeIEeWO-Qq6rEZAow | The lectures for this course seem unorganized and often had poor audio. The content covered in many lectures seemed off topic. Quiz questions would then focus on the off topic information making it confusing with regard to what material to focus on during a lecture. Do I focus on the proposed subject of the video or the many tangents about other topics. This combined with the unorganized nature of videos(just winging it) made the lectures distracting. The lecture videos are full of code that simply does not work in the real world and help from staff takes literally days to get(and not just over the weekend). | many lectures seemed off topic. Quiz | Question | would then focus on the off | Positive | 0.85 | -0.5 | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | This is a fantastic and comprehensive course. If I had to nit-pick, it would be questioning the particular coverage placed upon China in the sub-topic of "How did Modernity evolve after the Industrial Revolution?" and the seemingly critical view taken towards its modernisation. One point in particular was "We've achieved a war over nature. Where we've done it, there's a cost to ourselves, as the intensifying flooding in Shanghai often illustrates. Early in October 2013, Shanghai was hit by two typhoons which came together and saturated Shanghai with the heaviest rainfall ever recorded." I'm not a Chinese citizen, but it sounded to me like China received her due comeuppance, which I felt was a little uncalled for. While China's trade opening may be significant in world trade, I'm not sure if the particular in-depth coverage on China in relevance to the question, is a stretch. | on China in relevance to the | Question | is a stretch. | Positive | 0.75 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.25 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Very good for everyone who want to know about Big Questions. | who want to know about Big | Question | | Negative | -0.64 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.25 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Why is this course dangerous? I took this course because first I liked the idea to have a history lesson spanning the age of the whole universe. Maybe it is also intriguing to explain everything just with one principle: the second law of thermodynamics. BUT as it turned out they don't have any clue what this second law of thermodynamics means. They always forget the second part of it: it is just valide in a closed system. I think everbody will agree, that the earth for example isn't a closed system. In the beginning they tell you you should be critical about everything new you hear or get taught. But if you are critical and question things they teach you they will ignore you. One glance at the discussion forum shows: they are fast in answering good feedback and compliments by students, but critical questions (with scientific papers who show different facts) get ignored for weeks and months. They are cherry picking. They just see what encourages their view and their opinion and ignore everything that contradicts their course, opinion, believe and dogma. In this respect they are so dangerous. That is the same principle how cults work. Maybe their goal, stopping polluting and changing the world in such a speed seems to be a good one. But also here you have to be careful. When they talk about climate change and the overuse of ressources they are exaggerating by a factor of 50! In my opinion you are damaging an important discussion if you are lying and exaggerating in such a shameless way. For sure it is not helpful! But again, the truth doesn't fit in their world view. Furthermore they "teach" that cities get blown away by taifoons is caused by the "universe balancing entropy". This isn't just lack of understanding physics, or history, or flow mechanics, it is just insane. In summary: this is not a history course, but the "teachings" of a lying, exaggerating, cherry picking cult with no knowledge in particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology or even history. So please: if you take this course, be aware of this pitfalls and their intentions. | and compliments by students, but critical | Question | (with scientific papers who show different | Positive | 0.88 | -1.0 | 0.99 | 1.25 |
| EwR6zhSDEeWCWhKuhISYpw | Liked the way course is organized, posing questions at the beginning of each lecture is a great idea. | the way course is organized, posing | Question | at the beginning of each lecture | Positive | 0.84 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.25 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | The organization of this course was very good. I liked the themes and their order. I thought the videos could have been longer and more substancial, but the reading were great. I got confused on one of the assignments in which the questions of the given chapter were supposed to be answer. There were 3. I must have misunderstood or have another file, because no one I read had such question and I got not so great reviews. I think this should be looked at. Either way, thank you for this opportunity! | of the assignments in which the | Question | of the given chapter were supposed | Negative | -0.92 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 1.07 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | The organization of this course was very good. I liked the themes and their order. I thought the videos could have been longer and more substancial, but the reading were great. I got confused on one of the assignments in which the questions of the given chapter were supposed to be answer. There were 3. I must have misunderstood or have another file, because no one I read had such question and I got not so great reviews. I think this should be looked at. Either way, thank you for this opportunity! | no one I read had such | Question | and I got not so great | Positive | 0.68 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 1.07 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Solid and to the point. It will not get you ready to do a research, but it will give you the tools to design a solid enough draft or question for a research, | design a solid enough draft or | Question | for a research, | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.07 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | I like the first E-tivity where we were asked to do the reading and listen to the video then come up with our own research question. I wished the rest of the course had continued along the same line where we can create a possible framework of what our research would have looked like by utilizing the ideas developed during the videos and readings. | come up with our own research | Question | I wished the rest of the | Negative | -0.91 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 1.07 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | Excellent course to know and distinguish different approaches to the research question.. | distinguish different approaches to the research | Question | . | Positive | 0.68 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.07 |
| fCKQimXqEeSuUyIAC0mIhA | thanks a lot for this course i think that it will help me to progress in research practice and to publish researches and to learn how to find answers to burning questions in my mind | how to find answers to burning | Question | in my mind | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 1.07 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | sure I could answer the quiz | Question | Either the quiz questions were bad | Negative | -0.99 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Course content was pretty detailed. I did not like that I had to write down pretty much every single word from each slide and that was said in order to make sure I could answer the quiz questions. Either the quiz questions were bad or it was taught in a confusing manner. I would go with the former. | the quiz questions. Either the quiz | Question | were bad or it was taught | Negative | -0.99 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I enjoyed hearing about epidemiology, but didn't find the quizzes very useful. I was expecting more practice doing computation or examining case studies. The lectures also had no time in between slides to pause, write notes, and make sure I understood what was just said. I liked that the lectures were well organized and the review questions in between the topics of discussion. | were well organized and the review | Question | in between the topics of discussion. | Positive | 0.77 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | Nice course with the correct approach on the basics of Epidemiology. Only one minor issue, i think the focus on the historical aspects, although interesting, was a bit too much in the lectures and the tests. Being able to define OR or CI should be more important than questions on history. Overall, great work! | CI should be more important than | Question | on history. Overall, great work! | Positive | 0.91 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | I thought this was a good basic level introduction course. One suggestion is to update the quiz section to be able to click on the questions that were answered incorrectly and see the correct answer with explanation (after passing). | be able to click on the | Question | that were answered incorrectly and see | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | There is no real flow between videos and questions, not easy to follow. Good efford, good content, just wrong methodology for online training for 2015. | no real flow between videos and | Question | not easy to follow. Good efford, | Negative | -0.98 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| FjD-ZB8oEeScWCIACnuVZQ | The content was really neat and definitely not something I had been exposed to before. I really liked the quantitative parts of the course and wish there had been more time spent on that and more quiz questions on that. The reason I am ranking this 2 stars is that I felt the quizzes were unreasonably difficult (or perhaps they had bugs). Week 2 quiz I had to take multiple times and really couldn't figure out what the correct answer was. Looking at the discussion boards I believe my sentiment is shared. I have taken multiple coursera classes (Astronomy, Astrobiology, Calculus) and these are by far the most difficult quizes I have encountered. | spent on that and more quiz | Question | on that. The reason I am | Negative | -0.97 | -0.5 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | I found the course very informative, there was quite a lot of information in there for only six weeks of study but it didn't feel overwhelming either. Professor Marc van Oostendorp was very engaging in his presentation of the material, and I liked the fact that his students were there to ask questions as well. I also liked how the language informants were used - I was able to practice what I had learned in the other videos by analysing their speech patterns. Overall, I was quite impressed by this course. | his students were there to ask | Question | as well. I also liked how | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 1.02 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | VERY good content and classes! Some questions in the quizzes are confusing, and there was the trouble with the required reading for Week 3. The first Honors assignment is confusing - specially its very last input question. | - specially its very last input | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 1.02 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Some of the material could be a bit more analytical, and there were a few problems with the quiz questions. Other than that, perfect! Great introduction to linguistics. Thank you for your hard work! | a few problems with the quiz | Question | Other than that, perfect! Great introduction | Negative | -0.63 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 1.02 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course was often confusing and the quizzes came down to a question of trial and error. I found this very frustrating. Although the topics were interesting, I didn't find them very well presented in spite of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. But there was a lot of ambiguity and bias and the inability to discuss except through the forums was off-putting. It wouild be good to know why answers were wrong in the quizzes particulalry when you had put a lot of effort into studying them. In the final exam, there are questions which are evidently wrong, both in their wording and in their marking and nothing has been done to remedy this in spite of the complaints in the discussion page. | the quizzes came down to a | Question | of trial and error. I found | Positive | 0.72 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 1.02 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | The course was often confusing and the quizzes came down to a question of trial and error. I found this very frustrating. Although the topics were interesting, I didn't find them very well presented in spite of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. But there was a lot of ambiguity and bias and the inability to discuss except through the forums was off-putting. It wouild be good to know why answers were wrong in the quizzes particulalry when you had put a lot of effort into studying them. In the final exam, there are questions which are evidently wrong, both in their wording and in their marking and nothing has been done to remedy this in spite of the complaints in the discussion page. | In the final exam, there are | Question | which are evidently wrong, both in | Positive | 0.74 | -0.5 | 0.74 | 1.02 |
| fM5baJoUEeW93wo8Ha4kow | Material is excellent and very interesting. Test questions can be confusing and poorly phrased. | is excellent and very interesting. Test | Question | can be confusing and poorly phrased. | Positive | 0.98 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 1.02 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The name of this course is misleading to me (and if it's misunderstood by one, you can assume there are other people affected as well) - it would be more clear what's expecting you if the course would be called something similar to the last assignment name "Creating a data-driven website". The responsive part that I was interested in, was basically done with "use bootstrap" - that's pretty poor. Of course the course isn't responsible for this, but an appropriate name would fix that. Throughout the course, the quizzes were entertaining - but the quality of the questions is questionable. Sometimes the answer is obvious because the other answers are ridiculous, sometimes you don't know what to click, even though you just watched the video carefully. Reason for this is that there are questions being asked, which weren't even touched in the lesson. It's basically the same with the last assignment - you can watch and do all the lessons before, you've got no idea how to start and what to do as there's simply no explanation of what affects what - which seems to be extremely important in javascript. Yes, it's often told in an overview-style explanation what a function is doing, but something in depth that tells you how to write working javascript functions is lacking. The quality of the explanations also varied in their quality. Some things that were pretty easy to understand, were explained over 10 very boring minutes, other things that were far more complex and tricky, were handled in half a minute. This made watching the videos frustrating at times. I'm not sure which kind of audience this course is supposed for, but the style varies way too much. Furthermore it's great that coursera is offering an iPad-app, but I'd like to be able to use and do everything that the app is offering me (and in the best case: everything that's necessary for the course). I can't even review classmates, as they're uploading .rar or .zip-files, which can't be accessed via iPad, and also javascript is a problem for ipads. Unpacking such files and running them on your servers would be an option, maybe. | for this is that there are | Question | being asked, which weren't even touched | Negative | -0.93 | -0.5 | 1.14 | 1.16 |
| Fp0K8RoEEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Stuff is explained thoroughly, all documents are provided, teaching staff answers the questions in discussions. I've learnt a lot! Thanks to teachers! | are provided, teaching staff answers the | Question | in discussions. I've learnt a lot! | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 1.14 | 1.16 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Was very educational, learn't a lot and the great thing was having to implement the theory learn't in the notes and lectures during the assignments. The "curve" ball questions were great too as it forced you to apply understanding thus teaching you to apply your knowledge based on the core principles learn't. | the assignments. The " curve" ball | Question | were great too as it forced | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.17 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | nice challenging course with very good lecture videos and supporting material. the questions tested the material very well and were just challenging enough for my taste. Also the teachers were explaining the material very well. | lecture videos and supporting material. the | Question | tested the material very well and | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.17 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | The course provides a very thorough introduction on the basic models and mechanisms by which various financial products are priced. One issue I had, was that the quiz questions sometimes used terminology or jargon for which the link with the material covered in the videos was not always immediately obvious. Also, the course, especially the later modules, heavily relies on Microsoft Excel, which some people might not be willing to pay hard cash for. It is possible to pass by doing the assignments with e.g. Python, but it's a lot of work, and not for the faint of heart. | I had, was that the quiz | Question | sometimes used terminology or jargon for | Negative | -0.63 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.17 |
| GEfA2A0UEeSWFyIACpBHcA | Im really fascinated with this course. By the way, i think some quiz have few mistakes as the module about pricing swaptions in the calibration model. The answer the professor gave is not 13300 or 19400, but 1330 or 1940 respectively. The quiz#6, the answer for the question 1 and 2 is multiple, its between a range and i cant complete it, please check the parameters again. | The quiz#6, the answer for the | Question | 1 and 2 is multiple, its | Negative | -0.96 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.17 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I found the first 4 weeks of the course amazing: just really well structured, thought-out, and delivered in a way that positions the student for success. Jana breaks the material down into digestible bits, gives you sufficient practice, and even if you don't get it, you can look at the answers to the practice questions and figure out where your thinking was incorrect. The 5th week wasn't as well broken down, especially the last set of Teradata exercises. New concepts or ways of structuring queries were being introduced in those exercises, but there was no way to check for a correct solution if I couldn't come with one on my own (which was unfortunately half of the time). I still got a good grade on my last quiz, but I can't say that I really truly learned how to write the more complicated queries. I would suggest that the last Teradata exercise set has more explanation or perhaps just answers that the student can refer to in order to understand why his/her line of thinking isn't working. Otherwise, a truly fantastic course. I 100% recommend it. | at the answers to the practice | Question | and figure out where your thinking | Negative | -0.71 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 1.12 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Great course! It takes you from zero knowledge of SQL to being able to write quite complicated queries, and being ready for most of standard SQL questions in job interviews. Strongly recommended! | ready for most of standard SQL | Question | in job interviews. Strongly recommended! | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 1.12 |
| GplkvRnqEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I'm still in Week 1, but I'm already in love with this course. They give accurate information in a light manner, the exercises are very clear and didactic, and they also give the answers to these exercises which answers all of your potentially uprising questions, alongside with the Video Lectures. It is already giving me the confidence that it will be a great asset to me as a Data Analyst. | answers all of your potentially uprising | Question | alongside with the Video Lectures. It | Negative | -0.73 | 1.0 | 0.74 | 1.12 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | About me: I studied computer science in Dortmund, Germany in the 90ies. I recommend this course to everyone who wants to have a very good understanding of machine learning. A little bit of advice, if you have never learned linear algebra on a university level, you should at least try to get a basic understanding of it before starting this course. I was happy that I remembered stuff, learning it from scratch in 1 or 2 weeks would be difficult, I assume. +: * Mathematical basics of machine learning are very well explained * Andrew Ng is a very good professor, he explains the topic very well and thoroughly * It is not limited by using a special framework or language * The support in the forums, and the transcription of the talks, and all the material that is given to you is really excellent. -: * I would be happy if the programming exercises would be a bit more fun, currently it feels like translating / transforming math formulas into octave, which is fine, but not very fun. Having said that I am only in week 4, perhaps this will happen later * some text questions in the multiple choice quizzes require a precise understanding of the english language, especially in regards to math, I am not a native speaker, so these questions feel especially hard for me | will happen later * some text | Question | in the multiple choice quizzes require | Negative | -0.74 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Just completed the course myself and I have to say this is a great course for anyone who wants to get a comprehensive understanding of Machine Learning. First of all, the content of the course is very well structured. It covers a lot of machine learning algorithms and also includes a lot of practical applications. Professor Ng is very gifted in teaching and he can explain some difficult topics in very simple terms. I also found he is very engaging and the quick questions inserted in the middle of the videos are very helpful to keep the students focused on the lecture. The programming assignments are at the right level of difficulty, and I found the instruction for each assignment works like a great summary of the corresponding materials. Didn't use their discussion forum much, but for a couple times I used, the mentor was able to respond in a very timely manner. Overall, this is a great course and I am so happy to be able to take it myself. Thank you, Professor Ng! | is very engaging and the quick | Question | inserted in the middle of the | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course material and programming assignments were very helpful, but the test grader is not helpful, I was not allowed to post questions I had on the forums (nor provide meaningful answers) because of the strange version and interpretation of the Honor Code, and the mentor Tom Mosher was unhelpful bordering on outright rude. | I was not allowed to post | Question | I had on the forums (nor | Negative | -0.62 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | An in-depth survey of perhaps most of the current techniques in machine learning. Very well presented, in a well-paced and understandable fashion. The mentors were very receptive and helpful with my questions. I think I spent about 20 hours per week to try to absorb the material. Highly recommended. | very receptive and helpful with my | Question | I think I spent about 20 | Negative | -0.92 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Well-explained, clearly structured, useful practice and well designed review questions. Really helpful! | useful practice and well designed review | Question | Really helpful! | Positive | 0.65 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The videos are of a helpful length and they are organized into lessons with constructive quiz questions and assignments interspersed to make a student progress logically and incrementally through the course. I found the mentors' guidance helpful to bridge the gap between video lectures and programming assignments. | organized into lessons with constructive quiz | Question | and assignments interspersed to make a | Negative | -0.94 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Perfectly explained! And a nice community. Questions are being answered within 30 minutes. | Perfectly explained! And a nice community. | Question | are being answered within 30 minutes. | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Awesome/Excellent/Outstanding !!! This course was my first step in Machine Learning en route to data science. The videos explain difficult concepts in easy to understand words with examples. The assignments will make you think real hard and they do a great job to ensure that you get basics down and give you wings to implement an algorithm to a real world data set. The discussion/forum/wiki_page is very helpful and thanks to the Mentors for immediate help with questions on the forums. Many thanks to Professor Ng. | the Mentors for immediate help with | Question | on the forums. Many thanks to | Positive | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Phenomenal. Andrew explained concepts that I thought were so difficult with ease and clarity. Now I'm thinking "Oh, it was so simple!" The mentors did a great job responding to questions and aiding. The first few lessons are a grind- easily spend more than 2 hours on the first problem of the first problem set. Week 6 was brutal. But that was the pivoting point; after that, the knowledge just stuck with me and became more intuition. The problem sets after week 6 took maybe an hour or two *total*, which shows the progression you can make if you stick it out. Thank you Stanford for this amazing course! | did a great job responding to | Question | and aiding. The first few lessons | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Andrew explains things in a very clear way. Some of the quizes seems redundant, ie., ask very basic questions which can be answered with common sense w/o knowing the content, but all in all give good intro. I gained enough knowledge to challenge PhDs specializing in ML when we brainstorm stuff. | redundant, ie. , ask very basic | Question | which can be answered with common | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Amazing course: rather slow-paced but quite in-depth, great pedagogy, various quizzes and little questions in the videos that maintain interest and rhythm throughout the course. The programming assignments are also very well built, allowing people to focus on the core aspects of machine learning by taking care of all the language-specific environment. | great pedagogy, various quizzes and little | Question | in the videos that maintain interest | Positive | 0.75 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I benefit a lot from this course. Most of details in this course are designed from practical perspective, so if you as a beginner want to learn ML well, you are highly recommended to take all questions and programming assignments. | are highly recommended to take all | Question | and programming assignments. | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is a fantastic course! I have a computational physics/chemistry background but had no prior machine learning experience. This course allowed me to gain a solid foundation in machine learning. The lectures are very well paced and the exercises and revision questions well thought out. Enough real-world context is given to prevent things from being too abstract, but the great bulk of the time is spent actually learning how to apply machine learning. Well worth the money. Thanks Andrew! | paced and the exercises and revision | Question | well thought out. Enough real-world context | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I'm about 3/4 into the class. Before the start I knew close to nothing about the subject. Prof. Ng has done an outstanding job in presenting the subject, explaining the underlying theory, and assigning problems and exercises that deepened my understanding. He is a highly organized teacher and excellent pedagogue. Special thanks to the course TAs as well who are very responsive to comments and questions, and have prepared great materials that always helped me to completed the assignments. This is a textbook example of a great online class that is fun to attend. Well done! | are very responsive to comments and | Question | and have prepared great materials that | Positive | 0.84 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This was my first class on Coursera and I couldn't have been more happier about it. Content is very well presented, mathematics standing behind various ML models is served to the listener with just enough details to understand it, but not to add any confusion. Assignments are great and really help you to understand how algorithms works. The only thing I'd change is questions about Octave in Quizes. Octave is very nice tool, no doubt, but I personally want to stick to R language and I really didn't want to memorize certain functions or syntax that Octave is using. Great job! I can recommend this class to anyone with a clean conscious. | The only thing I'd change is | Question | about Octave in Quizes. Octave is | Negative | -0.96 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | good videos. reasonable quiz questions. good programming assignments. | good videos. reasonable quiz | Question | good programming assignments. | Negative | -0.64 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | My CS friend recommended me to take this course to learn more about how to use data in business, after he heard that I wanted to program an app for food. he warned me about the great deal of math involved (mainly linear algebra). me being a physics/engineering major I naturally got even more excited (it turned out that he was right, and it would also be a huge plus to know multivariate calculus, and I can see myself struggle with the concepts had I not studied both these topics to bits in school). incidentally, this was my first online coursera experience. I can tell you it will be life changing experience. No longer do I have to physically travel somewhere to listen to lectures or hand in assignments, nor download lecture notes off of the school server. This is a 24/7 always on always available service, with the best TA's to answer your questions if you get stuck on homework assignments and quizzes. Everything in the coding assignments tests your knowledge of the course lectures and is designed such that you can complete it in the shortest possible amount of time while reaping the maximum amount of benefit. It is "easy" sense does not require you to grind through mundane things like looking for your own training set data or writing code to plot and visualise the data, but it is "hard" in the sense that very often it takes an hour (or more) of studying the lectures and thinking to figure out how to solve the problem in the most efficient way as possible which often involves writing a single line of vectored matlab/octave code. It is more of an overview of the most important topics in machine learning, but will be a great springboard to go in depth into each aspect of it. Lastly, Andrew often offers wonderful insights into the day to day of machine learning professionals in his lecture videos, so I would advise watching every single minute of them to get the most out of the course instead of aiming to race over the finish line (which can be tempting at times when the deadline approaches) | the best TA's to answer your | Question | if you get stuck on homework | Positive | 0.71 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Excellent course that holds one's hand through the field of ML and provides a hands on guide through the in-video questions, quizes & assignment tutorials. A great confidence builder. | hands on guide through the in-video | Question | quizes & assignment tutorials. A great | Positive | 0.84 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | It is pretty fast paced as well in depth course on Machine Learning. First five weeks are hard and mainly focused on building foundation while rest of the weeks teaches very useful technique to broaden the knowledge. Professor Ng has done awesome job as well as all the mentors. There is so much information on the group discussion, I hardly had to post anything as most of the answers to my questions are already there. wiki page is great and I did read it before taking any quiz. Some quizzes are super hard and I had to attempt few times to pass those. | most of the answers to my | Question | are already there. wiki page is | Positive | 0.64 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was great! Andrew Ng did a wonderful job of explaining the material and keeping it engaging. The questions on the quizzes were relevant and provoked thought, not just recall. The programming assignments were interesting and have you implement actual ML algorithms. If Andrew offered another class, I'd take it! | material and keeping it engaging. The | Question | on the quizzes were relevant and | Positive | 0.69 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This is how an online course should be! Quizzes, Programming assignments, Questions change when you retake quizzes! Would've been better if a reference textbook was suggested that one can grasp more information from. I couldn't rate the course below 5 though. Recommended! | course should be! Quizzes, Programming assignments, | Question | change when you retake quizzes! Would've | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | https://plus.google.com/102962854949157079552/auto O https://www.facebook.com/ZekomTributeMagazine Zekom - Tribute Magazine Community Page about All your base are belong to us · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us · · · · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_Your_Base_-22-10-10%29.ogg · · · ZekomZ - Zekom Tribute Magazine - G+ is a community portal, dedicated to digital agenda, modern science, space exploration and activism. · https://plus.google.com/102962854949157079552 · https://sites.google.com/site/zekomtributemagazine/ · https://www.indiegogo.com/individuals/782594 · (*) Identification of an Unexplained phenomenon in the International Aerospace of Slovenia. (CC) 2012, Zekom Tribute Magazine ZekomZ - Zekom Tribute Magazine - G+ is a community portal, dedicated to digital agenda, modern science, space exploration and activism on Google+ Themes: · 10 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 16 ECONOMICS, 20 TRADE, 2006 trade policy, 2031 marketing, 24 FINANCE, 2411 monetary economics, 2421 free movement of capital, 2451 prices, 28 SOCIAL QUESTIONS, 2821 social framework, 2841 health, 3226 communications, 4406 employment, 4411 labour market, 52 ENVIRONMENT, 5211 natural environment, 6416 intelectual property · · · · · · · · · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us · · · · · · · · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_Your_Base_-22-10-10%29.ogg · | of capital, 2451 prices, 28 SOCIAL | Question | 2821 social framework, 2841 health, 3226 | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The course content is very dense but the questions and exercices help you master the topics as you are progressing. Interesting class. | content is very dense but the | Question | and exercices help you master the | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | An extremely useful course designed very beautifully and presented in a very lucid manner. The assignments help in bringing out the technicalities of the course very efficiently. And the quiz questions help a lot in gaining intuition. However, it MUST have a sequel.. another course that takes students deeper into Machine Learning concepts and tools of the trade. | course very efficiently. And the quiz | Question | help a lot in gaining intuition. | Positive | 0.76 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The programming exercises aren't really all that challenging...just implement the formulas provided in the course or in the assignment itself, and you're mostly done. I hate the questions on the quizzes that are "Select all the following that are true..." The only questions I ever got wrong on quizzes were of that sort. | you're mostly done. I hate the | Question | on the quizzes that are " | Negative | -0.72 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The programming exercises aren't really all that challenging...just implement the formulas provided in the course or in the assignment itself, and you're mostly done. I hate the questions on the quizzes that are "Select all the following that are true..." The only questions I ever got wrong on quizzes were of that sort. | true. . . " The only | Question | I ever got wrong on quizzes | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | The concepts are explained masterfully with a focus on understanding rather than high-level mathematics which most of these topics invariably deal with. Plus the exercises give a real feel for the practical questions that Machine Learning can solve and the method that practitioners use most often. | a real feel for the practical | Question | that Machine Learning can solve and | Positive | 0.66 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Really well structured. Very clear and concise lectures. Interesting and useful assignments - much better than multiple-choice questions, whilst still being correctable by software. | assignments - much better than multiple-choice | Question | whilst still being correctable by software. | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I thought this was an excellent course and only have positive feedback for it. The lecture contents were interesting and well tied to exercise questions and programming assignments. The programming assignments were challenging overall but forced me to really learn the details of each machine learning algorithm. When things got a little too frustrating, such as for the neural network backpropagation assignment, the forums provided ample direction for me to move forward. | interesting and well tied to exercise | Question | and programming assignments. The programming assignments | Positive | 0.84 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was very nicely done. Dr Ng's videos and narrative were excellent. They were long enough to convey the material properly and short enough not to loose my attention. Assignments were very good as they left you just enough room to fail, learn and ultimately succeed. The quizzes were thought provoking. On the questions that stated "choose all that apply," I would suggest that some form of feedback be provided so that the test taker could know which ones were incorrectly selected/not selected. Perhaps partial credit would be good instead of 0/20 with one wrong selection. Feedback, perhaps an explanation, would be appropriate on all questions incorrectly answered. I would also suggest a pdf document that showed how to do the various matrix operations in octave with an example or two. This would include basic and advanced operations. I know linear algebra, I just didn't know the syntax in octave and this cost me 3-5 hours over the whole course. Now off to do some simple applications here at work like spam filter and anomaly detection to start. Thanks for an excellent course. | quizzes were thought provoking. On the | Question | that stated " choose all that | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course was very nicely done. Dr Ng's videos and narrative were excellent. They were long enough to convey the material properly and short enough not to loose my attention. Assignments were very good as they left you just enough room to fail, learn and ultimately succeed. The quizzes were thought provoking. On the questions that stated "choose all that apply," I would suggest that some form of feedback be provided so that the test taker could know which ones were incorrectly selected/not selected. Perhaps partial credit would be good instead of 0/20 with one wrong selection. Feedback, perhaps an explanation, would be appropriate on all questions incorrectly answered. I would also suggest a pdf document that showed how to do the various matrix operations in octave with an example or two. This would include basic and advanced operations. I know linear algebra, I just didn't know the syntax in octave and this cost me 3-5 hours over the whole course. Now off to do some simple applications here at work like spam filter and anomaly detection to start. Thanks for an excellent course. | explanation, would be appropriate on all | Question | incorrectly answered. I would also suggest | Negative | -0.68 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Great course for a beginner in Machine Learning. Nice explanation of concepts with good examples followed by programming assignments. I like the way of using an intuition to understand a new learning theory. Questions in quizzes will help check/improve basic concept of the learning algorithms with real world problems. | to understand a new learning theory. | Question | in quizzes will help check/improve basic | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | I liked this course very much: The lectures follow up in a logical, natural way and the topics are very well explained. Personally, I had more problems with the quizzes (5 questions each) than with the programming assignments. The examples were interesting and the instructions so clear and detailed that I found it rather easy to do the programming. Another point that is worth to mention: The instructor, Andrew Ng, has not only an agreeable voice and speaks an easy-to-understand english (important for me as a non-english speaker) - He "transports" in addition his own passion for the subject and gives a lot of applicable advices. | more problems with the quizzes (5 | Question | each) than with the programming assignments. | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | There should be more multiple choice questions; 20+ instead of just 5 questions. There should be more MCQ tests. 5+ instead of just one. There should be more assignments. 3+ instead of just one. Make it one easy, one medium and one hard. There should be more optional assignments. 5+ instead of just one. I know you guys are working hard as it is, but we learn by doing, not by listening or watching. Just food of thought. | questions; 20+ instead of just 5 | Question | There should be more MCQ tests. | Negative | -0.94 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Andrew Ng is an excellent tutor and has a real talent for exposition. I find I'm getting the depth, rigor and keen interest that this subject commands, but not at the expense of clarity. I also find the quizzes to be conducive to my learning. In a modest number of questions, the most important points are covered completely. | learning. In a modest number of | Question | the most important points are covered | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This course provides a very structured introduction to the subject of Machine Learning. Every week includes programming assignments in MATLAB/Octave. These come with templates and precise instructions. With a little experience in any programming language the assignments should be no problem. The assignments are well planned to keep the motivation up. Really great job! Learners should be familiar with vectors and matrices. Even though all the concepts are explained, being confident with the math will shorten the time for debugging the code immensely. The course team answers technical and other questions VERY quickly. Thanks again! | course team answers technical and other | Question | VERY quickly. Thanks again! | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Very interesting content, very well explained. Minor issues: some quizzes or questions appear a little early sometimes regarding the order of the videos though, and subtitles are not always correct. | explained. Minor issues: some quizzes or | Question | appear a little early sometimes regarding | Positive | 0.63 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| 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 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | Before starting this course, I had no previous knowledge of machine learning and I had never programmed in Octave and I have little/no programming skills. This is a 11-week course and so I was not sure if I would make it to the end (or even get through the first week) but I was keen to learn something new. Positive Aspects: The course is extremely well structured, with short videos (and test questions to help us verify if we have understood the concepts), quizzes and assignments. Prof. Andrew Ng presents the concepts (some very difficult) in a clear and almost intuitive manner without going too much into detail with mathematical proofs, making the course accessible to anyone. The mentors were fantastic and provided prompt responses, links to tutorials and test cases, which all helped me get through the course. Negative Aspects: Searching the Discussion Board for something specific was no easy task. I would have liked to have known the answers to some of the questions in the quizzes that I got wrong. What I loved about this course: Learning how powerful vectorization is, it allows us to write several lines of code in one single line and can be much faster than using for-loops. I was wowed several times. Prof. Andrew Ng is a great teacher. He is also extremely humble and very encouraging. During the course he often said, "It's ok if you don't understand this completely now. It also took me time to figure this out." This helped me a lot. He also said, "if you got through the assignments, you should consider yourself an expert!" and I laughed silly. By no means do I feel like an expert but now I have a basic understanding of the different types of learning algorithms, what they could be used for and more importantly this course has generated a spark in me to use this tool for things that I find interesting and for that I am very grateful. I don't think a teacher has ever thanked me for assisting a class. This is a first-time! So thank you Prof. Andrew Ng and everyone who worked to put this course together. Also, special thanks to Tom Mosher (mentor). My best MOOC so far! | the answers to some of the | Question | in the quizzes that I got | Positive | 0.67 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| Gtv4Xb1-EeS-ViIACwYKVQ | This was by far the best class I have had so far on Coursera. I feel that I now have a really good understanding of linear and logistic regression and neural networks as well as the other learning methods that we touched upon. I thought that the quizzes and assignments were very appropriate and helped me to further cement my understanding that I gained through watching the video. Professor Ang explains the material very clearly. I always walked away feeling that any questions I might have were answered completely in the videos or in the discussions. I would highly recommend this class to anyone who wants to have a good understanding of Machine Learning. | always walked away feeling that any | Question | I might have were answered completely | Negative | -1.0 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.24 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course allows you to implement practical solutions using machine learning algorithms without having to know the mechanisms behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately questions in the discussion forum were quite rare and many questions were not resolved during this course. | behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately | Question | in the discussion forum were quite | Positive | 0.72 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.9 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This course allows you to implement practical solutions using machine learning algorithms without having to know the mechanisms behind the calculations in detail. Unfortunately questions in the discussion forum were quite rare and many questions were not resolved during this course. | forum were quite rare and many | Question | were not resolved during this course. | Positive | 0.97 | 0.5 | 0.74 | 0.9 |
| H02KsW1DEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The quizes do not match a 100% with the lecture videos. There are some weird questions. My algorithms' outputs deviate from answers some times, which is due to different software versions. Quizes are not very educating this time. Courses by Brian Caffo were much better. | lecture videos. There are some weird | Question | My algorithms' outputs deviate from answers | Negative | -0.74 | 0.0 | 0.74 | 0.9 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Very informative with plenty of real-life (or credible fictional) examples to better understand the concepts that were introduced. The pace was agreeable and the subjects diverse. Special mention should go to the instructor (Prof. Tobias Kretschmer), who did a terrific job! I liked the question format as well, though it could have been more challenging by not giving away the answers after an end-of-module quiz even if you didn't pass. That being said, the course is well worth 5 stars! | a terrific job! I liked the | Question | format as well, though it could | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 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 | 0.83 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Overall, this is a good subject. However, some slides are not well organized. Many questions in assignment are too tricky. | slides are not well organized. Many | Question | in assignment are too tricky. | Negative | -0.69 | 0.0 | 0.73 | 0.94 |
| H3HGeBK4EeS0RyIACp5OCg | Material was tough, some of the questions weren't easy to understand / process. But overall a great class. | Material was tough, some of the | Question | weren't easy to understand / process. | Negative | -0.67 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 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 | -0.96 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 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 | Negative | -0.76 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 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. | imagine non-business backgrounds would find the | Question | very difficult. | Negative | -0.74 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 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... | include the code in the quiz | Question | but are actually about something else. | Negative | -0.85 | -0.5 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I've learned a good deal about coding in HTML, CSS and JavaScript through this course. My only complaints are that the lecturer often whizzed through typing portions of the code during his lecture that I had to use more time than my schedule allotted reviewing the video slowly, and that some topics in the test questions didn't match any portion of the lecture. | that some topics in the test | Question | didn't match any portion of the | Positive | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Pretty awesome, nice people teaching and colleagues, a good feedback on every question, and also gave a good basis on the HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript development, but I would like to have more pure javascript solutions instead of jQuery. | colleagues, a good feedback on every | Question | and also gave a good basis | Positive | 0.76 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Sometimes the teacher only shortly mentions things and then goes on with major exlanations about other things. Which is fine because I assume he will go deeper into the material later on. But when we had to do the final exam (for week 2), they asked questions about "what happens if there are two commands in the brackets" (like this .changeme .changemeagain). The teacher never ever mentioned that the first command is the most important one and the second is a kind of 'fallback', for example. And even if he did mention it, it was only a kind of sidenoteand did not seem that important. So, all in all, I really do like this course, but instructions aren't always super clear. | exam (for week 2), they asked | Question | about " what happens if there | Negative | -0.79 | 0.0 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | This course needs an overhaul. There are mistakes in some code examples and quiz questions are sometimes ambiguous. While I appreciate the work that has gone into making this MOOC, there are better courses available on Coursera to learn this material. | in some code examples and quiz | Question | are sometimes ambiguous. While I appreciate | Positive | 0.86 | -0.5 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| HITLfhnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | There was a lot of questions on the tests that were never covered in the videos. | There was a lot of | Question | on the tests that were never | Negative | -0.8 | -0.5 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | have been correct on the same | Question | in earlier quizzes. So take the | Negative | -0.65 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have finished this course and moved on to the 2nd part. In sum, the course was excellent and Professor Fowler is terrific at explaining concepts both visually and algebraically. He provides both rigorous and intuitive explanations. I learned a lot and firmed up many concepts. i really appreciated the balance between visual and numerical. The real problem with the course is the quiz CPU. It does not recognize correct answers even when those answers are exactly the same as the ones provided by way of correcting your "wrong" answer. There is something really wrong with the quiz review code. That can be a "downer" when you are seeking a little encouragement after some hard work - and you know your answers are correct - and In Fact have been correct on the same questions in earlier quizzes. So take the coruse - enjoy the learning - but don't be discouraged because Coursera writes Kludgey code. IThe course is not yet over but perhaps someone will see this and make some changes. The professor is clear and enthusiastic. The main problem with this course is the quizzes. On several occasions I have submitted answers that were completely correct, only to find them all graded incorrect. I know they were correct because I had mathematician friends check them after receiving the failing grades. They could not understand why the quizzes were returned that way. On certain occasions, questions on one quiz were graded correct - and then the exact same type of question on another quiz was graded incorrect. In some cases, my answers were exactly the same as those probided by way of demonstrating the correct responses. Identical - yet marked wrong. When there are several ways to formulate an answer, we have no way of knowing what form is required. On a recent quiz, it turned out the answers were required in raw form - not solved to their numeric conclusion. But how are we to know that? I will write more at the end of the course. It is a good course for learning - but don't get upset if you get a bad grade. It is probably not an accurate reflection of your work. A final point - Professor Fowler should learn to pronounce "integral." It is NOT "intregal." It is "integral." He is, after all, a mathematician. You would not want a surgeon to speak of "cradiac care," would you? Otherwise - terrific class. | then the exact same type of | Question | on another quiz was graded incorrect. | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Course seems fundamentally sound. Prof is enthusiatic and obvioulsy highly qualified. Really appreciate the proofs he provides such as the geometric development of the trig derivatives, the chain rule, and the fundamental theorem. I'd give it 5 stars for content and clarity. I am disappointed that some of the lectures were out of sequence with the quizzes and I really found that entering the answers to quizz questions was difficult. In some cases the tool misled me i.e. when the question indicated E should be entered for Euler's constant but the grading tool required e. Also in one instance the grading tool didn't recognize the right answer and I believe the correct answer wasn't even available as one of the choices. | misled me i. e. when the | Question | indicated E should be entered for | Negative | -0.68 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I have never seen anybody who taught like Prof. Jim Fowler !!!!.Only he tells the "WHY" hidden behind every question. -Videos were FUN. -Practice Quizzes were making our understanding more clear about each topic. -End quizzes were extremely helpful. -Taking notes from his videos is "WORTH". THANK YOU | the " WHY" hidden behind every | Question | -Videos were FUN. -Practice Quizzes were | Positive | 0.69 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | The teacher is Excellent. The materials used in teaching are very good. I liked the use of colors, the explanations in very details, and not skipping calculations. I liked the explanation behind everything, on how this is used in real life. I liked the enthusiasm of the teacher. He likes what he is doing and he loves Math. I think the limits subject should be taught in more details. I would liked it more if every theorem would have a proof. I think the use of epsilon/delta in practice was too little in this course, and should be expanded (it looks like this is a course for engineers rather than for mathematicians). The most painful problem in this course are the exercises, in 2 aspects. The first aspect: in many cases the exercises repeat themselves in a slightly different form - the diversity of of exercises should be expanded. The second aspect: exercises which require my typing have a lot of parsing issues, which are not clear, and are frustrating: example from integrals: the system would expect an answer like this one: (x)*(E^x) - E^x+C and would not accept a correct answer like this x*E^x - E^x+c. In this sense, I recommend using questions with multiple answers, and leave the open answers only for the cases where you need to type something where there are no parsing issues expected, such as typing numeric values. Thank you for this course. I liked it. | In this sense, I recommend using | Question | with multiple answers, and leave the | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | Has a bit too many errors in the questions, and there's no proper introduction to new signs. | bit too many errors in the | Question | and there's no proper introduction to | Negative | -0.89 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This is actually good. the tutor is very fun and it makes me feel clearly about calculus. But, it will be more excellent if this course give a short quiz for each topic in end of the section. And for the final test, can this course give more test? I mean like more question in number or kind of test. | more test? I mean like more | Question | in number or kind of test. | Negative | -0.98 | 0.0 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | It was a really fun course; I have started to understand how the power rule, etc can be used to differentiate functions and also learning new methods to integrate (Riemann Sum) and differentiate! Sadly, I wish there were extra questions that you could attempt to consolidate your knowledge! | Sadly, I wish there were extra | Question | that you could attempt to consolidate | Negative | -0.89 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I recommend you this course. This course is very nice. Lectures are very easy to understand even if you are first time of calculus. But I think the questions are too little to exercise enough. Anyway thanks for the instructor. He's very nice and passionate guy. | of calculus. But I think the | Question | are too little to exercise enough. | Negative | -0.89 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | This course is very impressive to me. I get many experiences in answering the questions. Thanks | get many experiences in answering the | Question | Thanks | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I thought the professor was really great about explaining things in a clear, concise manner. I think some of the quiz problems were more complicated than they needed to be, especially considering that typing in a long string you're very likely to have a typo which results in missing a question you knew how to do. | typo which results in missing a | Question | you knew how to do. | Negative | -0.64 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| HRSOu-BiEeOZpyIACyeXpA | I enjoyed it. Jim Fowler does well, his enthusiasm and the time and effort he (and whatever filming and editing team he has) have put into the presentation is impressive. Difficult for me to rate it as a maths course - how would I know whether it covers what it needs and have anything meaningful to stay about the standard of it. I felt I understood what was going on, I passed the quizzes. Maybe that's all good? Occasional bug in the quizes - nothing you can't work around (eg totally blank question but four answers to choose from.) The mathematical symbol rendering doesn't work on the mobile app at all. | can't work around (eg totally blank | Question | but four answers to choose from. | Negative | -0.69 | 0.5 | 0.68 | 1.04 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A thoroughly inspiring, empowering, exciting, and enjoyable course. During the course, I found myself wanting to rush on to the next part because I was delighted to find answers to questions I've had for years and other pearls of wisdom, but on the other hand I also wanted to linger and revel in the process of making. I most heartily recommend this course to anyone looking to start out in graphic design, or who, like me, enjoys hobbies such as card making and creative embroidery. | was delighted to find answers to | Question | I've had for years and other | Positive | 0.94 | 1.0 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This course does go over some of the basics of graphic design, but I expected it to be a lot more rigorous. The assignments are incredibly simple, and I think that there should be no optional assignments in the class. The reason I'm taking this class is because I have a hard time motivating myself to learn on my own, so I need something that will really push me. I only spent about an hour a week completing this course, and I believe that you can't learn something by only spending an hour a week on it. Also what's the point of having mentors if they don't engage with you? I know I could have contacted them if I had a question, but I didn't because it was so easy. I wouldn't mind getting feedback from a professional graphic designer though if they're available. Also seeing how many students misinterpret the assignments, it makes me nervous that they are the ones grading mine. | contacted them if I had a | Question | but I didn't because it was | Negative | -0.98 | -0.5 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I loved the course, although I think the instructions for various briefs should be more precise and/or someone should be available to clarify the instructions and answer any questions from students (regarding the briefs). | clarify the instructions and answer any | Question | from students (regarding the briefs). | Negative | -0.66 | 0.5 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | An excellent introduction to graphic design. The videos were useful to clearly show the concepts. There were a number of assignments, many of them optional, which allowed you to practice and integrate the learnings. All material was taught at a level that made it accessible to a true novice. My only hesitation on giving this course 5 stars was the lack of any presence of teachers/tutors in the course discussions. There was a lot of questions about the final marked assignment, with many posts on the discussion boards. There was no response from anyone other than the participants in the course. The issue was not clarified and students were left to interpret (and peer review based on that intrepretation) the instructions on their own. | discussions. There was a lot of | Question | about the final marked assignment, with | Negative | -0.65 | 0.5 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| I82JCSWXEeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I totally liked the hands-on approach and the nice presentation of the material. On the other hand, I felt a little left alone since there was no didactically planned interaction beyond the peer reviews. Furthermore, a forum for discussion is nice, but it's a little sad if no one can answer course related formal questions, you misinterpret the instructions, and therefore receive a low grade. | one can answer course related formal | Question | you misinterpret the instructions, and therefore | Positive | 0.82 | 0.0 | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | This a great course it helps a lot to get to know state of the art techniques and how to use them properly although the assigment questions of selecting the statements are quite confusing. | use them properly although the assigment | Question | of selecting the statements are quite | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.73 | 1.02 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | On the bright side, "Lab based" videos are excellent for visualize the techniques. Nevertheless "Choose all that apply" questions in the quizzes are very ambiguous, these questions should contain an explanation for prevent confusion at the end of every unit. | Nevertheless " Choose all that apply" | Question | in the quizzes are very ambiguous, | Positive | 0.92 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 1.02 |
| iCIGe_T6EeS-1yIAC7MN4w | On the bright side, "Lab based" videos are excellent for visualize the techniques. Nevertheless "Choose all that apply" questions in the quizzes are very ambiguous, these questions should contain an explanation for prevent confusion at the end of every unit. | the quizzes are very ambiguous, these | Question | should contain an explanation for prevent | Negative | -0.69 | 0.5 | 0.73 | 1.02 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Some tough assignment questions which lead to much longer homework time than anticipated, so you need to leave ample time to complete the assignments. But, great class over-all. | Some tough assignment | Question | which lead to much longer homework | Negative | -0.87 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 1.07 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Fantastic introductory course to a long awaited specialization. I'm an electrical engineer and I was related to most of the theory prof. Erickson discussed with us in the lectures, but assignments, quick questions and facts were beyond my expectations. I can actually say I learnt things in these few weeks. And is just the beginning. Can't wait until we get to the control loop design for active filtering techniques. Great job by prof. Erickson and his team for the resources and the knowledge. | in the lectures, but assignments, quick | Question | and facts were beyond my expectations. | Negative | -0.63 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 1.07 |
| IjAlbH3IEeWb-BLhFdaGww | Very good. Questions were good enough for testing the knowledge and lof students. | Very good. | Question | were good enough for testing the | Positive | 0.76 | 1.0 | 0.67 | 1.07 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | The course is very basic, videos contain a lot of repetitions and quiz questions are too easy (in addition, I believe that there are too much negative questions). I believe that this course should be called an Introduction to the basics of Nutrition and it's only for complete newbies. There are no insights in specifics of child nutrition besides general concepts of balanced diet and some tips how to make your kids be more enthusiastic in eating vegetables. | that there are too much negative | Question | I believe that this course should | Negative | -0.92 | -1.0 | 0.97 | 1.32 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | I am really disappointed with the content of this course. If what you're looking for is the most basic of information on making better choices and remembering to wash your cutting board after handling raw meat, maybe this course is for you. If, however, you come to this course wanting specific information about how to build great meals for babies, toddlers, and young children, or you'd like to know how their needs change over time, this course is not for you. I was hoping for information like how to teach your toddler to chew/eat difficult things (ex: whole apples). I wanted to know at what age/weight you switch to 2% milk. I wanted to know how many calories a meal should be based on height and weight and how that changes over time. I wanted to know medically verified tips on getting the right amount of each nutrient into a toddler's diet and what, if any, extra vitamins should be added. I wanted tips on weaning if you're still nursing a toddler... I guess I just wanted more. In addition, the quizzes are so easy as to be silly. Actual quiz question and correct answer: Which is NOT a good way to approach grocery shopping if healthy choices are desired? Answer: Visit the supermarket hungry and walk through the candy aisle first. COME ON! Did I need a Stanford University course to tell me that one?!?!? While the instructor is knowledgeable, this course is geared toward someone with NO knowledge, not someone who wants to gain a deeper understanding. The videos are painfully slow (am I waiting for a doodle here???) and I could read the entire course worth of transcripts in under a half hour rather than go through all of the videos. And the recipes... good god! I don't think that someone interested in learning more about child nutrition is needing a slow tutorial on how to make basic oatmeal on the stove top. If she'd upped the game- showed basics and then talked about the benefits of adding, say, chia seeds, different fruits, flax, etc. and how best to make a basic bowl of oatmeal into a complete breakfast, that would have been a useful topic. I'm just hugely disappointed. This course is best suited to perhaps a health department; not to someone seeking college level information about a topic that matters to their children's lives. | as to be silly. Actual quiz | Question | and correct answer: Which is NOT | Negative | -0.79 | -1.0 | 0.97 | 1.32 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | This course helped me to solve some questions i had about nutrition. It also helped me with lots of techniques to include vegetables and healthy food at home. My 9 years old boy tested a cucumber yesterday with salad dressing! i couldn't believe that was possible. It's easy to follow and encouraging. Thank you. MG. from Venezuela. | course helped me to solve some | Question | i had about nutrition. It also | Positive | 0.73 | 1.0 | 0.97 | 1.32 |
| iQZflcZ7EeOoFhIxOQQuEA | Worst course ever. I stopped partway through. Too many links to outside stuff. Tests/quizes were not based on what was presented in the lessons. Test design is horrible, too many negative questions. Glances over the good true information about nutrition to tell us about free range farms, farmers markets, etc., which most people do not have access to or can not afford. Giving it 1 star is being nice People who sponsored it should get their money back. | design is horrible, too many negative | Question | Glances over the good true information | Negative | -0.98 | -1.0 | 0.97 | 1.32 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Could be in much greater depth. Loved the video lectures: more please! Perhaps a second video lecture per week that delves into greater detail, so that the level of discussion is more in line with the PMBOK. The quizzes were simplistic, which is fine, but the final was literally just questions from the quizzes pasted together (all were repeats!) This sad fact undermines the integrity of the final as an actual test of ability and comprehension. | but the final was literally just | Question | from the quizzes pasted together (all | Negative | -0.85 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.86 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Pros: Very clear explanations, useful slides for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy questions and exams. Not challenging at all | for PMP preparation. Cons: Very easy | Question | and exams. Not challenging at all | Positive | 0.72 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.86 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | test questions far too easy slide show lessons not well structured and too focussed on repetetive concepts | test | Question | far too easy slide show lessons | Negative | -0.63 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.86 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | Course goes over the most basic points, but also allows you (if you are interested) to dive much deeper into the content. Seems it has everything any project manager would want, so definitely worth taking. Would have wanted the questions to be a little more difficult and potentially more questions to help make sure the information was retained. Overall a great course. | worth taking. Would have wanted the | Question | to be a little more difficult | Negative | -0.74 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.86 |
| iRBJm_LREeSplSIACzYDNg | I really appreciate to learn this course - I've got a lot of answers for my daily questions. | lot of answers for my daily | Question | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 0.86 |
| iRl53_BWEeW4_wr--Yv6Aw | Excellent course from IBM IoT. Enjoyed it very much. The practical assignments were fun. It was great seeing my SensorHat board coming to life. The instructor videos were great and provided enough information to complete the assignments. I liked, it didn't attempt to spoon feed you ... and you needed to search for some of the solutions. Everyone was very helpful answering questions on the forum, and I liked the Coursera environment. Good stuff! | solutions. Everyone was very helpful answering | Question | on the forum, and I liked | Positive | 0.92 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.12 |
| iRl53_BWEeW4_wr--Yv6Aw | Clear explanations for using Node-RED tool. The intro to IoT is a bit too verbose, and 1st quiz has like a "gotcha" question. | quiz has like a " gotcha" | Question | | Negative | -0.64 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 1.12 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course sets the stage for the rest of the Data Science specialisation. You get a lot of textbooks for free and they cover a lot of material. The quizzes are a little bit underwhelming, especially the first week. Too few questions, testing some questionable knowledge (eg, what other courses there are in the specialisation -- hardly a required tool in the data scientist's box). Overall, it's a good preparation for what is to come. It managed to whet my appetite for more , however I'm not sure the course is very useful on its own. | especially the first week. Too few | Question | testing some questionable knowledge (eg, what | Positive | 0.71 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | you shouldn't email the teachers with | Question | and that online questions should be | Negative | -0.73 | -0.5 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is fine, however its more an introduction than a course. The course in itself doesn't teach much, should have been the first week of subsequent courses. I went through all 4 weeks in 1 week, the whole course is mostly about downloading different tools and signing up for accounts. What I didn't like is that the teachers seem to be really concerned about their reputation and workload. Its repeated several times that you shouldn't email the teachers with questions and that online questions should be of a certain standard, its understandable but its a bit patronizing. I think teachers should be available for questions, even if its only through the forum (which they are) Its understandable that there are a lot of students so direct emails might overwhelm but that's just part of the job, we pay for the course, we should also get support when its not working for us. Overall I wouldn't advise taking this course if you aren't taking it as part of the specialization. | think teachers should be available for | Question | even if its only through the | Negative | -0.89 | -0.5 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's a good first step into getting the right programs, learning key vocabulary, and interacting with important websites/programs at a very introductory level. If you are not from a math/statistics background you can still complete the course but you will not understand the previews for later courses completely, that is ok! But consider getting the eBook with this course. My only complaint is the quizzes, it often feels impossible to get a 5/5 based on only what you get from the lectures, there's always 1 question that is completely over the top compared to the other 4, but you can do the quizzes 3 times every 8 hours and just trial and error the 1 gotcha question on each quiz. | from the lectures, there's always 1 | Question | that is completely over the top | Negative | -0.83 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | It's a good first step into getting the right programs, learning key vocabulary, and interacting with important websites/programs at a very introductory level. If you are not from a math/statistics background you can still complete the course but you will not understand the previews for later courses completely, that is ok! But consider getting the eBook with this course. My only complaint is the quizzes, it often feels impossible to get a 5/5 based on only what you get from the lectures, there's always 1 question that is completely over the top compared to the other 4, but you can do the quizzes 3 times every 8 hours and just trial and error the 1 gotcha question on each quiz. | trial and error the 1 gotcha | Question | on each quiz. | Positive | 0.83 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is perfect for really newbie. However, it also answers the question of "What is Data Science?" | newbie. However, it also answers the | Question | of " What is Data Science? | Positive | 0.81 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is a good first into to the topic. I think that the additional reading from the book and the Git manual will supplement it very well. My only complain is that in the first quiz, there was a question regarding some R packages used in Machine Learning that were not covered in the slides. It took me a while to find those so I had to take the first quiz 3 times. I think this question should be revised to guide the student as to how to find these packages. Another alternative would be that in the slides there some guidance in this matter. Otherwise, I liked to course and the final assignments. | the first quiz, there was a | Question | regarding some R packages used in | Negative | -0.81 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | This course is a good first into to the topic. I think that the additional reading from the book and the Git manual will supplement it very well. My only complain is that in the first quiz, there was a question regarding some R packages used in Machine Learning that were not covered in the slides. It took me a while to find those so I had to take the first quiz 3 times. I think this question should be revised to guide the student as to how to find these packages. Another alternative would be that in the slides there some guidance in this matter. Otherwise, I liked to course and the final assignments. | quiz 3 times. I think this | Question | should be revised to guide the | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | most part of this course is a duplicate of the "R programming" course. microphone/sound of the teacher quality is very bad. not original, boring, dividing this in "4 weeks" is too ridiculously long, this should be done in 1 week to enable users to take more time for the "R programming". this course should be free. don't lose too much time on it, it's doable in a day or a weekend and move on to "R programming". asking for so much money to see how to install R and github is a shame. feels like this course has been added just to have a round number for the specialization. even the survey in the end asking for feedback starts with a question not adapted to moment it's been asked "did you get a certificate?" of course i did not as i've just finish the course and now wait for my peers to review my final submission. | asking for feedback starts with a | Question | not adapted to moment it's been | Negative | -0.82 | -1.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The first week's quiz is really difficult and I had to go through the lecture material several times. Because of the great number of very short lectures it is difficult to find an asnwer to sought question. | to find an asnwer to sought | Question | | Positive | 0.63 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | The course is in fact an overall intro to the full data science specialization. Some of the content are useful; but some of the quiz questions are not very informative, and don't really test on stats... | useful; but some of the quiz | Question | are not very informative, and don't | Negative | -0.86 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | Very informative course. The Quiz questions however may not be necessarily be in the course content. | Very informative course. The Quiz | Question | however may not be necessarily be | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | First experience got me hooked. I love coursera. This course, even though an introduction taught me a lot and showed me an error of my ways in everyday life. One question in the 3rd Quiz was very confusing to answer. But that's about it. I hope the rest of the specialization carries on forward in a similar maybe even better pattern. | my ways in everyday life. One | Question | in the 3rd Quiz was very | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| iSxVEG07EeW3YxLB1q9I2w | From the basic layout of the course you would assume it's for beginners since it covers step-by-step instructions to install software and run command on command line window. But on the other hand, many advanced concepts are slipped in this course without even basic introduction. I remember in one class, "data dredging" is discussed for about 2-3 minutes. But the instructor did not give a brief description about what it is, instead it just goes on about when you do not have clear question in your mind, you would run the risk of data dredging. I think the course could be organized in a better way. But I do appreciate the instructors' hard work of putting up such a 10-course specialization. | when you do not have clear | Question | in your mind, you would run | Negative | -0.84 | 0.0 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Robert Wright does an excellent job presenting Buddhist ideas and putting them into context with modern psychology studies. I felt he offered a unique and scientific approach to the discourses and very much enjoyed his interviews and insights. The questions at the end of every lecture were very helpful to solidify new concepts. I look forward to digging deeper into supplemental materials. | enjoyed his interviews and insights. The | Question | at the end of every lecture | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | this course has changed my life, I have learned so much and have a new passion for evolution psychology, it has answered life long questions. | psychology, it has answered life long | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | As I followed the course my interest grew, because great questions arise, and the connections between Psychology and Buddhism are clear, an exiting discovery for me. Also, professor Wright is an excellent orator, so the lectures was clear and pleasant. | course my interest grew, because great | Question | arise, and the connections between Psychology | Positive | 0.85 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Excellent! I thoroughly enjoyed the professor's explanations and all the guest speakers he invited to give their input. He is very dedicated and answered many questions in his office hours, with humor and genuine care. Also, Frasier and Milo are impossibly cute. | is very dedicated and answered many | Question | in his office hours, with humor | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Loved the professor. Do not like essay questions. | the professor. Do not like essay | Question | | Negative | -0.65 | 0.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Answered many of my questions! | Answered many of my | Question | | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| JdB92adFEeS5zCIAC8pMPA | Very delightful course as it is more than well taught and full of interesting data, opinions and experiments. The videos are very helpful and provide us of a large names to look for and read about. The resources are pretty enough and interesting. Office hours have been a discover: great questions from students and "being at home chatting with Robert" feeling all around. I appreciate so much Robert´s enthusiasm and above all, his natural and funny way to explain course concepts with his dogs or with his attachments to dark chocolate or powdered sugar doughnuts. Many thanks to Robert and to all the technical stuff for providing us this course with all the work they had done. | hours have been a discover: great | Question | from students and " being at | Negative | -0.74 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok. Unfortunately: At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code. The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught. The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition. If you do take the course I'd want you to know: You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs. There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up. On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration. To conclude: This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it. | There are no " gotcha" quiz | Question | If you are confused by getting | Negative | -0.74 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok. Unfortunately: At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code. The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught. The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition. If you do take the course I'd want you to know: You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs. There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up. On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration. To conclude: This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it. | you are confused by getting a | Question | wrong you might want to re-try | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | The course provides a good insight into the world of Aerial Robotics and the dynamics involved in controlling the quad-rotors. Were the course fails is it does not explain the basics , there is more focus on trial and error and the questions are not formulated correctly such that they are simple to understand. It could have been better if the Introductory course to the specialization had little mathematical involved or could have been explained in simpler terms or with examples instead of showing the equation in the video. | on trial and error and the | Question | are not formulated correctly such that | Positive | 0.88 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | felt like a " shake out" | Question | I passed the course and had | Negative | -0.87 | -0.5 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work: 1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting" 2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here 3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking 4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have | did, made it through that last | Question | in multiple random fashions. The material | Negative | -0.99 | -0.5 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | This course covered a lot of material, provided a well-rounded intro to the physics of 3D motion in the quad rotor context, included excellent supplemental videos to explain some of the tough mathematical concepts, and included well-designed practical assignments. The bridge between lecture and assignment, particularly the trajectory planning question in the last assignment, could be refined as the course iterates, although the material I found myself struggling through that very tough problem may be that which I retain most from this class. Over all an excellent class, and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. | and assignment, particularly the trajectory planning | Question | in the last assignment, could be | Positive | 0.66 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective. Some issues however - 1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves. 2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question. 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is". 4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so. Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon. | good enough to answer a particular | Question | 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark | Negative | -0.82 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective. Some issues however - 1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves. 2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question. 3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is". 4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so. Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon. | weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One | Question | asked " why" and the answer | Negative | -0.64 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | Very interesting course. Lectures were very informative however some test questions, especially in first quiz, where not covered directly in course materials. | were very informative however some test | Question | especially in first quiz, where not | Positive | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| jHCTx1u-EeWylgpjfV1KVQ | could me much better , if the questions in the quiz can actually related to the lecture | me much better , if the | Question | in the quiz can actually related | Negative | -0.89 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| L7stsPOKEeSlpiIAC7NwBA | Excellent course! Extremely well organized and definitely provides a lot of great information. The quiz questions are too easy, which is why it's not 5 stars. | lot of great information. The quiz | Question | are too easy, which is why | Positive | 0.88 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.92 |
| L7stsPOKEeSlpiIAC7NwBA | The answer choices for the quiz are so obvious and can be easily guessed. It can be improved to make the student really think. Also the final quiz is just a repetition of questions we see in the module quiz. It can be different to test the effectiveness of the student. | quiz is just a repetition of | Question | we see in the module quiz. | Negative | -0.84 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.92 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | If I could I would give 0 starts, cause Nobody answers questions in the forums, eveyrone finished the course, but looks like nobody gets a grade on week2, So looks like nobody finished their course. It's been almost a month since everyone kept asking about the grading, but nothing happens. The Teacher was great, is just this issue that is bothering me, because I paid for the course! | give 0 starts, cause Nobody answers | Question | in the forums, eveyrone finished the | Negative | -0.91 | -1.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The course is very interesting for junior -wannabe- web programmers. It uses the main structures of HTML and JavaScript and lets the user exercise through questions and assignments. Best option if someone wants to be a web developer! | and lets the user exercise through | Question | and assignments. Best option if someone | Negative | -0.81 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Omg ,I wish I had these professors to teach us in our college.I have started loving HTML<CSS and Javascript.Being a total newbie to programming I have loved how clear and slow and easy to understand the videos are. Thank you so much and looking forward to completing the entire series. PS:the questions in between the lectures are very helpful and assignments are very very helpful too. | to completing the entire series. PS:the | Question | in between the lectures are very | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Everything they teach is in very good flow and interesting. The question they ask in between the video is also a good one for better understanding. I cannot find more better than this one. It make you want to learn more, watch more. It's my first experience in coursera, everything they do is awesome, like the weekly assignment, time given to complete the task which is make you want to do more........Thumbs up to this course lecture and Coursera team too. | very good flow and interesting. The | Question | they ask in between the video | Positive | 0.84 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Not very good explain javascript. After this course I had many questions about this language, I not understood it enough. | After this course I had many | Question | about this language, I not understood | Negative | -0.67 | 0.5 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | The teaher of this class is excellent gives example and answers in all your questions and doubts about the how and why everything happens.I think it's a lesson you have to watch if you want to learn how to build your website or your app(wep app) !! | example and answers in all your | Question | and doubts about the how and | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Very good course - requires dedication, concentration and hard work. I think that I got a lot, but still long way is in front of me. It depends what are you searching for in online course - that is crucial question, for my vision this was perfect choice, right to the target. Thanks a lot! | online course - that is crucial | Question | for my vision this was perfect | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| LgWwihnoEeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Structured Course that gives beginner to intermediate level expertise. Short course, so there is not much time to give challenging assignments that would prepare you for a job or industry level skill in this topic. The student enrollment was limited (compared to my other courses on Coursera) and hence the discussion forum was not active. There is no TA or instructor participation in discussion forum; hence my advanced questions in forum (intended to learn beyond the course) went unanswered. You can learn this all on internet, but the instructor nicely covered 3 topics in 3 weeks, which is helpful. | in discussion forum; hence my advanced | Question | in forum (intended to learn beyond | Positive | 0.86 | 0.0 | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Thank you very much for this course. I think I now have a good understanding of what Astrobiology is and how it is possible to look out for life on other planets. Hopefully some of the big questions of astrobiology will be answered :) | planets. Hopefully some of the big | Question | of astrobiology will be answered :) | Positive | 0.92 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.9 |
| mG1NQnUvEeS8UyIACzYI5Q | Very interesting material, and very well explained. The course is slightly out of date, and a couple of the test questions were poorly worded (mostly, these were corrected), but overall it is educational and fun to participate in. I enjoyed it and I learned even more about something that interested me. | and a couple of the test | Question | were poorly worded (mostly, these were | Negative | -0.69 | 0.5 | 0.81 | 0.9 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | In no way is there enough information given to be able to complete this quiz questions. A total frustration to try to figure out. You can't even figure out what datasets you are expected to analyze! You have to pick one from hundreds that are available! UPDATE: Revising my rating to 3. Course and material improved as course progressed. Week1 very discouraging, but I'm glad I stuck with it. Other weeks were very good. | be able to complete this quiz | Question | A total frustration to try to | Negative | -0.78 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | complains in discussion forum about quiz | Question | 5) No feedback for solving the | Negative | -0.66 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | even after the deadline. 6) Quiz | Question | required methods and logical constructs that | Negative | -0.86 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Very frustrating and disappointing experience. The lectures were hard to follow on many levels: 1) The enunciation was unclear and subtitles were often of-the-point, plus they covered-up the code lines that were being discussed. 2) The lecturer often failed to explain logical constructs that were being used, despite the fact that the course should have been understandable with no R cran/Bioconductor experience. 3) The method arguments were either not explained, or very vaguely mentioned, which means applying them to new situations was unnecessarily complicated. 4) No feedback at all was offered from course organisers/reps to anyone, even after complains in discussion forum about quiz questions. 5) No feedback for solving the questions/correct answers even after the deadline. 6) Quiz questions required methods and logical constructs that were not explained/used/mentioned in the lectures. One quiz lacked background information of what data needed to be used (the info was available in the previous version of the course). Some quiz questions were biologically inaccurate i.e. confusing genes/transcripts/exons. | version of the course). Some quiz | Question | were biologically inaccurate i. e. confusing | Negative | -0.9 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | I liked the relevance of quiz | Question | to real life genomic questions, but | Positive | 0.93 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | quiz questions to real life genomic | Question | but all quiz questions were outstandingly | Positive | 0.73 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mUSYT5noEeWqkw5zNB248Q | Discussions in this course are voiceless and dead and the instructor never appears in discussions. I couldn't understand anything from video lectures: cannot understand enunciation not enough detailed, lack of examples related to the assignments. So the only source was repository http://kasperdanielhansen.github.io/genbioconductor/ with html files. And a lot of searching through bioconductor forums. I liked the relevance of quiz questions to real life genomic questions, but all quiz questions were outstandingly difficult, because of both lack of examples in lectures and errors in some packages inside bioconductor. Overall I expected much more from this course and I cannot recommend it to anyone. | life genomic questions, but all quiz | Question | were outstandingly difficult, because of both | Positive | 0.79 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 1.06 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | of the series. One: the quiz | Question | are often opaquely worded. Instead of | Positive | 0.68 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | was to learn to decode test | Question | 2 and the most glaring omission, | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | There are two frustrations with this iteration of the series. One: the quiz questions are often opaquely worded. Instead of being tested on the material just learned, it seemed like the objective was to learn to decode test questions. 2 and the most glaring omission, was that when students are asked to provide functions, only some are provided with a follow up test to ensure the function is working properly. If the output is syntactically correct but provides incorrect output then you're moving forward blindly after that. Then add the quiz questions from problem One above, and you're just wasting your time after that and building up frustration. Validating your code as you move along seems like a pretty rudimentary process to impart to students and when the teachers don't practice it themselves, there are bound to be problems. I like the intent of the course, and considering my outsider background to computer science, the mathematics etc, I did learn a fair bit. Not enough to justify the increasing frustration I was feeling toward the end of this course. I have no intention of taking any more at this point, not from these authors. | after that. Then add the quiz | Question | from problem One above, and you're | Negative | -0.71 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course start from problems. So this great to motivate the content and let student know why. However, there are lot of confusion questions that lead to miss understand the exercise problems. | However, there are lot of confusion | Question | that lead to miss understand the | Negative | -0.81 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Useful to get a first understanding but do not feel comfortable to use any of it in real case scenarios. Could give solutions at the end of the whole course to see best coding, and unsolved questions. | to see best coding, and unsolved | Question | | Positive | 0.69 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| mxdq5kIJEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This is an amazing and brilliant course for machine learning. If you've done Andrew Ng's course, most of this material will feel familiar, but definitely has a lot more detail. Each sub-topic under regression is taken with a decent level of detail, with sufficient quiz and assignment questions to drill important concepts into your head. The lectures are lucid and concise, even the optional ones that cover more advanced concepts of the underlying math. As an aside, I would like to clarify to any reader that, when they say you can use other tools, they aren't being a 100% honest. After a few assignments of using Scala and R, I quickly realized that using their iPython notebooks is the simplest and most straightforward way of clearing this course. Eventually, the assignments are such that using any other tool can cause a lot of strife. Brilliant course. Looking forward to the next one. | detail, with sufficient quiz and assignment | Question | to drill important concepts into your | Positive | 0.74 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I had already done "Algorithms: Design and Analysis Part 1", so this course was not as good as that one. This course had lot of programming questions, which I find very good to have for any course. I just hope next courses of the specialization will be beneficial for my career. | This course had lot of programming | Question | which I find very good to | Positive | 0.84 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.06 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | Overall is good course with many exercises, forum is supportive, however mentors/instructors never answered my questions (i guessed they bothered only with the very first session when course was launched) Language is sometimes overly complicated and hard to grasp the main principles of the algorithm (e.g. dynamic programming week 5) I watched youtube to understand same ideas but explained in much simpler way. | supportive, however mentors/instructors never answered my | Question | (i guessed they bothered only with | Negative | -0.9 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.06 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | I found the assignments challenging in the absolute best sense of the term, and therefore incredibly rewarding as well! Whenever I've gotten stuck, the answer was always in the course material somewhere, even if I didn't see it there at first. The discussion forums were extremely helpful, and I was astounded to see that that instructors were still actively monitoring the discussion forums and responding to student questions. I'm obviously not an expert in this field, but I've been an educator before, and my own impression of the assignments was that they were extremely well designed: it was impossible to pass them without knowing what you were doing, the tools to approach them were always found in the lectures, and the challenge problems pushed your knowledge even farther. I would recommend the specialization to everyone. Additionally, I noticed that the content aligns well with other DS&A syllabi I have seen in brick-and-mortar institutions, especially the first 3 or 4 courses. It's also a very nice luxury to be able to submit in Python. I have certainly learned a great deal. | discussion forums and responding to student | Question | I'm obviously not an expert in | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.06 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The best online class I've taken so far: not only because of the clear explanation and easy-to-follow videos, but also the effort the professors have put int answering most of the questions, especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered more than half of the questions within short amount of time. This is very rarely seen in other moocs. | put int answering most of the | Question | especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered | Positive | 0.66 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.06 |
| nA4RUW01EeW8nRIpKnwp7Q | The best online class I've taken so far: not only because of the clear explanation and easy-to-follow videos, but also the effort the professors have put int answering most of the questions, especially Prof. Alex. He almost answered more than half of the questions within short amount of time. This is very rarely seen in other moocs. | answered more than half of the | Question | within short amount of time. This | Negative | -0.86 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.06 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course comes with great explanation but the graded assignments sometimes seem pointless as they look irrelevant to the topic, There are unnecessary questions asked in quizzes i.e whether you have completed your assignment or not. These sort of questions never evaluate what we have accomplished | to the topic, There are unnecessary | Question | asked in quizzes i. e whether | Negative | -0.76 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.05 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Great introduction to Java. Gives you an opportunity to play with several different libraries from the start, rather than learning the basics with just text input and output like most courses, which is really cool. No peer review, just quiz questions that can only be answered if the assignment is completed correctly. The assignments are therefore not particularly challenging -- you get out of this class what you put in! | cool. No peer review, just quiz | Question | that can only be answered if | Negative | -0.84 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.05 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I like this class. I found the answers there on many tricky programming questions such as memory allocation for objects. I will recommend this class to all my friends who is interested in computer science. | answers there on many tricky programming | Question | such as memory allocation for objects. | Positive | 0.88 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.05 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This course was a really comprehensive package explaining all the basic concepts of Object Oriented Programming . The instructors clearly explains the concepts of inheritance , polymorphism , searching , sorting etc. relating it as much as possible to real world examples. The concept challenge questions clearly helps you to understand the subtle nuances that the instructor wants to explain . The quiz are easy .The only thing that i found hard was to complete was the final assignment as i had minimal programming experience with data structures but if you stick to it , you will definitely make it , just like me :) | real world examples. The concept challenge | Question | clearly helps you to understand the | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.05 |
| NFiJtRnpEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Good course, ideal for the first half of a second course in computer science. A little java experience is recommended buy you'll probably be ok if you have program in a statically type programming language before because you can pick up java very quickly. The lectures are very good, I think that the teachers are excellent expositors but I feel that they could be more detailed. The project is about representing earthquakes in a map and you are always increasing the complexity. Finally you need to add your own extension which I found an excellent opportunity to test your imagination and your capacity to create new things. The only cons of the course for me is the way assignments are evaluated. I think it has to do with the fact that they are interactive. You have to answers questions in a Quiz related to the week content and the project. But the are not very demanding, therefore they do not reflect how much you really know. In general I recommend taking this course if you are in self study journey in computer science, even more the specialization start to get more interesting and demanding in the follow up courses, more complete and detailed. | are interactive. You have to answers | Question | in a Quiz related to the | Positive | 0.66 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.05 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I really enjoyed this course, it was very informative. My only complaint is that on quiz questions that included example code, sometimes the ends of lines were cut off. I had to copy and paste them into an editor to read the entire thing. | only complaint is that on quiz | Question | that included example code, sometimes the | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | When I started this course, my only experience with HTML was <b> bold</b>, <i> italic</i>, and <u>underline</u>. After this course I have a much clearer understanding of what HTML is, and how it works, and I am able to now use it to a much greater extent than I was before. The professor did an excellent job of explaining most things, but I did find that on occasion I had to stop the video and go back several times to understand what she'd said or to take notes, despite having slowed the video down as much as possible. (In my opinion, one should be able to slow the video down more than is currently possible, especially for those for whom English is not their native tongue.) With me, it wasn't that I didn't understand what she said so much as I didn't have time to take in what she meant before she'd gone on to something else. I understand that Coursera is able to do what it does because of its method, which is basically independent study; one watches the videos, and reads whatever resources are listed, and goes on from there. If there is a question, it is not the professor in the videos that the question is asked of, but people hired as "teaching aides". These are the people (other than fellow students) who answer your questions, and they do not always answer in a 'timely' fashion. While this method works well for some people, I am quite sure there are others unable to learn with this method, especially if the subject turns out to be a more complicated, intensive one. Some people need to have a little more than just videos which they can only repeat over and over with the same information, hoping to learn something new from it. The only other thing I have a problem with is the lack of oversight/security. There's no way of knowing if the person who 'earns' a certificate is the person they claim to be, or if they earned the scores given. All in all, I think Coursera is a great tool, and well worth the low prices charged; I am sure there are plenty of courses still remaining (after the 'purge') that I would love to take. | from there. If there is a | Question | it is not the professor in | Negative | -0.76 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I would have given this course 5 stars if not for the final exam, which is to look at a jpeg and then write code to make a web page look exactly like the jpeg. The issue is that there are many ways to get a page to look like the image and you will still fail the exam. The course creators have realized this and you now have supporting questions that you can pass the course on even if your page code is not validated as correct. In my opinion there are so many better ways this final exam could have been handled, for instance i would have like to have seen a few more questions in the exam, and once passed you could see a forum area open up for us all to paste our code in or link to a page where we could discuss with teachers and moderators etc. personally I believe that sort of approach would add more value. The above being said the content of the course is excellent for beginners with an eye opening focus on accessibility and good content on the DOM structure. The course will provide you with a good set of tools to get a basic page up on the internet. | this and you now have supporting | Question | that you can pass the course | Negative | -0.64 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I would have given this course 5 stars if not for the final exam, which is to look at a jpeg and then write code to make a web page look exactly like the jpeg. The issue is that there are many ways to get a page to look like the image and you will still fail the exam. The course creators have realized this and you now have supporting questions that you can pass the course on even if your page code is not validated as correct. In my opinion there are so many better ways this final exam could have been handled, for instance i would have like to have seen a few more questions in the exam, and once passed you could see a forum area open up for us all to paste our code in or link to a page where we could discuss with teachers and moderators etc. personally I believe that sort of approach would add more value. The above being said the content of the course is excellent for beginners with an eye opening focus on accessibility and good content on the DOM structure. The course will provide you with a good set of tools to get a basic page up on the internet. | to have seen a few more | Question | in the exam, and once passed | Negative | -0.69 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | The caliber of | Question | in the quizzes is quite advanced. | Positive | 0.78 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | The caliber of questions in the quizzes is quite advanced. I would be fine with that, as the challenge of writing correct html5 is a good challenge. However much of these questions were not covered in the lectures or the required and optional reading. Learning the correct html tag syntax is not intuitive--one has to be shown examples. If no examples have been covered, how can a quiz-taker be expected to create the proper tags? This strikes me as bad pedagogy. In order to answer the questions and prepare the requested page of html tags, it became necessary for a beginner such as me to research elsewhere in order to answer the questions. In that case, I began wondering why I was taking this course, rather than just reviewing the many free html5 explanations on the Internet. Further the very general response to the submitted page of html gives me no help when I am simply told something isn't right and I should review the lessons--again. I expected better feedback. I found this course to be fascinating from the lecture point of view, but "abusive" in terms of quiz expectations. I was going to take the CSS3 course from the series, but now I plan on looking for this education elsewhere. | good challenge. However much of these | Question | were not covered in the lectures | Negative | -0.73 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | Very good basic introduction. The final project was a little challenging because some of the questions used coding that wasn't reviewed in either the textbook or in the lectures. The lectures were otherwise very informative and well-structured. | little challenging because some of the | Question | used coding that wasn't reviewed in | Negative | -0.77 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | fix that, but the additional eight | Question | were basically a transcript of the | Negative | -0.98 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3. The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace. The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch. The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class. | was the 'staff'. I got my | Question | answered nine days after I posted | Negative | -0.64 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | This is absolutely NOT for beginners. There is no way you can possibly do this class in under 10 hours a week. The presentations are sloppy and vague. There is absolutely no support, unless you count snark from the aids who check into the message boards once and a while to tell you your question is stupid. This woman chatters on way to fast and if you use the slower speed setting on the videos, it crashes every time. I am not happy that I wasted money on this class. It offers nothing to prepare you to actually do any real life HTML coding. I highly recommend either purchasing a book to learn on your own or take a class elsewhere. The Coursera platform is garbage. The app crashes and it doesn't seem to cooperate well with Safari so I have to lug around my laptop in order to get through this nonsense. | a while to tell you your | Question | is stupid. This woman chatters on | Negative | -0.99 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A good intro to the HTML material, which is an entry level into coding in itself. Since its intro it doesn't cover the vast array of of available tricks accessible within the language and there may be instances where you have to seek tips elsewhere on the internet. By the end of it all you should be able to build some basic HTML elements. With that, there are still some tidbits about the basics of HTML (tags) that I still have questions regarding importance/use of. | HTML (tags) that I still have | Question | regarding importance/use of. | Positive | 0.88 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It was a very good course. I understood everything. My only complaint is that the tests questions were repetitive and so it would be easy to cheat on a second or third attempt and also the final quiz should have been more about writing your own code. I think what should have been tested was the end product by the autograder rather than the exact code. I'm not sure how that would work but it would result in a more precise grade rather than the 87.5% everyone gets and also help the student write his/her own code rather than proofreading and selecting others. I did thoroughly enjoy the course and am looking forward to Course two of the series on CSS3. | only complaint is that the tests | Question | were repetitive and so it would | Positive | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | A very simple, but effective intro to HTML. Looking forward to CSS3!! Take the time to read the optional chapters in the free book PDF as some of the questions in the assignments are not mentioned in lectures, but are explained in the book. | book PDF as some of the | Question | in the assignments are not mentioned | Positive | 0.81 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | 'Introduction to HTML5' course is a very general introduction to HTML5 for beginners. The professor doesn't assume you know anything about Web development or even how files are uploaded to a host website. The course covers a brief history of the Web, basic HTML5 elements, URL terminology, Accessibility, Semantics, and basic FTP & Web hosting software like C-Panel. Forms and other advanced topics are not covered. The class is presented in a laid back style and uses non-technical language which is easy to understand. The quality of the video and audio are excellent. Supplemental books (pdf) and links to Youtube videos are provided and are useful. The duration of some of the lectures seemed too long, even when using 2X playback speed. With some of the quizzes, the professor expected you to read her mind and were worded in a subjective manner. The Accessibility section seemed a little too preachy for me. Also, the final project was convoluted and the instructions were vague. The final project really ended up being a 9 or 10 question quiz that gave you hints on how to code the final project. In summary, take this course if you are a complete beginner. Otherwise, you won't learn much if you have more than 2 months of experience in front end Web development. | up being a 9 or 10 | Question | quiz that gave you hints on | Positive | 0.83 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| nQ5d7TbQEeWW9BKhJ4xW0Q | It may be a 5 weeks course with a more slow learning, because we see some tags in a second and it passes. And the autograder works really bad. I do not know where I fail but I failed all the questions. A peer grader would be nice for the final project. | fail but I failed all the | Question | A peer grader would be nice | Negative | -0.98 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.01 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course information was fairly useful, but the execution not so much. The material spent more time on somewhat repetitive examples than it did on explaining the actual concepts those examples were illustrating, and the videos were primarily just lecturers reading parts of the slides that you had already read, but in their own words. The tests, sadly, were poorly-designed for the subject matter of the course. Behavioral biases - like many psychological phenomena - overlap to some degree, and the frequently-used format of 'choose all that apply' - or worse 'choose all that might apply' - resulted in trying to guess what the test-setter was looking for rather than trying to apply the information that had been learned. When you find yourself trying to decide between the best answer based on what you have learned and a conceptually worse answer that happens to meet the wording of the question - and trying to guess whether the test-setter is looking to prove your understanding or catch you in a mistake - then you start to suspect that the course has been designed more as a way to earn grades than to actually learn. | to meet the wording of the | Question | - and trying to guess whether | Negative | -0.74 | 0.0 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Not a bad course, generally learnt a lot of interesting facts about market crashes. Behavioural biases discussed are not something new that you can't figure them out on your own, but giving names to them makes it quite useful to remember and recall in future situations. The major problem with this course is the fact that many quiz questions are tricky. Most of biases aren't discussed well in lectures, so you need to do a bit of research. But even then, they overlap a lot, so some questions have several answers and it is difficult to choose. However, it makes you think at least. | is the fact that many quiz | Question | are tricky. Most of biases aren't | Positive | 0.65 | 0.5 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Not a bad course, generally learnt a lot of interesting facts about market crashes. Behavioural biases discussed are not something new that you can't figure them out on your own, but giving names to them makes it quite useful to remember and recall in future situations. The major problem with this course is the fact that many quiz questions are tricky. Most of biases aren't discussed well in lectures, so you need to do a bit of research. But even then, they overlap a lot, so some questions have several answers and it is difficult to choose. However, it makes you think at least. | they overlap a lot, so some | Question | have several answers and it is | Positive | 0.83 | 0.5 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | Duke.... Coursera... guys, come on! I'd like to contrast this with the Wharton Business Analytics specialization that I'm completing. It was like night and day. I mean, professors in that course are presenting their own research! Cade Massey presents research he did with Dick Thaler! None of that happens here. The information shared doesn't even flow smoothly. This course relies mainly on PDF slides (if I wanted to read, I would've bought a book). At one point, it even links to 6 articles on another website (and that's in the quiz as well). It seems like very little effort was put into this online class by the professors. The slides themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking questions that are never even answered. It was almost as if someone took already prepared slides from a course and just kind of mashed them with a very little bit of video to make an "online" course. Even the answers to quizzes seemed extremely vague (it often felt like there were several right answers... or none -- to me, this is sloppy quiz writing). I honestly expected better from both Coursera and Duke! The only redeeming part about this course is that behavioral economics is honestly compelling, despite the shortcomings pointed out. | themselves seemed scatter-brained, several times asking | Question | that are never even answered. It | Negative | -0.83 | -1.0 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| NSxhuc9cEeWczg7kSY_tVQ | The course covers the basic foundations of behavioral finance, especially prospect theory and various cognitive biases that negatively influence our decision making in financial affairs. The topics covered are definitely very interesting and the lecturers frequently prove that they know what they are talking about and explain some topics in adequate depth and breadth. For a valuable Coursera course I am expecting that most of the material is covered with video lectures (otherwise I read a book on that matter) and I am expecting thought-through slides with clear definitions, clear practical examples and exercises, and the presentation of experimental proofs for the given statements. Regrettably, most of this course is comprised of simple slides with limited structuring, as definitions, exercises, and proofs are often intermingled. More importantly, only a very limited subset of the course is covered with the suitable and valuable video lectures. Especially the last of the three-week course consist mostly of reading material from an external website. The exercises after each of the three weeks are at the lower end of what I have seen on Coursera and the lecturers should consider putting more effort in creating useful questions for formative and summative evaluations of the learning progress. In summary, smart lecturers present a very interesting and highly relevant topic, but they put to little effort in creating a compellingly online course. | putting more effort in creating useful | Question | for formative and summative evaluations of | Negative | -0.78 | -0.5 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | This course was actually quite helpful for learning Chinese, and it provides fascinating information about Chinese culture. Besides learning the language, you'll learn about holidays, foods, and art, and you'll hear Chinese music. Unfortunately, I could not give the course a good rating because I found some quiz questions impossible to complete. This questions required answers to be typed in Pinyin or in Chinese characters. However, the course gave no information on how to type the Pinyin tone marks or Chinese characters into the response boxes. I tried asking about this in a discussion forum, but got no answer. | rating because I found some quiz | Question | impossible to complete. This questions required | Negative | -0.91 | -0.5 | 0.76 | 0.89 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | This course was actually quite helpful for learning Chinese, and it provides fascinating information about Chinese culture. Besides learning the language, you'll learn about holidays, foods, and art, and you'll hear Chinese music. Unfortunately, I could not give the course a good rating because I found some quiz questions impossible to complete. This questions required answers to be typed in Pinyin or in Chinese characters. However, the course gave no information on how to type the Pinyin tone marks or Chinese characters into the response boxes. I tried asking about this in a discussion forum, but got no answer. | quiz questions impossible to complete. This | Question | required answers to be typed in | Negative | -0.69 | -0.5 | 0.76 | 0.89 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | The testing in this course is horribly crafted. Not is it only too easy, thus not actually testing students what is learned, the answers for some of the questions are incorrect. On the very last quiz, I was not able to finish the course because the answer for one of the questions was incorrect. In answering how to translate "South," the answer should be "nánbian," but when I selected this option, it was marked wrong. Therefore, I have to wait 7 more hours before selecting an incorrect answer to complete the course. | the answers for some of the | Question | are incorrect. On the very last | Positive | 0.8 | -0.5 | 0.76 | 0.89 |
| NuH3s9uFEeWoKQ6POrXqdQ | The testing in this course is horribly crafted. Not is it only too easy, thus not actually testing students what is learned, the answers for some of the questions are incorrect. On the very last quiz, I was not able to finish the course because the answer for one of the questions was incorrect. In answering how to translate "South," the answer should be "nánbian," but when I selected this option, it was marked wrong. Therefore, I have to wait 7 more hours before selecting an incorrect answer to complete the course. | the answer for one of the | Question | was incorrect. In answering how to | Positive | 0.64 | -0.5 | 0.76 | 0.89 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course is very helpful, learned a lot of things, It rises a lot of questions for own company and how it should go. I will be happy to reccomend this course to my friends and colegues. Thanks, Mr. Austin | things, It rises a lot of | Question | for own company and how it | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | A great course all round! The concepts are simple and well presented for those who haven't studied strategy before, but lots of room to learn through the discussion in the videos and additional reading for those of us who have seen this subject before. The test format I though was a bit over-simplified. I would have preferred to see slightly longer, more demanding tests, perhaps with a different question format. In particular, I found the questionnaire for the capstone project much too simplified - giving all or nothing points means we can't differentiate between people who only just achieved the point (or achieved it partially) and others who achieved it well. Needs an intermediate option. | demanding tests, perhaps with a different | Question | format. In particular, I found the | Positive | 0.85 | 0.5 | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | This is a highly recommended course and the content is second to no other on Coursera at the time of this review. I have taken all of the courses in the series from Copenhagen Business School, as well as nearly all other business management courses offered for other institutions. This specific course on Strategic Management is the single most informative and current material of all of the options. It does not answer every question or address every concept you would need to know to run a major corporation, but it is a fantastic overview of past and present methods of business strategy, and is of value to any business minded individual. I highly recommend this course and the entire series from CBS. Enjoy! | options. It does not answer every | Question | or address every concept you would | Positive | 0.66 | 1.0 | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | Content is great. The final project pier feedback/grading could be upgraded. Prefer only one person reviewing in depth than 3 using multiple choice questions. Scales might work better. | depth than 3 using multiple choice | Question | Scales might work better. | Negative | -0.71 | 0.5 | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| oC5XlyT_EeWs4gorU6Q1Yw | The course is very interesting but there is a problem with the quizzes, it doesn't accept correct questions. If needed I can provide a screen shot of the problem in one of the quizzes. Hope that all this will be fixed and I'll be able to take the course again. | the quizzes, it doesn't accept correct | Question | If needed I can provide a | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| op_vMOGiEeWr4g7T_DyXNw | Very well taught, easy to understand. The questions in the exams have been very thoughtfully selected, one must pay attention to the content and understand the concept. Going to remember the concepts for long time after watching & listing the tutorials. | well taught, easy to understand. The | Question | in the exams have been very | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 1.14 |
| op_vMOGiEeWr4g7T_DyXNw | Cloud computing course provides an overview of the concepts of distributed processing. The algorithms behind real world distributed applications are well explained. The video lectures and quiz questions on various distributed protocols provide insights into the working of these systems. Highly recommended. Thanks Prof. Indranil Gupta and the Coursera community!! | explained. The video lectures and quiz | Question | on various distributed protocols provide insights | Negative | -0.96 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 1.14 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Excellent Way to learn Python. I am completely new to programming, but able to complete the course with in the time and now I am comfortable with the basics python programming. Charles made it a simple thing. His way of teaching, taking it step by step is very nice. Assignments are simple and at the same time ensures that we are good to go to next chapter. Support for questions while doing assignments is great. Thanks to University of Michigan for allowing us completing assignments as well, without payment. This is very great. Giving chance to every one to complete assignments and in addition providing support during assignments is actually shows the social commitment of University that education should be available to every one . | go to next chapter. Support for | Question | while doing assignments is great. Thanks | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | This course was challenging for me as a beginning programmer but it was taught very well. The professor and the book are awesome. If you have a question there is always a Mentor with coding experience around who can help. | are awesome. If you have a | Question | there is always a Mentor with | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | learned a lot. dont forget to read the book its great. the class is a good pace and dr chuck is a great teacher. wish mentors answered more questions on the forums | great teacher. wish mentors answered more | Question | on the forums | Positive | 0.71 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Very applicable to real world development, but well thought out and executed for all levels to learn. Being a Data Engineer, I had a difference of opinion on one of the SQL questions exams, but all in all great job! | opinion on one of the SQL | Question | exams, but all in all great | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Awesome second course from Chuck. He explains the material well and provides a great foundation in Python and coding. The mentors are responsive and helpful when you have questions, and the exercises are a good level of challenge but not so difficult they are frustrating. | responsive and helpful when you have | Question | and the exercises are a good | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Again like in Getting Started with Python course, I wish there was a way for us to get explanations for quiz questions after we complete a quiz, so we can fully understand them. I wish we could have something similar for when we complete the coding assignments, the worked exercises are helpful, but it would be helpful after we complete an assignment to have a code to compare ours to, to see the differences and to make sure we understand exactly what Dr. Chuck was getting at. There were several assignments that I completed, but not in the correct way, so the next weeks assignment was more difficult than it should have been. | us to get explanations for quiz | Question | after we complete a quiz, so | Negative | -0.63 | 0.5 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| P--h6zpNEeWYbg7p2_3OHQ | Hello, The course has been designed in a way which can help a person who doesn't even know Programming. I do appreciate that! But, just one question that I have is, why the deadlines for the Assignments are designed in such a way that Week1 of Introduction Course, and the Advanced (Object Oriented Programming) have the same deadline? | do appreciate that! But, just one | Question | that I have is, why the | Negative | -0.87 | 0.0 | 0.84 | 1.15 |
| PwuYBQZREeW5gyIACwQVNg | I found this very interesting, covering some topics I did not expect an introduction. I think the pace of the course is about right, but I would have liked more questions. Unfortunately I became very busy during the course and failed to keep up. I look forward to repeating it when I have more time. | but I would have liked more | Question | Unfortunately I became very busy during | Negative | -0.92 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| PwuYBQZREeW5gyIACwQVNg | Very clear and well paced class. I like the early introduction to Julia sets to introduce recent mysteries of in the subject before teaching the classical results. The professor is a very clear speaker and was generous enough with her time to answer some of the forum questions. | to answer some of the forum | Question | | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.08 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | Information needs be updated especially with the changes just made in France 2015. It was a little slow and quizzes were often frustrating due to questions and answers not matching up, or info was not given in the lecture. Overall, since it was 101 and basic, I enjoyed learning the new information. | quizzes were often frustrating due to | Question | and answers not matching up, or | Negative | -0.66 | 0.0 | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| q6P-8ed8EeSglCIACzUL2A | First of all, thank you for the course, as it enables students to get a bit more up-to-date and knowledgeable in the topic. On the other hand, unfortunately it's not worth one's time as it didn't deliver very good quality, nor on its promise regarding "The Big Picture". Pros: Easy to understand. Self-paced. Objectivity and positive overall message. Cons: Overall quality and clarity of the lectures is not very good. Lectures are a bit hard to follow, not because of the complexity of the topic, but because of some controversial and outdated data, and the speaking and presentation style of the lecturer. Assignments contain too many trivial questions, but also some mistakes which makes some questions impossible to answer correctly, based on the lectures, or at all. No staff engagement or feedback on the forums, which is especially problematic regarding to aforementioned mistakes. The title and description of the course don't inform students that it is completely US-centric, and mostly concentrating on petroleum/oil. So along with a lot of important topics, "The Big Picture" is missing. | lecturer. Assignments contain too many trivial | Question | but also some mistakes which makes | Positive | 0.68 | -0.5 | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | I was scepticale at first but Raj explained all sides to his ideas so well that I had to keep watching. Every time I thought of important questions, he'd explain it 1 minute later. The only concern for me personaly was that he choose creative wordings over clarity & simplicity. I also aticipated better strategies and explainations to sin #5 for toxic people, psych pain, accountability but besides this everything else was beyond expectations. | Every time I thought of important | Question | he'd explain it 1 minute later. | Negative | -0.89 | 0.5 | 0.97 | 1.15 |
| QEXoJRBmEeWhsgqB1eduww | Its excellent. Gives solution to all my questions one by one. Its a great experience with Dr. Raj | excellent. Gives solution to all my | Question | one by one. Its a great | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.97 | 1.15 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | In general it's fine, but I'd like to see more questions with calculations, such tasks help better understand the topic | but I'd like to see more | Question | with calculations, such tasks help better | Positive | 0.87 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 1.08 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Pros: Content Professor Depth of material Cons: Exams are shit, full of mistakes, stuid questions asking 2 values but you have one field to fill in the data. Totally unacceptable quality issues with exams. READ THE FORUM!!!! | are shit, full of mistakes, stuid | Question | asking 2 values but you have | Negative | -0.94 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 1.08 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Need to review some question. Example: The universe is 13.8 billion years. No unit for computational question. Two questions for one field to fill. A good idea to add an indication how to write an exponential number. Use Coursera tools to check if the answer is a number by student. | Need to review some | Question | Example: The universe is 13. 8 | Positive | 0.64 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 1.08 |
| QgmoVdT2EeSlhSIACx2EBw | Need to review some question. Example: The universe is 13.8 billion years. No unit for computational question. Two questions for one field to fill. A good idea to add an indication how to write an exponential number. Use Coursera tools to check if the answer is a number by student. | No unit for computational question. Two | Question | for one field to fill. A | Negative | -0.87 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 1.08 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Absolutely ingnoring of questions in forum from moderators, terrible changing of db schema during the course: on one week one schema, on second week another. it would be ok, but it is proposed to drop tables, that has foreign keys on another, already populated. therefore schema become unconsisten. and we should execute practice lesson on this chaos schema. do teachers tried to pass this course themselves? i don't think so. also there are absurd requirenments on practice lesson. For example, they ask create not null and primary key constraint on the same table. Do they know, taht pk already contatin not null? Maybe teachers should learn about database before they start to teach? | Absolutely ingnoring of | Question | in forum from moderators, terrible changing | Negative | -0.96 | -1.0 | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Not enough implication from the instructors in the course. Students are left alone with the material, without any answers to there questions on the course. Peer review process subject to personal interpretation and leading to frustration for the students. That's quite unfortunate as this provides a bad experience whereas the course might have been good without that. | material, without any answers to there | Question | on the course. Peer review process | Negative | -0.79 | -0.5 | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Pros: The course content covers a lot of relevant topics on Database Management. Things like Basic SQL queries, Database Normalization, Conceptual and Logical databases, and making ER diagrams are covered in the course. Cons: Prof Mannino is a bit robotic in his reading out of long sentences and the constant pace of talking. There is tons of repetition of sentences and words mere seconds after they were just spoken. The lectures seem to be a collection of bullet points. The assignments and the peer review structure is really a low point. There's no specific grading rubric - so points allocation is random and based on your peer's assessment. I had many instances where my right answers were marked as wrong. There is nothing you can do to correct it. Moreover, the questions are iterative and thus the same apparent error carries on and you get multiple wrong scores. Assignments need to be submitted in documents. Separate documents for each question !! At times, even a one-line answer needs to be in a separate document. Pictures of database diagrams need to be pasted in said documents. It was a bit frustrating to take screenshots all the time. Especially when you make a small correction, and have to take screenshots AGAIN, then paste it AGAIN, and upload AGAIN !! Summary: Take the course for it's content, and use the assignments as good practice. Don't take the grading seriously. Also, focus on the content rather than the delivery by the professor, and you will still be able to get some value out of the course (and the specialization by extension) | in documents. Separate documents for each | Question | ! ! At times, even a | Positive | 0.81 | 0.0 | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Good but with some errors in assignments and not real support via the forum - some question has not been answered | support via the forum - some | Question | has not been answered | Positive | 0.85 | 0.5 | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| qLFYrxnoEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The course is well structured with clear objective for each lecture. It starts by asking the main question about the course then summarize the answer and the key messages. Practice and assignment are valuable to apply and test courses knowledge. Thank you | It starts by asking the main | Question | about the course then summarize the | Negative | -0.71 | 0.5 | 0.98 | 1.0 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | This is one of the best courses I have ever taken. It is fun and yet, it is very detailed and, yes, it takes a bit more than 2-3 hours per week. You will learn much more than using Tableau. You will learn to ask the right questions and you will also learn how to present your data analytics results to the C-suite or whoever asked for it. I highly recommend this to anyone, beginners and experienced business / data analysts. | will learn to ask the right | Question | and you will also learn how | Positive | 0.83 | 1.0 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | There needs to be more help available, at least for paying students, to answer questions and clear misunderstanding. The quizzes are taking too much time. | least for paying students, to answer | Question | and clear misunderstanding. The quizzes are | Negative | -0.8 | -1.0 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | I will start with you do learn a lot from the videos (and the stuff you learn is very valuable), it's the absence of staff or professor involvement that is a problem and why I am not giving 5 stars. Outside of quizzes which are graded by computers, your "practice" assignments (which aren't practice because you can't check your answers before a test, super awesome when you can't really ask for help), final project and forum questions are graded or answered by other students. If you have any confusion, either it will go unresolved or be worsened by potentially wrong answers from other students which I saw happen many, many times. Maybe I am expecting too much from an online learning platform? In all, I feel like while I did learn, I perhaps learned some wrong practices too. So while the videos are great, the actual teacher involvement is poor. Coursera - I am not sure how you and the university work together, but is it totally strange to desire some input from your professor? | for help), final project and forum | Question | are graded or answered by other | Positive | 0.66 | 0.0 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | Tableau is garbage and their assignment practice questions don't work | is garbage and their assignment practice | Question | don't work | Negative | -0.99 | -1.0 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The material is very interesting with well-made videos. Great course to get an introduction to Tableau. The downside for me was that some videos were rushed with as they had too much content, and quizzes could be much better, I found the questions not really up-to-par with the course content. | be much better, I found the | Question | not really up-to-par with the course | Negative | -0.87 | 0.5 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| QoJxNRnoEeW9dA4X94-nLQ | The course content is itself interesting but the lack of active mentors to provide guidance makes the course really difficult to learn. So many unanswered questions on the discussion board and many confused students. I am so glad I am not paying for this course. | difficult to learn. So many unanswered | Question | on the discussion board and many | Positive | 0.68 | -1.0 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | There are several things in the course that were able to clear up my understanding. The course instructor responds to more questions than I would have expected as well. The course uses a lot of mathematical notation and it helps to take some time with it but once you get the idea of conjugate priors down you can quickly employ them in your own problems. The course covers conjugate priors for several different likelihoods including the normal distribution and the binomial distribution. Although the derivation of the conjugate priors looks daunting as it is written down, the usage of the priors make Bayesian statistics much easier. This course uses R and Excel but is not a course in either. Most of the computations that are performed for the quizzes are pretty simple and require little skill in R. I am glad that I have taken the course and would take another if provided by this instructor. I plan to reference the materials provided in the future whenever I need a refresher. | The course instructor responds to more | Question | than I would have expected as | Negative | -0.77 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.08 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | Out of 15 online courses I have taken over the last 3 years, this is the best. Professor Lee presents rather difficult material in a clear, detailed, style. The lesson quizzes are remarkably useful; it seems real care has been taken in aligning the questions with the key points in the lectures, and in furthering one's understanding of the same. | has been taken in aligning the | Question | with the key points in the | Positive | 0.63 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.08 |
| Qqmr3fBKEeWLaBLI8fdMlw | This course makes a lot of details clear to me. Thanks professor for this great course. I still have one question, is the professor writing on a transparent board in inverse pattern? The technique is amazing! | great course. I still have one | Question | is the professor writing on a | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.08 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The algorithms presented in this course are interesting. However, the quizzes contain some questions that have no apparent relation to the content of the lectures, and some questions about details of the presented algorithms which are explained in neither the lectures, nor in the papers from which the lectures are derived. Also, most of the sample implementations will not run on a modern computer. They only work on Windows with Java 6 installed. | interesting. However, the quizzes contain some | Question | that have no apparent relation to | Negative | -0.93 | -0.5 | 0.89 | 1.04 |
| Qx-vkAocEeWAYyIACmGIdw | The lectures were good but when it came to quizzes and assignments, we do not know what to do? The questions were very complicated and not stated in the Lectures | not know what to do? The | Question | were very complicated and not stated | Positive | 0.78 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 1.04 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Very interesting course, well designed, using animated fun-makers to shoot out questions that you will probably do it yourself. Course content easy to understand. Very suited for non-accounting major analyst who wants to get some background in accounting analysis.. | using animated fun-makers to shoot out | Question | that you will probably do it | Negative | -0.62 | 1.0 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | While I enjoyed this course and the topics covered, I don't feel like the course content matched what the course description stated it was supposed to. I enrolled in the Business Analytics Specialization course with a focus on analyzing a business from the inside, not outside. Of the 4 weeks of the course, I'd say that only week 4 was valid from an internal perspective but it was kept very high level. I'd say this course could be good for a specialization in business market analysis, but not as advertised. I also found the cartoon classroom questions to be very annoying, almost as bad as fingernails on a blackboard. | I also found the cartoon classroom | Question | to be very annoying, almost as | Negative | -0.86 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | It's ok. Bushee is very knowledgeable and a very enthusiastic teacher, but his lessons are too dense compared to the content in the rest of the Wharton BA programs. I actually like all the detail, but I think it's covered too quickly and the course should probably be made longer to deal with it all. There are ratios and balance sheet jargon just flying at you at a breathless pace. It would be better to focus on a few key ones and then walk through the examples a little more slowly. The quizzes were extremely tricky with too many choose more than one answers. It was difficult to find the parts of the video to review missed questions because 1) the transcripts are machine generated and make it difficult to search specific words and 2) it's difficult to remember where the concept was covered because there was so much in each video. The last week felt very disconnected from the first week and like it belonged in a different course almost. It was pretty good, though. I liked how it contained specific examples and charts. | of the video to review missed | Question | because 1) the transcripts are machine | Negative | -0.82 | 0.0 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Excellent online course that caters to a wide spectrum of audiences with different learning backgrounds. Also love the cut scenes to the classroom where students make funny comments or ask questions haha | students make funny comments or ask | Question | haha | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | Five stars is not enough to express my satisfaction and love to this course. The instructor is very proactive in community. Every questions I posted got direcly feedback from Teaching staff (and most of them are from Prof Bushee!!!) This is the besttttt course among all Wharton analytics sessions! Honestly, you have to try!! | is very proactive in community. Every | Question | I posted got direcly feedback from | Positive | 0.72 | 1.0 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | would be effective. Or, perhaps a | Question | that relates strategy specifically to the | Negative | -0.84 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | I think having specific problems or | Question | will enhance the learning experience rather | Positive | 0.87 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz | Question | would be helpful. Perhaps it might | Negative | -0.9 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | or something similar. Just some practice | Question | to get people working with the | Negative | -0.95 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | want to remind students that the | Question | may change from quiz to quiz. | Negative | -0.66 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | of these on-demand courses, the quiz | Question | do not change and students may | Negative | -0.78 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the habit of not rereading the | Question | they have gotten correct on previous | Positive | 0.68 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the lectures other than some in-line | Question | might be good. . I found | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | the lectures – some in-line quiz | Question | might help. This would also help | Negative | -0.62 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rc5KG0aUEeWG1w6arGoEIQ | This is my feedback as a Beta-Tester for the course: Week 1 I thought that the videos were clear, well organized and flowed well from topic to topic. There was a clear logic as the professor developed the various ratios. What was missing for me was some in-line quizzes. Not the “tell me what I just told you type” but rather ones that make you think. So, for example, in the final video for Week 1, the optional video, instead of just suggesting that the students “play” with the spreadsheet, I think it would be better to give them an actual task or two… “change the assumption about X to <this value>. What is the impact on the Y ratio? Why?” I liked that he showed what numbers needed to be changed to make the share valuation closer to $55. But rather than just telling us the answer, this would be another opportunity to have the students stop the video and go try it themselves. With a specific task, it is likely that more students will go and work with the spreadsheet. This is where the real learning takes place. One of the things that I really liked about the design of prior courses by Professor Bushee was the fact that he had examples throughout the videos that had you apply the information right away. But, perhaps this is just me. I know that I learn a lot better by doing rather than just watching the videos and going “yeah… that makes sense. I understand…” I also recognize that some students, in past courses, have probably said they don’t find the in-line quizzes valuable. But, is that a reflection of the value of in-line quizzes as a whole or just in-line quizzes that simply require “parroting” something said in the video. I’m sure that the professor can come up with lots of examples. In Week 1 Video 1 the in-line quiz might provide some numbers for De-levered Net Income, Sales, Average Total Assets and Average Shareholder’s Equity and asking for the results of each of the ratios in the Dupont Analysis. And maybe a “think about what this means” type question that is not necessarily “marked” but for which an answer is provided in the video. Alternatively, he could have the students change some specific things in the Woof Junction spreadsheet and indicate what impact that has on the ratios and why. Week 1 Video 2 offers lots of similar opportunities with the Profitability and Turnover Ratios. Perhaps requiring the students to work backwards from a specific ratio to determine gross profit would be effective. Or, perhaps a question that relates strategy specifically to the ratios. For example, what would happen to the Gross Margin if Woof introduced a credit card and days receivable increased to 31.6 in 2015? Just something to engage people with the materials. All of the videos offer similar opportunities and I think having specific problems or questions will enhance the learning experience rather than just suggesting that they “go look at the spreadsheet”. The audience for these courses tends to be quite a bit different from your average upper tier university student and probably needs a bit more “hand holding” and “direction” in order to be successful. Also, if Professor Bushee expects students will watch the optional videos anyway, why make them optional? In the case of the Valuation Video, despite some of the mathematics being a little “scary” for some students, I think that the information there is really useful and helps to solidify an understanding of the spreadsheet. I’m wondering if an in-quiz question would be helpful. Perhaps it might provide a new set of financials for Woof Junction and ask for ratio calculation and what that means in terms of their position in the marketplace or something similar. Just some practice questions to get people working with the information. Same comments basically apply for the remainder of the weeks. I think that it would help the students to have some in-line quizzes – this not only breaks up the longer videos and helps to keep students focused but also provides a reinforcement of key concepts. I really liked the quiz for Week 1 even though I struggled with the questions where there are multiple correct responses. The quiz effectively reinforces the information covered very well and requires one to think about what was covered in the lectures. You may want to remind students that the questions may change from quiz to quiz. In many of these on-demand courses, the quiz questions do not change and students may be in the habit of not rereading the questions they have gotten correct on previous attempts. Week 2 – Revenue After Cash Collection at 7:39 – talking about Days Unearned Revenue and mentions that an “increase means slower future recognition”. A bit more explanation around what that means would be useful. Week 3 – no particular additional comments on the lectures other than some in-line questions might be good.. I found Benford’s Law really interesting. Week 4. It would be really nice to have something to break up the lectures – some in-line quiz questions might help. This would also help to reinforce the material. Week 4 quiz Question 9 -, the double negative wording of the question and the correct response may cause confusion for students – particularly for those for whom English is not their native language. Overall Comments I enjoyed the course and learned a lot. I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide a summary document with all the key information from each week related to the ratio calculations and the key things to look for related to those ratios. I know that the ratios are provided in the spreadsheet but it might be good to have a written summary with some supplemental information about how to use the ratios. I think in-line quizzes or practice questions would be helpful for students – perhaps ones that asked students to do specific things in the spreadsheet and come back with an answer. They don’t need to be long or complicated – just something that gets people into the spreadsheets and working with them early. You may want to do something stronger to encourage them to “play” with the spreadsheet. Many will feel reluctant to change the numbers in the spreadsheet for fear of “messing” it up. Perhaps a reminder that they can change whatever they want because if they mess something up they can always download it again. Or they can save a copy and play in that leaving the original untouched. It also might be a good idea to have a “playground” sheet where there is a simple set of Financial Statements and the students can try changing things in the financial statements and see the impact on the key ratios without having to move from one spreadsheet to another – so, a combination of the Original tab and the first two columns of the Ratios tab. You might even want to have two columns for the ratios – one for the ratios with the original numbers that does not change (fixed values) and one for the changed numbers, so students can see the effect of the changes easily. In terms of the spreadsheets, I thought that the Original, the Ratios and the CommonSize tabs were fairly straight forward and relatively easy to understand. That may not be the case for people less familiar with MS-EXCEL but I don’t know what the target audience is for this course so the students may all be proficient with the tool. On the Valuation tab, I was wondering if the numbers in Row 41 should be highlighted in some way to emphasize that they are Years. That is not clear on first glance. There are a lot of mistakes in the subtitles. I pointed out many of these by flagging the specific videos where they occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the beta-test of this course. I hope that my comments are helpful and that I have not missed too much that causes students issues as the course goes live. | I think in-line quizzes or practice | Question | would be helpful for students – | Negative | -0.75 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I probably have to rate this course 5 stars just for the supplementary reading materials provided. There's a lot of great information provided here. This course helps formalize a process that highly talented people just do intuitively. With the information within, you're able to better understand different aspects of your creative process. At times, the professor's delivery can be a little distracting (he has quite a few awkward pauses in the middle of thoughts, and uses the phrase, "right?" a little too unconsciously). I also found some of the lecture material difficult to connect in a practical sense. Some aspects of the design, play, experience model could use better examples in lecture to make the points more concrete. It is a deep model, and they do in fact point you to a whitepaper published on it so there is that, but just for the sake of the lessons; the examples need better explanation. The quizzes were easy, but challenging in the wrong way. Often, questions are posed that weren't ever directly answered in lecture or the materials, and sometimes they are worded in ways that make it difficult to pinpoint what they are looking for. It would be nice to see student responses to the free-response questions make a comeback in future lessons or at least know that they could possibly carry into the material used to teach the next incoming class. The assignments follow a logical progression, and again are supplemented with great materials. The review system is a little wonky. I've posted in the boards about this. They need to make the criteria more clear. The community activity is pretty low. I'm not sure how this can be addressed, but overall this is a great course and perfect second stop on the journey towards the Game Design and Development specialization. | challenging in the wrong way. Often, | Question | are posed that weren't ever directly | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Great content and great teacher. But I found the assignments and the quizzes not that great. I reckon the questions and corrections were a bit subjective and time consuming. | not that great. I reckon the | Question | and corrections were a bit subjective | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | After the excellent first course in the specialisation, this was quite a disappointment. I realise that the subject matter in this course will inevitably involve abstract concepts and subjective opinions, but I didn't really 'get' the way that Casey was presenting the subject given that there were quizzes and assignments to follow. That's not to say that the videos aren't interesting. But, given their rambling style, they would be much more useful as reference material rather than driving the course, in my opinion. Many of the questions in the quizzes felt like they'd been added simply to make them up to the correct number. Some were so loose that you could write any answer and I'm sure you'd get a mark! Also, I'd say not to even start this course unless you have a clear idea for a game. The assignments require you to produce design documents that are tedious, going on impossible, to write without some firm rooted idea to start from. Maybe if you really want to be a game designer then this will be the course for you. If you are doing the course out of curiosity, for fun, or to learn how to control Unity, I'd give it a miss. | in my opinion. Many of the | Question | in the quizzes felt like they'd | Positive | 0.64 | -1.0 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Tasks are different in complexity, but time is given the same. Speaker's constantly interrupts sentences. Hard to understand for people, who bad speek English. Questions for peer review are bad: "Mark 5 if work amasing". But we just student, our work are rough, not amasing. And everybody can grade as he wish. | for people, who bad speek English. | Question | for peer review are bad: " | Negative | -0.91 | 0.0 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | This is a great course, if you want to hear The Questions you need to Answer to make a good game design for your game. It does not give you the answers, but it gives you a road map to follow. Downside of the course are Quizes and Peer Reviews. Quizes sometimes have shady and non-clear answers, especially for non-native English speakers. Assignments grading criteria makes your peers to choose from 1 to 5. And 5 is "you did so awesome, that you've impressed your peer very much". And this is not happening often. | if you want to hear The | Question | you need to Answer to make | Negative | -0.98 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | A pretty nifty course for game design. I loved getting to work on the documentation planning for the game I was creating. Simple and easy to follow. Some of the quiz questions were a bit tricky as I had spent more time than I though I would, going back to the lectures to review the questions. | to follow. Some of the quiz | Question | were a bit tricky as I | Positive | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | I learn a lot by doing assignments and reviewing other people's assignments. The important con of this course was some of its quizzes' questions which was ambiguous or badly framed. | course was some of its quizzes' | Question | which was ambiguous or badly framed. | Negative | -0.75 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| rKbbMST9EeWtRg6boA3D-Q | Very helpful information with lots of solid, practical advise (prototype! test!) and a few important questions to think about (genderfication? accessibility?) when designing. Excellent learning experience for game design documentation. Quite worth the time and effort. Thank you! | test! ) and a few important | Question | to think about (genderfication? accessibility? ) | Positive | 0.84 | 0.5 | 0.93 | 1.06 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Good content and GREAT assignments. Main problem is that the lecture videos are unscripted and could easily be made more concise. The other thing that worried me was that most of the assignments that I peer reviewed had missed large parts of the question. I would rather have my work marked by people who have read the question properly. | had missed large parts of the | Question | I would rather have my work | Negative | -0.95 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.95 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | Good content and GREAT assignments. Main problem is that the lecture videos are unscripted and could easily be made more concise. The other thing that worried me was that most of the assignments that I peer reviewed had missed large parts of the question. I would rather have my work marked by people who have read the question properly. | by people who have read the | Question | properly. | Negative | -0.64 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.95 |
| RKMa0PTnEeSR9SIAC7LYOA | The course covers the various aspects of Energy business in detail, but is very effectively covered. The case study surrounding the political decisions was very interesting, as this is generally not addressed in detail in traditional courses surrounding energy business. While completing each quiz has been challenging to get the required score of 9/10, the questions have been built to ensure exhaustive coverage. It is worth taking this course seriously and completing it. I really liked the course and would recommend this course for any one trying to understand the basics of energy business. | the required score of 9/10, the | Question | have been built to ensure exhaustive | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.88 | 0.95 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | This was actually pretty hard. I felt like the questions asked in the quiz were considerable above and beyond what was taught - and the amount of R itself taught felt like being thrown in the deep end. | pretty hard. I felt like the | Question | asked in the quiz were considerable | Negative | -0.96 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The course is very well laid out to demonstrate the main features of R programming language. (To elaborate on one thing that I liked) The programming assignment for the 4th week (rating/choosing hospital based on outcome) is very helpful to try out what I learnt from the course so far. All the 3 parts of this question are connected well, and I hope the rest of the courses of the Data Specialization is also implementing similar format. | All the 3 parts of this | Question | are connected well, and I hope | Positive | 0.79 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I had really high hopes for this course. I am not a programmer, though in college I learned C, C++, and used MATLAB a fair amount. I wanted to learn R because it is a free software versus paying a licencing fee to use SPSS which I have done in the past. I had already completed the first week of the course and the first week in this course. I went through the slides and I didn't really feel like I learned any actual programming so then to expect to answer questions where you had to program seemed a bit out of left field. As a comparison it felt like they had an hour worth of slides talking about different trees and how to differentiate them then asked you to drive a tank. I then took the time go through two swirl assignments which I hoped was going to fill in the many gaps left by the slides. They were definitely more helpful than the slide show, but I still felt like they would teach you how to add then ask you to multiply. So in general my recommendation would be not to take the course unless you have a fairly solid understand of programming, otherwise you will do what I did and just wasted $50. | so then to expect to answer | Question | where you had to program seemed | Negative | -0.7 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I was initially going to give this 3 stars but it would have been a biased score as I found the programming assignments too hard otherwise everything else was great, so I've added a star to counter my own bias. The programming assignments for a novice like me who has only completed the Data Scientist Toolbox course (which was the only prerequisite as far as I know but may have missed this in the opening spiel) would have significant difficulty completing and comprehensively understanding the programming assignments in any meaningful way (i.e. to reuse the knowledge in a different context or question). I completed all of the videos, swirl programming tasks, took fairly decent notes, exams/tests and still had to look elsewhere for much more guidance than I would have thought necessary on the programming assignments as I found them too hard to do on my own. I am not that smart though and this review can only capture part of my own subjective experience. Other than that, as I really enjoyed learning about R and analysing data in general as well as the way Robert Peng's teaching style and demeanour I really enjoyed it. Trying to work out if my failure to understand and reapply is a lack of my fully grasping the material and if so whether to continue grappling with R and programming in general. I've started the third course of the specialisation so will give you more feedback once I'm done there. Thanks very much for the course and keep up the good work. | knowledge in a different context or | Question | I completed all of the videos, | Negative | -0.67 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I entered this course with no coding experience, and I can definitely say I am disadvantaged because of it. The lectures are great explanations of the different commands in R, and the projects are a great playground of R's different capabilities, but the lectures and projects are too difficult to approach using just the lectures. That being said, this course's difficulty provides students like myself the opportunity to learn how to ask questions and seek resources for the programming. Overall, I do not enjoy this course - mainly because it is very difficult. However, the course is structured logically and provides (what I assume the majority of students) a comprehensive introduction to R. | opportunity to learn how to ask | Question | and seek resources for the programming. | Negative | -0.65 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | If you are planning to learn R, then go and buy a book. This course is a complete scam. At least don't pay any money. The reasons; 1.) They advertise that you need couple of hours of study per week. That's a lie, you have to study much more than that unless if you know a little R programming. 2.) The quiz questions are totally unrelated from the lessons. They teach you the basic stuff but they expect you to accomplish intermediate quizzes. 3.) The instructor has no idea how to teach. May be he is trying to prove something. I couldn't really understand his motives. If you really want to teach that's simple. You do couple of extra videos and teach whatever you are asking in quizzes, or tell us to read a certain material. He didn't do any of them which means he either doesn't know how to teach or this specialization is a complete scam. 4.) And I don't really understand what coursera is doing by the way? What kind of a business model is this. I was planning to enroll many specializations but now I am not going to do it. So think about how much they are loosing. Where is the quality assurance. Just because one guy comes up to you and say that he teaches this and that do you believe them? MY ADVICE TO YOU: DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR THIS SPECIALIZATION. AND FOR ANY OTHER COURSE READ THE BAD REVIEWS FIRST (WHICH WAS MY MISTAKE). | R programming. 2. ) The quiz | Question | are totally unrelated from the lessons. | Negative | -0.72 | -1.0 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I have some programming experience, but I often could not understand the questions being asked in the programming assignments. Not because of my skill level, but the lack of clarity in the directions. I felt that I learned a lot while taking this course because it held me accountable, but the course design could be much smoother. | I often could not understand the | Question | being asked in the programming assignments. | Negative | -0.71 | 0.0 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | The content and the speed that they teach you R are actually good. But considering that we now have to pay 45€/49$ for the course you will expect more polished videos and quizzes. Some of the videos are just stutters, repetitions and filling words. It's seems like they have been in a rush without decent preparation. Also one of the quiz questions was simply wrong. This should be fixed. Furthermore some of the commands they present are deprecated and cannot be used anymore. | preparation. Also one of the quiz | Question | was simply wrong. This should be | Positive | 0.73 | -0.5 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| RMFRum1BEeWXrA6ju0fvnQ | I did learn a lot from this course, i know where to find the resource to solve my questions. | find the resource to solve my | Question | | Positive | 0.64 | 0.5 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | The material here is good, especially for a MOOC, and it seemed like they tried to make it dynamic with the use of questions, discussion, interviews, and extension activities. I'm disappointed, however, that the course focused so heavily on Frederickson's work to the exclusion of others. While I understand that this is where she would feel the most comfortable and familiar, to start with her broaden-and-build theory and continually reference her lab's work, with the additional readings often being her books, it felt limited. I would have liked more of a discussion of the contributions of other psychologists like Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, Peterson, Diener, Lyubomirsky, etc. Along with that, it could have addressed topics other than emotions (or been titled The Positive Psychology of Emotions), like character strengths, flow, or institution change. I love the fact that this course exists, and it's a good foundation to build on, but it still feels too narrow to claim the title Positive Psychology. | it dynamic with the use of | Question | discussion, interviews, and extension activities. I'm | Positive | 0.88 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | Great course material for casual study. This class is not at all demanding but has a lot of useful materials that we can apply in our life. The quiz questions are too simple and obvious but I guess that is not the purpose of this course :) | apply in our life. The quiz | Question | are too simple and obvious but | Positive | 0.95 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | A good basic course for positive psychology. Really like the panel discussion and the interactive questions. Do find it is a bit too basic for people who are in the psychology field. But recommended for people who want an introduction to positive psychology. | the panel discussion and the interactive | Question | Do find it is a bit | Positive | 0.97 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | Really interesting and well presented videos. The quizzes were also well thought out with relevant questions without being too difficult. | also well thought out with relevant | Question | without being too difficult. | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| rNpCSyQbEeWXzxJxfIL00w | the set up for the course was choppy, with random intervals of questions. could definitely flow better | was choppy, with random intervals of | Question | could definitely flow better | Negative | -0.89 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | One of the best courses! Good in-lecture questions. :) | of the best courses! Good in-lecture | Question | :) | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | This course is excellent! I found the content of very high quality, the lecture videos are very clear and easy to understand. What I find remarkable however, is the quality of the exams and assignments! The staff have put in a lot of effort in creating questions and assignments which really test your understanding and knowledge with a clever marking system which always works out to give you a fair mark even when the assignments are peer reviewed. Well done to Anne-Marie and the other staff who put together this course :) | a lot of effort in creating | Question | and assignments which really test your | Negative | -0.92 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | I really enjoyed this course overall (and it was somewhat easy for me because I have some background in this already), but there were some technical issues especially regarding accessing assignments. It would be nice if there was a more robust group of volunteer tutors/teaching assistants or something to answer questions or deal with these technical issues, especially the final exam not working for a while for me and some other people. But, I enjoyed the illustrations (drawings) and cute examples, and also the lecturer did a pretty good job on camera. I would probably give this course a 4.5 if possible, but I am hesitant to give it a full 5 points because of the technical issues. Anyway I would recommend the course to someone who wants a survey of quantitative methods to prepare for future study. | tutors/teaching assistants or something to answer | Question | or deal with these technical issues, | Negative | -0.75 | 0.5 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | What can I say? Although it was a tough course but sometimes things were tough, it felt so incredibly fruitful each week. I think the main reason was because even though there were so many quizzes and the assignments which required so much time, they were carefully crafted in a way which helped build my abilities in a progressive manner. There was definitely a close alignment between instruction (video) and the assessments (quizzes/exams). You'll never be asked questions you weren't prepared to answer because of the aforesaid alignment. As I also work in a department which dabbles in educational research, I found the concepts thought in this course directly applicable to what's done in practice. Because the concepts were communicated so clearly, I could readily see examples of them in my everyday work! | assessments (quizzes/exams). You'll never be asked | Question | you weren't prepared to answer because | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The actual educational value of this course is quite high. The score I can offer it in good faith is dragged down by the additional "assignments" like "Write you own quiz question!" and the expectation to review the quiz questions thought up by other students. Such things in a scientific course are unnecessary and may actually be counterproductive because of the reliance upon other students and their grasp of the material. If they are to remain part of this course, they really should be treated as supplementary and not required to complete the course. It really detracts from the experience for those of us who come here to learn and not to socialize. | like " Write you own quiz | Question | " and the expectation to review | Negative | -0.7 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| rTTFFgb8EeWJMSIAC7Jl0w | The actual educational value of this course is quite high. The score I can offer it in good faith is dragged down by the additional "assignments" like "Write you own quiz question!" and the expectation to review the quiz questions thought up by other students. Such things in a scientific course are unnecessary and may actually be counterproductive because of the reliance upon other students and their grasp of the material. If they are to remain part of this course, they really should be treated as supplementary and not required to complete the course. It really detracts from the experience for those of us who come here to learn and not to socialize. | the expectation to review the quiz | Question | thought up by other students. Such | Negative | -0.73 | 0.0 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | Excellent class with a rich variety of instructors from multidisciplinary array of fields, lots of extra information and pretty much any question answered! | extra information and pretty much any | Question | answered! | Negative | -0.69 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.09 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | This was one of my first online courses and I think the lecturers did an excellent job of conveying the material especially through this medium. They were also quick to respond to any questions that I had about lectures. I loved the material they presented as well. Great Course. I would definitely recommend it. | also quick to respond to any | Question | that I had about lectures. I | Positive | 0.63 | 1.0 | 0.71 | 1.09 |
| SAZf_ay2EeS5uiIACk-Zyg | I liked the course, with its many different speakers and approaches. The one thing I missed the most was seeing the models in action. Even if the course isn't aimed at scientists or programmers, there are free online simulations where one can adjust model constants to see the effects interactively without any knowledge required. See NetLogo at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/, for which there are forest fire, disease spread in networks, cellular automatas and many other interactive simulations. Insight providing questions may involve finding the value of a parameter such as the epidemic can't spread, for instance. For more formula oriented optional exercises, I would recommend something similar to Differential Equations in Action from Udacity. It's a relatively easy course implementing the SIR model, physics and ABS. An exercise could be "modify the simulation to consider X% germs get resistant after each antibiotic treatment" (either in NetLogo, or Python). | many other interactive simulations. Insight providing | Question | may involve finding the value of | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1.09 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | It's good for undergraduates, and people returning to academia (say, before starting a Master's course). It's a very short simple introduction. I kind of wish it had more examples of language to use in academic writing, contrasting good and bad examples. Some of the quiz questions and final exam questions need some proofreading. The videos from about week 3 to 4 have poor sound quality, but still understandable. | bad examples. Some of the quiz | Question | and final exam questions need some | Negative | -0.65 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.84 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course provides a number of very useful tips for researchers, especially those whose first language is not English. There are a number of useful guides for new researchers to learn how to structure, phrase, and approach academic writing. However, there are also a few shortcomings of the course. Some of the material is overly subjective (giving rules for academic writing that are not necessarily applicable). Many of the assessment questions ask about issues which are either overly specific or simply incorrect (this is a very small percentage, but it is noticeable). The pace of the videos is also slow and oddly punctuated to the point that it can be difficult to follow at times. Finally, the course relies too heavily on academic writing for the hard sciences, rather than taking a broader approach, so some students may wish to keep this in mind when watching, as some advice may not be applicable to their own discipline. Overall, a recommended course for ESL academics, but could do with some improvement. | necessarily applicable). Many of the assessment | Question | ask about issues which are either | Positive | 0.72 | 0.0 | 0.81 | 0.84 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course lacks for the practice exersises. Instead, the quizes are full of questions like "Present Simple tense is used to write about a special study implemented by a well-known scientist. True or false". The questions of this type are pointless. Still, the videos sometimes contain useful information. | Instead, the quizes are full of | Question | like " Present Simple tense is | Positive | 0.82 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.84 |
| shV98lfdEeWT8xIUiEQHHQ | The course lacks for the practice exersises. Instead, the quizes are full of questions like "Present Simple tense is used to write about a special study implemented by a well-known scientist. True or false". The questions of this type are pointless. Still, the videos sometimes contain useful information. | scientist. True or false" . The | Question | of this type are pointless. Still, | Negative | -0.91 | -0.5 | 0.81 | 0.84 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | It is best to have a strong statistical background before taking this course. Lots of statistical calculations and procedures. If you don't have a strong background in statistics , there is a good chance you will get lost at some point in the course. There is no questions that the instructor of this course is an accomplished mathematician, I just found it hard to follow his lectures as he got deeper into various statistical aspects of the course. | in the course. There is no | Question | that the instructor of this course | Negative | -0.94 | -0.5 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The instructor should spend more time putting equations and concepts into concept, and tying them together. It often felt like values and questions were arbitrary. This is less about master data analysis in Excel, and more about gaining ground in a few key concepts, so the title is misleading as well. | It often felt like values and | Question | were arbitrary. This is less about | Negative | -0.9 | 0.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concepts here are useful and Mr. Egger is a knowledgeable instructor but 1) this class is really about gathering information with Excel as the tool - you aren't learning anything about Excel functionality, so the title of this course is really misleading if you just want to become a stronger user in Excel 2) there is a huge disconnect between the video lessons and the excel worksheets used to complete the assignments and since many previous reviewers mentioned this, it seems like that's not going to change. 3) the disconnect between the lessons and the assignments wouldn't be an issue if the instructor could be bothered to respond to forum questions. Mine sat unanswered for 5 days as the deadline passed. You are NOT going to get support if you dont understand something. | be bothered to respond to forum | Question | Mine sat unanswered for 5 days | Negative | -0.82 | -1.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | When the instructor for the course expresses amazement at the level of difficulty people are expressing in the forums that tells you a lot about how out of touch he is with what he is teaching and what is really required prerequisite knowledge. There is minimal actual instruction in excel-most often concepts are taught much like Khan Academy, on a digital blackboard. Nothing inherently wrong with that but when your course title has the word 'EXCEL' in it one would reasonably expect the instructor to actually demonstrate using excel. Nope, not here. If you've never heard of linear regression or Bayes Theorem don't bother with this course. Honestly. While those things may be easy to explain without the math they are very difficult concepts to implement and a simple 10 minute video won't clear the fog. You absolutely will not 'master' data analysis with this course. I've used Excel for over 15 years, daily, and to have the gall to say your course will 'master' something with a few videos is misleading and deceptive. If it wasn't for the TA/Mentors who do the lions share of work in the forums answering questions and deciphering the questions so students can understand them this course would be an abysmal failure. If you're wanting to jump on the data analysis/ scientist bandwagon look elsewhere. i.e. EdX has a great course on a true introduction to data analysis that is more in line with people's impression of actually using excel in that context. Now, having bashed the course I do believe the instructor to be a very competent and knowledgeable individual, but I feel he's been in academia too long and has grown accustomed to teaching those who've been in school continuously and still have algebra/ stats fresh in their minds vs. those who need to brush away the cobwebs. The course in more on the level of a 201 and in certain parts 401 level but not 101. | of work in the forums answering | Question | and deciphering the questions so students | Positive | 0.77 | -1.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | When the instructor for the course expresses amazement at the level of difficulty people are expressing in the forums that tells you a lot about how out of touch he is with what he is teaching and what is really required prerequisite knowledge. There is minimal actual instruction in excel-most often concepts are taught much like Khan Academy, on a digital blackboard. Nothing inherently wrong with that but when your course title has the word 'EXCEL' in it one would reasonably expect the instructor to actually demonstrate using excel. Nope, not here. If you've never heard of linear regression or Bayes Theorem don't bother with this course. Honestly. While those things may be easy to explain without the math they are very difficult concepts to implement and a simple 10 minute video won't clear the fog. You absolutely will not 'master' data analysis with this course. I've used Excel for over 15 years, daily, and to have the gall to say your course will 'master' something with a few videos is misleading and deceptive. If it wasn't for the TA/Mentors who do the lions share of work in the forums answering questions and deciphering the questions so students can understand them this course would be an abysmal failure. If you're wanting to jump on the data analysis/ scientist bandwagon look elsewhere. i.e. EdX has a great course on a true introduction to data analysis that is more in line with people's impression of actually using excel in that context. Now, having bashed the course I do believe the instructor to be a very competent and knowledgeable individual, but I feel he's been in academia too long and has grown accustomed to teaching those who've been in school continuously and still have algebra/ stats fresh in their minds vs. those who need to brush away the cobwebs. The course in more on the level of a 201 and in certain parts 401 level but not 101. | forums answering questions and deciphering the | Question | so students can understand them this | Negative | -0.64 | -1.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | Concepts are fantastic but the material developed to deliver the course is short of expectations, especially from a university. Excel sheets do not match what is demonstrated in video lectures, lots of confusion around how to complete tasks, quiz answer options not being correct, and missing Excel spreadsheets (e.g. video lecture says to refer to accompanying excel spreadsheet, but no spreadsheet available). Also, judging from past discussions by students, some inconsistencies around formulas being presented in video lectures versus assignment questions. could have been a great course, but the inconsistencies have made is very disappointing. | presented in video lectures versus assignment | Question | could have been a great course, | Negative | -0.94 | -1.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | I would like to have more example, it feels there is mostly theory. The quizzes were super easy, I dropped out at final project, I couldn't get through the first questions. The course (and especially the final project) requires a good basis in statistics beforehand. The assistants are super helpful and patient. | I couldn't get through the first | Question | The course (and especially the final | Negative | -0.67 | 0.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| SpO4HBnoEeWjrA6seF25aw | In the course info this is described as the first course in the series and that it requires no prior knowledge but the first week quiz contains questions referring to an equation 'discussed in the previous course'. | but the first week quiz contains | Question | referring to an equation 'discussed in | Positive | 0.63 | -1.0 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| 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 | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | It's a good course, with quite a bit for a newbie to learn. Would have appreciated more in-depth examples in the lectures though, as I often found a gap in the lectures and the questions asked in the quiz. Even otherwise, good stuff. | gap in the lectures and the | Question | asked in the quiz. Even otherwise, | Negative | -0.64 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The lecture was quite good but some questions of the quiz made me confused, maybe it can be written in a different expression. | lecture was quite good but some | Question | of the quiz made me confused, | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The tests were not upto the mark, where the questions were not very logical and the options were confusing. | not upto the mark, where the | Question | were not very logical and the | Negative | -0.85 | -1.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | I like the course but currently it has some issues. First and foremost problem is tests. There are some questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some questions require to know the information that is discussed later in course and so on. Also the lectures are quite short. Other than that course gives very nice introduction into using the spreadsheets in modelling | questions that allow ambiguous interpretation, some | Question | require to know the information that | Positive | 0.75 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | Frankly speaking, it should be the most disappointing MOOC I have ever enrolled so far. The Professor's teaching is clear and comprehensible but the depth of the course content cannot meet the university level, especially from a worldwide renowned school like Wharton. Quiz is the most terrible part which seems like nobody could get it because of the ambiguous questions and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, like many other mates, am really grateful to Coursera for offering everyone this equal opportunity. But courses with that kind of quality but staggering price will destroy the company's brand. We all want Coursera to go further and better, but few people prefer monopoly businessman rather than prestigious professors and diligent intellectuals. | get it because of the ambiguous | Question | and paranoid answer area. Personally, I, | Positive | 0.66 | -1.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | 1st 3 weeks were helpful but questions of the quiz were unclear & improvement is really necessary but still an ok course for basic learners.It could be much better | 1st 3 weeks were helpful but | Question | of the quiz were unclear & | Negative | -0.65 | -0.5 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | not advanced calculus! Also, there were | Question | on the quiz that weren't even | Negative | -0.75 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | What to say about this course? On the one hand, I learned a lot which merits the three stars. On the other hand, the quizzes were very poorly designed. It took me the maximum three tries on every single quiz to pass and I did just barely. Hey, this is EXCEL, not advanced calculus! Also, there were questions on the quiz that weren't even covered in the particular module. E.g., on quiz #1, there was a question about "objective functions" which the instructor didn't explain until the last course module. There were times when I questioned my own sanity until I read in the course discussions that others were experiencing the same issues. Before presenting this course again, TEST, TEST, TEST the quizzes and answers!! And if you're not going to allow for a range of correct answers or formatting variances, then change all questions to multiple choice where there's (maybe) a fighting chance of passing. I am immensely relieved this course is done and I can move on to the next one in the specialization--hoping it's better organized as was the Fundamentals course that Richard Waterman taught. I was fearful that a course in Excel was going to doom me for the rest of the specialization. Last recommendation: improve the presentation materials. Provide more details for reference purposes. Okay, I'm going to go relax, now, to recover from this trying experience.... | on quiz #1, there was a | Question | about " objective functions" which the | Negative | -0.81 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course was very average to me. Compared to the first course in the specialization, Fundamentals of Quantitative Modeling, which was absolutely great. What I liked: Good info on the tools in excel that are needed. What I didn't like: Time spent on content that necessarily wasn't regarding models; the critical material was buried in videos and was very brief. More time should have been spent. Additionally the quiz questions were subjective at times based on what was said on video and the formula answers weren't correctly graded in many cases. This course could have been much better, maybe I was just spoiled by the first course. | have been spent. Additionally the quiz | Question | were subjective at times based on | Negative | -0.68 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | This course needs a total overhaul; in its current state it is a detriment to both Coursera and the Wharton Online brand. First, there was relatively little content; there was less than an hour of lectures each week and no actual programming involved. Second, the material was pitched at a very basic level, but not in a good way. Third, the tests didn't manage to even test the material being covered. For example, when given a mean and stdev, when asked to find a value, often the lecture would use an approximation ( i.e., a 2-tailed 95% distributed = 2.00 std devs. ) This is a class on excel: there is NO excuse for not introducing norm.s.inv and norm.s.dist when asking that question. When the test required the "approximation" rather than the exact calculation? Everything about this course was wrong, it needs to be scrapped and thrown away. | norm. s. dist when asking that | Question | When the test required the " | Positive | 0.78 | -1.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| tAfppJ3KEeWoKRLkmmHLTQ | The exam answers were not clear.... The were questions not related to the videos. This was an excel course and no excels were available to download, just PDF. In the other two courses (Quantitative Modeling and Accounting Analytics) the excels were explained and available for download. This was an excel course and no excels available..... | clear. . . . The were | Question | not related to the videos. This | Negative | -0.71 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.93 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This class is very easy. It is a decent introduction, but has very little content. It is clearly made to be accessible to people from all around the world, and takes the content very slowly. The test questions ask you to recite information from the video lectures and reading, rather than thinking critically. It seems like they are just trying to make sure you watched/read the content and understood it, rather than making sure you acquired the knowledge. I guess it would be hard to grade essay questions in a class this big, but the content could go a little faster. | the content very slowly. The test | Question | ask you to recite information from | Positive | 0.83 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This class is very easy. It is a decent introduction, but has very little content. It is clearly made to be accessible to people from all around the world, and takes the content very slowly. The test questions ask you to recite information from the video lectures and reading, rather than thinking critically. It seems like they are just trying to make sure you watched/read the content and understood it, rather than making sure you acquired the knowledge. I guess it would be hard to grade essay questions in a class this big, but the content could go a little faster. | would be hard to grade essay | Question | in a class this big, but | Negative | -0.97 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Love the pace of the course. The short videos. The summary. The essential question is the best part of the course triggering the need for getting deeper into analyzing what I am learning. | short videos. The summary. The essential | Question | is the best part of the | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | The teachers are clear and offer insight into the correct way students should be learning language. The essential questions offer a great way to stimulate critical thought and helps in the digestion of the material. | should be learning language. The essential | Question | offer a great way to stimulate | Positive | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Wonderful course. I enjoyed it very much, especially all the advice and the question at the end of each week. I encourage whoever wishes to teach English to participate. | especially all the advice and the | Question | at the end of each week. | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Amazing teachers, valuable information and top-quality materials! Thanks so much for making this course - I gained a lot from it, especially from giving and receiving feedback from fellow students. The only thing I didn't enjoy much are some questions in the tests because sometimes they seem a bit irrelevant. I would recommend making the tests a bit more to the point and reducing the amount of questions:) Thanks for your work!!! | I didn't enjoy much are some | Question | in the tests because sometimes they | Negative | -0.96 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | Well organised and helpful material. The lessons were easy to follow and posed thought provoking questions. Good for seasoned professionals and beginners. | to follow and posed thought provoking | Question | Good for seasoned professionals and beginners. | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This course has great videos. I give it such a low rating to get your attention and point out some serious problems. This is a certification course in how to teach English as a second language. What was not apparent to me though is that you have to take 2 parts of the specialization before getting certified and it will take over a year! Also, there is close to no teacher participation in the module I took and there are no mentors or student teachers (that might change in future classes I would hope, but no guarantees) and there was close to zero feedback of my work or even in the discussion area and no authoritative feedback. Even the peer reviews require your classmates ONLY to judge you based on whether you actually tried to answer the question, if it was between one and three paragraphs and one other silly thing that I can't even remember now. No one is required to give actual feedback and a lot of the assignments were written by students in horrendous English, but that is not to be considered. With so many people taking this course for whom English is not a first language, even these very simple instructions were often misunderstood and people had problems with getting credit for their assignments. Also, even though the videos are really well-done, they are short and contain little information for the price. I figured that I was paying about $50 an hour for the lectures at regular speed. There are also little to no resource links etc. for further study so the lectures are pretty much the only thing you get. If you are a native English speaker who doesn't mind spending an entire year and the cost for well-done videos on the subject is not important, then this course if for you. If however you think this is going to cost only $200 and you would have interaction with teachers and you would get a certification in about half a year... I want to make sure you realize, that is NOT what this specialization is! If you are NOT a native English speaker, this course is designed well I think for people who do not speak English as a native language, who might even have a low level of English, yet who are teaching English already in foreign countries and would have difficulty acquiring certification any other way and therefore don't mind taking a full year to complete the course or the price and for whom not having someone give them feedback would be considered an asset. I have recommended it to friends who are not native speakers of English, but as a native speaker I found it slow, expensive and the assignments to be actually annoying. It's perfect though for my foreigner friends... as long as they understand it's real length and cost! THE CERTIFICATION WILL TAKE OVER A YEAR AND COST AROUND $400. | you actually tried to answer the | Question | if it was between one and | Negative | -0.95 | -1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | I learned some great techniques in this course, one in particular is to the 80/20 rule. Language teachers should allow learners to talk more, and teachers talk less! My only drawback is that I could not see my own responses to Essential Questions or feedback from my peers. | see my own responses to Essential | Question | or feedback from my peers. | Positive | 0.79 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This was a very interesting module, other than giving out imporant information to question ourselves as language teacher it encouraged us to think again and review how is it that we are really performing as teachers, are we asking the right questions? are we thinking of the best ways to enroll our students on leargning languages? are we wnjoying our labour? All of the lessons provided not only gave information to improve our classes but gave us the opportunity to wonder what can we do better and how can we be better as teachers. Thank you! | than giving out imporant information to | Question | ourselves as language teacher it encouraged | Positive | 0.72 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| TIDJWBwuEeWP9g4JMjGIiQ | This was a very interesting module, other than giving out imporant information to question ourselves as language teacher it encouraged us to think again and review how is it that we are really performing as teachers, are we asking the right questions? are we thinking of the best ways to enroll our students on leargning languages? are we wnjoying our labour? All of the lessons provided not only gave information to improve our classes but gave us the opportunity to wonder what can we do better and how can we be better as teachers. Thank you! | teachers, are we asking the right | Question | are we thinking of the best | Positive | 0.79 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Very interesting course that provides a comprehensive, yet accessible, account of the global financial crisis as well as of its causes and consequences. Both Prof. Metrick and Mr. Geithner do a great job in explaining the materials using clear slides and easily understandable graphics and figures. The course setup is also clear and can easily be completed. The quizzes offer a good opportunity to keep track of the course contents (maybe extend them to 3-4 questions instead of just 2?). Perhaps a comprehensive final exam reviewing the materials of all prior weeks would be sensible, as one might have forgotten what topics were discussed in week 1 or 2 while learning the contents of week 11. | contents (maybe extend them to 3-4 | Question | instead of just 2? ). Perhaps | Negative | -0.9 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.09 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Excellent course. However, lots of unanswered questions of students are still pending. | Excellent course. However, lots of unanswered | Question | of students are still pending. | Positive | 0.84 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.09 |
| tjqUXz-5EeWpogr5ZO8qxQ | Excellent speakers with excellent organizations on course content. Could not wait for more courses from Prof Andrew. However, is there any one who could help clear the questions raised in the forum? Thank you. | one who could help clear the | Question | raised in the forum? Thank you. | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.09 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | I have already completed 3 modules, and I just love this course. The program, the videos and the quizes are all very well designed, the exam questions although a bit of higher level compared to the theory exposed, makes you think in real physiology and that's really great. You can see that this course is planned and designed with the real objective of teaching you physiology, and you can see the effort that's been placed here by both teachers in order to make this happen. So congratulations to both of you and to the University of Duke. Great job in general terms. | all very well designed, the exam | Question | although a bit of higher level | Positive | 0.99 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | participation in the forum and answering | Question | on every subject. I was amazed | Positive | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | luxury of teachers replying to your | Question | and this actually motivated me to | Negative | -0.64 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | And yes, come up with new | Question | :) By the end of the | Negative | -0.73 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | The effect of this course in understanding the body physiology and understanding the terminology of other courses can be compared to learning to read. Now I can take other, more specialized courses without having to Google every other word and actually understand the processes they're talking about instead of simply memorizing them. Especially, now that I am taking several other courses, I have the opportunity to appreciate the depth clever systematic approach to explain such complex processes of our body. Sometimes I got the feeling that I lack some background as many terms used to explain processes were not explained. But that was greatly compensated by teachers' and mentors' participation in the forum and answering questions on every subject. I was amazed that such free course offers the luxury of teachers replying to your questions, and this actually motivated me to study even more diligently. And yes, come up with new questions :) By the end of the course not all my questions were answered, but on the other side, without this course I never would even think of asking those questions about work of human body! Such great interest and inquiry have you wakened in me, thank you very much! I would like to note that the course used a wonderful array of tools to create understanding of the subject. One of the best was storytelling by Dr. Jakoi. Stories in the best way to learn as theoretical information is related to real-life situations, and in fact, I remembered all stories that she told, like stories about her son who had high parasympathetic tone, about guy who drank too much water to remove kidney stone, etc. Along with remembering the stories, I remembered the information it was about. One more thing I would like to note is that I liked your tests and practice quizzes. Not all courses have practice questions after the lessons and it’s excellent way to memorize info. Also, quizzes include tasks of application of knowledge in some practical situations - makes you think and analyze the info to explain real-life phenomena. It’s difficult to correctly reply to such questions only relying on information: you need understanding of the process. In this way, these are excellent quizzes. So thank you very much for such high quality educative course, it helped me a lot! | quizzes. Not all courses have practice | Question | after the lessons and it’s excellent | Positive | 0.77 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 |
| Tr9rK6JtEeSwKiIACiONVg | I would like to rate this fabulous course as excellent under Dr. Emma Jakoi and Dr. Jennifer Carbrey, brilliant instructersThank you very much for all the kind explanation given for my questions, and good video quizzes, enjoyable problem sets and mind provoking exams. Regards and lots of thanks. Indira Raghunathan | the kind explanation given for my | Question | and good video quizzes, enjoyable problem | Negative | -0.77 | 1.0 | 0.77 | 1.2 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | I wish they spent more time on the content of videos and less on the silly effects and 30-second intro and outro sequences. Practically every question of the final comes word-for-word from a book not assigned in the module readings and not available for free to students for them to study. I won't be taking any other courses from this school if this course was an indication of quality. | intro and outro sequences. Practically every | Question | of the final comes word-for-word from | Positive | 0.89 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Could have utilized video lectures more. Questions on final exam did not seem to relate to materials covered in course. Course seems to just comprise 1 or 2 minute long video lectures and then direct students to vast amounts of online reading material. | Could have utilized video lectures more. | Question | on final exam did not seem | Negative | -0.84 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The course content does not follow the exam question is totally different what you learn from the two-minute video. You need to have the background in the field. This course should have gone through the beta test before release to the public. | content does not follow the exam | Question | is totally different what you learn | Negative | -0.72 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | Video content barely summarizes the outline of each module. The questions in the quiz are not "though provoking". Peer discussion are rather superficial and do not cover half the content of the course. Readings are OK, show good sources, but there is no real discussion about them in the videos or in the quizzes. | the outline of each module. The | Question | in the quiz are not " | Positive | 0.73 | -1.0 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | It's not exactly I was expecting. It covers lot of theory part. Some practical work in coding and security practicles would have added more value. I enjoyed the some material pdf suggested. However, I didn't liked "Accordingly to Microsoft" question and material. It was made 10 years back. Course content must be updated and more invovled tasks or discussions with Course makers. It looks like some videos are once made and kept as it is. I never saw actual teachers teaching something in this course, just browsing, reading and eassy writing. | didn't liked " Accordingly to Microsoft" | Question | and material. It was made 10 | Negative | -0.73 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The videos and documents are not balanced with the quizzes. The quiz questions are sometimes verbatim sentences from one book with a missing word - which I find hardly a test of acquired knowledge. The course must rise above only a few definitions and rough concepts. Most of the video's hardly offer insights - they last only 2 minutes and cover a few of those definitions. This course has a lot of potential, but in its current format and content it was a disappointment. | balanced with the quizzes. The quiz | Question | are sometimes verbatim sentences from one | Positive | 0.67 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | The lectures were too heavy on Industry experts who quickly covered the important topics. I have taken many technology and business courses on Coursera with one or two professors covering the important content accented with industry and subject matter expert interviews. This format works best for consistency and learning, IMHO.. A student who is not in the Cybersecurity field will not gain insight into the meat of the material from the lectures. The final exam question material is almost exclusively absent in the lectures. One is required to read the cited material to gain the required information | from the lectures. The final exam | Question | material is almost exclusively absent in | Negative | -0.64 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| tWgmnb03EeS5IyIACyCAHg | One of the absolute worst final exams I've ever seen. Vague questions coupled with synonymous answers form a frustrating experience that ruins an otherwise decent entry in security topics. | final exams I've ever seen. Vague | Question | coupled with synonymous answers form a | Negative | -0.94 | -0.5 | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | Great content and great teacher. But I found the assignments and the quizzes not that great. I reckon the questions and corrections were a bit subjective and time consuming. | not that great. I reckon the | Question | and corrections were a bit subjective | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.99 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The material was interesting and the professor was engaging to watch. But unlike other Coursera courses, I never did see any replies from a staff member to any of the questions posted on the forums. Other professors on Coursera reply to threads themselves or have a TA reply for them. I understand that one person may not be able to reply to all threads if the forum is active. But at least those asking questions to get clarification about the assignments should be answered. The class forum was not very active during this session and could have been easily watched more closely by one person. | staff member to any of the | Question | posted on the forums. Other professors | Negative | -0.82 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.99 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | The material was interesting and the professor was engaging to watch. But unlike other Coursera courses, I never did see any replies from a staff member to any of the questions posted on the forums. Other professors on Coursera reply to threads themselves or have a TA reply for them. I understand that one person may not be able to reply to all threads if the forum is active. But at least those asking questions to get clarification about the assignments should be answered. The class forum was not very active during this session and could have been easily watched more closely by one person. | active. But at least those asking | Question | to get clarification about the assignments | Negative | -0.93 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.99 |
| urbm-CT-EeWCGRL6mLoB5w | Great way to introduce the business of games. Gave me a very thorough understanding of the biggest questions one has about how money works in the industry. | very thorough understanding of the biggest | Question | one has about how money works | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.66 | 0.99 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | The astronomy course exceeded my expectations. I learned a great deal from the video lectures and the astrpoedia textbook. I was surprised that preparing for the essay questions was also a good source for added knowledge in researching for the assignments. I am indebted to Chris Impey for the excellent lectures and course. Everything was well presented and explained well but I could not get up to understand much of the last lesson – Life in the Universe. In summary, great course and recommend it without reservations. Kudos and thanks to Chris Impey. | surprised that preparing for the essay | Question | was also a good source for | Positive | 0.87 | 1.0 | 1.09 | 1.23 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | This course is bad! I had come upto week 4. While Chris Impey is knowledgeable and good, the course structure is very poor and leaves a lot to be desired. I would venture to make some suggestions: a. Restrict each video to a max of 7 minutes. More than that makes one sleepy. b. Reduce the number of videos in each module to a max of say 6. c. Instead of having Chris expound it like an audio reading, please include some slides, pictures,tables so that the matter to be learnt becomes self evident and Chris doesn't have to speak so much. A good example is the Coursera "The Global Financial Crisis", which I am also doing currently. d. If you feel all the material in this course has to be studied, then to achieve the objectives in (a) and (b) above, divide this course into two parts, Astronomy: Exploring Time and Space - part I & II. e. The written assignments are very simple and do not require any mental resources other than memory. Can you make the questions more challenging? For example, in Telescopes (Assignment 2), can you not ask a question like "In addition to Atacama, Chile, using Google earth, which other parts of the globe may be suitable for installation of ground based telescopes?" or "To obviate the blurring effect of the atmosphere, discuss the possibility of high altitude balloon based telescopes?" or "What do you feel about the fact that since today's mobile phones have high computing ability, their components can be used to make a low-cost space based interferometric telescopes?" Kudos to Chris and his team! On the whole, knowledge wise, this is a good course. | than memory. Can you make the | Question | more challenging? For example, in Telescopes | Negative | -0.65 | -1.0 | 1.09 | 1.23 |
| usIwBhODEeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Well organized and informative. Really nice to ask questions of Dr Impey live on Google+ every 2 weeks or so. If you want to know everything we know about the Universe in a understandable summary, this is the course for you. | and informative. Really nice to ask | Question | of Dr Impey live on Google+ | Positive | 0.66 | 1.0 | 1.09 | 1.23 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | I have so far, loved the examples given in this course ! The teacher gets you to be very interactive by asking you to answer some questions in the videos. The subject is interesting, and the way the courses are is a good way to make you quick learn about it. | by asking you to answer some | Question | in the videos. The subject is | Negative | -0.63 | 1.0 | 0.49 | 1.13 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The way professor Mr. G. Siedel conducted the course is very practical and useful. Invites always to "think about answers" to complex questions and his new approaching techniques to negotiate with success are truly useful to analyze your behave negotiating, and therefore , improve in the negotiation techniques and knowledge of tools and different approaches to a negotiation. | " think about answers" to complex | Question | and his new approaching techniques to | Positive | 0.91 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 1.13 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Because of this course, I am more aware of opportunities to negotiate in my every day interactions with others. I enjoyed Professor Siedel's teaching style. He gets you to think on a deeper level, especially when he poses questions and presents scenarios. The course material is framed in a comprehensive manner. In hindsight, this course on negotiation has shown me how much of a poor negotiator I was. However, I now feel more empowered by what I've learned. | deeper level, especially when he poses | Question | and presents scenarios. The course material | Positive | 0.91 | 1.0 | 0.49 | 1.13 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | The course is very and very good and usefull, but it's easier for the attendants to take the quiz by the end of each Module and do the final test shorter (about 10-15 questions are enough) | the final test shorter (about 10-15 | Question | are enough) | Positive | 0.63 | 1.0 | 0.49 | 1.13 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Excellent content. I felt elevated in this area and can enter any negotiation with confidence. I loved the Professor, he kept it interesting an I always had to keep my paper an pen close to answer his quick questions. EXCELLENT!!!!! | pen close to answer his quick | Question | EXCELLENT! ! ! ! ! | Positive | 0.86 | 1.0 | 0.49 | 1.13 |
| v0l76HmGEeSi3yIACzSGcw | Interesting, focused on relevant matters, practical. Enriched with many examples and one involving practical exercise. I would have appreciated questions after each lesson block. | practical exercise. I would have appreciated | Question | after each lesson block. | Positive | 0.67 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 1.13 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Course is interesting and provides basic knowledge of the subject. But often the tests require more information than provided in the questions or lectures. Also very less help is provided in the forums. | more information than provided in the | Question | or lectures. Also very less help | Positive | 0.95 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| 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 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course, was really bad structured, was often the discrepancy between the information provided in the videos and the questions in the Quiz. Also a lot of time the system was very picky to take an answer like correct, just because the format used, for example e!=E in one equation, and because this was necessary a lot of guessing in order to find how the system take the answer by correct. But really the worst was the discrepancy between the video and the quiz, because my impression is that the videos were cut to fix in the time, but they were cut a lot, missing important information to be used in the quiz. | provided in the videos and the | Question | in the Quiz. Also a lot | Positive | 0.85 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | most quizzes had 5 or more | Question | which is not the case, most | Negative | -0.65 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | the quizzes have 4 or less | Question | This is such an unreasonable requirement, | Negative | -0.65 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | requirement, if you miss only one | Question | in a quiz with 3 questions | Negative | -0.75 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | question in a quiz with 3 | Question | there's already no chance to pass | Negative | -0.78 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | trivia, a considerable number of the | Question | are very superficially related to not | Positive | 0.76 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | that is never shown in the | Question | itself, only briefly shown in the | Negative | -0.77 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | there was no information in the | Question | itself to narrow down the possible | Negative | -0.98 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This is the worst course online I've done so far. I would not recommend it to anyone as it stands, regardless of the student's background, this course is just poor and lacking. The premise of this course is a promising one, the topic is still in its infancy and seems very interesting. Having said that, this is about everything positive that I can say about this course. For starters, the videos seem good at first, but later it becomes very superficial and monotone. The content is many times just rushed through and it's visible that the lecturers at several occasions have difficulty even to read their own slides! However, the worst part of the course are the quizzes. There are 24 graded quizzes in total, to pass the course you need to pass all 24 of them! To make matters worse, the minimum passing marks for each quiz is 80%, that wouldn't have been such an issue if most quizzes had 5 or more questions, which is not the case, most of the quizzes have 4 or less questions. This is such an unreasonable requirement, if you miss only one question in a quiz with 3 questions there's already no chance to pass the course! The content of each quiz is also very troublesome, we are essentially being graded for trivia, a considerable number of the questions are very superficially related to not related at all to the subject of each lecture. Instead of using the questions to delve deeper into the topic at hand, they only create confusion with futilities. A little example, the topic of a subject was about the mechanical properties of using multiple templates and a question in its quiz was about an electric circuit that is never shown in the question itself, only briefly shown in the lecture video for about 10s, minimal information is given without any explanation of what they mean and we are asked to enter a formula as the answer for which also almost no information is given about which notation we should use for the formula itself. There are other cases where there are multiple choice questions which have incorrect answers accepted by the grader. In one instance, two of the options available are contradictory to each other, however the accepted answer was the one involving both. In another instance, there was more than one solution available to an answer, however the grader accepted only one and there was no information in the question itself to narrow down the possible answers to the desired one. Finally, there is no active community by the TA and professors, I have never had a single answer form a TA or professor, only sporadical replies from a mentor, who has no authority to fix any issue by him or herself. All these issues just point to how poorly this course was designed. It had such high hopes, but they fell short flat. In doing this course, I found myself reverse engineering most of the questions just to try to find an accepted answer and try to understand what it meant. The imposed 8-hour period between attempts at the quizzes only hindered my progress. I was focused and engaged in studying for each quiz, however, after 3 failed attempts I had an imposed break period that makes little sense. In the end, this course only made me feel like the very object of my learning: a robot. I am really disappointed with this course. | myself reverse engineering most of the | Question | just to try to find an | Negative | -0.76 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | that we simply don't understand the | Question | or a question is answered correctly | Negative | -0.65 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course | don't understand the question, or a | Question | is answered correctly in essence , | Positive | 0.63 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Despite the arguments of this module are extremely interesting and very useful for Robotics, I think the way they are treated is very poor. In my opinion lectures are so superficial that it is almost a waste of time to follow them. Lectures are completely useless and most of the time quizzes are note related with them. In order to solve quizzes you have not only to recover prior knowledge, that it is obvious, but also to search for new arguments somwhere in the web, in some other courses where contents are better treated and explained. In that contest what are the quizzes, what should quizzes have to test if no content is given? Moreover it often happen that without a clear support from the lectures, questions are confused and ambiguous. It is quite difficult to follow the teaching path and to enrich my knowledge. I think it is a very bad way to make a course and often the pleasure to follow disappears leaving a sense of frustration and futility. I arrived at the end of the course just because I'm doing the specialization otherwise I would have left in the middle of the first week. I'm very disappointed. | a clear support from the lectures, | Question | are confused and ambiguous. It is | Positive | 0.97 | -1.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | Good teachers but a lot of questions in the quizzes were very ambiguous and unrelated to the Course Content. | Good teachers but a lot of | Question | in the quizzes were very ambiguous | Positive | 0.74 | 0.0 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course helped me identify my interest at the intersection of biomechanics and robotics. The lectures were very motivating which gave a birds eye view of the background and research in mobility of legged robots. While watching the lectures, I expected programming assignments involving simulation of dynamics and control of the templates and further perform compositions with them but didn't find them much. In a few assignments, the wording of the questions was ambiguous or the grader accepted only certain answers; hence, consumed a lot of time. However, the TAs were very helpful in clearing most of the doubts very quickly which also made solving the assignments easier. Further, it provided references to abundant resources to steer the student in the right direction to pursue specific interests. Overall, this four-week course provided a very good intuitive understanding of the dynamics and control of legged mobility in animals and robots. | few assignments, the wording of the | Question | was ambiguous or the grader accepted | Negative | -0.75 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course is a disappointment after the previous two courses in the specialisation. It tries to cover too many topics. As a result it provides a shallow introduction to many topics rather than deep coverage of any one topic. I do not feel I have learnt anything of substance. Many of the assignment questions are poorly written. To name one example, assignment 3.1.1 question 3 has at least three correct answers, but the grader accepts only one of them. I wasted hours trying to work out why it was marking my answer wrong. The lectures by the TAs are delivered in a "robotic" tone if you'll pardon the pun. They are reading off an autocue and it shows. | of substance. Many of the assignment | Question | are poorly written. To name one | Negative | -1.0 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | This course is a disappointment after the previous two courses in the specialisation. It tries to cover too many topics. As a result it provides a shallow introduction to many topics rather than deep coverage of any one topic. I do not feel I have learnt anything of substance. Many of the assignment questions are poorly written. To name one example, assignment 3.1.1 question 3 has at least three correct answers, but the grader accepts only one of them. I wasted hours trying to work out why it was marking my answer wrong. The lectures by the TAs are delivered in a "robotic" tone if you'll pardon the pun. They are reading off an autocue and it shows. | one example, assignment 3. 1. 1 | Question | 3 has at least three correct | Negative | -0.91 | -0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v8BCQVu-EeWzUQ41NnCQkQ | The course served as a great introduction to legged robots and the templates that anchor them. The teaching staff was also very responsive to questions on the discussions forum which was immensely helpful. | staff was also very responsive to | Question | on the discussions forum which was | Positive | 0.99 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | I have taken many courses on Coursera now, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from most of them, but I have to admit I was disappointed with this one, despite having a deep interest in modern art and art theory. Here are some of my criticisms: 1. The course is aimed at teachers and art educators, which was not made at all clear on the course info page, apart from a single reference to the 'pedagogical framework'. If I'd understood this, I may well not have enrolled. 2. I found the course very basic, with no consideration of art theory beyond a level appropriate for classroom discussion. This is in contrast to many other Coursera courses, which have been pitched at graduate level or above. I don't really feel like I learned anything on this course. 3. The video lectures are very short and uninformative, but the weekly reading list is very long and much more time consuming that the actual tuition. I would have preferred a better balance between tutorials and reading. 4. The weekly quizzes were very short (six questions, where other courses typically have 20 to 30 questions per module), and and questions focus almost entirely on the pedagogical set texts, with very little attention paid to the art history or the works discussed in the tutorials. If you are not going to be tested on the material, what is the point of all that required reading? 5. The final peer-assessed assignment is lacking in instructions or guidance. For example, you are required to upload images of 3 or 4 artworks and discuss them. It is in fact impossible to upload more than a single image, but there are no instructions on what to do about this. People found various workarounds - uploading pdfs or Word documents, or zipped folders of images, but really, there should be some official guidance on this. 6. Comments made when assessing other students' work are not anonymous - this is unique in my Coursera experience, where anonymous marking is the norm, and knowing how fractious people can get when they are disappointed with their grade, I am not at all happy about having my name made available to them. Overall, the only reason I persisted with this course is that I wanted to get a certificate with MoMA written on it. Too bad I couldn't have actually learned something as well. | courses typically have 20 to 30 | Question | per module), and and questions focus | Negative | -0.69 | 0.0 | 0.66 | 0.87 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The information, videos, links additional reading do provide important information. However this course is aimed at teachers and that is not clear from the title and much less with the small amount of articles that are related to teaching. This course also has lots of issues with its quizzes; getting no support from staff on technical matters or feed back on why a true or false questions is always wrong. | on why a true or false | Question | is always wrong. | Positive | 0.77 | 0.0 | 0.66 | 0.87 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | and assignment is just awful. The | Question | with multiple choice work wrong: marking | Negative | -1.0 | -0.5 | 0.66 | 0.87 |
| v9CQdBkhEeWjrA6seF25aw | The concept of this course is unique and pretty interesting, but videos are too short, basic and non-specific, they have vague connection with the rest of the materials. And the design of the tests and assignment is just awful. The questions with multiple choice work wrong: marking all the right answers is not appropriate, you must choose the "all of the above" option, but it is wrong because of formal logic. The correct option here is only to match all the answers and the "all of the above" line. Also many questions are debatable, and there is no answers in the materials for the course. And, finally, the uploading of the last assignment was just impossible for more than a week, and I don't know if it will ever be possible. Bad experience. | of the above" line. Also many | Question | are debatable, and there is no | Negative | -0.78 | -0.5 | 0.66 | 0.87 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | The information is fascinating and the instructor is very interesting. It's a great course!! The only drawbacks are that there is so much reading to do (but you can succeed in the course and only do as much of the reading as you want to) and the 70 question final exam (but given that you can take it as many times as you want you can get any grade that you're willing to put in the time for). All in all I highly recommend this course. | you want to) and the 70 | Question | final exam (but given that you | Negative | -0.66 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.16 |
| V9_aHBU7EeWfzgpfp_iBVw | Very informative course. Mr. Picker also responds quickly to questions posted/asked. I would love for a special edition, to focus on law in the EU/UK | Mr. Picker also responds quickly to | Question | posted/asked. I would love for a | Positive | 0.98 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.16 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | Readings were not necessary for the course and quizzes were extremely difficult, seeming to be worded in an attempt to stump students, and many questions were not from the course lessons. Videos very dry and boring. | attempt to stump students, and many | Question | were not from the course lessons. | Negative | -0.91 | -0.5 | 1.02 | 1.05 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | is poor. There were numerous quiz | Question | that I think they just had | Negative | -1.0 | -0.5 | 1.02 | 1.05 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is useful, but the execution is poor. There were numerous quiz questions that I think they just had coded wrong on their end. I think they need to carefully look at the questions with the most incorrect answers and ask themselves if they've made a mistake. Also, this might be the first time they've tried making a peer-reviewed project part of the course, but they did a poor job. They made it a homework assignment for week 2, but didn't make it clear that it wasn't due until the end of the course, even though Coursera sends you emails saying it's due soon. This caused a great deal of confusion. Some of the required readings also had broken links. It's odd nobody on their end checked those the week the material was taught. They do provide a lot of useful supplemental material (though often pay-walled). | need to carefully look at the | Question | with the most incorrect answers and | Positive | 0.86 | -0.5 | 1.02 | 1.05 |
| vrTPjkqzEeWB9g55-yieoQ | The material is a bit dry, but it's essential to writing effective survey questions. The course is well designed and easy to follow. Thanks to the University of Michigan and the University of Maryland for offering this interesting course. I hope to see additional offerings in survey research methods from these professors in the future. | it's essential to writing effective survey | Question | The course is well designed and | Positive | 0.96 | 0.5 | 1.02 | 1.05 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | I found much of the content to be interesting and timely. However, I thought the quizzes were poorly written. There was no feedback, so as a learner it was hard to grow from errors. Also, there were many that required more than one answer, if you missed one, you missed entire question. Without feedback, it was difficult to know which one you missed. The week 4 lesson content was a bit dense for an introductory course. It was dry and could've been more global. Last, the large lesson assignment was only graded by peers with no feedback from the instructor. | you missed one, you missed entire | Question | Without feedback, it was difficult to | Negative | -0.64 | -0.5 | 0.55 | 0.99 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | the " check all that apply" | Question | if one misses one of the | Positive | 0.64 | -1.0 | 0.55 | 0.99 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | one of the answers, the whole | Question | is marked wrong. Finally, many of | Positive | 0.72 | -1.0 | 0.55 | 0.99 |
| wD1C7I_eEeWZyg6bf_Oxkw | Although the content is good, the course itself does not reflect in any way what a good asynchronous course should be. Where is the discussion board? How can one communicate with the instructor or with other classmates? Although peer review of an assignment is one aspect of asynchronous and synchronous education, said assignment should also be reviewed by an instructor, especially when said instruction carries so much weight. In addition, I think overall the tests are unfair. I was marked wrong twice for a question that asked my opinion! Also, in the "check all that apply" questions, if one misses one of the answers, the whole question is marked wrong. Finally, many of the test questions themselves are irrelevant to the content of the course. One last thing- the course says it's a five week program, but there are only 4 weeks. Something needs to be adjusted. | wrong. Finally, many of the test | Question | themselves are irrelevant to the content | Positive | 0.85 | -1.0 | 0.55 | 0.99 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | The course started off a bit slow, but I stuck with it and only did the things the way the course was showing me to. Before I knew it the course was already answering questions and showing me the right way to do things that were bugging me when we started (ex: file structure). The final project ended up being just the right amount of challenging and I learned a ton from the course overall. I signed up for the followup as soon as I learned about it and recommended both courses to the entire engineering group at our company. Try it out! | it the course was already answering | Question | and showing me the right way | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.87 | 0.94 |
| wKPtohoHEeWwrBKfKrqlSQ | Was only videos and 2 question quizzes until the very end. I was very surprised by the assignment at the end as it was never mentioned in any of the videos. Almost didn't finish it in time because it was due right after Christmas. Would like more hands-on assignments throughout the course instead of one at the end. | Was only videos and 2 | Question | quizzes until the very end. I | Negative | -0.64 | 0.0 | 0.87 | 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 | 0.68 | 0.5 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | This course gives a really good guide on how to define data science questions correctly and how to work with sharp goals during the hole Data Analysis funnel from the definition of the Data Science question to the communication of it's results. | the definition of the Data Science | Question | to the communication of it's results. | Positive | 0.78 | 1.0 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Personally not a big fan of Roger Peng's approach while teaching. The lessons get a bit confusing, and so does the questions from the quiz. Jeff Leek's approach is more calm and simple. Nevertheless, the course in general is really good. | bit confusing, and so does the | Question | from the quiz. Jeff Leek's approach | Negative | -0.92 | 0.0 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| X1RtV0EiEeWC4g7VhG4bTQ | Easy to understand what speaker is trying to explain, Good question design, not easy to pass all but really consistent with lecture content. | speaker is trying to explain, Good | Question | design, not easy to pass all | Negative | -0.89 | 1.0 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Although the course was very useful, I couldn't complete the course due to an assignment. The assignment is very unrealistic and the graders don't give any feedback!! The assignment is open ended question and not difficult but took significant time, when I submit I was unable to pass. | ! The assignment is open ended | Question | and not difficult but took significant | Negative | -0.72 | -1.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Excellent course to gain macroeconomic fundamentals, even for people without economics background. Wide range of questions in the discussion forum helps you clarify various queries you might have. Overall, i am very satisfied. | without economics background. Wide range of | Question | in the discussion forum helps you | Positive | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | the quizzes are poorly written. Some | Question | are asked at the end of | Negative | -1.0 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | modules when the subject of the | Question | is not even introduced until the | Negative | -0.96 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | the following module. Further, for some | Question | the right answer is either not | Negative | -0.83 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some | Question | ask what answer is " most | Negative | -0.68 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | several " NOT" or 'opposite answer' | Question | which are valid but confusing, so | Negative | -0.72 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | This course is well worth a student's time and effort. There are excellent presentations by the professor, but in it's current format the course is too short for the amount of technical knowledge implicit in the material. In addition, the quizzes are poorly written. Some questions are asked at the end of modules when the subject of the question is not even introduced until the following module. Further, for some questions the right answer is either not given in the choices presented or the grading protocol doesn't recognize the correct answer. Some questions ask what answer is "most correct" which implies that there is a strong element of subjective judgement involved in its formulation. The student is allowed only one attempt at a quiz every 8 hours, where many other Coursera courses allow 3 attempts every 8 hours, which is more conducive learning and retaining the material due to the instant feedback. Finally, there are several "NOT" or 'opposite answer' questions which are valid but confusing, so the student must be careful when answering. Recommendations: 1. Add at least three more sessions to the class and spread the technical material out over more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz question set to clarify what you are asking, and make certain the material was covered in the module you are assessing. 3. Don't use 'what is the best answer' ("most correct") type questions, they are ALL too subjective to be fair. 4. Recheck the grading protocol to make certain it is properly evaluating the answers. | more sessions. 2. Rewrite the quiz | Question | set to clarify what you are | Negative | -0.63 | 0.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Gayle was an outstanding lecturer. I have little economics background and I was able to follow all lessons quite well. Videos were of perfect length, not too long. I enjoyed the graphs, etc in presentations as well as the questions in the middle of a video (to see if we were paying attention). Quizzes were very helpful. The big assignment with the simulator took some time but was worth it. It brought together all ideas and I think it taught me a lot. This was my 1st coursera course so i think the bar is set very high. | in presentations as well as the | Question | in the middle of a video | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| XeB2pvgkEeS36CIACw8Krw | Very nicely and comprehensive taught. Material is supported with lots of graphs and multimedia that makes it more exciting. Short quiz questions are incorporated into the videos to keep the students alert, and the articles provided as a mandatory reading keep the link with the real world. I think the corse makers did a fantastic job! | makes it more exciting. Short quiz | Question | are incorporated into the videos to | Positive | 0.97 | 1.0 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| xL0drBU7EeWpKw4zIcjkHw | I found the course very interesting. The weekly assignments were a great challenge, but lacked reference to some reading on the subject.When I went quiz I've found that most of the questions had to do with concepts that weren't covered in the videos. I think that this courser should have further readings about these concepts. | I've found that most of the | Question | had to do with concepts that | Negative | -0.87 | 0.5 | 0.91 | 0.97 |
| xL0drBU7EeWpKw4zIcjkHw | Assignments are not well prepared: forms are not helping either people accomplishing the assignment, or the people reviewing their work. We have to go back and forth to review the question answered in both cases (when filling-out or reviewing), and sometimes notation criteria are not clear upfront. Please review the assignments and improve them, because it was really frustrating. | back and forth to review the | Question | answered in both cases (when filling-out | Positive | 0.69 | -0.5 | 0.91 | 0.97 |
| xL0drBU7EeWpKw4zIcjkHw | Gotta watch how the test questions are formulate as it can be overly deceiving...... | Gotta watch how the test | Question | are formulate as it can be | Positive | 0.95 | 0.5 | 0.91 | 0.97 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Interesting topic and very good information Not enough content (my opinion) Tests where way to easy, I could take them all without first watching the videos, and my grade ist above 90%. The questions are (espacially in Week 3 and 4) easy to solve with logic and a basic intelligence. Please work on making it harder! :) | my grade ist above 90%. The | Question | are (espacially in Week 3 and | Negative | -0.73 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.02 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Videos are fun and informative. I think assignment questions sometimes are too scientific nevertheless for some people this can be even more exciting. | fun and informative. I think assignment | Question | sometimes are too scientific nevertheless for | Positive | 0.96 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.02 |
| xMqZG1wyEeWd6BJKWlaBIw | Could be added more technical question, but I understand that the course is trying to reach as much people as possible. However explaining a bit more details about minerals, which was not mention, would be good. Extending to flavonoids and some other stuff which most poeple is unaware would be interesting. | Could be added more technical | Question | but I understand that the course | Negative | -0.92 | 0.5 | 0.82 | 1.02 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | Fantastic!! Really enjoyed the course Informative and enjoyable course which helped me understand the history of Rock/Popular music upto 1970. Prof Kovach's lectures helped me explore music and artists who I had long forgotten or did not even know of. This is a good course for both professionals like Dj's, student's as well as lay people like me who love both music as well as history. The only problem I had is that one had to do a lot of hunting on the net and that took a lot of my time. But it was well worth it because of what I heard and saw. The quizzes were sometimes too detailed and memory oriented. Maybe a more conceptual framework of questions can be considered in the future. Will definitely do Part 2 shortly! Thanks Prof Kovach and the Team. We are blessed by your effort and dedication | Maybe a more conceptual framework of | Question | can be considered in the future. | Positive | 0.74 | 1.0 | 0.91 | 0.99 |
| xOBaY1ibEeS-oiIAC0UN8Q | As a standard overview, the course is fine. However, the lecturer skirts around or hand waves away controversial or difficult subjects, and he's apparently afraid of offending anyone by getting too close to saying "fuck" or "sex" even in an academic setting. Additionally, this course won't introduce anyone to forgotten and erased artists of the past - women are largely absent from his history of rock, even though Janis Joplin and The Supremes didn't come out of nowhere. The quizzes are also too heavy on the trivia - "who published what when" questions rather than critical thinking questions about why or how. | when" questions rather than critical thinking | Question | about why or how. | Negative | -0.78 | 0.0 | 0.91 | 0.99 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Enjoyed course. Wish the review questions didn't include 'ands ' (both had to be right for a 'Yes' and pts) . With many ways to solve problems, these 2-part questions didn't always fit. Sometimes a peer had one exactly and then did the other part a different way that worked just fine. They make it harder to grade people. In most cases, if it worked I said it was good-to-go. | ways to solve problems, these 2-part | Question | didn't always fit. Sometimes a peer | Positive | 0.74 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 1.06 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | I concur with others of a similar opinion on this course: Assignment instructions/criteria differ from the grading rubric criteria. Assignments mostly copy and paste. Referring people to the Bootstrap docs as reference defeats the purpose of an instructor. Many of the assignments required you to do things against best practices, like inserting inline styles to make your element look like the instructor's screenshot of his page. The last week's content seemed to be a slapdash mix of bits and pieces, and trying to inform people about Node modules via solving a quadratic equation seemed really strange. How about an example from the real world, like even an e-commerce application? (In the comments on this, the instructor said there wasn't time in this course to explain Node modules, but that he provided a "clearer" example in the Node.js course. Hunh? Why wouldn't you do a simpler example in the drive-by assignment?) Instructor consistently mispronounced words that are CENTRAL to the field, which just seemed weird and made me question his credibility. This might sound petty, but kuh-rooze-zel for the word Carousel? It would be like a fashion designer mis pronouncing tulle as tull-ee or bias as bye-ez. Just not impressed. I am glad my employer paid the tuition and not me. The only positive was it enforced a schedule and structure for me to try my hand at Bootstrap. I had already worked with Foundation. | just seemed weird and made me | Question | his credibility. This might sound petty, | Negative | -0.98 | -0.5 | 0.83 | 1.06 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Awesome Course. One of the best courses , i have been part of on coursera. well paced, very rich in content, very good delivery of the ideas,. Assignments very good. A value for time i just wish practice quiz to have more number of question, and more challenging. A VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO JOGESH. THANKS A LOT | quiz to have more number of | Question | and more challenging. A VERY SPECIAL | Positive | 0.98 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 1.06 |
| ycQnChn3EeWDtQoum3sFeQ | Excellent teacher and course format / materials. Teacher also makes a big effort to answer questions in the forum also. | makes a big effort to answer | Question | in the forum also. | Positive | 0.65 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 1.06 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | I found the assignments challenging in the absolute best sense of the term, and therefore incredibly rewarding as well! Whenever I've gotten stuck, the answer was always in the course material somewhere, even if I didn't see it there at first. The discussion forums were extremely helpful, and I was astounded to see that that instructors were still actively monitoring the discussion forums and responding to student questions. I'm obviously not an expert in this field, but I've been an educator before, and my own impression of the assignments was that they were extremely well designed: it was impossible to pass them without knowing what you were doing, the tools to approach them were always found in the lectures, and the challenge problems pushed your knowledge even farther. I would recommend the specialization to everyone. Additionally, I noticed that the content aligns well with other DS&A syllabi I have seen in brick-and-mortar institutions, especially the first 3 or 4 courses. It's also a very nice luxury to be able to submit in Python. I have certainly learned a great deal. | discussion forums and responding to student | Question | I'm obviously not an expert in | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 0.99 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | All in all a great and challenging course. A big thank you to all the teachers! I especially liked the assignments as completing them forced me to think about all the little details and edge cases. A few observations/constructive criticisms: - While the first 3 weeks had almost everything explained rigorously, including complete, usable pseudo codes, the last 2 weeks had lots of holes in terms of details. I think it is down to the fact that it covered a lot, however, pseudo codes suddenly became very high level, to the point where a 5 liner translated to ~100 lines of real code. This in terms meant that learners had to do quite a bit of additional research about the nitty-gritty. Nevertheless I thoroughly enjoyed this extra research, just be mindful about the extra time required. - There are languages with first class support, namely C++, Java and Python3, which means there are starter files supplied. If you choose a different, supported language then be prepared that you have to implement everything from scratch, which again mean extra time, although I would argue that you will learn more, especially in the last 2 weeks. - Forums seemed to be more active in the past, especially with regards to teacher contribution. Be prepared to be self-reliant and able to come up with answers to your own questions. | up with answers to your own | Question | | Positive | 0.65 | 1.0 | 0.79 | 0.99 |
| yOZEQ3lwEeWb-BLhFdaGww | The structure of the class follows the regular academic model you'll find in college: lecture -> lecture -> lecture -> assignment... repeat. I don't think this model is suitable for online delivery. Without discussion and the ability to interrupt and ask questions, the lectures are at times a more frustrating than useful (especially with Coursera's user interface, which lacks quick rewind and is generally speaking rather poorly thought out). For many of the topics, better videos exist online (try safari or pluralsight). As for the problems, they were the main source of learning, but were also at times a bit frustrating (the splay trees starter code was rather sad to look at). I find that hacker rank is probably better at delivering value (if you can forego the warm fuzzy feeling you get from getting a verified certificate, you'll probably be better served by practicing on hacker rank than from doing the problems in this course). | the ability to interrupt and ask | Question | the lectures are at times a | Positive | 0.66 | 0.0 | 0.79 | 0.99 |
| yS8ezjDPEeW-zwq84wShFQ | The professor's view of Plato is unique and interesting. I would not recommend this as a first look at the Dialogues, however. Also, it was difficult to see how the lectures connected to the remit of the course, to teach "reason and persuasion", in Plato's view. The course was more of a "modern take on ancient questions". | a " modern take on ancient | Question | . | Positive | 0.76 | 0.0 | 0.83 | 1.04 |
| yS8ezjDPEeW-zwq84wShFQ | R&P is a great course for anyone with a slight interest in the basic questions about life. If ever I found myself begging for answers on this questions or trying to understand myself in a wider perspective, or simply bored out of my mind, finding this course has meant finding my life, or at least finding a better way to live my life. | a slight interest in the basic | Question | about life. If ever I found | Positive | 0.76 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 1.04 |
| yS8ezjDPEeW-zwq84wShFQ | R&P is a great course for anyone with a slight interest in the basic questions about life. If ever I found myself begging for answers on this questions or trying to understand myself in a wider perspective, or simply bored out of my mind, finding this course has meant finding my life, or at least finding a better way to live my life. | myself begging for answers on this | Question | or trying to understand myself in | Negative | -0.75 | 1.0 | 0.83 | 1.04 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Great course, but the quizzes are not quite there yet. They focus too much on minor details and the questions are sometimes awkwardly phrased. | much on minor details and the | Question | are sometimes awkwardly phrased. | Positive | 0.77 | 0.5 | 0.62 | 1.12 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Best instructor and lectures covering the entire area..But Assignments should include more questions so that to cover entire content of course. | . But Assignments should include more | Question | so that to cover entire content | Negative | -0.79 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.12 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | This is an absolutely 5-star course. Educational, interesting, right-paced... It is very clear that the professor has a passion for the subject and is deeply knowledgeable. There are two questions after every video lecture, which focus on the most important parts of the lecture and also helps the student see if they understood the content. Reading assignments are relevant and interesting. End-of-the week quizzes are challenging, but can be completed very successfully if the student paid close attention to the subject. I would recommend this course to everyone who likes history or ancient cultures. I hope for a sequel, too! | is deeply knowledgeable. There are two | Question | after every video lecture, which focus | Positive | 0.75 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.12 |
| zTzjmvssEeSDoyIAC1CH0g | Very interesting class. The readings were helpful in understanding a deep appreciation for the subjects covered. Still dislike the multiple guess questions at the end of each section, think essays would show mastery of the bigger picture, but understand the constrains of time on the professor. Still, I would recommend this class as a basic introduction to Ancie | covered. Still dislike the multiple guess | Question | at the end of each section, | Positive | 0.69 | 1.0 | 0.62 | 1.12 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Excellent course. Just a shame, trying to figure out to get always the video notes only in english language and not in my natural language (currently french, detected by Coursera), which is better to understand questions & insure to get the answer. For some videos, only the notes in my natural language are available, which constraint me to translate and probably leads to misunderstandings. | Coursera), which is better to understand | Question | & insure to get the answer. | Negative | -0.76 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Exceptionally informative as an introduction to Islamic studies. Could do with tightening up its question and answer format. | Could do with tightening up its | Question | and answer format. | Negative | -0.8 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | A very thought-engaging and enjoyable course. I learned a lot about the history and contexts of various Muslim countries, the challenges faced by them as well as the practical challenges that Islamic-based political thought have not demonstrably addressed so far. The instructor is very knowledgeable and well-meaning. I like the course's approach of not so much attempting to answer the questions as just a 'tour guide' and an entry point to the much more complex discussion about the topic. I might not agree with everything in the course, and some of his statements might have made me a bit uncomfortable, but overall this is an engaging and insightful course. | so much attempting to answer the | Question | as just a 'tour guide' and | Negative | -0.8 | 1.0 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| _ehbrDx9EeWFSA6UPWxRyQ | Impressive analysis. This will truly push the intelligentsia to understand the core problems and ask questions. | understand the core problems and ask | Question | | Positive | 0.68 | 1.0 | 0.61 | 0.97 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course seems patched together. The volume isn't consistent, even within videos. Some videos / slides are great and full of information, while others are just long periods of talking with one word or phrase on the screen and none of the information put in written form. Some of the questions occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, there are misspellings in the quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a question wrong and then, in the comments, noted the answer was right. Further, some of the videos seem to stretch out information to fill time. | in written form. Some of the | Question | occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, | Positive | 0.74 | -0.5 | 0.67 | 0.9 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course seems patched together. The volume isn't consistent, even within videos. Some videos / slides are great and full of information, while others are just long periods of talking with one word or phrase on the screen and none of the information put in written form. Some of the questions occur in multiple practice quizzes. Also, there are misspellings in the quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a question wrong and then, in the comments, noted the answer was right. Further, some of the videos seem to stretch out information to fill time. | quizzes. Finally, one quiz marked a | Question | wrong and then, in the comments, | Negative | -0.7 | -0.5 | 0.67 | 0.9 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | The subject is interesting and the instructors both seemed very competent. Still I wish the course had been better prepared as there were lots of sounds defects: you had to adjust the volume during each video which is tiresome. In the same idea, the questions during the course would pop up in mid-sentence, sometimes with too much anticipation with the subject at hand. Last, the questions in the assignments were sometimes not so much to check your understanding but your memory about a small detail like a % in a study that is already obsolete by the time we learn it... All in all a great course, with great instructors but still room for improvement as a mooc. | tiresome. In the same idea, the | Question | during the course would pop up | Negative | -0.97 | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.9 |
| _Mms-nE8EeWKsgrp3VnvAw | This course was a bit mediocre. The videos were often choppy, awkward, and cut off in the middle of sentences. The quiz questions were unclear and generally poorly written, and didn't make me think enough. I did enjoy the onboarding special topic section, and the quality was higher there. But the first 3 weeks need quite a bit of revision and fine-tuning. | the middle of sentences. The quiz | Question | were unclear and generally poorly written, | Negative | -0.99 | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.9 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | A great course! Whether you are simply interested in applying some concepts into your life, or a student (like myself) looking to brush up/or learn economics, this is a great intro course! I especially love the module overview at the beginning of each week. I usually copy and paste "key questions" into Evernote, and answer them when I'm watching the videos. Then I would review the Q&A before and after each quiz. It turns out to work great for me! Thanks for making this course available on Coursera! | usually copy and paste " key | Question | into Evernote, and answer them when | Negative | -0.7 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 0.95 |
| _UsmIV-PEeSnpyIACzWBsQ | Although the course cover everything there can be in Macro-economics, the course is tightly bound with US economy. Also the questions, some of them, in quiz are exact from the slides. I think there could have been changes. None the less, it was best thing i have learnt in past 6-12 months. Awesome going through it. | bound with US economy. Also the | Question | some of them, in quiz are | Positive | 0.78 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.95 |