Profile

nml profile image

nml

Student

  • 12 reviews
  • 12 completed
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
It's interesting course even for someone like me who have no background in topic. Lectures are interesting, though they need a little polishing (e.g. sometimes region when something was shown was zoomed out.) Assignments are rather simple quizzes, but it's okay since they're only 20%. Exam was rather disappointing. It contained exactly the same questions that quizzes had. Of course quizzes were hidden before exam. Discussion forum, and staff are okay, though I've seen better organized forums in other courses. It's good, interesting course, but nothing special, and it needs more polishing.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
For now course is okay. Lectures are interesting, and well paced, and there's a lot of additional sources. Only thing that bugs me a little is that it's style sometimes looks more like TV Show than course (For example those intros, and outros), but maybe I'm just not used to this format. Quizzes are okay, but they rely on quantity rather then quality. They're only one third of grade, but that's all I can review for now. There was a peer assignment and exam, but I didn't take them because lack of time. Discussion forum is good, there is a lot of help from staff, sometimes in form of screencast. But the worst thing is that they can easily claim that any of the flaws was just a social experiment, and get away with that. :) It's a good course, but not the best I've taken.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Very good course. This is the first course I took on coursera connected to computer science which doesn't use standard coursera's quizzes. Instead it evaluates your code by tests, and checking style rules. It works very good. There are no quizzes nor exam about lectures, only programming assignments. Assignments themselves are good planned. They help show both basic language features, and basics of fuctional programming. They start from very easy level, and gradually the difficulty rises. It shouldn't be too difficult to get passing grade, but you need some work to get best mark. Discussion forum, and course help is organized nicely. Staff is responsive to feedback of students. The weakest point of course are the lectures. They aren't bad, but their pacing could be a little faster (watching at higher speed helps), and I think that some (not that difficult) topics were explained too deeply. Because of lectures I can't give full 5 star rating, but it's really close. Just be sure that you pass per-requirements of course, since it is assumed that you have some experience in programming.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Basic chemistry course from scratch for anyone. Lectures are not very long, but okay. There are free reading materials for this course, which contains what is in lectures and some more. Exercises are multiple choice test, but only with two tries. Second try gives only 75% of points, and in order to pass you have to have 70%, so it's not that easy, especially since some questions are tricky or not really clear. One thing that bothers me is how problem of error in quizzes were solved. There were two too unclear questions in first quiz, and after pointing that staff has done the worst thing - they removed them instead of giving everyone a full credit (For sure it's possible on Coursera to do this.) causing some people to have lower percentage score. For me it raised a score to 100%, but it was unfair to others.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Strange, but not bad course. There were 3 levels of completion. Awareness - which you can get from watching videos about basics of planning, and its usage in real world. This videos were really boring and, unfortunately, needed to complete higher levels of completions. Exam part of this was multiple choice test. Foundation - knowledge of using algorithms presented in lectures, like A*, planning in STRIPS etc. Lectures that weren't about awareness level were much more substantial and interesting, than others. Exam part for this part was not-multiple choice test, where you need to simulate some algorithms. Like stating what nodes would search A* algorithm in gives case. If you have experience on AI or just programming it shouldn't be too difficult too you. Performance - there were programming assignments in which you were to implement simple cases of algorithms mentioned in lecture. Language was free to choose. On one hand it is a good thing, on the other hand it limits possibilities of how to test whether you should get point. Sending code like in Scala course is rather out of question, so it took form of asking similar questions like in Foundation part, but which were too difficult to answer without using program. To complete each stage, you had to pass previous stage, which was frustrating when you wanted just to program things. Staff response on forum also could have been a bit quicker. I think that course would be better if there would be option for those who takes programming path to gain points on more advanced assignments instead of taking previous levels. And maybe there could be at least one part where you wouldn't have choice in programming language, but there would be grading similar to that in Scala course. Before taking Scala course I would give it 4 stars, but now I see that it could be done better.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Course was definitely too short and easy. Lectures were okay, but they were just short basic lectures with no interactive questions in them. Homework was just multiple choice quiz on knowledge what was said in lecture. Really. There were even question like "in which year..." This is the first course when there were NO practical exercises. Since there were two full credit tries, every answer was marked as correct or incorrect just after try, and many questions could be answered with common knowledge getting certificate with distinction was easier than filling this review. It was a huge disappointment after taking great Introduction To Astronomy course, but if you don't have time, and you're satisfied with watching something like Discovery Channel show, and getting reviewed from what you saw the this course is just for you.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Course was okay. Lectures were solid but not the best I've ever seen. They needed to be speed up a little bit. Exams were too easy, and sometimes little confusing. I know that this review is rather brief, but there is a reason for this. Currently, there is no access to class archive, so I now don't have access to resources, and exams. Every course I've taken so far, including one that ended 9 months ago, still give access to their resources. If not this, I would give the course 4 or 3.5 star, but this is unexpected and very bad move.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Worst course I've taken on Coursera so far. For some reason it is in "Energy and Earth Science" , and "Biology and Life Science" category in Coursera. This is just misleading - there's almost nothing at all from this categories in course (And there is almost nothing at all AT ALL, but more about it later.) It looks more like an attempt to make advanced Think Again course from Coursera with some critical thinking. Sounds great, but the execution is the problem. First of all. Lectures were less than 1 hour / week. There were ALL as long as FIRST WEEK of Introduction To Astronomy. And it's time if you choose ALL the routes they've given. I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a course. There were 4 paths to choose, and I've completed only one route fully - climate change. And while watching this I understood what exactly is wrong with this course. Lectures on global warning were short, it looked like guy who was doing it had never even seen a good course. The speech was not really professional for this type of course. It was too emotional, and he never slows down a little to explain things more deeply. Everything was not TAUGHT it was TOLD. It looked more like TED talk than course, and I think that it was. Probably someone saw some talk on TED, and thought - let's make course out of it. Obviously it didn't work. Exercises for climate change path was frustrating, because it was not enough explained in lecture, and sometimes two or more answers looked that they could be used, but only one could. However those exercises weren't graded. There was final exam - not really connected to climate change path, or any path at all I guess. Exam was very easy, also because it was multiple choice, so I easily got over 90%. I didn't feel that before taking course I would have different score in this quiz. To sum up. It's not a course - it is basically few clips similar to TED talks, with quiz. It shouldn't be on Coursera, and for sure it shouldn't have misleading labels on it.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Course was good, but have some issues. Lectures were interesting, but in first weeks there were issues with subtitles to it, and for me there were to often switches of person who spoke. Changing person after each segment is distracting, it could be done like in Think Again Coursera's course, where switches were after two weeks. Both exercises and exam were multiple choice questions. They were significantly harder than examples on lectures, but if you're good in mathematical thinking you should be able to pass this course, even with distinction. There were few others technical mistakes, and it's surprising because it's not first installment of this course. Course wasn't bad at all, but it could be done better. Exercises could be a bit easier, or lectures could have more information on how to solve them.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
Course was good, but it was clear that it's their first time. Lectures were good, there were exercises attached to each of them. There was a lot of good humor in them, and you were looking forward to next one. However there were few issues with them. 1\. Sometimes they were too slow. Especially week with truth tables. Yes, there was a WHOLE week about truth tables. And exercises about it. I think that the course would gain if those lectures were shortened a lot, or even knowledge of truth tables would be required before taking the course. 2\. There were no pdf slides to them, and it's always convenient to have them. Exercises were very easy, and sometimes boring. There were 4 graded quizzes. Each quiz have few version of it with similar, multiple choice, questions. Each version could be taken only once, but the best score from each version was taken to the grade. This idea is very good. Quizzes were also easy, and quiz 2 was very boring. Dozens of questions about truth tables - NIGHTMARE! Also there were few mistakes in quizzes, and they weren't repaired very quickly. Also forum was very disorganized, and it looked like they weren't expecting so many people to take this course. At least at the beginning. I didn't really bother too look at it closely later, so maybe it got better. Course have potential to be very good, but for now there were few irritating issues with it. It could use some raise in difficulty, and some better organization.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
A really good course, but with one problem. Lectures were excellent. They were fun to watch, clear, everything you need to pass this course was on them. Exercises expected from you some knowledge about transforming algebraic equations, but objectively weren't that hard. However there was too many of them, but I would say about it later. Exercises were test, but not a multiple choice. You had to enter correct solution. There was no exam, and only homework mattered in getting certificate. Thresholds were 70% and 90% for distinction. The problem with this course was overload of lectures, and exercises. Especially during week 2, but other weeks also took some time to take. Original deadlines had to quickly be extended by 2 weeks. I think that course would be much better if there would be one or two additional weeks, or maybe even it would be splited in two parts. Fortunately forum was very helpful, and organized and you could easily find help if you got stuck on some question. Course was great, but if I were you I wouldn't take it unless you have some free time to do it.
Content 
Instructor 
Provider 
I was taking first iteration of course, and I don't know if something changed. It was the best course I've taken on coursera. I had no problems with it even though I have not that much experience in biology. However I had experience in math, and it was very useful here. If you're not comfortable with simple algebra equation then course would be more difficult to you, but since on lectures there are shown ways how similar problems on exercises should be solved then it shouldn't be that hard anyway. Lectures were excellent. They were interesting, and every information needed to pass the course was on them. There were 3 things needed to pass the course. Multiple choice test homework with answers not shown till deadline worth 20% of total. And two exams, that could have been taken only once. Worth 40% each. Thresholds were 60%, and 80% for distinction. Forum was great, staff was responsive, and was doing a great job. To sum up it was a great course. It was first MOOC I've taken and I think I couldn't have chosen better.