Very clear course, provides definitions and/or discussion of terms that at are useful for a clearer understanding of the ID process. Good continuity between topics and good use of diagrams.
I thoroughly enjoyed this course. It is well taught and well organised. The material provided a thorough overview of the field, and the readings were particularly fascinating and helpful.
創建者 Rhina R N•
The course was very informational. I hope there will be other courses to follow to complete the ADDIE Model.
創建者 Gerald S•
This course has a lot of potential and good information, but it was a slog to get through. No idea how long ago it went live, but there are some problems. First, the GOOD: content and concepts covered are excellent, it's a solid overview of ID. Clear distinctions could have been drawn between how ID is used in educational institutiions and the corporate world, but perhaps a foundational course didn't need to do that. The resources screen at the end of each video lecture was a valuable resource. I was motivated to finish the course because I recognized the value of the content.
Now, the PROBLEMS: I am surprised that a course in ID seems to do many of the things that other teaching courses would caution against. The lecture videos were uniformly talking heads or Powerpoint slides or basic graphics and charts on a uniform background. Often, the font in the graphics was small and difficult to read. The slides were little more than outlines of the topics. There were frequent jump cuts and topic changes within the lectures that could be a little jarring. There were virtually no other interactive aspects to content delivery in the modules. And the most difficult aspect to speak about was the delivery of the content verbally. It's not clear at the top that there will be different instructors--Dr. Hoa may be an excellent teacher and expert in this area, but the flatness of his affect and delivery is problematic in this context. English is not his native language, and though he is just fine with the content, listening and engaging in this format was not easy.
Peer reviews of assignment are common in Coursera, and this course was no exception. But these are long assignments (especially the Module 3 case), and having only one peer review determine a pass or fail is problematic. I am not convinced that many peer reviewers understand the scoring system. You submit an assignment, and wait for other assignments to show up for peer review. That can take awhile. When an assignment does appear, only then do you see the scoring rubric by which your own assignment will be graded. It's not clear when scoring an assignment whether you are passing or failing it, unless you simply choose the highest score for every item. In other words, you don't know where the goalposts are until you've already kicked the ball. This seems a basic error in assessment design.
FINALLY, the Module 4 quiz was an exercise in frustration, with poor design for questions. I had to retake the quiz six times, and actually run a process of elimination as I tried to come up with the correct combination of answers for two questions in particular. One question (about Gagne's first rule for teaching) was consistently marked wrong, even though I am confident that error was in the test bank. (I took the answer directly from the lectures, and checked online as well.) Other students reported similar problems in the discussion area. More questions would buffer against questions with design problems.
And finally, the bloody text editor for submissions is clunky--sometimes it will jump you back to the top of the screen as you navigate, sometimes the formatting bar simply disappears, and some hyperlinks may or may not be inserted. For the longer Module 3 assignment, I sketched an outline with formatting for organization with nothing fancy but spacing. I saved drafts, previewed it, and all looked good. Yet after submitting, the spacing disappeared, and what was left was a heap of text with no paragraphs or spaces. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) is not a heavy lift for text editors! This aspect of the Coursera platform really needs an upgrade.
I only took time to write this down because, at bottom, I really appreciated the opportunity to have this material available. But really, and ID course should model what good ID looks like, both from content and from technology.
創建者 Andrew P P J•
Overall rough course. Auditors definitely recieved more out of this course because they are free of the abosulely awful assignments that come with this course. While the class offered a decent introduction to what ISDs do and how the field has changed over time, the value of this knowledge is lost in light of downright boring, monotonous, and long-winded video lectures. The professors did not display any mastery of the topics because they read scripted lectures. The assignments, particularly the last quiz, were unfair and designed to trick students. The covered insignificant details rather than big picture ideas. The list of things wrong with this course is a long one.
創建者 Lee S Y•
I learned a lot of concepts, took copious notes but end of the day, I don't think this is a good course as an ID foundation. There could be more practical aspects to allow learners to internalise the concepts and more attempts to break down the chunks of information rather than a dumpster to throw out all the concepts at once.
創建者 Amy W•
Disappointing. Too much about Instructional Design history, not enough about how to actually design courses.
創建者 Gerard S•
Very clear course, provides definitions and/or discussion of terms that at are useful for a clearer understanding of the ID process. Good continuity between topics and good use of diagrams.
創建者 Jaime D•
This course helped me to understand the theoretical foundations of Instructional Design. In addition, I learned some of the foundational skills needed when beginning in this field.
I really liked this course. The assignments were designed really well, giving us the sneak peek into what a instructional designer would do.
創建者 Shana B•
I think it was helpful as an introduction course to instructional design, but I would have preferred more opportunities to gain more experience with real world scenarios. The project on Module 3 was the only one I felt I got that experience with. Even more short answer or challenges to do things like write learning objectives in place of a quiz on Module 4 would have been more beneficial to my learning application. Also, I would have liked to have access to correct answers on the quizzes after I submitted them for grades because on some questions I didn't understand why I got them wrong even though I went back through the videos and notes. I understand there is a concern about cheating, but I feel like I may have had misunderstandings that will never be corrected.
創建者 christopher g•
Well thought out course that covers the basics initially, and then concludes with some good management hints for both projects and people that assist Instructional Designers in their work. Only issue with the course is that it is a MOOC so has to be all things to all people. A tough approach for any subject, at least the ones you want to be thorough. I do better with looking at a slide while the audio/briefer describes what they are showing me. But that's just me. I'd prefer seeing less of people talking. Once again though - this is good bargain - solid entry to the skills in the field and one of the few online courses that actually provides a certificate. So I recommend!
創建者 Melissa F M V•
Good starter for people like me who had no idea what ID really was and wanted to get the overall idea and introduction to it. Effective introduction course!
創建者 Aderonke K•
Quite an intensive online course. Insightful as a good foundation to Instructional Design Overall i will rate the course 3.5 out of 5.
It was quite heavy on theory; typical of a school course, with all of the journal readings, but practical real life scenarios and best practice ideologies would have been great to aid learning and engagement. For example having an Instructional Designer at a company teach one of the modules or run us through one of his past projects, So we get a feel of what a real life project is like, straight from the horses mouth.
Also the quizzes- The point isn't just to score 80% as a pass grade for the quiz. The quiz is to aid learning and ensure the participants can recall what has been taught.
Firstly, when attempting the quiz more than once it will be good to show the correct options to the answers the learner got right, and not make them attempt answering those right questions again. Let the answers to the right options be visible. Looking at them over and over will aid learning.
Also, after scoring the pass mark of 80 let the participant know the answers to the failed options. The point isn't just to score grades to pass, but for learning.
創建者 Kailana D•
Very useful overview of the material for people looking to explore this profession. However - and somewhat ironically for a course about how to design engaging and effective learning experiences - the lecture styles are very dry and mostly unvaried, and the unit quizzes are incredibly vague and hard to pass (make sure to retake multiple times!). The course focuses specifically on the learning theories that inform instructional design, but keep in mind that you don't get to practice any designing yourself - in fact, the course only focuses on the procedures for context-gathering and goal-setting that precede the active phases of design and implementation.
創建者 Kirsten C•
While this course was very helpful, the quizzes were constructed so poorly that even quick 8-question quizzes might take hours to complete. "Select All That Apply" is very problematic phrasing, as it doesn't indicate how many choices are needed for the question. It leaves you having to use a side-paper to keep track of all the combinations you've tried. Passing difficult quizzes is not the instructional goal of the course. This could be vastly improved.
創建者 Lauren K•
The instructors weren't interesting to listen to. I expected better curriculum since the class is Instructional Design. The male teacher mumbled a lot so I'm very glad there was a transcript. It was a good course to get a small grasp of what ID is. I definitely will need to take more courses to actually learn more valuable information.
創建者 Laura B•
I was disappointed by the lack of interaction in this course and by the transcipts for videos. Transcipts were not written using paragraphs or any text features.
創建者 Doug B•
In general, I believe the course was very good and helpful to understanding instructional design. I appreciate the short and reasonable assignments and class length. The content was very interesting and encouraged me so much that I had considered more course work with Coursera and even with the University of Illinois Master Track program. Until week four! The final week culminated in fifteen retakes of the quiz and bought me to a significant level of frustration. I will use question two as an example; “Learning goals should…(Please check all that apply): 1) Focus on the big picture of knowledge gain, skill development and ability/attitude change, 2) Address a performance/learning problem directly, 3) Describe the problem and gap broadly so it can be flexible depending on strategy and the types of learning environment, 4) Describe what the learners will be able to do after instruction.” The detailed notes and my previous training background gave a level of confidence I would be able to answer correctly. I chose the first two responses: “Focus on the big picture of knowledge gain, skill development and ability/attitude change” and “address a performance/learning problem directly.” These two answers were clearly defined in part one video of week four. However, the question was marked wrong! I began to work all the options of answers to get the question correct and for fourteen tries I was still wrong. I did not ever select the last of the four answers since I knew that answer referred to learning objectives and not learning goals. In week four, part three beginning at the twentieth sentence of the video lecture, Professor states, “Learning objectives are the statements describing what learners will be able to do after the instruction.” However, the only way for me to receive a correct answer for this question was to include the fourth answer which is CLEARLY WRONG!! It is not part of the definition of learning goals as outlined in the course. SO FRUSTRATING. Not only would I continue taking the quiz every eight hours for the rest of my life, there is no way to resolve such an issue or opportunity to debate. Part of instructional design is to understand the end user experience and it would do the staff good to see things from the student perspective. My constructive criticism of the course continues with:
1. The above mentioned issue with quizzes having incorrect content, specifically week 4, question 2.
2. The quiz feedback is inaccurate and inadequate.
3. No resolution or ability to resolve questions of content. My effort to highlight this issue in the discussion help form went to never-never land.
4. Only peer feedback and no instruction participation. I had a peer review that accused me of plagiarism with no proof or specific feedback. She simply stated it looked like “it was copy and paste.” Absolutely false and infuriating. The course relies too heavily on peer feedback. There should be other forms of feedback.
5. The course does not complete the ADDIE design model. There could have been one module to summarize the remaining parts of the model after Analysis.
創建者 Dr. P G•
As some of the other negative reviewers have noted, there is some serious irony to a poorly-designed course on Instructional Design (ID) that does not meet accepted best-practices standards for online education. I have ten years of teaching experience (including online) in higher education, so this critique is not completely unfounded.
Content is delivered by individuals who seem to lack any passion for the topic, and the majority of video modules are in the 15+ minutes range, which only adds to the drudgery. By about halfway through the second module, I resorted to simply muting the audio and reading the transcript: a strategy that I found to be far more efficient and pleasant than actually watching the lectures. In addition, there is a totally useless first "assignment" where you are told to find a posting for a job in ID, and then say why you chose it. Not sure what learning objective that was intended to accomplish, but I'm fairly certain it fell short.
So, is there any redeeming value to this course? Yes. The readings are useful, and some of the video content is fundamentally interesting, even when delivered with a complete lack of enthusiasm. In short, I learned a little bit more about the history, terminology, and principles of Instructional Design, but I will definitely not be taking any more courses on the topic from this institution.
創建者 Regan J•
The readings were the most useful part of this course. The videos were difficult to follow, and quite frankly, very boring, due to poor delivery. I felt that the essential learning points could have been taught in much more concise and more structured video lectures. It would have been easier for me to work through the content with slides using text only, with no speech. The video transcripts were not accurate.
The quizzes often contained elements that were not covered in either the lectures or the readings. Sometimes the wording of the quizzes was ambiguous, so it was not clear why the correct answer was the correct answer. For the final week 4 quiz, I had to retake the quiz about 8 times due to being unable to work out the correct answer for 2 out of the 8 questions. In the end, I just guessed until I got the right answer. I have no idea why the guess was correct.
While I learnt a lot, this learning came from the readings and not from the video content.
創建者 Sophia S•
The videos in this course were difficult to follow and not very engaging. Many of the videos were largely filled with technical vocabulary and jargon, but not very well clarified or explained. As an introductory course, this was very challenging and difficult to get through. I felt as though this course could have been more interesting and had more real life application examples.
創建者 Stephanie C•
This is an embarrassment to Illinois. The lectures are nothing more than stream of consciousness, which is impossible to follow. The transcripts don't help follow the logic of the lectures, and they are full of grammatical errors. The quizzes ask questions that aren't addressed in the lectures.
Ironically, a course on instructional design needs someone trained in instructional design to rework it. It is poorly thought out, the assessments do not focus on important things (who cares whether or not someone memorizies which professional societies focus on ID?), and the lectures betray a fundamental lack of thought about how to formulate information for an audience.
Don't bother with this course. You'll learn more on YouTube than you will from this.
創建者 Rebekah E•
**Did the free course so I only had access to readings, videos, and in-video questions**
This was a great course that provided a LOT of resources to do further research on my own. I especially appreciated the pre-readings because they were so in depth and well written.
The videos didn't go into major depth but I think that was because, just like most in-person university classes, you are supposed to go into them having gained some prior knowledge through the pre-readings. It was a little fast sometimes but I would just pause and rewind the video.
I have also seen a few reviews that said the course should be taught by "native english speakers" and those people will be very limited in their instructional design scope if they are only focused on "native english speakers." Go and rewatch the Diversity & Inclusion video in module 3. Also, to the lady who said in her review that the women's voices were "shrill": these women actually have pleasant tones to their voices and are usually lower-pitched than most women I talk to (myself included).
Anyways, if you are brand-spanking new to Instructional Design, I would HIGHLY recommend this course. My Mom is a retired teacher and I basically know most of the learning theory foundational knowledge that took her years and thousands of dollars to learn.
If you are a deep and strategic learner you will find this "practically-free" course will be a great starting place down your path of ID.
創建者 Atrayee G K•
This course gave me very useful insights into the world of instructional design. Although I am not an Instructional Designer, I am involved extensively in the activities of the Analysis phase to plan training programs in the organization I work with. In other terms I am a general L&D professional, and was at a career crossroad. I am now very sure that I would like to specialize in the field of Instructional Design and this course is an absolute first step in my journey.
A huge thanks to University of Illinois and Coursera for designing such insightful programs. I particularly loved the options for scholarships. Please keep doing the good work! Look forward to my next course.
All the best!
創建者 Brittni Y•
This course met my expectations in providing the foundational knowledge that I needed. I am used to taking traditional in-person college classes and was unsure how this course would operate online. However, I was very satisfied with this course and the various professors that led the instruction. I would suggest this course to anyone seeking a professional and structured course providing the foundational knowledge about Instructional Design. They provided several resources for learners to follow up on after the modules. As well, the quizzes and activities helped to reinforce the knowledge. Thank you for helping me to take my first step towards my career as an Instructional Designer.