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 Maria Y•
This course delivers what it states - it gives you the basics of Instructional Design theories. But does it inspire you? No. Does it make you want to dive into the exciting waters of instructional design? No. Does it get you bored to death? Yes. Does it make you the happiest person in the world when it is finally over? Yes, it does! Nobody takes such seriously sounding course to have fun, yet, I believe, people who are experts in writing instructions should be more inspirational and learner oriented.
創建者 Canan M K K•
Thank you for this content. I gave three starts because I believe the course is very theory driven with very very little number of examples provided from real life. Either at each step or overall at the end; some real-life examples and case studies would be very helpful. Also; I wish the training itself followed the suggestions it is providing. I believe it could have been a much more engaging and interactive training with right balance of theory, examples and application.
創建者 Claire W•
After finishing it I feel that as a standalone course it really doesn't cover enough content to be a benefit. It doesn't finish at a natural pause in topics, but rather feels as if it ends while you are still partway through. As it is part of a mastertrack certificate, I guess it really only makes sense to do the course if you are planning to complete the whole certificate.
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 Kokeita M•
This is an efficient, convenient way to learn the Instructional Design Foundations and Applications. However, there is no interaction with any of the instructors. The course offers very little practice or ability to apply what you learn. If you enjoy watching videos and reading, this course is ideal for you!
創建者 Renee A•
This course is packed with information. It can be hard to digest in the format presented. Please note that many of the professors are skilled but have very thick accents and the transcripts are often inadequate to get the point across.
Really enjoyed the sessions with Grace especially. This was an interesting course considering that I am a Design Educator. I will be able to implement what I have learned in my teaching skills
創建者 Iulia K•
too much theory., while instructional design is all about practice. The course needs more examples and case studies. Also, the multiple choice tests need improvements
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 Nadiia B•
Overall, the course has a significant amount of useful information, BUT it is VERY POORLY DESIGNED, which is an unpleasant surprise since the course is about Instructional Design:
a) Using many different lecturers deprives the course of consistency because students have to adjust to each lecturer's style of talking and pronunciation.
b) Switching back and forth from lecturers to PowerPoints does not help to concentrate on the lectures.
c) Lectures that are longer than 15 minutes are very hard for students to keep their focuson.
Suggestions: make lectures shorter, have one, two at most, lecturers; have a lecturer view start and end the video, and have narrated PowerPoints in between.
a) Quizzes - different numbers of questions in each quiz and time sensitiveness in some quizzes bring chaos in the learning process; students have to guess their instructors' exact thoughts - the Week 4 quiz is especially poorly designed.
Suggestions: have the same number of questions for each quiz throughout the course; time all or do not do it at all; make the answers clear and easily derivable from course resources.
b) Written Assignments - grading through peer reviews is a nightmare, heavily based on a subjective point of view.
Suggestions: remove the grading portion from peer reviews and leave only the feedback comments required.
a) Weekly demand hours are unbalanced - one week is heavier than another which is not helpful for students to plan their learning time.
b) Reading rates are ridiculous: 10 minutes are given to read 12 pages of scholarly reading while in reality, it can take about an hour (undergrad - 11 pp/hour, grad - 13pp/hour)
Suggestions: Balance weekly demand hours and put in feasible reading rates.
I work as an Instructional Designer in a University, and if this course is well-designed, I would consider taking the suggested MasterTrack. But since this course was designed so poorly, it became an anti-advertisement for me about the University, which offered it, and Coursera platform as a whole.
The level of frustration I got from taking this course overpowered all of the useful knowledge that I acquired from it. I do not think I am going to take another course neither from the University of Illinois nor on Coursera platform in the near future.
I rate the course TWO out of FIVE and only for the useful theoretical information that has been presented in videos and readings.
Course was very demoralizing, and does not showcase the principles it teaches about Instructional Design. It comes off as a very lazy presentation with minimum effort.
On the positive, I did learn a lot that I had not known before, and there is a lot of general information given about Instructional Design. However, any pluses on the content is ruined from the learning experience as a whole.
The videos are 'talking heads' with the instructor speaking to the camera 90% of the time with a few PowerPoint slides in between. Very little visual stimulation presentation to otherwise to engage the learner. Scripts were not edited to ensure content matched the speaker. Videos often leaned toward the 20-25 min. mark for length, and some modules had 8 videos to review, making it very drudgery to complete.
Many quiz questions were often ambiguous and ill-worded, and paired with a 'select all that apply' approach made them confusing with potential for multiple interpretations that could be applicable. Test feedback was little and unhelpful. References to videos for answers were sometimes wrong. Completing the quizzes turned into a means to an end, rather than verifying learned info and comprehension.
Peer-reviewed assignments are graded by a single person, making the pass/fail grade subjective and dependent upon that person's interpretation of the assignment and course content. This creates a lot of instability and greater potential for fail rates, whereas other Coursera courses have used 3 reviewers to create a stable grading consensus. Reviews required evaluation on grammar and spelling, despite the instructions specifically telling students not to do so.
There's a lot of room for improvement.
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 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 Michael A U•
While the professors were knowledgable about instructional design, they failed to utilize that knowledge in designing the course. Poorly edited videos, basic quizzes that only assess a narrow range of information recall, a lack of academic rigor, and to be frank, poor MOOC design betrays the founding principles the course is attempting to teach us. I expect a lot more from an instructional design course, and it has seriously put me off of the University of Illinois as a choice for my Ph.D. in ID. My advice to the course creators is to practice what you preach.
創建者 JAYSON M•
The content is great, although some of the lecturers could be more engaging.
Moving forward, perhaps the institution could make the quizzes/homework accessible to those who only availed of the free course. I completely understand the necessity of the 'paywall', but perhaps they could follow the model of some other Coursera offerings, where all the material is available for free but you have to pay for any certification--I feel that is a good way in the future. Thanks.
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 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 Kenny C•
Long and dreadful videos with a monotone voice. There were some great guest speakers, but 80% of the videos were tough to sit through. Content is not well explained, but does cover a very surface level of instructional design. There's more to say, but previous reviews have already stated them.
創建者 Asmara M•
Although the course provides relevant information, it was extremely slow and wasn't engaging. I found it hard to pay attention to just videos being played the whole time.
創建者 Amy W•
Disappointing. Too much about Instructional Design history, not enough about how to actually design courses.
創建者 Priya M M•
The assessments were really very tough .
創建者 Jennifer H•
The videos were very boring.
創建者 Robin T•
I really wanted to like this class, but by the end it was drudgery. The irony was not lost on me that this Instructional Design course was one of the most poorly constructed and presented courses I've attended in a long time. Overly-long lectures (20 - 30 minutes in some cases) presented by talking heads reading slides is not conducive to learning. The colors of the graphical images used to support the lecture were straight from the 1970s (brown, orange, and ochre) and overly busy. The final exam was inordinately difficult. I took it multiple times (and I did the reading and transcribed the lecture). U of I, this is not the way to advertise your ID program.
創建者 Benjamin K•
This course was a slog! There was no feedback on the quizzes and many questions were poorly written. The lectures were broad and meandering and there was very little practical/application of ID in the course, which is what I was hoping for. I would have dropped/asked for a refund but I was already halfway through. The assingments are pretty banal as well. For course on instructional design it was very poorly designed. I would search elsewhere if you're looking for something engaging and well designed. If you just want to watch ppt videos and regurgitate information in frustrating quizzes, this is course is for you.