學生對 伊利诺伊大学香槟分校 提供的 Instructional Design Foundations and Applications 的評價和反饋

Good information. However, I would like to get insights into something more practical.

Very good introductory content to build a foundation to begin Instructional Design.

The lectures are great, although it could be suggested more practice exercises.

I benefited alot from this course. Very happy to have completed it.

I enjoyed the course and would love to download and take it again.

Good course if you are looking for learning theory information.

Nice course with comprehensive details on instructional design

Very challenging but I would highly recommend this course!

Great start to Instructional Designing career!

Good overall, for a Foundations Course!

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.

The course content material was very practical in that it allowed me to look at my subject matter and determine how I can actually design a course. The instructors were very knowledgeable, however, Mr. Huang was hard to follow at times. Teaching online is a very different environment from face-to-face. More dynamics and energy is needed to keep the learner's attention. I may suggest that more enthusiasm be generated when speaking in front of the camera. All other instructors were great. They came across the platform with much enthusiasm, practical knowledge, and most of all, experience in dealing with the course content was unveiled. With respect to peer reviews, I understand that online learners need to get involved by discussions, however, to have a peer review an assignment and base a final grade from a peer review is quite disturbing. I understand the large volume of students in the online environment, however, it is the instructor who should review the assignments and offer the grade. This course would benefit if there were a question and answering component that involved the instructors. I had questions regarding a module, but did not know who to contact to engage in a conversation. Yes, the discussion forums are present, but those were not avail. The discussion forums tend to lose value as no one is actually monitoring the discussions. I ask that the team review the discussion forums and devise a plan to actually review and respond to the learners. Thank you.

The course had too much information for me to recall. Waiting for a peer to become available to review my assignment was also a time consuming process. The course is very thorough indeed, and whomever takes it will gain a deep understanding of the principles and basis of I.D. Be prepared to watch many videos, and be prepared for rigorous formative assessments. It is my belief that Week 4's summative assessment's question 5 is problematic, as many students have indicated. It really needs re-thinking, as I had to take the test more than 10 times just for the sake of that one question that I needed to get over the 80% pass threshold. In retrospect, am I happy about paying the $60 -odd Dollars to complete this certificated course, with the the name 'University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign' attached, and did I learn a lot? Yes. The value and knowledge gain was very good.

The reason why I don't give this course a 4 or 5 star review is because it seems the administrators/facilitators of this course haven't looked into and changed the issues that learners are identifying in the discussion forum with Week 4 quiz- particularly questions #3 and #5. Either the wrong answers were mistakenly checked as correct answers in the quiz builder, or the content does not line up correctly with the questions, because there are inconsistencies with the content and those quiz questions. I spent several hours re-attempting this quiz and became very confused with the content and also very frustrated. In the end, I had to search in the discussion forum for the correct answers that someone kindly provided, or else I would've spent multiple additional days re-taking this quiz until I passed by luck.

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.

I enjoyed the course as a starting point, although some of the content seemed ambiguous and/or not clear which resulted in confusion when completing assignments. The assignments should be reviewed to match what the slides and lectures stated exactly. Also, I felt the need for slides with clear concept definitions and summaries at the end of each video. Videos could be a bit more lively as well to increase engagement. More practical examples would enrich the course even more. Overall, it was a good course for those looking for a starting point.

As a first time participant to both the institution and the course material I believe that the duration of course should be extended to 6 weeks. The course content was presented in a clear and precise manner by all lecturers however sometimes it was difficult to fully understand what they were trying to say.

In terms of examination result I would suggest that answers be given upon fully completing of the course. In this way the participants would have a better appreciation as to why some of the answers were incorrect

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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