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 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 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 Eloise w•
I felt for an instructional design course there would be some practical experience using a design software. But there was not.
Also the tests just tell you if your answer is correct or wrong. With no guidance as to why it is wrong or where to review for a recap to get the answers.
Considering it is instruction desgincourse, limited instructional design went into the creation of this course to actually enable learning to take place.
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 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 Shelby B•
The information was ok, but the execution was terrible. For an instructional design class.... it lacks instructional design.
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 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 Ridwan A•
Very poor lecture delivery. should have used proper english speakers
創建者 Deleted A•
not the course I wanted