Good basic coverage on children's fundamental rights. The course could have benefitted from assignments being more consistently accurate to lessons as there are some gaps. The last module I found the most interesting as it covers challenges to child rights in real time cultural/social dilemmas.

Useful for those who want to learn about child rights for the first time. Will not recommend to professionals.

Overall the course is very informative. However it has a few strong weakness that impact the learning process, which I would like to point out. First of all, due to some heavy accents of the lecturers it is not always understandable what is being said, while the transcripts and subtitles are not proof read, their text contain errors and unrelated words. Secondly some tests contained confusing questions, which were not directly covered by the learning materials. Thirdly, the lack of interactive learning makes the process of learning a bit dull. I am sure there are many interesting video and interactive materials on the covered topics.

I was slightly disappointed by the course: too much information was given and not always in a clear way. In particular, sometimes the sessions were jumping from one discipline to another with not much explanation and this was confusing. Also, the information provided was in huge amounts but not in details. I expected to get more detailed information on children's rights while sometimes the presentations were only very general overviews.

Interesting content but could be made more interactive and varied with more optional readings. Some of the questions on the quiz were not well formulated either.

Great Course. I would recommend it to anyone doing development studies.

It is more basic than I thought it would be, and the questions on the quiz are extremely specific (like years and names of people) which in my opinion, doesn't help capture the essence of what you are learning.

Although very interesting and very innovative in its presentation I had the feeling this course was an introduction to the Master program at the UNIGE, rather than a stand alone course. At times it was difficult to comprehend the speakers. I would have preferred deepening of one aspect of this topic rather than such a broad approach.

The content of the course so far is interesting - and to be fair, I've only completed the first week of this course.

Unfortunately, the combination of multiple lecturers within one part of a lesson (often with highly varying accents, reading verbatim from lecture notes) makes the presentation of the course material come off as very stiff, over-directed, and hard to understand. It's hard to adapt to the idiosyncrasies and lecturing style of a new person in a four minute video, at which point you get a whole new lecturer and have to start the process over again.

A maximum of two or three lecturers for the entirety of the course (perhaps with the occasional guest speaker) would be helpful. Also, either allowing the them to deliver the course material in their native languages with English subtitles, or perhaps having them record the course material in English in something similar to a classroom environment where they're accustomed to lecturing, would make things infinitely easier to follow.

This 'too many cooks in the kitchen' issue is what I also suspect happened with the week one quiz. I do not know who generates the quiz questions but they seemed to require a lot of mental gymnastics for a multiple choice quiz. Perhaps on my end there could be a cultural misunderstanding in how a quiz checks your knowledge of the source material? Let me put it this way: in my previous university studies, I have never taken a multiple choice quiz where the question starts as 'In your opinion...'

Sadly, I will probably drop this class - but the course has sparked enough of an interest where I will probably be picking up some books or doing some informal research on my own about this topic.

Very biased course.