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

Good foundational course. I gained much knowledge regarding the history of I.D. and the theories that underpin it. The peer review method was frustrating, as I had points deducted with no relevant feedback provided as to why. Formative quizzes contained some information that was not covered in Module(s), and one of the speakers delivered information in a monotone voice that was excruciatingly difficult to listen to. In my opinion, learners would benefit from more hands-on project work graded by actual instructors.

Useful information, providing concepts, processes, and resources that are relevant. However, for a course on instructional design, it is not very innovative or engaging. This may be a constraint of Coursera format requirements or MOOCs in general but the over-reliance on videos is disappointing and the timeframes for required reading s (10 minutes in week 2, for instance) are somtimes way off. It would have been really valuable to experience great instructional design while learning about its theory.

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.

There is a distinct feeling of abandonment around this course. There is an item in Week 3 where the same video content has been added twice. The forums indicate that this problem has been pointed out over a year ago and still hasn't been addressed. The content is pretty good, although the quizzes aren't the best organized relative to the content. It also fails to give a good overview of the entire process of Instructional Design, instead focusing on the Analysis phase of a project exclusively.

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.

For a course on instructional design, this was not a well designed course, unfortunately. Lectures should have been shorter, contained more direct application and less theory (this is a MOOC), the quiz questions should have related to broad objectives and not specific theory/wording on slides, and the two written assignments could have also been clearer/more valuable. I hope this one is redesigned soon!

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.

This course has some helpful content! I would have liked it to be a bit more interactive and had more assignments rather than the very long and rather complex quizzes. Overall, I feel like I have learned more about client and needs analysis and using my understanding of different learning and cognitive styles to design beneficial and inclusive courses.

Interesting and detailed topic; however needs improvement by:

- Adding table of content to make modules sequence easier to follow

- Adding PDF copy of training material

- Making shorter videos even if this means spreading the course over more than 4 weeks; current videos are very long for an online training with some of them trespassing 23 minutes.

Provides a good foundation in the background and theory of Instructional Design. For a course that is about Instructional Design it does not set a good example of a well designed course. The video lectures are not dynamic or engaging. The questions in the modules at the end of the module are poorly written and could use some revision.

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!

The structure of the course is somehow quite strange and the final quizz did not really help me to reinforce my learnings. Globally I learnt concepts and got a global view on the "instruction design" ecosystem, however the invested time versus the new acquired knowledge does not sound optimum .

The course provides good information and is a solid introduction into instructional design. However, some of the lecturers are quite stale and it's hard to keep focus, despite being interested in the topic. If the lessons and lecturers were more engaging, I'd leave a higher rating.

The material was informative, the lectures were interesting and the pace of the class was very good but the quizzes were very poorly written. They were designed for students to fail and retake them multiple times, which was an extremely frustrating experience.

Even though the topics were instructive and essential, the assessments and the feedback should be improved. Also, it would be great if we could have more in-video questions per sessions.

There should be a final week focusing on a real-life project (gradable).

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.

Would have been better if the peer review is also being monitored. very slow peer review process, usually little to no suggestions on how to improve my output. Most students here barely read the contents of the document.

While content was great and instructors were very knowledgeable, the quizzes were poorly written and seemed meant to confuse. For a course about designing good courses, I expected a better grading mechanism.

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

For the quizzes, they kept glitching. I had correct answers one time, and the next time putting the same answers it was marked wrong. This happened frequently.

As a course on instructional design, it is ironic how monotonous and unengaging the delivery of this content is. That said, the content is pretty good.

I wish the assignments were graded and feedback given were from an actual instructor other than just a peer.

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:

Lectures:

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.

Assessments:

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.

Demand Hours:

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.