Learner Reviews & Feedback for Real-Time Embedded Systems Concepts and Practices by University of Colorado Boulder

Lecture videos and excises are OK. But please, reorganise the sequence of the quizzes and assignments! Because some of the quizzes cover some points too early, and those points will be mentioned in the future sections one or two weeks later. Also there are some assignments which appears so late, that I thought we should have already finished it up in the previous weeks! (e.g.,Assignment 4 :Pthreads with CPU core affinity in Linux to Emulate AMP, which I think should have been done in Week2 or Week3 already) Other things including the knowledge and skills taught in the lectures are basically quite good, so I will give an total of 5 stars, thanks:)

Excelent practical & introductory course about RT embedded system and how to implement a Rate Monotonic schedule and see his feasibility, by his LUB and exact study, whithout getting too much in detail about the teory. Using POSIX extension in Linux, AMP emulation with affinity with the easy to get going Raspberry Pi.

Inspiring course contents. Assignments clarity to be improved.

It is not easy to understand what they ask for in assignments. There are many comments about it in the first assignments.

Assignment descriptions could be clearer

It needs a good knowledge of POSIX in the beginning. That was not stated in the course description. I was searching for resources to learn POSIX. Also the first assignment is asking to submit syslog file. It assumes that all learners know what a syslog file is. Also, the assignment output format is not clear.

order of the lectures is rather messy: some topics are taken as being discussed but which only follow much later in the course.

there is a lot of repetition in the lectures: some concepts are explained in code reviews and twice within the lectures.

I​ dont like the peer graded assignment modality also there is a lot of redundance in the course material. The starter codes make the assignment to easy while the objectives of the assignments are not very clearly formulated in many cases.

The content is interesting although a bit repetitive. The assignment descriptions are very unclear and unorganized.

Had real issues with Peer review policy. There should be a back up always, if peer reviews are getting delayed

The topic super interesting, the professor a genius, but multiple thing is not well done in the course:

-the Submission requirements/description are often not clear or corresponding to the criteria check

-Most of the time I learn how and what I have to do in submission watching and study the video in next chapter, so when I understood so I watch all the future video before prepare a submissions

-I often learn and understand important concept by reviewing other students, that they explain the code better than the lesson

-Missing files and links broken

-automatic check syslog is good if the requirements are clear and well defined, if don't students must repeat 25 times testing what kind of details are missing in the syslog: check and improve the instructions

T​he lesson plan felt haphazard, and for many of the assignments it wasn't clear what was being asked of you until you saw the rubric used to grade someone else's assignment. I expected much better.

The course has great potential and the professor knows what he is talking about however, the Coursera implementation of it is lacking. It looks like they took his materials from other courses and put it up in somewhat random order. I.e. talking about things that haven't happened yet in the course timeline as though they have. Many of the resources have broken links and/or are mismatched with the assignments/topics. The assignments have very poor definition of the expectations. In at least one case a practical assignment is duplicated exactly. The quiz questions generally are good except they often cover topics which haven't been talked about. If the issues mentioned were fixed, it would move to 4 or 5 stars. Even with the flaws, I did learn something and hope that I do not find the same flaws in the second course of the four course series.

This course is horrible! In the first week, the "instructor" provides very little actual information, provides you four of his own projects that you can review all on your own with no guidance. Oh wait, you can only access own of the projects, the other four are locked away on the university's FTP server. But don't worry, your frustration isn't over yet, when you attempt to work with the one that is actually available, the instructions are so vague and unclear that you'll spend more time trying to figure out what you're supposed to be doing, and how to submit it in a way that is successful, that you'll have spent more time on that, then listening to the instructor. Complete waste of time and effort!!

I hate to give a negative review and I don't want to blame the teachers, I'm sure they were given a very limited time to make this course. But t​his is unfortunately the worst course I have ever participated in. The lectures are okay at first, but quickly get repetitive. Most of the assignments feel like pointless wastes of time, and there are A LOT of them. There are no teachers in the course, just automated quizzes and students "grading" eachother. This course is a quite bad look for the unversity and american education in general.

This course is the worst stay away!

The structure is a mess, a lot of videos without even a hint of why the solution is good.

Lots and lots references to #read the manual", so why do I need the course? I already knew where to find tons of hard to read texts,

No credentials to download material needed to pass exams

I've wasted countless hours trying to understand what to do. It's not the subject matter that is hard, this course makes it hard :-c

I'll try to get a refund