1. A little bit disorganised, sometimes resources are missing:
"Refer to the image on the screen" **no image on screen**; or
"as we learned in the previous video" **previous video was not applicable to that**;
"let's keep a close eye on the gauge" **can barely see the gauge**;
Also, not sure why some modules have over 10 videos, but average length of 5 min, with a ~20sec intro to each. Seems rather inefficient and repetitive to explain what I JUST watched.
More evidence of disorganisation:
the pop-up quiz in Week 5 video BRAIN, will not provide the correct answer because the feedback given refers to the Seizures video instead ie. the question + answer do not correspond.
Most problematic disorganisation:
Many items missing from the RESOURCES page, including anatomical definitions and the stroke scales!! Sometimes additional info is given after videos and not linked back to the Resources hub either, so... it's everywhere.
Sometimes the additional info pages are also written in something like 18-pt font... which isn't such a big deal, but it's ANOTHER display of lack of attention to detail.
2. For the most part, the presenters are professional and engaged. Although the hand gestures are incredibly distracting, at best, a gesture for every few words; at worst, each syllable. Maybe a nervous habit used to perform memorised speech? I have to focus elsewhere on the screen otherwise it's difficult to pay attention to what's being said; also, the hand-waving person also take up over 1/3 of the screen so diagrams cannot be given the amount of attention they deserve.
3. As mentioned before, videos are split up in really short sections on specific topics. There aren't other resources to go along with it, other than what's on the screen. So especially with modules like the heart, you will possibly learn a lot of new terms, within a very short timeframe, and without additional resources to help. You'd think it wouldn't be so hard to also provide a PDF with these diagrams and terms alongside............. and if you are serious about learning terms, how things function, and other technical aspects (which I imagine, you would be), it would serve you better to research elsewhere online.
4. Quite often, you would be directed elsewhere online to read up on additional items. As supplementary information, it could be acceptable. But as a replacement, it feels like a shortcut; why would I pay for a course that tells me to go elsewhere to read up?
5. This is not much different than browsing youtube, or sometimes worse because some YTers will provide more animations/explanations. The good thing about this course, is that they have a syllabus; and exams that are staged like an emergency walk-through. HOWEVER, some of those also have bugs in them; other users have listed these problems already in the forums.
SUMMARY: It does not seem like the team reviewed this course before putting it online. There are missing details, missing resources, and unnecessary elements.
The is a lot of information, yes. There is a lot of work put into this course. However, as this topic is fairly serious, I would expect more attention to quality and consistency. Honestly, I don't feel this certification would mean anything... because there is so much information, with not nearly enough time, explanation, or peripherial knowledge dedicated for each topic, I would imagine this course is the sort of thing that would promote a Dunning-Kruger effect......
As a refresher, this is acceptable. But I would go to St Johns or Red Cross instead for actual certification.
BTW, it does not improve during the next course (CPR, Toxicology, Wildnerness). What is the purpose of 3 1-min intro videos? Just make 1 good one!