Aug 29, 2015
If I'd had access to this material when I first failed freshman chemistry 40 years ago, I probably wouldn't have failed. Kudos to Dean Hutchinson for bringing us his innovative approach.
Oct 02, 2018
DEMAND\n\nI would inform you that i wish to receive my certificate according to general chemistry :concept development and application, then your feed back will rejoice more thank you.
автор: Mauritius X•
Jul 17, 2017
Very good. A quite effective way of teaching chemistry
автор: Tun L A•
Jun 05, 2016
Very Good Videos for Chemistry!
автор: hakan b•
Feb 11, 2017
How can i get certificate please
автор: Jeremy V•
Aug 24, 2015
Course information is delivered in a new and exciting format. The first half of the course builds up base Chemistry ideals and Laws. The second half takes the student to places they never thought they would end up. Be sure to brush up on your College Algebra before taking. Overall a fun and challenging experience!
автор: David D V•
Aug 29, 2016
Great course! This is the first MOOC that I've completed and I had a great experience overall. The CDS system is what drew me toward this particular chemistry course and it seems like an effective and natural way to have concepts stick in your head. Very clear and easy to understand explanations are also given in the lecture videos.
My only complaints are that there are some significant typos in the quizzes, and all of the course material seems to refer to a different version of the online textbook than the one that is currently provided. If the quality of the quizzes was better and if the course was more in sync with the most up-to-date reading material I would have easily given this course 5 stars.
автор: Darren C•
Jul 25, 2017
Helped me learn Chemistry from a fresh perspective! Highly recommended!
автор: Cliff S•
Oct 24, 2016
Excellent introduction to Chemistry, focused on models which allow you to understand all of the empirical rules/laws. However, it appears to be an older course and some of the quizzes were effected by Cousera upgrades and they are corrupted and some questions can't be answered (as in some cases there are actually no choices given!).
автор: LILIANA G A•
Oct 28, 2015
Muy buen curso
автор: Gary B•
Mar 16, 2018
Over all a good intro to chemistry but found it long after a while.Perhaps breaking up the single courses into two courses each covering a semester. Found the math during the last two weeks to be a beyond me and wha tI thought was required for a basic beginner course.
автор: Viktor O•
Aug 24, 2015
great course! Unlike other courses, this one really helps the student make a deeper understanding of chemistry and the conceptes that built the science!
автор: Lesli F•
Sep 24, 2015
While the visual set up is well thought out (you can see the instructor, slides and writing space, the setup of course materials is too stringent for the beginning chemist. More time seems to be needed focusing on the basics of chemistry and chemistry math (such as how to read CH4, sig figs, etc) prior to testing on stoichiometry.
автор: Kathleen P•
Nov 15, 2015
Too many mistakes in the math. I dropped after a week
Jul 19, 2019
This is an extremely flawed course, both technically and academically. Half of the math used in the first week is incorrect (anyone using a calculator would discover this, but I also worked as an accountant for many years, as well as previously working in the financial markets as an investment analyst, so my math skills are above-average), and even when they made one correction in the video, they missed the other 20 or so. Even the textbook written by the professor has math errors in it (such as 12 X 0.99 supposedly being equal o 11.98 - not on this plant, or any other I know of, since it's actually 11.88). There are mix-ups in what shows up in what areas of the quizzes (such as Rutherford's gold foil experiment being in the first test, but the first week covers an entirely different area), and the first quiz talks about stuff that isn't discussed at all. Please explain how anyone would know grams per litre of SF6 at sea level when it isn't covered anywhere in the textbook or the lectures or the test itself. Not once did he explain the terms diatomic vs. monatomic (only the brief blip with Avogadro and how 'some molecules must be made up of two atoms then' as a conclusion, but no way to determine which ones, and not the actual meaning of the terms that ended up on a test). Nor does he talk about what (aq) is supposed to mean, where he uses it in brackets in an actual chemical formula. From my understanding of math, I'm supposed to be able to multiple aq by the rest of the formula, but since there is no element called aq, I have to guess that can't be right and it must mean aqueous solution, rather than a solid, but again that isn't even mentioned. Less than 2 seconds of time to explain, but the students are expected to search all over the internet for the answers. Um, isn't that the entire point of taking a class? So that that someone *teaches* the subject instead of students being forced to go to Wikipedia (which is generally frowned upon by academia)? Science is supposed to be accurate, and Rice is supposed to be a top university in the US. I weep for the entire country.