Contains worthwhile content though for all the hours spent, I didn't get as much as I should have.

The course is not well constricted to guide students.. it's only fill the gaps.

Incongruent instructions, feedback from peers was useless and unmonitored.

not realy satisfied i had to read external material to solve the assigment

It is very nice but we need more note and it should include thory

the course is very vaqu and superf even for a beginner level

thank you for your efforts but I think need more information

It was a great and enlightening course. I was so excited

Poor sound, low quality videos. Low engagement.

I think the course need to be more exhaustive.

The contents could have been better.

Not adding any valuable information

The sound was trible, so low

Thanks for you saporting

Not really detailed

so-so

yeah

Peer reviewing quality was very poor, and I didn't receive any feedback that I could learn from. There was a mismatch between the simplicity of the points in the videos and the complexity of the readings, and there was no assistance with the reading, e.g. supporting notes or videos discussing the readings. The discussion facility was not used for any actual discussion of the material, but was filled with requests for peer reviewing including at least one that said 'I'll give you a good mark if you give me one'.

The useful aspect was completing the assignments, which made me watch the videos and read the sources, but, as I say, there was no subsequent useful feedback.

This course is not what it boasts to be.Just some random interviews are posted without doing any work on developing the content and structuring the presentation.Pier review system even makes it worse.I was expecting a more structured presentation rather than beating around the bush.Rather than giving reference to the materials you can make some efforts to create content of your own.If you are looking for course on research methods the course by university of Amsterdam is the best hands down.

The course could be done much better. It is basically people being interviewed about what research is and they ask the same questions to 4 different people with similar answers. Also the course organisers get u the paying customer to review as oppose to do it themselves -I think this is not fair and u get no input from the course organiser. How this course got an award is beyond me. Coursea should remove this course or get new people to do it properly.

It is a really basic course. I don't recommend it because the videos are not well organized and the assignments are not clear. It also demands to give feedback with at least 50 words, this is not applicable to submissions that require a minimun of 400 words but participants dont take the course seriously and write a copuple of lines. Also, the interviews from the videos are not well organized and the people interviewed dont always make a good point.

I could not find it very useful because it missed out so many things a research has like data collection methods, and data analysis. also there should be some examples of researches from different fields for the concepts given in the course. like here about research question, there should have been some book or article or videos explaining how to form research questions by sharing experience of some experts from differnt fields

Except for the material prepared by Harvard about research methods I couldn't find anything attractive in this course. Unfortunately, instructors were not influential. They spoke with a very low tone and lacked enthusiasm. I remember one of them saying that they represent good researchers. What? Personally or professionally I don't know you, but by your speaking or enthusiasm you are not representing "good researchers".

The course could have been organized better. The tittle tells understanding the research methods and the instructors had hardly discussed any. The interview they take with other people could just be a supplementary videos and not the main course content itself. It was quite shocking to know to the entire content has just the interviewed opinions.