I appreciate how much time and effort it required to make this class. I was doing ok until I hit that middle section. It was a killer. Went from middle of the road to half past the Delta quadrant. It was a struggle.

I'm not at all say smoosh or dumb down that section. But there were vocabulary and concepts that needed more plain English examples. There wasn't enough of a bridge for a non-science person to hang on to. It was rough.

Only when it got back to journalism and the intersections of scientist and media did I get a grip of what was going on again. It is a good class, no question. But I am going to need to find other sources to help me understand some of the middle sections terminology.

I found that this course was decently educational. Overall, the information presented was useful and helpful for learning how to read and understand scientific papers and the process behind them. I was relatively frustrated, however, when the largest theme of the course was to think critically, but only one perspective would be positively represented, while the opposing opinion was negatively represented and bad-mouthed. I would not consider some of the sources used educational in the slightest, but most of them were legitimate scientific sources.

The course felt a little too long. I found there was too much reading material and drag and drop activities. The videos were the most useful part of the course, although at times became a little repetitive. A condensed version of this course would be beneficial and perhaps more accessible to more students. I especially feel that the older generation would benefit from the information in the course, more specifically about how to detect misinformation and be more critical of information being presented to them.

Interesting and useful material. The presentation was somewhat irritating. largely due to the peculiar use of prepositions following the work "based": based on (I prefer) based off and based from; partly due to the voices of the presenters, which seemed often to be harsh and grating; and the quizzes contained statements which seemed ambivalent and hard to classify in the ways offered.

I found many test questions to not be clear. Also, found the drag and drop exercises confusing most of the time. It would have been great if I didn't have to reset the whole thing. Let the correct placements remain. I liked the interface and videos. I would take another course like this overall

There was much useful information presented in this course, but there were also flaws in the design and materials. The flaws have already been well documented in the existing reviews under 1, 2 and 3 stars.

Drag and drop activities way too time consuming and not effective use of time; did not  add anything to  my learning aside from frustration

I went through this course to see how the material would be presented. It was a mixed bag that wasn't particularly well organized, lacked variety in learning activities, and there were tons of spelling and grammatical problems throughout the class. The initial discussions of indigenous anecdotes as "science" were contradicted by material presented later in the course. Though there is some good content, I can't and don't recommend this class to anyone. A number of technical bugs and lack of any meaningful feedback or discussion from those presenting the class added frustration. Other courses use the forums proactively to promote participant interaction and spark additional discussions that could lead to learning. None of that happened here.

Es bastante tedioso. Me hubiera gustado que fuera más resumido, que no se repitiera tanto el contenido, que no fuera tan sesgado y que no hubiera tantas contradicciones. Pero es un punto de partida para complementar con otro curso.

There is so much wrong with this course. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed for spelling, grammar and coherence. The "drag and drop" learning exercises are especially useless--badly written and confusing. It's like they were developed by a drunken TA at 3 a.m. The videos were mostly just talking torsos (hide those bra straps please!) and waving arms. The inclusion of indigenous perspectives was perfunctory. The use of dumbed-down "kiddie" versions of scientific papers was just insulting. The lack of examples to illustrate concepts was a real shortcoming. The course designers need expertise in pedagogy and curriculum development. The whole experience was a head-shaking, eyeball-rolling, teeth-grinding ordeal. I persisted only because I'd paid for "certificate" option.

If I could leave zero stars I would. I can imagine later in the course there is other interesting content that would help me increase my understanding of science. The course creators decided to include tons of content that is inaccessible to read aloud programs. I have a learning disability and rely on a mix of visual and auditory to understand what I am reading. A good chunk, once you reach week two is drag and drop that is incompatible and than what is noted to be an important reading isn't compatible either. I am a bit mad because this is a class supposedly for beginners and inclusive but not if you aren't neurotypical.

This course has lots of good ingredients. The instructors are amazing. The interviews are great. However. The reading material is so confusing, and not really tailored to the course. The student activity modules are absolutely terrible - again the ideas are great, but the material cannot be saved, downloaded or even printed! I think that this course could benefit from a big redo: First, find new and better reading material. Second, leverage the technology so that the student activities can be actually viewed and saved.

Despite this being a course on science literacy - presumably for those not so literate, it is not user friendly. Some sorting activities are so unwieldy as to be of no practical use. Some quiz sentences/questions are so long and dense as to be virtually unintelligible. I attended a class once where a fellow student described the instructional process as "pedagogical abuse"; I was reminded of this comment when attempting this course.

Poorly designed and executed. A jumble of modules without the appropriate context. The effort to square "holistic" folk knowledge with science is weak and an excercise in political correctness. The topic is important, but this exposition is not worth your time.

crashed two days in a row course seemed interesting