great course

Just right

I liked it

Good

Very confused about why I got some of these quiz questions wrong. I wish I could attach images here. Then I could attach the results I received from my quiz. Here's an example of one question I got wrong, and I don't understand why: Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of effective technical documents? I chose "Incomplete Information". For some reason, this was not correct. This implies that Incomplete Information IS a characteristic of effective technical writing. Please explain why this is an incorrect answer. I have other examples of quiz answers that are confusing. Also, one of your questions showed an asterisk * beside the correct answer. Was the * a key for the developer to identify the correct answer? If so, it's sloppy work to leave it there, in my opinion, because it gives away the answer.

The course is fine as a general overview but is very repetitive in its content - the presenter's English is not always the best and the audio quality is really poor at times. There are also mistakes in the quiz. Questions are repeated several times over and one of the answers is just incorrect. For a course on accuracy and clarity this should be looked into.

The lessons are good for complete beginners, but the first exam has a lot of repeat questions and some questions with more than one correct answer. This is not something you would expect from a "credible" course.

Good course, but the instructor's accent is very thick and unpleasant. And as a U.S. westerner, he is difficult to understand. Ultimately, I turned off the sound and read the transcript. :(

Because of the instructor's accent, it took a lot of work to listen to. The writing was not succinct, and I was disappointed. The course structure is good.

The content of the course is super great and helpful. However, the audio narration could be improved by removing background noise (in most videos).

The pronunciation is poor. Material is good and well organized. The CEO was not explained and it is in the quiz

The course is not bad. But it is not so engaging. Also I feel bored while taking the course.

course is done for people that have 0 knowledge

good

Links to some information are irrelevant to technical writing. Why do I need to read how to revise the draft of a creative story (and the article itself is very hard to read and looks like an emotional post on reddit rather than a professional article too)? Or why do I need to read how to create a good post for a blog? Since the course is about technical writing, I expected it to contain more professional references connected to technical writing and not just writing. Also, the quiz for the 1st module contains 20 questions and at least 6 of them are the same, some are not even rephrazed. The quiz looks sloppily made as if someone just copypasted the questions and didn't bother to proofread it. It gives a bad impression about the course that is all about preparing, revising, proofreading and finalizing the text before publishing it.

A technical writing course should include writing assignments... but aside from that, the information in the course is redundant and repetitive, and the external sources provided don't always link to an actual article to read. Additionally, sources that do have direct links are often to blog posts or other unverified sources. I will not be taking another Coursera course, and wish I could get my money back for this.

Occasionally informative, though basic concepts were often over-emphasized and repeated, despite more important information missing context. I also wish they provided technical writing exercises and prompts to help us actually apply the information taught.

All in all, you could just browse blog posts for an hour and get more than you will out of this course. * Horrible audio -- poorly recorded, bad levels, regular honking of car horns in the background. * Significant portions are just links to third-party sites for you to read -- and not all the links work. * Low-effort scraping together of a very broad overview from the Internet. Zero evidence of the "instructor" actually having insight or experience in the industry. * Time-wasting with non-sequitur statements like "Word processors and tools are not just software" to pad runtime.

Instructor isn't a technical writer. Content is vague and could apply to almost any kind of writing. Zero specific insights into technical writing. Zero hard examples of technical writing. Probably the whole thing was written by ChatGPT.

It's too general, and with no examples on how to write. Some of the information are repetitive and the history section is not that important when I want to look for a job.