Chevron Left
Engineering Practices for Building Quality Software に戻る

ミネソタ大学(University of Minnesota) による Engineering Practices for Building Quality Software の受講者のレビューおよびフィードバック

4.5
175件の評価
26件のレビュー

コースについて

Agile embraces change which means that team should be able to effectively make changes to the system as team learns about users and market. To be good at effectively making changes to the system, teams need to have engineering rigor and excellence else embracing change becomes very painful and expensive. In this course, you will learn about engineering practices and processes that agile and traditional teams use to make sure the team is prepared for change. In additional, you will also learn about practices, techniques and processes that can help team build high quality software. You will also learn how to calculate a variety of quantitative metrics related to software quality. This is an intermediate course, intended for learners with a background in software development. To succeed in the course, you should have experience developing in modern programming languages (e.g., Java, C#, Python, JavaScript), an understanding of software development lifecycle models, familiarity with UML diagrams (class and sequence diagrams), and a desire to better understand quality aspects of software development beyond program correctness. At the end of this course, you will be able to comfortably and effectively participate in various techniques and processes for building secure and high quality software....

人気のレビュー

MK
2021年3月24日

Overall the course is good but there should be more videos from instructor then reading assignments links because I could not understand them well.

SS
2020年3月31日

Delivery and explanation was very clear. Happy for joining in coursera to enhance my knowledge.

フィルター:

Engineering Practices for Building Quality Software: 1 - 25 / 26 レビュー

by Luca P

2020年4月18日

Not recommended. Many of these courses highlight old practices that do not fit in the current market. Also, the course alternates between complex topics, UML diagrams (which are used but not explained) , with other very basic concepts (like coding style or revision control systems).

by Michael F

2020年5月19日

I was really looking forward to this particular course, but found the technical issues with many of the lessons to be distracting. There were sound problems on a couple of the videos and I found some of the course materials hard to follow. I reported the issues as I found them, so hopefully they will be fixed in the future.

There were also some style issues with the materials. For example, in all or nearly all of the videos the Instructor took up half of the screen (I don''t mind looking at the instructor, but in many cases the materials were hard to read on my screen because they were not the focus of the lesson). The slides were almost all text, and often what was said and what was showing on the screen did not match. Finally, I am a visual learner. Diagrams, pictures, visual comparisons, charts and graphs can go a long way in helping me to comprehend the materials. Reading text on the screen does not help me to learn the materials.

Using the one quiz per hour approach (rather than 3 tests every 4 hours) combined with questions which did not always map to the course materials created several lost hours of study.

Some of the source materials were world class, but many of the referenced links were to bloggers and opinions and often the references were several years old and did not reflect current state of the art.

Finally, I had to repeatedly report one individual for cheating and it took almost a week to get the issue resolved. I don't know if it was the support staff who resolved it, or a note I sent the individual when grading his blank submission. I knew he was cheating when I saw that after I graded the blank submission, he submitted an exact copy of my work for three different exercises.

by Rodrigo C

2020年10月28日

Some of the topics are well explained but lacks visual support for a deep understanding of some concepts.

by David

2020年12月21日

The first week was not explained correctly and the teacher didn't provide detail explains. The other professor was better from UM. He gave real world examples even with a thick ass accent but explained it in detail to relate.

by Saranyapong P

2021年5月6日

Good example but some part is so difficult. But it works for my job.

by MARiA D F A B

2020年8月21日

Good course!!

by Sakshi U

2020年7月24日

very good

by Nikita u b

2020年6月20日

Good

by SANTHOSH K C

2020年4月6日

good

by Alberto G

2020年8月11日

Very challenging course but I have to say that I have learned a lot.

by Colm O

2021年7月5日

I enjoyed this course. It was tough. It is helpful if you have an understanding of programming. If not, there is still plenty of quality linked material for you to review that will help get a better understanding.

by Shaheryar k

2021年3月25日

Overall the course is good but there should be more videos from instructor then reading assignments links because I could not understand them well.

by SRIDEVI S

2020年4月1日

Delivery and explanation was very clear. Happy for joining in coursera to enhance my knowledge.

by Syanmil I

2021年2月28日

An amazing course that helps to learn the current standard industries in software development

by khalil k

2020年10月24日

really helpful for everyone in IT sector

by Yeffri S G h

2021年5月11日

todo super

by Lâm T N

2021年6月23日

Useful

by DTarunkotikumar

2020年10月28日

SUPER

by THALLURU S P

2021年1月9日

good

by 190031207 s

2020年12月1日

good

by PILLI T R K

2020年11月12日

good

by ganesh s

2020年10月22日

Good

by AVUTHU H R

2020年10月17日

GOOD

by Chandler H

2020年11月20日

Overall the course is clear and concise.

by Rajendra A

2020年11月27日

The tests rating could be improved better. Most peer review evaluation having rating as 0 or 1/15/ other value, which make very challenging to evaluate and give rating. Candidates has written something however not enough inline with rubic, so what could be rating? Definitely not 0 as there is information and with this option left is next higher rating which is full value. And full value would not be right again as there is some information missing as per rubic.