Chevron Left
Regression Models(으)로 돌아가기

존스홉킨스대학교의 Regression Models 학습자 리뷰 및 피드백

4.4
별점
3,248개의 평가
557개의 리뷰

강좌 소개

Linear models, as their name implies, relates an outcome to a set of predictors of interest using linear assumptions. Regression models, a subset of linear models, are the most important statistical analysis tool in a data scientist’s toolkit. This course covers regression analysis, least squares and inference using regression models. Special cases of the regression model, ANOVA and ANCOVA will be covered as well. Analysis of residuals and variability will be investigated. The course will cover modern thinking on model selection and novel uses of regression models including scatterplot smoothing....

최상위 리뷰

KA
2017년 12월 16일

Excellent course that is jam-packed with useful material! It is quite challenging and gives a thorough grounding in how to approach the process of selecting a linear regression model for a data set.

BA
2017년 1월 31일

It really helped me to have a better understanding of these Regression Models. However, I've noticed that there is a video recording repeated: Week 3, Model Selection. Part 3 is included in Part 2.

필터링 기준:

Regression Models의 537개 리뷰 중 426~450

교육 기관: Prabesh S

2016년 5월 6일

Very intuitive course

교육 기관: Yogesh A

2017년 10월 13일

Good course content

교육 기관: Vincent G

2017년 10월 9일

fantastic course

교육 기관: Nevon L D

2018년 9월 27일

Builds Heavil

교육 기관: Mariano F

2016년 6월 12일

Great course.

교육 기관: Anup K M

2018년 10월 22일

good content

교육 기관: Mohammad M

2021년 4월 12일

informative

교육 기관: Dora M

2019년 3월 30일

Good class.

교육 기관: Khairul I K

2017년 3월 23일

2 thumbs up

교육 기관: Manojkumar P

2016년 11월 8일

Nice Course

교육 기관: Rohit K S

2020년 9월 21일

Nice one!!

교육 기관: Johnnery A

2020년 2월 12일

Excellent!

교육 기관: Mohamed A E M

2018년 1월 3일

Great Deal

교육 기관: Timothy V B

2017년 5월 19일

good intro

교육 기관: Yuekai L

2016년 3월 7일

Nice.

교육 기관: Normand D

2016년 2월 1일

As for the Statistical Inference course, this course is amazing but is presented in a more complex way than it should be. Once again the concepts are simple and the math not so hard, yet I had to do a lot of research outside the course to be able to understand these simple concepts and derive the not so hard mathematics.

Brian Caffo is clearly brilliant and, I would say, seem to be a good lad too, but something is missing. Too often the details are thrown at us without being properly framed in the context or without having the proper concept being introduced progressively.

I have a theory about teaching since I was 15, and so far it has proven to be true. Imagine that learning is about climbing a mountain in which tall steps have been carved. Each step is taller than the student. The teacher is somewhere higher than the students (not necessarily at the top, if there is such a thing).

The job of the teacher is to throw boxes (concepts) and balls (details) of different size, shape and colors. The job of the student is to catch these boxes and balls and to put the right balls in the right boxes in order to make a staircase out of it to climb (at least) one of the giant stair up.

A good teacher makes sure to throw the concepts first than the details and to clearly specify which balls go into which box, as well as which boxes go inside/over which other boxes.

But most teacher simply throw the balls and boxes in an not so well structured manner, so the poor students try to catch as many as he can, but also miss a lot of them. His hands can hold a limited amount of balls. If he doesn't have the right box to put them, he would either miss the next balls, or put the one he hold in his hand in the wrong box.

Bottom line, the best teachers are those who focus on the concepts (and context) and make sure that the concepts are well understood before introducing details to stuck in these concepts. From my experience our brain (or at least mine) better learn this way. It is as if our brain need first to establish a category-pattern (the concept/context) to which it will associate detail-patterns. But without a proper category-pattern, our brain is having a hard time to properly remember the detail-patterns or miss-associate them to the wrong category-pattern (which create even more confusion).

Hope it was helpful somehow...

교육 기관: Will J

2019년 9월 22일

Pros: The instructors of this course are absolutely knowledgable on the content here. The content itself is challenging and applicable to real-world data science challenges. Using R makes this a good course for today's (2019) current programming world as many professional statisticians will use this language day-to-day.

Cons: The content feels mismanaged. Sometimes the Lectures don't prep you for the practice assignments, and sometimes neither of those prep you for the quizzes particularly well. I had also hoped for some more engaging video content from a course this expensive. Having a professor in his office hastily work through material while there are police sirens outside isn't exactly pro-level instruction (It is in Baltimore, so I get it).

Overall, it's worth it if you've got the time to power through relatively dull lectures. The R based practice assignments are wonderful and the final project incorporates things together nicely.

교육 기관: Janardhan K

2017년 11월 16일

The course was of average quality. It could have been better. Brian's slides in the video don't correspond 1-1 with the slides made available. The coverage and explanation of the material could have been better. The instructor's presentation could be more engaging (fewer 'ums' while talking). It was not immediately clear how to answer some questions on the Week 4 quiz, and also the course project, even after reviewing the material multiple times. One example: Brian says that the ANOVA test can only be used to compare models, when the model being compared has normally distributed residuals (using the Shapiro test). No advice is given about what to do if they are not normally distributed, which is what happened in the project.

교육 기관: Raphael R

2016년 10월 31일

I am no used to this educational system so I find difficult to follow without any proof or demonstration of the mathematical tools. I find proofs necessary for a good understanding of concepts. Another benefit of proof will be to have a more rigorous framework for variable names in the explanations. Even though this is more a practical course, it will benefit from being a bit more rigorous ; so at least people can make proofs on they own.

Other than that, it is a great course. Very practical and to the point.

교육 기관: Amol K

2016년 1월 31일

This course goes on a very fast pace and simply does not have the charm of all the other courses in the specialization. I understand that a lot of content is covered within a month, but there should be supplementary course material available. Moreover, TAs should be more active on the forums. I have seen most of the questions just being discussed among the students. A little disappointed. Will probably have to watch all the material again to have confidence with it.

교육 기관: Erick J G L

2018년 1월 31일

Lots of room for improvement on this course, the teacher really seems like he cares but he is a really bad teacher nonetheless. The course material is incomplete and not properly structured. Basically read the book if you want to learn something, otherwise the videos don't really help.

Also, the course project is not worth it because you get no real feedback to compare your project to the ideal or at least expected answer. I would not recommend this course.

교육 기관: Andrew R

2016년 3월 7일

The material presented was of course useful, but I never really felt like I understood how it all tied together, or what the big picture was. I think that some case studies that show how all of the concepts relate to one another, or how they are used in the bigger picture would be helpful.

Also, as a suggestion, I feel that if something is important enough to be included in the quiz, it merits more than the briefest of mentions in the lecture.

교육 기관: Ahmad A

2016년 11월 9일

Requires much more than a month to digest the material and complete the assignments. A default/initial one-week offering is too tight unless you are only taking the course (not working). I know one can complete the course in more than a single round and I did that but I still don't think the expectations should be set for a single month.

Instruction (video content) can be much better, at least compared to a lot of other courses on Coursera.

교육 기관: ANDREW L

2016년 1월 27일

Better than Stat Inference, and gave some reasonable intuition, but could be improved I think by focussing on more understanding and less maths and formulas. Some of it did seem to be - here' s a formula, plug the numbers in to get the quiz question right, whereas in reality (in the world of work) that question is completely unrealistic - you have raw data and you need to do the regression and understand what it means.

교육 기관: Feng H

2017년 5월 16일

Not impressed. Dr. Caffo tried to use non-calculus, non-linear-algrebra ways to explain complex concepts and derivations. IMO, he should not have done that. It only made things more confusing. Also the final project is so unsatisfactory in that we were to analyze the data with 32 obs but 11 variables! How robust could it be? Was expecting something much more challenging than that.