I think the course was a bit too focused on Mr. Pawelski's personal experiences and lacked information about literature and research.

Watching the videos got boring. Good content, but watching a talking head for hours on end was dull. I lost motivation

Good though sometimes seems a bit about selling books. The content is also book based summaries plus anecdotes.

It was a little difficult to understand everything from the way it was presented, it wasn't always clear

It almost just repeated the previous course and there was too little of exercices

too many things to improve in just one course! Very hard to apply

The homework is a bit too personal for posting.

The content is great.

Good

This course felt like it could have been something great if they gave more attention to how it was being taught and the way it was laid out. It was very messy, and not really concrete. I feel like he mainly talked about himself? There's not one thing I remember about this course besides the (overuse?) of the cape metaphor.

I just wish Marty was in here from time to time explaining things, seeing as it started with him.

I think you'd have better chances with "The Science of Well-Being" instead of this one.

After finishing the first course, I've expected a deep dive into research and applications, as the title suggested. I felt the course was not thought out well, the lessons were annoyingly long for the superficial content they were trying to convey. The talks were repetitive and extremely vague. It was a disappointment.

Not to be negative about a positivity course, but I was disappointed that this course contains absolutely no science; it's all a bunch of fluffy philosophy and common sense. The course feels like it's designed for a child; did not learn anything.

The firts part of this course is really good. Didn't like this one nearly as much, the instructor is not very engaging and I think some lessons were a little boring and not that relevant, like the strenghts chat with his wife.

I really liked the course, the content and how it is explained. However, I felt really uncomfortable with some of the assignments as they were asking for very personal things to be shared with other participants.

Graphics would have helped those of us who are visual spatial learners. Also, some of the quizzes really weren't indicative of the themes of the course.

I would like to have some references about these subjects. It would be nice to have tips for good research articles and so on..

too high level, too far from the reality, not concrete enough for me

mostly review of course 1

For the "Three good things" exercise, I got a failing grade from peers, which i feel is not justified.

I felt that "sharing the experience applying the exercise" was more important than just listing the three things every day, but the peer that reviewed my assignment didn't agree.

I didn't write down exactly what I said each day, though I did the exercise and said so. I also had a personal reflection about the exercise, which I thought through carefully, and which I felt really showed how I understood the purpose of the exercise. I don't think it was expressly said clearly enough when the assignment was set that all we needed to do was list the three things daily, and talk about why they were good. I don't really think that that is the basis of the exercise or the course, especially when I had a deeply personal reflection of the exercise. If all we need to do is list things, then I think it's a useless exercise, which doesn't really lead to personal insight. I could go back and redo the assignment, just listing things, but I don't think that's a really useful thing to do.

Also, I don't think it makes sense to explain why the good things happen each day...they just happen, and we notice them! There is no "why"...if we notice a beautiful sunset, there is no "reason" to explain why it happened. I wouldn't know what to say that would make a peer feel like I had a good "reason" to explain why the good things happened. If I need to go back and just make a silly list, and try to explain the inexplicable, just to pass the course, I will do so, but I don't feel that it really gets to the heart of what the exercise was attempting to have us realize and work through.

The rest of the course has been wonderful, and I've really been enjoying it, this is the first thing that I'm not really happy with.

Thank you, Elayne Ras

The learning resources are very poor: few readings, almost no visual aids, long speeches from Pawelski, which I don't think is the best way to learn, few exercises, exercises that demand memory instead of reflection, quizzes that also focus on memory rather than on understanding and application of knowledge. I expected something deeper, specially considering the time demanded by the course.

Site for this course is glitchy and material is missing. Much less science than I was expecting. More of a self improvement course. They did not seem to have proof read all of the material. So many issues with this course that I am not sure I will ever pay to take a coursera course again.

Delivery was boring and uninspiring.

Material has significant overlap and redundancy over the very first course.

Very little support or evidence was provided for claims provided in course.

I have enrolled just for one course but they charge automatically without any warning

A lot of talk, litlle content. Common sense points made. Catching up to grand ma.