The description of this course states that it “explores critical thinking, and the interpretation of texts, through the Shakespeare authorship question. Using doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship as our playground, we will explore the key concept of authorship attribution, while developing skills in literary analysis, interpretation, and argument. Through forensic exploration of key texts, by both Shakespeare and other writers of the period, you will learn why Shakespeare’s authorship is questioned, and what evidence is cited on both sides of the debate.”
The course failed based on its stated goals.
-- There was little exploration of critical thinking. Instead, a brief introduction to pop psychology warned against bias and the effects of cognitive dissonance.
-- The “skill development” took the form of stating certain rules for interpreting historical evidence. But there was no effort made to actually cover the historical method; one of the rules that was discussed is entirely unsupported by any historical authority; the one scholar named in the lecture, when contacted, strongly disagreed with the spin placed on his words.
-- The discussion of evidence on both sides took the form generally of setting up strawman arguments on the side of Shakespeare’s authorship for the purpose of knocking them down. Often the pro-Shakespeare arguments were taken out of context or given strained and illogical interpretations.
-- For instance, the lecturer devoted a quarter of the first module (A.3.) to a discussion of “the broker theory.” The idea was that, though Shakespeare was repeatedly named as a “player” in contemporary records and cast lists, he was really a “play-broker” who bought and sold plays, but neither wrote nor performed them. Nobody at the time was described as a “play-broker,” nor is there evidence that describing someone as a player really meant that the person was a “play-broker.” This entire line of discussion was apparently developed in order to identify Shakespeare as the target of a derisive poem that referred to “brokage” -- a word that meant something quite different from “brokerage” in the seventeenth century.
The instructor was quite clear that this course was intended to promote the fringe belief that a Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays and poems is seriously questioned. Though the description suggests that an even-handed approach would be observed, the lecturer chose to mispronounce Shakespeare’s name to distinguish the author from the man from Stratford; the comment section of the course was carefully scrubbed of pro-Shakespeare comments and even comments that complained about the quality of the course and materials -- in violation of the policies of Coursera.
Overall, this was a poorly organized, inadequately researched mess. The lecturer has no academic credentials in the area, and was frequently corrected by course participants who had a better grasp of the material. My recommendation is to drop this course entirely and start over, or just give it up.