I recently completed this neuroscience certification and overall I found the content very interesting and valuable. Many concepts became clearer and more meaningful by the end of the program, and I appreciated the depth and quality of the material.
That said, it took me quite a while to complete. Part of this was because the course is extensive and at times felt a bit dry, but also because I sometimes struggled to understand the purpose or practical relevance of certain modules while going through them.
I think the program would benefit from setting clearer expectations from the beginning — specifically explaining what learners will be able to understand, apply, or do after completing the certification. Having a clearer roadmap and stronger connections between modules would make the learning experience more engaging and motivating throughout.
Overall, it was a worthwhile and intellectually enriching course, with room for improvement in structure, guidance, and learner orientation.
The course was very good. I enjoyed the Christian theme with all the references to Bible verses and having a closer relationship with God. The content was basic and I felt could use more details, more tools & techniques, and more case study examples. I also felt there were a lot of grammar mistakes that need to be corrected.
Thank you for this opportunity for certification. I believe the program could be more robust if there were more actual principles and ideas in detail instead of saying to do this or that. However, the program is succinct and provides a framework. Thank you
The first few modules I found really useful in understanding the difference between spiritual coaching and holistic, as it went on, I felt the others were more common sense or could have been reduced into less topics. There were some typos and spelling mistakes as well as weirdly sexist sections when using him/her that felt out of date, there were also sections that were ableist when talking about focus, multi-tasking and the body - I would encourage a more social model informed approach that celebrates cognitive diversity and finding strategies that align to your unique rhythm then striving to adapt your mind to work one certain way. There were points that also used absolutist language of the right way or wrong way where I'd suggest more invitational or suggestive language to make space for diversity again. Otherwise it was solid, I found the quizzes useful.
(Pros): Overall, I really enjoyed the course. I appreciate the scope, (quality and quantity), of scientific information that it provides, the thoughtful discussions around the spiritual nature of sylvotherapy as well as scientific, the FAQ's and sensitivity given to the recommended responses to them at the end of module 10, and the quick response time to the questions that I submitted. For these reasons, with some provisos, I would highly recommend this course to anyone who has some understanding and experience of forests/plants, or human physiology, (and related or complimentary areas) and wants to deepen their understanding of Forest Therapy and how to use it.
Provisos (Cons): The course uses a vast number of scientific terms when discussing medicinal and therapeutic properties of plants and trees, and their effects on the human body. It would be helpful to have some medical backround or a background in biology to understand these, but given that perhaps many people taking the course will not have this background, perhaps an appendicies at the beginning of the course with a definition of these terms, or at the end of each module, could be provided. This would be very helpul!
In addition, in my opinion, the course is not consistantly well written and some information is either mislabelled, or left me questioning whether it is correct. I found this cause for confusion. See exaamples below:
Example 1: terms that are initially defined as distinct things, later being used interchangeably, like Forest Bathing vs Forest Therapy (Sylvotherapy). Energy and phytoncides at times being used interchangably in some places and as distinct in other places.
Example 2: Incorrect labeling on graphs/charts, as on p. 15 module 6, where Fig. 2 identifies results for " Granzyme A" twice, but as two different values. I'm assuming the second value should be labelled " Granzyme B"?
Example 3: Confusing, possibly incorrect information: on page 11, module 6, under "The Lilac, Poplar and Hawthorn Tree" it says "The volatile phytoncides in lilac, poplar and hawthorn reduce the diameter of blood vessels, thereby increasing blood pressure and stimulating the cardiovascular system. " Is this correct? When I researched this I consistantly found that the opposite is true. National Institues of Health, Mar. 5, 2026 for example, states that rather than constricting blood vessel diameter, scientific evidence suggests these compounds often act as vasodialators (widening the blood vessels) and lowering blood pressure and improving circulation.
Example 4-the exam: When there can be only one best answer, the wording of each option must be very concise so that there is no confusion about what each option means.
For instance, for the final exam where the question asks the reason behind shinrin yoku, I was looking for an answer that indicated that it was to attract the Japanese into the forest to rediscover the benefits of nature, the beauty of their natural environment, and of their forests. The answer that is said to be the correct one says "to attract Japanese into the forest to rediscover the riches of their country." Riches can be enconomic, domestic, cultural, etc. but my understanding is that it was specifially the natural environment and the forests, that shinrin yoku was wanting to attrack them back to. The wording that is used in the supposedly "best answer," is arguable, given the other options.
Having said all this, I still hold that the course has a lot to offer.:)
My only comment would be that there is no marking option for the exercises, and after working hard to complete them, it gives you a suggested answer anyway?
I really appreciate the opportunity to formalize this through a certification. However, I found the content extremely poorly written, which is a real pity, as the content is good but very tough to read.
