OSC 2007 Evaluation Report
OSC 2007 Evaluation Report
OSC 2007 Evaluation Report
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>2007</strong> <strong>OSC</strong> Readiness Training Program <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
Comments on course content<br />
• Case studies were good.<br />
• Great inventory and summary of the various tools and initiatives.<br />
• Great opportunity to communicate NHSRC, ORD, and OW tools and initiative to response<br />
community.<br />
• Add more case studies. (Two responses)<br />
• More information on emergency response tools for chemical and biological agents is needed.<br />
• Add information on DoD detection equipment in development and pilot studies.<br />
• Present more detail and break the course into multiple courses each with more case studies and<br />
hands-on activities. (Six responses)<br />
• There was not enough chemical response information.<br />
Comments on instructional methods and materials<br />
• Good instructors — well spoken and knowledgeable.<br />
• Good way of reaching different levels of experience or knowledge. Benefited from multiple<br />
presenters.<br />
• Kept interest by changing topics and speakers.<br />
• Items like the quick reference guides located on the Web site and site assessment managers will<br />
greatly be used.<br />
• Handouts and reference to contacts and Web sites will be very helpful (many of which I was not<br />
aware of).<br />
• CD/ROMs are always nice to accompany binders.<br />
• Have the Web sites set up at the ERT Internet cafe and allow participants to practice using the<br />
Web sites.<br />
• Too much information for class time; some presentations were rushed. (Nineteen responses)<br />
• Not enough time for discussion. (Two responses)<br />
• Too many Web sites provided; a centralized response site with application tools is needed.<br />
• Update course as tools evolve.<br />
• Lecture materials sometimes did not match the presenter’s slides. (Three responses)<br />
• Some slides were difficult to read (small font, poor color choices, etc.). (Three responses)<br />
• The microbiology slides need to be reviewed for ease of reading.<br />
Comments on course name and abstract expectations<br />
• Yes, it was a good overview.<br />
• No, it was limited by focus on example.<br />
• Should be re-named given the water focus.<br />
C-48 Comments about Individual Training Courses
Change language