University of California, Davis
July 13-16, 2009
WAS THE AGENDA FOR THIS COURSE ADEQUATE AND DID IT MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?
 | The agenda was right on the money. I think this was a good opportunity to think out of the box and see the folks we deal with in a more empathetic way. |
| Good agenda and topics covered were helpful. Overall an excellent course. Very well organized and facilitated. |
| I liked the 4 day course, instead of the traditional 5 day course. Yes the agenda was good and it met my expectations. Great job everyone! An informative and useful week of learning. (And fun, too). J |
| Yes, was extremely educational. Would attend again. |
| Agenda was great! |
| Yes, it did. |
| Yes, the speakers were all well prepared and the topics are all relevant to current risk communication styles. |
| Yes - very complete. Nice diversity of topics. Could have used a little more on “developing the message” - got a little of that but not much. On the other hand, I love Alvin’s style of focusing on “how.” |
| Excellent agenda - better than expectations. Four days packed but well worth it. |
| Most of the agenda was more than adequate to inform about risk communication. The scenarios were great - more of Fred Whitford would be great. Mike Hare did a great job of introduction to the subject. |
| Exceeded - I was thinking more along the lines of 3 facts, 27 words, etc. Even the EPA risk management made sense and kept me engaged. |
| I think the agenda was great. It was well-rounded and well-planned. I liked the 4 day course structure versus 5 days. |
| Overall the course exceeded my expectations. The agenda covered a lot of good material. |
| This course exceeded my expectations with both subject and content - excellent. No further comments necessary. |
| I came here without specific expectations, only hoping to gain some tips on how to improve my communication skills. What I got was more than I could have imagined! |
| Yes and more. |
| The agenda exceeded my expectations considering risk communication. Particularly, methods and practices that provide clear communication to a targeted audience. |
| In most cases I think some of the presentations were a little weak. |
| Yes, especially appreciated the discussions and Alvin Chun. |
| Yes. I found the last day to be the least useful. I also think that it would have been useful to spend some time everyday summarizing the day in breakout groups. |
| Yes and it did meet my expectations. |
| Considering the variety of potential subjects for this course, it was adequate and met my expectations. |
| Yes, very much! |
WHAT COULD THE PREP PLANNERS HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS COURSE MORE USEFUL TO YOU?
| Passive learning (sit & listen) is minimally effective. Try to emphasize and incorporate more breakouts, activities, practice, interactive presentations. It takes time, but it’s worth it. |
| I think the class participation components are very useful (i.e. the panel sessions, breakout sessions). It might be nice to have more of them. |
| Not have condensed the course by one day. |
| Add a bit more excitement from speakers. |
| More training from NPIC. Training similar to what NPIC offers employees would be good, especially since most of my risk communication would be similar to what they receive. |
| More role playing! Introduce mock hearing earlier to participants for better prep and to add to content! |
| Very excellent job! Well done! |
| More refined breakout sessions (directions.) More demonstrations of risk communication approaches. More on cultural issues. |
| I would have liked more breakout group discussions and reports. More scenarios to work on. |
| Outstanding - nothing. |
| Better chairs. |
| The committee did a good job, I’m not sure if there’s much to improve. Some presenters were stronger than others, but that happens. The “Impact of Literacy” segment could have been expanded with more relevant info. I would like to have heard in “Culture and Risk Communications” how the various culture groups (including mainstream) choose best methods of interaction with the other groups. |
| Adding a segment on how not to run a public meeting and include more discussion on how we can structure public meetings to address various situations. |
| Don’t know. This was pretty good. |
| Adjust expected outcomes of first group exercise (re: elements of risk communication). May want to use Harvard. |
| Field Trip. |
| I do a lot of written communication. Methods for relaying risk in the written word would have been very welcome. Chris Corwin touched on some of it, but more would have been useful. Of concern, PPB/PPT discussions in relation to human health standard. Suzanne was an exceptional moderator. |
| Have some inspired presentations. |
| A good broad-based program. Perhaps monthly conference calls for focus groups to assist in supporting the implementation. Could break the class into 2-4 conference call groups. |
| More focus on intercultural interactions. More practical work: I would have preferred a daily breakout to discuss daily topics, this is a recurring theme: more practical work. |
| Can’t think of anything specific. |
| Include a few more breakout sessions. |
| With the diversity of attendees from scientists, managers, to inspectors, I think it covers all bases very well. I could use less technical discussion on registration risk analysis for my job. |
| Break up some of the sessions so they are not as long because the tension span is not that long. |
IF THIS COURSE WAS TO BE HELD AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, CAN YOU SUGGEST FACULTY WHO COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE AGENDA?
| Amber Davis, EPA Region IV, Cultural Competency. |
| Perhaps an observed risk communication exercise at the beginning in addition to one at the end as a contrast? |
| An epidemiologist? Someone who knows how to quantify risks surrounding presented symptoms associated with pesticide exposure. |
| If you feel an explanation of risk assessment (in technical terms) and how that information relates try Dr. Hugo Ochia-Acuia, can boil down to 45 minutes or less, give examples of assessments he has completed. |
| Jim Bauder, MSU Extension (MT State University). |
| Alvin was excellent, without questions. Use him in the future. Kaci was very helpful. |
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
| Copies of slides are more useful if 2 per page, not 6 - graphics are illegible! More space for notes on the page. Food: Tuesday lunch - the beef was very salty-tasting. The green beans and onions were great; also, I loved the fruit. |
| Please axe the use of “PREPsters” - it sounds like we’re in the Mickey Mouse Club or something. It is less distracting to ask people to speak up or repeat than to deal with mobile-microphone! Mic shoved in your face inhibits participation. Very well organized and facilitated - impressive! |
| Suzanne - you do a wonderful job running the PREP courses. Thank you for keeping them on time! Because of you, everything is so well organized and professional. |
| Very pleased with course and the people who attended. |
| Alvin was great! Give him more time and money! |
| 1) Would like the group to consider a different room setup. The classroom style is somewhat stifling to discussion and also hard to hear. An oblong or open rectangle would be a good option to try. 2) Table microphones would be helpful. 3) More interactive activities. Two were good, but the sitting and talks got old. |
| One of the best PREPs! Upper management people should take a similar course; staff people should take a similar course. |
| PowerPoints tended to be overwhelming (too many things per slide). |
| As with all of the PREPS that I have attended, this one was well planed and implemented. Chris Corwin seems a little juvenile as a presenter, although the material was good. |
| Thank you for such a great course. Great food, great town, great location - great meeting. |
| Awesome town meeting! This exercise was the best part of the course. This course is applicable to all forms of communication, not just risk. Very valuable. Many thanks to the planning committee, EPA and UC for an excellent course. |
| Thank you for an excellent and useful training topic. |
| Active Listening session in the future. Logic Modeling session possible at another course (senior managers). You should bring back a theme to the graduation dinner. On the surface, it may appear silly, but I think it builds teamwork and gives people a shared experience after a long week of hard work. Dea, Suzanne, and the Steering Committee obviously put in tremendous work/thought in this week and it came off seamlessly! Kaci Agle is a keeper - please have her back. Alvin Chun was very thought-provoking. I have enjoyed his presentation - it could have been broken up a little. Too long for one person. Carl Winter was also tremendous! Thank you Carl. |
| I thought the quality of the presenters was exceptional. Captain Chun was especially noteworthy in his ability to communicate to other professionals. It was very welcome to interact with other state agencies and see MT problems in context of a larger picture. |
| I thought the course was excellent. Maybe some more interactions. |
| More role playing in different situations. |
| I personally found it insulting and rude to the speakers that people were working on laptops and texting during presentations. |
| Great course, thanks for putting it together. |
| This was a great course! I would recommend to all WMDA employees to take a course! |