Sample of feedback provided to unit supervisor on webinar presentation. It includes feedback on the presentation and presenter followed by an analysis of the webinar and recommendations for improvement based on the data collected.

1. From: Muldrow, Thomas
To: Dickman, Renee
Cc: McBride, Tamara; "muldro06@email.franklin.edu"
Subject: PHEP 101 feedback - ERU
Date: Saturday, July 9, 2022 1:33:00 PM
Attachments: image008.png
image004.png
image006.png
Renee,
Below is the final feedback from the PHEP 101 pilot presentations last week, for ERU. I know it was
opened up for comment at the end of each session but because it was also on the survey that was
completed I wanted to get to you anyway.
RESULTS
Overall the attendees were pleased with the presentations and the presenters. The average score
for both was approximately a 4.6/5. There were no overwhelming areas of improvement necessary.
There was some concern over the presentation being a little “dry” and the presenters failing to
maintain interest during the entire presentation. That most likely corresponds to a recommendation
that there be more direct engagement with the audience. Otherwise there was very little variation
in responses.
a. Presentation
The statement with the lowest average response was “The presentation was concise and
informative”. This included the only response of “disagree” in the survey
The statement with the highest average response was “The presentation contained
practical examples and useful techniques….” With 2/3 of the responses being “strongly
agree”
The audience had an overall positive opinion of the presentation with 57% (40/70
responses of strongly agree). There was also very little deviation in responses

2. b. Presenter
The statement with the highest average response was “The presenters were
knowledgeable about the topic and any related questions”
The audience had an overall positive opinion of the presentation with 68% (38/56
responses of strongly agree). There was also very little deviation in responses.
There were two negative responses regarding the presenter – “The presenters
maintained my interest….” and “The presenters were well organized and prepared” with
the first being the lowest scored statement of the survey at 4.36/5. This is in direct
contrast to the comments provided by respondents but could be due to the content being
read (and the speakers being off camera).
There was very little variation in across the entire survey with the average score of both the
presentation and presenter falling within one standard deviation of the overall average score of
4.6/5. The three lowest scores included applicability, conciseness, and the ability to maintain
interest in the material. Despite the knowledge level and preparedness of the speakers it is still
something that could be addressed in order to improve the overall user experience. If not
achievable during a webinar of this size consideration should be giving to moving to a different
medium like eLearning so that the course can be taken at the student’s pace and with the ability to
be more interactive. Unfortunately no other conclusions can be drawn about the presentation or
presenters because the survey was inclusive of all five sections within the presentation that were
provided by five different speakers.
ANALYSIS
1. Overall the presentation and presenters were well received with extremely high results across
the survey. The presenters came across well prepared and easy to understand however, the
information is not inherently exciting/engaging and sometimes made it hard to keep the
audience interested.
2. One single outlier that responded with a “neutral” to the presentation being applicable to
their job. Suspect that is either a consultant or planner that does not currently engage in

3. planning. This should not be the case when presented to the intended audience (Emergency
Response Coordinators).
3. There were no clear indication of any problems with the presentation except for the lack of
interest in the material. Speakers should look for ways to make the material more interesting.
4. General comments were:
a. Nice slide for Whole Community Planning Enhancing Inclusiveness - presentation
b. It was apparent that the speakers today were the most well prepared. Speakers were
easy to understand and follow - presenter
c. Great presentation but the material was dry and was not able to keep my attention –
presenter
d. Recommend more direct engagement with the audience (maybe a camera) and more
practice to feel confident - presenter
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Increase engagement with audience if possible. Consider using mentimeter to inject some
interaction into the presentation
2. Ensure speakers presenting are using inflection in their voice (avoiding a monotone
presentation) to help maintain audience attention
3. Consider cutting down the amount of content provided and replacing with examples or
demonstrations to add variety
Thomas
Thomas Muldrow, MBA
Emergency Response Unit Supervisor
Bureau of Health Preparedness
Ohio Department of Health
246 N High St
Columbus, OH 43215
Office: (614) 466-5972
Mobile: (614) 460-0751
thomas.muldrow@odh.ohio.gov
www.odh.ohio.gov