Basicallly its good but reduce the lengthy vedios

Very practical, tons of information and advice.

El curso es bueno pero no lo voy a seguir.

a quite practical course for DP and ER.

Excellent experiencing in all respect.

Learned a lot of practical tips.

it was a very helpful course

It was long in some areas.

good coarse to learn'

Good and effective

Super course

Thank you

its good

GOOD

GOOD

good

:)

I recently completed a disaster preparedness course and found several areas where improvements are necessary, particularly in ensuring the course aligns with current doctrine. One of the primary concerns is that much of the information presented was outdated, relying on doctrine from before 2015. The course continued to use the old emergency management cycle of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery, rather than presenting the most current framework. Additionally, the instructor replaced this older doctrine with his own modified cycle—mitigation, response, recovery, and then mitigation again—which is neither the current standard nor the doctrine that was in place at the time. As an instructor myself, I believe it is essential to teach the current doctrine, regardless of personal opinions, because students must be able to communicate effectively within their field. Just as the Incident Command System (ICS) relies on common terminology to ensure seamless coordination, disaster preparedness professionals must be familiar with the accepted language and principles of their discipline. Deviating from these standards can create confusion and misalignment when students apply their knowledge in real-world scenarios. Another concern is that the course title should more accurately reflect its content. Rather than being a broad "disaster preparedness" course, the material primarily focused on individual preparedness. This distinction is important, as disaster preparedness encompasses a wider scope that includes community, organizational, and governmental readiness efforts. Reframing the course as "Individual Preparedness" would set clearer expectations for students. Additionally, I noticed a strong emphasis on medical preparedness, likely due to the instructor’s background. While medical readiness is an important component, the course sometimes leaned too heavily in that direction at the expense of a more balanced approach to overall disaster preparedness. A more structured and comprehensive approach would ensure that all key aspects—such as logistical planning, communication strategies, and community resilience—are adequately covered. Finally, I found that some quiz questions seemed to reflect the instructor’s personal preferences rather than being based on doctrine. Assessments should objectively test knowledge of established principles, ensuring students gain a firm understanding of industry standards rather than personal viewpoints. Overall, while the course provided valuable information, it needs significant updates to align with current doctrine, clarify its focus, and maintain an objective approach in assessments. With these adjustments, it could be a much stronger resource for those looking to build a solid foundation in preparedness.

It was a good course. There were a couple of mistakes in the text and also between the text and quiz. The last two I remember are in Lesson 5 the presenter from Japan stated for DMAT. "Actually I participated in the medical care for the Great East Japan Earthquake as a member of the Japanese DMAT, Disaster Management Assistance Team which is quite different from the American DMAT." The problem was in the quiz that was not an option, it did have "Disaster Medical Assistance Team", which of course is the correct answer and was in his slide. Another was in Lesson 6 where Michael states, "Third, the triage person will check how fast the victim is breathing. If over 30 breaths per minute and they may not need to count, if it's fast, they will know. They will tag the victim as red. If it's less than 30, they will check perfusion, or blood flow." Of course, when he goes and states "If it's less than 30." he's actually talking about Stage Four and not three. It was in the slides and any new students would be wise to save the slides to refer to for any quizzes, the text can be tricky. The only other piece was the assignment, if going to be reviewed by other students, it should have something showing if they left a response or not. I spent a good 20 minutes looking for their responses (there weren't any). As stated I liked the course otherwise, Lesson 6 was good to understand how the Triage system works that I didn't know about. Cheers.

Needs to update the course with regards to pandemic disaster and other disaster our world is facing.

It was a very good basic course. It relied to much on FEMA and help coming.

Good way to be prepared on actual disasters! Kudos!

An informative course but instructor was boring.

it has help with something i have overlook

good teachers and yet the