Students Workshop Feedback Report
Forty-four students across FY MBA, FY BBA and TY BBA evaluated The Power of Words workshop on nine statements covering the facilitator, the content, the delivery and the opportunity to participate. This is the full result.
Feedback highlights
396 individual ratings from 44 respondents across nine evaluation statements.
Student Feedback Report — full PDF
The complete report as submitted by MIT-WPU Ramcharan School of Business, including every figure, table and the full appendix of student responses.
PDF · 1.3 MB · 15 pages
Top-rated highlights
Instructor was available and helpful
86.4%Workload was appropriate
86.4%Instructor was an effective lecturer
81.8%Workshop enabled full participation
90%What students valued most
“A highly engaging workshop that strengthened emotional intelligence, leadership awareness, empathy and communication.”
Summary of findings
Overall feedback was highly favourable
Of the 396 individual ratings received across the nine evaluation statements, 84.2% were either “Agree” or “Strongly agree.” This indicates that students generally viewed the workshop content, facilitator, delivery and opportunities for participation positively.
A substantial majority gave consistently high ratings
Out of the 44 respondents, 32 students recorded an average rating of at least 4.0 out of 5 across all evaluation items — nearly three-fourths of respondents expressing a strong overall level of satisfaction.
Many students were positive about every aspect
A total of 26 respondents rated all nine evaluation items positively, selecting either “Agree” or “Strongly agree” for every statement. Among them, 12 respondents selected “Strongly agree” for all nine items, indicating an exceptionally positive overall experience.
Feedback differed moderately across the participating classes
FY MBA recorded the strongest overall results, suggesting the content and delivery particularly resonated with this group. FY BBA students also responded positively, though some indicated a need for greater presentation clarity, engagement and more structured interaction. TY BBA responses were mainly neutral to positive; this should be interpreted cautiously because only four TY BBA students participated.
Students wanted more opportunities for active participation
A few respondents suggested that future sessions could be made even more engaging by incorporating additional activities, team-building exercises, smaller-group discussions and the involvement of student ambassadors — reflecting appreciation of the core content and interest in exploring it through participative learning.
Rating distribution
The overall mean rating was 4.16 out of 5. Strongly agree accounted for 48.5% of all selections and Agree for 31.3%. Neutral responses constituted 12.1%, while the combined unfavourable share was 8.1%.
Figure 1. Distribution of all 396 rating selections.
Instructor and content dimensions
The instructor and content dimensions received almost identical mean scores, indicating students evaluated both the facilitator's delivery and the substance of the workshop positively.
| Dimension | Mean rating | Items |
|---|---|---|
| Instructor skill and responsiveness | 4.16 | 5 |
| Course / workshop content | 4.15 | 4 |
| Overall | 4.16 | 9 |
Instructor skill and responsiveness
- Mean rating
- 4.16
- Items
- 5
Course / workshop content
- Mean rating
- 4.15
- Items
- 4
Overall
- Mean rating
- 4.16
- Items
- 9
Every item scored above 4.0
The variation between items is modest; the relative ranking is more useful for prioritising refinement than for identifying serious weaknesses.
Mean rating · 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree
Figure 2. Mean rating for each feedback item.
Detailed item-wise results
| Feedback item | Mean | Favourable | Neutral | Unfavourable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instructor was an effective lecturer / demonstrator | 4.25 | 81.8% | 11.4% | 6.8% |
| Presentations were clear and organised | 4.07 | 77.3% | 9.1% | 13.6% |
| Instructor stimulated student interest | 4.16 | 79.5% | 9.1% | 11.4% |
| Instructor used time effectively | 4.07 | 72.7% | 20.5% | 6.8% |
| Instructor was available and helpful | 4.25 | 86.4% | 6.8% | 6.8% |
| Learning objectives were clear | 4.05 | 77.3% | 15.9% | 6.8% |
| Content was organised and well planned | 4.16 | 77.3% | 13.6% | 9.1% |
| Workload was appropriate | 4.23 | 86.4% | 9.1% | 4.5% |
| Workshop allowed full participation | 4.18 | 79.5% | 13.6% | 6.8% |
Instructor was an effective lecturer / demonstrator
- Mean
- 4.25
- Favourable
- 81.8%
- Neutral
- 11.4%
- Unfavourable
- 6.8%
Presentations were clear and organised
- Mean
- 4.07
- Favourable
- 77.3%
- Neutral
- 9.1%
- Unfavourable
- 13.6%
Instructor stimulated student interest
- Mean
- 4.16
- Favourable
- 79.5%
- Neutral
- 9.1%
- Unfavourable
- 11.4%
Instructor used time effectively
- Mean
- 4.07
- Favourable
- 72.7%
- Neutral
- 20.5%
- Unfavourable
- 6.8%
Instructor was available and helpful
- Mean
- 4.25
- Favourable
- 86.4%
- Neutral
- 6.8%
- Unfavourable
- 6.8%
Learning objectives were clear
- Mean
- 4.05
- Favourable
- 77.3%
- Neutral
- 15.9%
- Unfavourable
- 6.8%
Content was organised and well planned
- Mean
- 4.16
- Favourable
- 77.3%
- Neutral
- 13.6%
- Unfavourable
- 9.1%
Workload was appropriate
- Mean
- 4.23
- Favourable
- 86.4%
- Neutral
- 9.1%
- Unfavourable
- 4.5%
Workshop allowed full participation
- Mean
- 4.18
- Favourable
- 79.5%
- Neutral
- 13.6%
- Unfavourable
- 6.8%
Strongest areas
Instructor availability and helpfulness
Mean 4.25; 86.4% favourable.
Effective lecturer / demonstrator
Mean 4.25; 81.8% favourable.
Appropriate workload
Mean 4.23; 86.4% favourable and only 4.5% unfavourable.
Opportunity for full participation
Mean 4.18; 79.5% favourable.
Relative improvement areas
Learning objectives
The lowest mean was still positive at 4.05, but 15.9% of responses were neutral.
Use of time
Mean 4.07 and the lowest favourable rate at 72.7%; 20.5% were neutral.
Presentation clarity and organisation
Mean 4.07; 13.6% of responses were unfavourable, the highest unfavourable share among the items.
What students valued most
Two areas were explored in qualitative analysis: the useful aspects of the session, and improvement areas. Themes were coded manually and counts overlap because one response may contain several ideas.
Emotional intelligence and self-management
10 mentionsStudents valued learning to recognise, balance and communicate emotions, develop empathy and remain calm under pressure.
Leadership, decision-making and personal growth
10 mentionsRespondents connected the workshop with leadership qualities, self-motivation, priority management and better decision-making.
Wristbands as a communication tool
5 mentionsThe wristbands were remembered as a practical, non-verbal way of expressing feelings, requesting support and connecting with others.
Interactive, two-way facilitation
4 mentionsStudents appreciated being invited to share opinions and interact with the facilitator rather than simply listening to a lecture.
Practical examples and real-life application
4 mentionsExamples, case studies and references to everyday situations helped students understand how the concepts could be applied.
Detailed findings: what students valued
Emotional awareness was a central learning outcome
The strongest group of comments concerned emotional intelligence. Students mentioned emotional balance, empathy, self-expression, self-motivation and responding calmly to stressful situations. Statements such as “balance of emotions,” “learning emotions,” and becoming “more vocal about feelings” indicate that the workshop encouraged personal reflection rather than only providing theoretical information. Several comments also show that students understood emotional intelligence as an interpersonal skill — recognising other people’s feelings, offering and receiving support and communicating more openly with friends. This suggests the workshop’s influence extended from individual emotional regulation to relationships and social behaviour.
Students connected the content with leadership and personal development
Leadership development was another prominent theme. Students referred to the seven qualities or pillars of leadership, management, decision-making, self-motivation and priority management. One response described the workshop as showing how a person could become both “a better leader” and “a better person.” This indicates that students did not view the workshop only as a session about communication — they connected the content with broader personal and professional development. The combination of emotional intelligence and leadership appears to have been one of the workshop’s most distinctive strengths.
The wristbands were a memorable practical feature
The wristbands appeared repeatedly and were described as useful, valuable and meaningful. One detailed response explained that they could help people communicate emotions “without having to speak,” particularly when they found it difficult to talk openly. The wristbands therefore functioned as more than a workshop souvenir: they translated an abstract idea — emotional communication — into a simple and tangible practice. Their repeated appearance in the feedback suggests this activity should remain a central feature of future workshops.
Two-way interaction was appreciated
Students positively described the facilitator’s curiosity about their opinions, approachable communication style and ability to interact “at a common level.” One respondent specifically contrasted the session with a one-way lecture and valued the exchange between the instructor and students. This is an important finding because interaction appeared both as a strength and as the most common improvement request. The apparent contradiction suggests that the interaction that occurred was effective, but that not every student had sufficient opportunity to participate.
Practical examples helped students understand the concepts
Students appreciated examples, case studies and explanations of how emotional intelligence could be used in different situations. These comments show that practical illustration improved clarity and made the content feel relevant. However, requests for “more practicality” indicate that students wanted this applied dimension developed further. The examples were successful, but some participants wanted additional opportunities to practise the skills themselves.
Interpretive findings
- Core content was strongly appreciated, especially emotional intelligence and leadership development.
- The wristbands were a memorable practical device for expressing emotions and seeking support.
- Students valued existing interaction but wanted more frequent, inclusive and psychologically safe participation.
- Timing views differed: some wanted a shorter session, while others wanted more time to interact.
Where students asked for more
Of the improvement responses, 14 were explicit no-change answers and 14 carried a constructive suggestion. The comments do not primarily call for different content — students would like to engage with the existing content more actively, practically and comfortably.
More interaction and participation
7 mentionsActivities, team-building exercises, group assignments, smaller discussion groups, more time to interact and participation by student ambassadors.
Clearer structure, presentation and audience alignment
5 mentionsA more organised, detailed and professional delivery, with participants approached as serious stakeholders in their own education.
More practical application
3 mentionsClearer links between workshop principles and real situations — short scenarios, role-plays, decision-making exercises or personal action plans.
Better pacing and use of time
2 mentionsTiming views differed: some wanted a shorter session, while others wanted more time to interact.
Detailed analysis of improvement suggestions
More active participation — 7 mentions
The clearest improvement theme. These comments should not be interpreted simply as requests for entertainment. They indicate a preference for experiential learning in which students can practise communication, leadership and emotional-intelligence skills.
Clearer and more professionally aligned delivery — 5 mentions
Some students requested a more organised, clear, detailed or professional presentation. Two closely worded comments asked for participants to be approached as serious stakeholders or “investors” in their education. The underlying message appears to be that these students wanted a more mature, purposeful and audience-aware delivery style. Future sessions could respond by stating the learning objectives clearly, explaining the practical relevance of each section and using language suited to college-level participants.
Greater practical application — 3 mentions
Comments requesting “practicality of the solutions,” “more practicality,” group activities and assignments suggest students wanted clearer links between workshop principles and real situations. Future workshops could therefore include short scenarios, role-plays, decision-making exercises or personal action plans. This would help participants move from understanding a concept to demonstrating how they would use it.
Psychological safety and group size
One respondent wanted students to share experiences without feeling overly exposed or vulnerable. Another recommended a smaller audience so individuals could participate more comfortably. This is particularly important because emotional intelligence and personal feelings can be sensitive subjects. Participation should therefore be encouraged without requiring public disclosure. Small-group discussion, anonymous prompts and voluntary sharing would make the session more inclusive.
Specific participation suggestions
These comments should not be interpreted simply as requests for entertainment. They indicate a preference for experiential learning in which students can practise communication, leadership and emotional-intelligence skills.
Retain the content, redesign the delivery
The qualitative feedback indicates that the workshop's core content was well received. Emotional intelligence, leadership development, the wristband activity and the facilitator's approachable style were the most meaningful features.
The improvement comments do not primarily call for different content. Instead, students would like to engage with the existing content more actively, practically and comfortably. The strongest opportunity is therefore to retain the workshop's core themes while redesigning parts of the delivery around participation, application and audience engagement.
What we change next
Alternate short presentation segments with structured activities
Break the session into shorter teaching blocks, each followed by a defined activity, so that content and practice reinforce one another rather than competing for the same time.
Use small groups and low-pressure sharing formats
Emotional intelligence and personal feelings are sensitive subjects. Small-group discussion, anonymous prompts and voluntary sharing let students participate without requiring public disclosure.
Involve student ambassadors as participation facilitators
Peer facilitators lower the barrier to speaking up and help distribute interaction across the room rather than concentrating it among the most confident participants.
Retain the wristband activity, practical examples and leadership content
These were the most frequently named strengths. The improvement comments do not call for different content — they ask to engage with the existing content more actively and practically.
Students’ original comments
What aspects of this course were most useful or valuable? Responses are presented in their original wording; spelling and grammar have been retained. Names are not shown.
The faculty ran the same programme the next day
Fourteen MIT-WPU faculty members completed the FDP on 27 August 2026, rating it 4.29 out of 5 with 89.3% favourable responses.
Read the faculty report