• First workshop-May 31,1998,Honoka' a. Trainers: Rossanna Alvarez, Susan Blood. 111 evaluation forms tabulated.
• Second workshop-June 28,1998, Hilo. Trainers: Susan Blood, Frank Odasz. 82 evaluation forms tabulated.
• Third workshop-July?, 1998, Volcano. Trainers: Alison Hughes, Frank Odasz. 86 evaluation forms tabulated.
• Fourth workshop-August 23,1998, Kona Surf, Trainers: Rita Anderson, Jeffrey Zacharakis-Jutz. 89 evaluation forms tabulated.
• Fifth workshop-September 27,1998. Kona Surf. Trainers: Nette Nelson, Steve Graham. 75 evaluation forms tabulated.
• Sixth workshop-October 25,1998. Hilo. Trainers: Edwin Nelson, Pat Finn. 68 surveys tabulated.

The decline in the number of evaluations returned from the first workshop to the last is not dramatic considering two teams were disqualified for attendance reasons and most of those members did not attend the remaining workshop sessions.

The workshop ratings for the first workshop were somewhat lower than for subsequent sessions. The lower evaulations-mostly between 3 and 4 on a 5-point scale-appear to be the result of participant dissatisfaction with workshop accommodations, particularly with poor acoustics.

With the exception of two technology demonstration sessions, participants seem to have been greatly impressed by remaining sessions. Cluster members most frequently rated these all aspects of these sessions with a 5. Team members offered remarks on one technology session where 40% of the evaluations were returned with a 3 or below, saying they were looking for more technology and "hands-on" experience.

Evaluation Process

Master copies of evaluation forms were delivered to the Cluster evaluation representative. Copies were distributed to all participants at each Cluster meeting. Participants were asked to answer questions regarding arrangements, technology demonstration sessions, and primary sessions delivered by MIRA trainers.

Forms were returned to the Heartland Center for Leadership Development for processing. Numerical data were scanned and mechanically tabulated using specialized computer software. Written commentary was evaluated thematically, summarized and reported.