MIRA SURVEY RESULTS
Nebraska Colorado, first of six training sessions.
Imperial, 27 June 1998.
70 surveys tabulated.
| Question | Avg. | Most frequent answer |
| First Trainer, Sandy Opp |
| 1 Organization of presentation. | 4.26 | 4 |
| 2 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 3.60 | 3 |
| 3 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 3.97 | 4 |
| 4 Usefulness of printed materials. | 3.68 | 4 |
| 5 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.49 | 5 |
| 6 Clarity of presentation. | 3.78 | 4 |
| 7 Pace of presentation. | 2.81 | 3 |
| 8 Response to questions. | 3.44 | 4 |
| 9 Session met my expectations. | 3.37 | 3 |
| 10 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 3.47 | 4 |
| 11 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 3.39 | 4 |
| Questions 14-26 do not apply, no second trainer. |
| Arrangements |
| 27 Appropriate site. | 2.80 | 3 |
| 28 Seating arrangement. | 3.58 | 4 |
| 29 Advance information. | 3.00 | 4 |
| 30 Refreshments/meal | 4.47 | 5 |
Comments on back.
Commentary
MIRA Survey results. Imperial, 27 June, 1998.
A dozen respondents complain of the heat. "It's too hot to think,' says one. Another comments that the "afternoon speaker's message was lost in the heat." Many note that the refreshments were good.
Question 12. Something I learned from this session was (Sandy Opp): The appeal to change with the times inspired many. Typical comments are positive. "Change is good, preparation better." "Change is hard, but not always bad." "One must be ready to understand what is changing and adapt to it."
The group also picked up practical lessons. One person learned about the surprising availability of jobs in the technical field Another found out how to recruit companies from other places Yet another learned "how my decisions now can affect the business opportunities for myself and others in the community."
Thomas Jefferson was quoted in one survey response: "When the family farm goes, America goes." And finally, an older participant reports, "Young people are pretty good people. I liked being with them."
Question 13. Something 1plan to use from this session is (Sandy Opp): One person specifically plans to apply the information in the handouts to the team planning process. Others will put general lessons to use. One, for instance, wants to "go with the flow" of change. A second person will be "looking at the changing world and deciding how to use the changes to help the community and myself."
Two responses involve youth. "Invite more youth in business and community projects." is one proposal. A second idea; "Encourage young people and try to impress them with old time values. Willing to change."
No second trainer evaluations; there was no second trainer at this session.
MIRA SURVEY RESULTS
Nebraska/Colorado, second of six training sessions.
11 August 1998
80 surveys tabulated.
The survey for this session followed a custom format. All questions rated on a scale of 1-5.
| Question | Avg. | Most frequent answer |
| 1 Was the speaker Rita Anderson interesting? | 2.47 | 2 |
| 2 Was the speaker well organized? | 3.38 | 3,4 |
| 3 How well did they cover the subject? | 3.29 | 3 |
| 4 Was the speaker Tim Lindahl interesting? | 2.67 | 3 |
| 5 Was the speaker well organized? | 3.08 | 4 |
| 6 How well did they cover the subject? | 3.16 | 3 |
| 7 Was the speaker Aabubakr Muhammad Karim interesting? | 4.05 | 5 |
| 8 Was the speaker well organized? | 4.40 |
| 9 How well did they cover the subject? | 4.22 | 5 |
| 1O Was the facility good? | 4.59 |
| 11 Was the overall event organized? | 3.85 |
Commentary
MIRA Survey results. Nebraska/Colorado, 11 August 1998.
Although there were no open response questions on this custom survey, one-half of the cluster members did take time to offer written comments.
The response to the facility was positive. There was, however, some concern about acoustics. Four people mentioned that noise from the nearby racquetball court was distracting. Some outside noise also apparently interfered. In any case, the use of a good sound system was suggested.
Another four people said the room was too cool. There were a number of very positive comments about food, but coffee was a sore point for several.
There was, unfortunately, a dozen respondents registered a general tone of disappointment about the sessions. Equally unfortunate is that suggestions for improvement were also lacking. One person did indicate a sense that Rita Anderson's presentation was "too much" and that the "conclusion left hanging." Another person felt that Tim did not have the time he needed to make his point properly. Two people wanted to see an "interactive" solution to the problem-workshops conducted like the MIRA retreat in Michigan last month. In any case "more enthusiasm" was seen as a desirable goal.
Three session participants did show a great deal of enthusiasm about Karim, who was "most interesting" and "kept. . . interest in the subject." Two others concurred: "Awesome!"
MIRA SURVEY RESULTS
Nebraska/Colorado, third of six training sessions.
Stratton, 29August 1998.
81 surveys tabulated.
| Question | Avg. | Most frequent answer |
| Arrangements |
| 1 Appropriate site. | 4.14 | 5 |
| 2 Seating arrangement. | 3.89 | 4 |
| 3 Advance information. | 3.50 | 3 |
| 4 Refreshments/meal. | 4.34 | 5 |
| First Trainer, Nette Nelson (Policy Evaluation) |
| 5 Organization of presentation. | 4.26 | 5 |
| 6 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 4.31 | 5 |
| 7 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 4.17 | 4 |
| 8 Usefulness of printed materials. | 3.65 | 4 |
| 9 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.43 | 5 |
| 10 Clarity of presentation. | 4.06 | 4 |
| 11 Pace of presentation. | 3.95 | 4 |
| 12 Response to questions. | 3.98 | 4 |
| 13 Session met my expectations. | 4.05 | 4 |
| 14 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 3.86 | 4 |
| 15 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 3.84 | 4 |
| Second Trainer, Ed Nelson (Decision Making) |
| 18 Organization of presentation. | 4.41 | 5 |
| 19 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 4.37 | 5 |
| 20 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 4.43 | 5 |
| 21 Usefulness of printed materials. | 3.76 | 4 |
| 22 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.57 | 5 |
| 23 Clarity of presentation. | 4.35 | 5 |
| 24 Pace of presentation. | 4.29 | 4 |
| 25 Response to questions. | 4.29 | 4 |
| 26 Session met my expectations. | 4.29 | 4 |
| 27 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 4.11 | 4 |
| 28 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 4.06 | 4 |
| Technology Demonstration Session |
| 31 Organization of demonstration. | 4.72 | 5 |
| 32 Usefulness of information. | 4.68 | 5 |
| 33 Improved understanding of technology. | 4.66 | 5 |
Commentary
M1RA Survey results. Nebraska/Colorado, 29 August 1998.
This MIRA group indicated that they were happy with the arrangements. At least two people agree that "the air conditioning was good."
The high rankings for the technology session drew correspondingly positive commentary. "Really cool." "The best." "Excellent." Three people indicated that this was the best technology session so far. The session kept the audience interested, was entertaining, and well-paced. No negative comments were registered.
Nette Nelson. This workshop was the best session yet, according to two of the respondents. Nearly all other comments were similarly positive. Especially promising, one person writes, is that the groups are growing in confidence and ideas. A second person agrees, saying that their "group is starting to combine information and beginning to come together on ideas to help community and to seem to know how to go about accomplishing this." Only one person offered a complaint: the session was slow-paced. Several others, however, indicated that the pace was fine.
Question 16. Something I learned from this session was (Nette Nelson): The ROPES technique and the lessons on how to break down problems received frequent comment. Otherwise, the comments were very general. One person learned "how our communities can become interconnected," for example. Another responded from the perspective of youth: "Youthful ideas need to be implemented in our communities-it is mandatory. Their lively minds will revitalize society."
Question 17. Something I plan to use from this session is (Nette Nelson): Active participation and community links were mentioned most often. One person says they will use the mapping and another plans to use "all of it."
Ed Nelson. Two people say they would like to bring Ed Nelson back again for another session. He was "awesome" and "understands the youth great." As with the other presenters, he was seen as a great improvement over previous sessions. There were no negative comments.
Question 29. Something I learned at this session was (Ed Nelson}: Decision making involves everyone, but that it will not happen without participation. ("If it is to be, it's up to me,") Specifically, participants learned that many of the communities are facing the same problems, or that "leadership knows no age."
Question 30. Something 1 plan to use from this session is (Ed Nelson): Some plan to use the mind mapping techniques. Most felt motivated to find solutions to problems and put them into effect. Most generally, the group understands that planning success results only if everyone is involved.
MIRA SURVEY RESULTS
Nebraska/Colorado, fourth of six training sessions.
Ho/yoke, 28 September 1998,
65 surveys tabulated.
| Question | Avg. | Most frequent answer |
| Arrangements |
| 1 Appropriate site. | 4.30 | 5 |
| 2 Seating arrangement. | 4.30 | 5 |
| 3 Advance information. | 3.28 | 3 |
| 4 Refreshments/meal. | 4.15 | 5 |
| First Session, Farrell North (Project Planning, Implementation) |
| 5 Organization of presentation. | 4.32 | 5 |
| 6 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 3.77 | 3 |
| 7 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 4.03 | 4 |
| 8 Usefulness of printed materials. | 4.00 | 4 |
| 9 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.42 | 5 |
| 10 Clarity of presentation. | 4.15 | 5 |
| 11 Pace of presentation. | 3.95 | 5 |
| 12 Response to questions. | 4.04 | 5 |
| 13 Session met my expectations. | 4.09 | 4 |
| 14 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 3.98 | 4 |
| 15 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 3.70 | 3,4 |
| Second Session, Farrell North (Project Evaluation) |
| 18 Organization of presentation. | 4.06 | 5 |
| 19 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 3.65 | 4 |
| 20 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 3.85 | 4 |
| 21 Usefulness of printed materials. | 3.91 | 5 |
| 22 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.34 | 5 |
| 23 Clarity of presentation. | 3.98 | 5 |
| 24 Pace of presentation. | 3.85 | 4 |
| 25 Response to questions. | 3.89 | 4 |
| 26 Session met my expectations. 3.95 5 |
| 27 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 3.91 | 4 |
| 28 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 3.83 | 5 |
| Technology Demonstration Session |
| 31 Organization of demonstration. | 3.70 | 4 |
| 32 Usefulness of information. | 3.20 | 3 |
| 33 Improved understanding of technology. | 3.37 | 3 |
Commentary
MIRA Survey results. Nebraska/Colorado. 9 December 1998.
Many of the returned surveys were unusable. These forms suggested that there was a great deal of confusion about who the trainers were and about who was running the technical demonstration session. Several participants returned marked forms without identifying the person or persons being evaluated. Of the 30 surveys that were tallied, only a handful offered substantial written commentary.
The arrangements were considered good; at least two participants were enthusiastic about the food provided. The three persons who made any observation about the technical demonstration session were positive. "Good for the allowed prep time," said one.
John and Susan Blood- Most of the persons surveyed rated and summarized John's and Susan's efforts as a team. The participants' written remarks underscore their positive marks for the trainers. Four people responded with general comments, saying that the session was "interesting and informative" and that it was a "good day." Added one: "I enjoyed spending the day in Benkelman and meeting new people. Everything was well organized and everyone was nice."
Question 16. Something I learned from the first session was (John and Susan Blood): Many Cluster members said they learned how to use the Internet-better understanding, better searches, and better knowledge of the Web sites that will help them keep up with technology- To this end, one person reported learning how to set up a plan with steps for "following through." This process is important, said two others, in mapping out what their group will do to get the grant money they need.
Question 17. Something 1 plan to use from the first session is (John and Susan Blood): Of the nine people that responded, six noted they would use the information from the session to more effectively use the Internet. A desire to better organize, to set up an action plan, and to use the session's maps were also expressed.
MIRA SURVEY RESULTS
Nebraska/Colorado, fifth of six training sessions.
Benkelman, 9 December 1998,
30 surveys tabulated.
| Question | Avg. | Most frequent answer |
| Arrangements |
| 1 Appropriate site. | 4.75 |
| 2 Seating arrangement. | 4.67 | 5 |
| 3 Advance information. | 4.28 | 5 |
| 4 Refreshments/meal. | 4.64 | 5 |
| First and Second Sessions, John and Susan Blood (Technology) |
| 5 Organization of presentation. | 4.70 | 5 |
| 6 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 4.50 | 5 |
| 7 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 4.53 | 5 |
| 8 Usefulness of printed materials. | 4.23 | 5 |
| 9 Trainer's knowledge of the content | 4.73 | 5 |
| 10 Clarity of presentation. | 4.43 | 5 |
| 11 Pace of presentation. | 4.16 | 4,5 |
| 12 Response to questions. | 4.40 | 5 |
| 13 Session met my expectations. | 4.46 | 5 |
| 14 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 4.43 | 5 |
| 15 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 4.43 | 5 |
| Technology Demonstration Session |
| 31 Organization of demonstration. | 4.48 | 5 |
| 32 Usefulness of information. | 4.79 | 5 |
| 33 Improved understanding of technology. | 4.69 | 5 |
Commentary
MIRA Survey results. Nebraska/Colorado. 9 December 1998.
Many of the returned surveys were unusable. These forms suggested that there was a great deal of confusion about who the trainers were and about who was running the technical demonstration session. Several participants returned marked forms without identifying the person or persons being evaluated. Of the 30 surveys that were tallied, only a handful offered substantial written commentary.
The arrangements were considered good; at least two participants were enthusiastic about the food provided. The three persons who made any observation about the technical demonstration session were positive, "Good for the allowed prep time," said one.
John and Susan Blood. Most of the persons surveyed rated and summarized John's and Susan's efforts as a team. The participants' written remarks underscore their positive marks for the trainers. Four people responded with general comments, saying that the session was "interesting and informative" and that it was a "good day." Added one; "I enjoyed spending the day in Benkelman and meeting new people. Everything was well organized and everyone was nice."
Question 16. Something 11 earned from the first session was (John and Susan Blood): Many Cluster members said they learned how to use the Internet-better understanding, better searches, and better knowledge of the Web sites that will help them keep up with technology. To this end, one person reported learning how to set up a plan with steps for "following through." This process is important, said two others, in mapping out what their group will do to get the grant money they need.
Question I". Something 1 plan to use from the first session is (John and Susan Blood): Of the nine people that responded, six noted they would use the information from the session to more effectively use the Internet. A desire to better organize, to set up an action plan, and to use the session's maps were also expressed.
MIRA SURVEY RESULTS
Nebraska/Colorado, sixth of six training sessions
Benkelman, 20 January 1999
10 surveys tabulated.
| Question | Avg. | Most frequent answer |
| Arrangements |
| 1 Appropriate site. | 4.77 | 5 |
| 2 Seating arrangement. | 4.66 | 5 |
| 3 Advance information. | 4.00 | 4 |
| 4 Refreshments/meal. | 4.55 | 5 |
First Session (Patrick Finn, Maintaining Momentum)
| 5 Organization of presentation. | 4.60 | 5 |
| 6 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 4.30 | 5 |
| 7 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 4.50 | 5 |
| 8 Usefulness of printed materials. | 4.50 | 5 |
| 9 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.40 | 5 |
| 10 Clarity of presentation. | 4.20 | 5 |
| 11 Pace of presentation. | 4.40 | 5 |
| 12 Response to questions. | 4.30 | 5 |
| 13 Session met my expectations. | 4.10 | 5 |
| 14 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 4.30 | 4 |
| 15 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 4.40 | 5 |
| Second Session (Amy Borgstrom, Helping People Work Together) |
| 18 Organization of presentation. | 4.60 | 5 |
| 19 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. | 4.30 | 5 |
| 20 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. | 4.30 | 5 |
| 21 Usefulness of printed materials. | 4.40 | 5 |
| 22 Trainer's knowledge of the content. | 4.60 | 5 |
| 23 Clarity of presentation. | 4.40 | 5 |
| 24 Pace of presentation. | 4.10 | 5 |
| 25 Response to questions. | 4.40 | 5 |
| 26 Session met my expectations. | 4.10 | 4,5 |
| 27 Prepared me to apply what was learned. | 4.40 | .5
| 28 Motivated me to apply what was learned. | 4.50 | 5 |
| Technology Demonstration Session v |
| 31 Organization of demonstration. | 3.66 | 3 |
| 32 Usefulness of information. | 3.44 | 3 |
| 33 Improved understanding of technology. | 3.33 | 3 |
| | |
Commentary
MIRA Survey results. Nebraska/Colorado. 20 January 1998.
Only 10 of the 40 returned surveys were usable for the statistical calculation. The remaining evaluations rated the technology demonstration session as a training session, rated the separate speakers' training sessions as one, or even lacked any information at all about what was being evaluated.
Half of the 40 surveys were returned without any additional written remarks. The following summary is based on the sparse comments of the remaining evaluations. Because in most cases it was not possible to attribute participants' remarks to a particular speaker, the comments below should be considered general unless otherwise noted.
The technology demonstration session received low marks. Only one participant offered feedback: "talk less, not applicable concepts."
Several participants agree that the training sessions were well planned. One, however, felt the offerings were "too generalized." Another lauds Patrick's presentation: "Thank you for being personable and allowing us to express ourselves, too."
Participants report learning about active listening and group organization. One person notes learning "how to work on a huge topic in a small group logically." Another learned better rules for meetings that give everyone the chance to express their opinions. Finally, one person commented that he or she learned "how to reach my goals and go for my dreams."
One participant plans to use information learned in the training sessions to work on collaboration and ground rules for meetings. There was general agreement on this point. One person adds that she or he will "get everyone involved in the project and keep it moving in the right direction."
