EVALUATIONS      MIRA SURVEY RESULTS Texas, first of six training sessions. Edingurg North High School, 13 June 1998. 85 surveys tabulated. Question Avg. Most frequent answer Arrangements \ Appropriate site. 4.37 5 2 Seating arrangement. 4.32 4 3 Advance information. 4.00 5 4 Refreshments/meal. 4.38 5 First Trainer, Nette Nelson (Living with Change) 5 Organization of presentation. 4.50 5 6 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. 4.31 5 7 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. 4.41 5 8 Usefulness of printed materials. 4.37 5 9 Trainer's knowledge of the content. 4.76 5 10 Clarity of presentation. 4.30 5 11 Pace of presentation. 4.28 5 12 Response to questions. 4.29 5 13 Session met my expectations. 4.02 5 14 Prepared me to apply what was learned. 4.24 5 15 Motivated me to apply what was learned. 4.37 5 Second Trainer, Nette Nelson (Asset Mapping) 18 Organization of presentation. 4.45 5 19 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. 4.29 5 20 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. 4.42 5 21 Usefulness of printed materials. 4.41 5 22 Trainer's knowledge of the content. 4.56 5 23 Clarity of presentation. 4.22 5 24 Pace of presentation. 4.27 5 25 Response to questions. 4.23 5 26 Session met my expectations. 4.14 5 27 Prepared me to apply what was learned. 4.19 5 28 Motivated me to apply what was learned. 4.33 5 Technology Demonstration Session 31 Organization of demonstration. 3.84 .5 32 Usefulness of information. 3.98 5 33 Improved understanding of technology. 3.61 4 Commentary MIRA Survey results. Texas, 13 June 1998. The audience members agree that the public address system could use some improvement. The technology session received mostly favorable comments. Many feel that the session should not be scheduled during lunch. Some attendees request more hands-on experience. Others feel that the presenter had trouble keeping the audience's attention. Nette Nelson. Although two respondents remark that they are already familiar with the material, the Texas MIRA cluster appears overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the trainer, "I had an overall great time and a lot of learning," reads a typical comment, "I liked it and enjoyed it." "Very energetic speaker, lots of fun,"jots another. Two people wrote "COOL" in large block letters. The icebreakers were also considered very effective. Several request more time for copying notes when transparencies are displayed. Question 16. Something I learned from this session was (Nette Nelson): "Change is what you make of it," summarizes one participant. In general, the group picked up on a theme: "Living with change and not being afraid of it." Question 1 7. Something I plan to use from this session is (Nette Nelson): One person remarks that the materials will be used on his or her job site. Most remark they will be more attuned to living with change. A witty comment: "I plan to use my notepad and my brain." Question 29. Something I learned at this session was (Nette Nelson): Many cluster members enjoyed cooperating with others in groups. Learning to work with people from other schools is important, they feel, as is learning to communicate effectively. The possibility of communicating without speaking surprised several. Question 30. Something I plan to use from this session was (Nette Nelson) One person remarked that the information will be useful in organizing events. Another says he or she will "work along like the rest of the team to make some changes in our community." Yet another is very thankful for a session which can teach the "motivation of youngsters." MIRA SURVEY RESULTS Texas, second of six training sessions. Edcouch, 18 July 1998. 71 surveys tabulated. Question Avg. Most frequent answer Arrangements \ Appropriate site. 4.73 5 2 Seating arrangement. 4.5 5 3 Advance information. 4.46 5 4 Refreshments/meal. 4.83 5 First Session, Susan Blood and Patrick Finn (Human and Electronic Networks) 5 Organization of presentation. 4.50 5 6 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. 4.43 5 7 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. 4.45 5 8 Usefulness of printed materials. 4.20 5 9 Trainer's knowledge of the content. 4.60 5 10 Clarity of presentation. 4.46 5 11 Pace of presentation. 4.32 5 12 Response to questions. 4.46 5 13 Session met my expectations. 4.41 5 14 Prepared me to apply what was learned. 4.46 5 15 Motivated me to apply what was learned. 4.51 5 Second Session, Susan Blood and Patrick Finn (Asset Mapping) 18 Organization of presentation. 4.51 5 19 Proper balance between presentation time and team time. 4.48 5 20 Activities appropriate to learning objectives. 4.40 5 21 Usefulness of printed materials. 4.37 5 22 Trainer's knowledge of the content. 4.61 5 23 Clarity of presentation. 4.56 5 24 Pace of presentation. 4.44 5 25 Response to questions. 4.54 5 26 Session met my expectations. 4.53 5 27 Prepared me to apply what was learned. 4.43 5 28 Motivated me to apply what was learned. 4.57 5 Technology Demonstration Session 31 Organization of demonstration. 4.51 5 32 Usefulness of information. 4.67 5 33 Improved understanding of technology. 4.51 5

Commentary

MIRA Survey results. Texas, 18 July 1998.

Survey responses to the sessions were overwhelmingly positive. Phrases like "I had a lot of fun!" and "This was great" or "Enjoyed every minute of it!" were typical. Because both sessions were conducted jointly by Susan Blood and Patrick Finn, evaluations for the trainers are combined

The technology session helped group members write their own e-mail, learn about scanning, and explore creating web pages, according to the questionnaires. Although positive responses were the rule, one person felt that far more time was needed for the technology session, and another requested more hands-on experience with Power Point and Web-page making.

Question 16. Something I learned from this session was (Susan Blood and Patrick Finn): "I am an 'L*," reported one cluster member. Another person was impressed by the power of "star" networking; someone else said that the self-profile was a real "eye-opener." One important comment: "The last meeting I was stumped about what was going on." But this time the participant felt everything was presented more clearly.

Question 17. Something I plan to use from this session is (Susan Blood and Patrick Finn): One person surveyed wants to put "Dimensional Descriptors" to use. A second survey respondent will apply techniques to the local credit union bank. A third person says they have learned how to prepare themselves to speak with others.

Question 29. Something I learned at this session was (Susan Blood and Patrick Finn): An attendee was surprised to learn "that through three people, we can meet the whole world." Techniques to approach someone and ask them for help, and the skills for communicating clearly and openly were also considered important.

Question 30. Something I plan to use from this session is (Susan Blood and Patrick Finn): One comment was that the strategies learned for preparing for a meeting or discussion with a community member would be most important. A second person mentioned that personality analysis techniques would be useful.

MIRA SURVEY RESULTS

Texas, third of six training sessions.
LaVilla, 15 August 1998,
59 surveys tabulated.

Commentary

MIRA Survey results. Texas, 15 August 1998.

An additional 15 surveys were not tabulated; the order of speakers was reversed on the evaluation. Other members included the names of both speakers on both sides of the evaluation sheet, apparently indicating that both speakers were involved in both trainings. These surveys were tallied along with sequenced one-speaker-per-side evaluations. This means that the survey results should be taken with a grain of salt. They reflect the quality of the session rather than the quality of the speaker.

"Great food and great entertainment," was a typical comment. The audience appreciated the music from Wally Gonzalez. The high marks given to the technology session were matched with comments like "The kids really did a good job on the Web Page." The group was happy to learn and have fun at the same time.

Ed Nelson: There was no common thread to the commentary. On the one hand, the comments were mostly positive, although not consistent. One person "loved the hands-on part" another judged audience participation to be "great." On the down side, one person felt the speaker was "inflexible," but did not offer any evidence in support.

Question 16. Something I learned from this session was (Ed Nelson)-Ten people in the group were most impressed with visual learning techniques. How to analyze a policy and break it down into parts was the second most frequently learned technique. The three E's: Empowerment, Economy, and Equity also received mention.

Question 17. Something I plan to use from this session is (Ed Nelson): Mapping strategies were most often mentioned as useful. Among the common responses: "To reinforce the importance of assets and put them to action in order to ameliorate the community's problems." "Star People" also received frequent mention.

Annalisa Lewis Raymer: There are always fewer comments on the second page, but the few may be helpful. "Good Job!" is a comment that appeared several times. There was, however, some question with clarity. Specifically, one requests: "A little slower on the transparencies."

Question 29. Something I learned at this session was (AnnalisaLewis Raymer): Several people mentioned their excitement about using E-mail and Web Pages, but the bulk of the comments were far less specific. ". . .important to take an active role in decision making ... v or "... communication and involvement. ., "were typical.

Question 30. Something I plan to use from this session is (Annalisa Lewis Raymer): Again, comments were general. One person writes that she or he is "prepared to take the next steps with our problems and process." Another plans to "go into the community and ask for help."

MIRA SURVEY RESULTS

Texas, fourth of six training sessions.
September 19. 1998.
65 surveys returned, 20 evaluated.

Judging by the varied and extensive commentary, this Cluster has a hard time containing their enthusiasm for the project. Their zeal is contagious.

Unfortunately, the enthusiasm also made evaluations difficult; comments were not registered on the standard survey forms, but on custom forms of the Cluster's own design. The end result is that the amount of written commentary was overwhelming. To make things simpler for the purposes of this report, only 20 randomly chosen surveys were evaluated.

The survey forms contained the following eight questions:

What did you learn today? Was it beneficial to your project's development?
The session was beneficial in helping groups set up their projects. It gave them a "step by step" look at what to do. One person learned "that planning takes clear communication between team members." Although most comment was positive, one person complained that it was "repetitive."

Were the objectives of the workshop clearly expressed? Were they met? Most agree that the objectives were clearly expressed and met. "I especially enjoyed how the presenter stopped and redirected the workshop," says one. Some however, say objectives were "not really" expressed, but that they knew what they had to do, anyway.

What were the strengths of the workshop? Please elaborate.
The workshop received praise as a whole, but it was the opportunity to work together in groups that made the session work well, according to the surveys. "The people all want to work together to make everything better," notes one. "The group discussion really worked out," says another. "I guess it is the fact that all ideas are so enthusiastic and if you just give each other time to put their ideas out, all will work well."

What were the weaknesses of the workshop? Please elaborate.
Two people agree that more small assignments to work on in groups would have made the session more interesting. The lecturing was a problem, according to one, because "everybody was lost." "The beginning wasn't organized," says one. The noise level bothered another.

Did today's session help you and your project make progress? Please explain how? There was unanimous agreement that the project helped with the group projects. "We had time to talk about what we wanted," responds one person surveyed. "Also we wanted to know where it all was going with the time we spent. We made something of it." "We're going to get to know people,1" adds another, "where we stand with them so they can work with us. We're going to stay off drugs and off the streets."

Please evaluate the planning and organization of the workshop. "Good" was the adjective most used to describe the session. "Well planned," and "Well prepared" were also common. "It was well organized, but the original 'agenda" was too rigid. Flexibility should always be implemented. It was well planned."

Please evaluate the performance of the trainer Karen Prentiss. What do you look for in a trainer?
Comments were mostly positive, but there was a general tone of reservation among the group: "She was very helpful. She didn't smile, but she was very helpful." One said the trainer "looked scared," but relaxed once the session got going. Although some say the session was long and difficult to be attentive to, most did agree that the trainer was a "motivator" and "charismatic." "She made herself available to everybody."

On the back of this sheet, please reflect on any other specific or general items relating to the workshop, to your team project, or to the larger MIRA project. This is where you can get your thoughts published in the next Newsletter.
One person complained that in the past they were not able to participate in activities as much as they would like. "Today, however, I feel that our team accomplished a lot. We clarified our goals." Another person adds, "The MIRA group is filled with some of the warmest characters a person could want to meet. Everyone is supportive, honest, and a lot of fun to work with. I only hope more people come and see what I see." Finally: "Together, I feel, we are a whole lot of powerful people and if we put out minds together we can all succeed."

MIRA SURVEY RESULTS

Texas, fifth of six training sessions.
San Carlos, 21 November 1998.
78 surveys tabulated.

Commentary

MIRA Survey results. Texas, 21 November 1998.

As for arrangements, two people said that the food was "awesome."

The technology demonstration session was well-received. Said one: "The organization was excellent. They worked really hard at setting the atmosphere, which was great." Two people remarked that the digital pictures were great. One person did suggest that the presentation would have been better if more people had been involved. Another thought the video could have been "more cheerful."

Alma Jadallah: Alma received the highest scores of any MIRA presenter to date. Respondents indicated that she made everything "clear," "exciting," and "understandable." She was "lively and had control of the group" and had superior "cultural competence." Five Cluster participants indicated she was the best Texas presenter to date. No participants made negative comments.

Question 16. Something 1 learned from this session was: According to the responses, many learned general skills in dealing with conflicts. Learning to identify the conflict and keeping an open mind to new ideas were often-mentioned goals. One person's lesson: "Adapt, avoid, accommodate, or compete."

Question 17. Something I plan to use from this session is: Two people planned to use "I" statements when involved in group processes, and one said he or she will make better use of cooperation instead of competition or accommodation in resolving conflict. The key, said one, is to really be part of a group and listen to what is being said. Another agreed: "I plan to use it with any conflict that arrives at home, school, community or family and try to use these methods to resolve them."

All responses to Alma's sessions were given to the first set of questions.

MIRA SURVEY RESULTS

Texas, sixth of six training sessions.
Echo, 9 January 1999.
98 surveys tabulated.

Commentary

MIRA Survey results. Texas, 9 January 1998.

Participants gave high ratings to all aspects of this presentation.

Accommodations received two complaints. First, because of the noise, team discussions should have taken place in smaller rooms. Second, the seats were uncomfortable; more activity might have helped.

The technical demonstration received some of the highest marks of any to date. "David Rice's presentation was an enlightening touch to the workshop." He was considered "really gifted," and he employed humor to make for an "enjoyable presentation." The visuals were well-received: "Great use of PowerPoint!" One youth summed it up nicely: "David Rice rocks!"

Alma Jadallah's marks were very high. "It was very good, I'd love to come back again because it was great." "Overall the session was very well organized and kept me attentive." Because questionnaires were filled out in a way that made it difficult to discern which session participants were evaluating, both sessions are here evaluated together; a single average suffices for both sessions.

Something I learned from this session was (Questions 16 and 29): How to budget, how to write a proposal, and how to facilitate a meeting effectively were tasks participants mentioned having learned. Important in all of these processes, said several, is accompiishing ends using teamwork. One person noted "that you must always, always work together as a team and you will get a lot further than if you were alone."

Something I plan to use from this session is (Questions 17 and30): Many participants said they would use the budget process, some saying that process would be an important part of their project. Nearly all, however, understood that this process was only one piece of the pie. Facilitation and grant writing skills, also mentioned, were considered secondary to the importance of working together with a group. "I plan on using not only my budgeting skills that I learned," said one, "but also the group skills and communicating with others of different opinions."