Participants’ Evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: Are Findings Based on Different Datasets Consistent?
Table 3
Summary of the students’ perception towards the performance of program implementers.
Respondents with positive responses (options 4–6)
S1
S2
S3
Overall
%
%
%
%
(1)
The instructor(s) had a good mastery of the curriculum.
89,359
86.21
58,707
85.52
28,035
87.49
176,101
86.41
(2)
The instructor(s) was well prepared for the lessons.
91,324
88.18
59,819
87.19
28,313
88.36
179,456
87.91
(3)
The instructor(s)’ teaching skills were good.
89,201
86.33
57,929
84.64
27,734
86.66
174,864
85.88
(4)
The instructor(s) showed good professional attitudes.
90,771
87.79
59,356
86.63
28,179
87.99
178,306
87.47
(5)
The instructor(s) was very involved.
91,902
88.85
60,149
87.80
28,558
89.25
180,609
88.63
(6)
The instructor(s) encouraged students to participate in the activities.
91,453
88.49
59,791
87.26
28,350
88.60
179,594
88.12
(7)
The instructor(s) cared for the students.
89,526
86.59
58,496
85.34
27,864
87.08
175,886
86.34
(8)
The instructor(s) was ready to offer help to students when needed.
91,220
88.25
59,903
87.47
28,467
88.93
179,590
88.22
(9)
The instructor(s) had much interaction with the students.
87,310
84.41
57,329
83.64
27,562
86.07
172,201
84.71
(10)
Overall speaking, I have very positive evaluation of the instructors.
91,458
88.24
59,992
87.43
28,511
88.99
179,961
88.22
Note: all items are on a 6-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree. Only respondents with positive responses (options 4–6) are shown in the table.
