Research Article

Qualitative Evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: An Integration of Findings Based on Program Implementers

Table 3

Categorization of the descriptors used by the program implementers to describe the program.

Descriptors2005/06 (EIP-S1)2006/07 (FIP-S1)2007/08 (FIP-S2)2007/08 (EIP-S3)2008/09 (FIP-S3)Total (% of total responses)

Positive responses
 Happy/glad/enjoy1311410
 Togetherness11
 Project with great investment11
 Adequate resources for students11
 Rich in content/comprehensive1113
 Challenging11
 Good11
 Clear rationale11
 Abundant22
 Self-reflection11
 Back to the origin of education11
 Role modeling11
 Great influence on students11
 New experience11
 Diversified/diverse1621111
 Wide scope, focused, and diversified11
 The students liked the program activities11
 Lively11
 Positive/Very positive43310
 Interactive415
 Fun and relaxed99
 Relaxing/very relaxing1236
 Systematic3115
 Enlightening11
 Meaningful4127
 Novel44
 Innovative33
 Practical/very practical213
 Clear11
 Focused11
 In-depth11
 All rounded66
 Zealous44
 Prospective22
 Cognitive enhancement11
 Fruitful/very fruitful448
 Sometimes touching11
 Match the topic very much11
 Interesting4116
 Effective123
 Step by step11
 Rare11
 Excited11
 Good feelings/satisfied213
 Worthy to implement11
 Closely connected with life11
 Have gains112
 Have positive expectation11
 Hardworking11
 Up-to-date information11
 Sharing11
 Good elements11
 Flexible11
 Respectful11
 Unlimited11
 Very useful11
 Preventive11
 Inspiring44
 Necessary11
 Important/very important22
 Reflective11
 Welcomed11
 Developmental11
 Impressive11
 Very good idea11
 Beneficial11
 Constructive11
 Quite good11
 Worthwhile11
 Well suited11
 Start11
 Ideal11
 Very magnificent11
 Pleasure comes through toil11

Subtotal (% of total responses in each academic year)19 (61.3)58 (54.2)36 (81.8)9 (45.0)47 (69.1)169 (62.6)

Negative responses
 A bit rushed11
 Rushed/very rushed123
 Superficial11
 Could not fully apply the things learned11
 Heavy workload for teachers11
 Chaotic55
 To be improved11
 Difficult628
 Useless22
 Confused11
 Worried112
 Superficial819
 Helpless22
 Inadequate11
 Overlapping22
 Lack of connection11
 Overgeneralized11
 Not practical33
 Senseless11
 Too rich content within insufficient time11
 Too aggressive33
 Demanding and inept11
 Could not meet students’ needs44
 Headache11
 Lack of reflection11
 Too wide (scope)11
 Lack of time33
 Unrealistic11
 Painful213
 Not interested in11
 Impoverished11
 Trying to win in chaos11
 In war11
 Harsh/very harsh44
 Not well suited11
 Inadequate support11
 Like water off a duck’s back11

Subtotal (% of total responses in each academic year)4 (12.9)47 (44.0)5 (11.4)6 (30.0)14 (20.6)76 (28.1)

Neutral responses
 Stressful11
 Positive, but superficial11
 The program was comprehensive but needs to be enriched11
 Like a competition11
 Having a heart, but no strength11
 Bittersweet11
 Partially uncertain11
 Depends on individual11
 Task oriented11
 So-so33
 Rational11
 Emotional11
 Long awaited11
 Enormous11
 Very academic11
 Intensive112

Subtotal (% of total responses in each academic year)4 (12.9)2 (1.9)2 (4.5)5 (25.0)6 (8.8)19 (7.0)

Undecided
 Effectiveness depends on teachers’ readiness11
 Beyond our power to do it11
 Struggling with program adherence11
 Program effectiveness was in doubt11
 Exclamation mark11
 Aggressive11

Subtotal (% of total responses in each academic year)4 (12.9)01 (2.3)01 (1.5)6 (2.2)

Total count 31 (100)107 (100)44 (100)20 (100)68 (100)270 (100)