Postlecture Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Subject for University Students in Hong Kong

Table 2

Subjective outcome evaluation of each lecture.

	Lecture
Item	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Mean
(1) Good lecture design	4.59	4.56	4.31	4.36	4.55	4.63	4.52	4.50	4.58	4.54	4.49	4.33	4.23	4.48
(2) Atmosphere was very good	4.77	4.75	4.26	4.26	4.26	4.37	4.43	4.59	4.53	4.50	4.36	4.23	4.18	4.42
(3) Much peer interaction	4.86	4.92	4.36	4.48	4.34	4.34	4.57	4.70	4.54	4.52	4.40	4.16	4.09	4.48
(4) Interested in the content	4.41	4.48	4.37	4.24	4.43	4.60	4.47	4.54	4.53	4.53	4.41	4.31	4.34	4.43
(5) Much student participation	4.71	4.75	4.37	4.32	4.18	4.23	4.44	4.55	4.61	4.62	4.30	4.07	4.12	4.41
(6) Many opportunities for reflection	4.19	4.37	4.22	4.37	4.54	4.68	4.53	4.35	4.60	4.37	4.29	4.21	4.01	4.36
(7) Helpful to my personal development	4.39	4.44	4.36	4.32	4.50	4.72	4.41	4.42	4.53	4.43	4.44	4.38	4.19	4.42
(8) Lecturer had good mastery of lecture	4.73	4.72	4.52	4.52	4.61	4.69	4.78	4.57	4.67	4.68	4.61	4.48	4.37	4.61
(9) Varied teaching methods used	4.79	4.78	4.45	4.53	4.50	4.54	4.64	4.52	4.65	4.65	4.56	4.34	4.31	4.56
(10) Helpful to students (knowledge)	4.52	4.58	4.41	4.43	4.52	4.62	4.62	4.45	4.58	4.51	4.52	4.41	4.14	4.49
(11) Very positive evaluation of the lecturer	4.72	4.75	4.43	4.51	4.57	4.71	4.71	4.53	4.66	4.57	4.52	4.38	4.31	4.57
(12) Very positive evaluation of the lecture	4.59	4.64	4.32	4.37	4.45	4.63	4.56	4.53	4.60	4.51	4.41	4.37	4.23	4.48
Number of questionnaires collected	227	222	202	155	141	126	129	162	169	145	148	118	95	2039