Skip to main content
. 2012 May 1;2012:918437. doi: 10.1100/2012/918437

Table 2.

Summary of the program implementers' perceptions towards the program.

Respondents with positive responses (options 4–6)
S1 S2 S3 Overall
n % n % n % n %
(1) The objectives of the curriculum were very clear 3,865 94.45 2,437 94.02 1,149 93.72 7,451 94.06
(2) The design of the curriculum was very good 3,416 83.52 2,144 82.94 1,031 84.09 6,591 83.52
(3) The activities were carefully planned 3,634 88.87 2,289 88.48 1,076 87.98 6,999 88.44
(4) The classroom atmosphere was very pleasant 3,564 87.40 2,182 84.38 1,009 82.77 6,755 84.85
(5) There was much peer interaction among the students 3,516 86.18 2,174 84.20 1,009 83.18 6,699 84.52
(6) Students participated actively during lessons (including discussions, sharing, games, etc.) 3,496 85.88 2,104 81.65 974 80.30 6,574 82.61
(7) The program had a strong and sound theoretical support 3,496 86.02 2,180 84.86 1,043 86.06 6,719 85.65
(8) The teaching experience I encountered enhanced my interest in the course 3,234 79.60 2,010 78.39 953 78.76 6,197 78.92
(9) Overall speaking, I have a very positive evaluation of the program 3,222 78.99 2,033 78.71 948 78.15 6,203 78.62
(10) On the whole, students liked this curriculum very much 3,236 79.57 1,969 76.67 920 75.85 6,125 77.36

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.