next year. Beside teh survey, the data were collected through the interview. Interview was conducted to the parents of the participants and teachers of EFH 2010. The result of the interview was used as the
supporting data of this evaluation.
D. The Subject of the Study
The subject of this evaluation study were 6 of the parents of 180 participants of EFH 2010 and 8 of the 20 teachers of EFH 2010. The parents and the teachers were given a questionnaire in the terms of
preparation, process and result of EFH 2010. In order to motivate the subject of this study, the evaluator gave a small set of stationery for their children. Also, the subjects of this evaluation study were
interviewed in order to get deeper direct responses.
FINDINGS Data Description
The data of this EFH program evaluation were collected through: 1 documentations, 2 observation, 3 three questionnaires which administered a preparation of EFH 2010, b process of EFH
2010, and c result of EFH 2010. The questionnaires were given to both the parents of the participants and the teachers. The questionnaire used were the four-scale questionnaire i.e. Very bad, Bad, Good and
Very good. Below are the descriptions of the documentations, observations, and questionnaires of EFH 2010
program evaluation:
1. Data of Documentations
The data collected through the documentations are as follows:
a. Preparation of EFH 2010
The data collected from the documentations of the EFH 2010 preparation included the publication of EFH 2010 program through online publication and brochures, the availability of information through
online publication and brochure, the readiness of the materials, and the readiness of the supporting facilities. After the data were collected and analyzed, the result were presented on the table as follows:
Table 1 Result of documentation of EFH 2010 Preparation
No Interval
Gained score Percentage of the
score categories
1 1 – 6
Very bad 2
7 – 12 2
33,33 Bad
3 13 – 18
4 66,67
Good 4
24 – 19 Very good
Table 3 showed that the score for the documentation of EFH 2010 preparation were 4 or 66, 67. Thus, it can be categorized as Good..
b. Process of EFH 2010
The data collected were in the form of the administration of the EFH 2010 opening ceremony, the teachers competencies and assessments from the teachers, the EFH learning materials of each level,
and the commitee’s administration of the EFH impelmentation. The data were collected and analyzed and the result was presented in the table as follows:
Table 2 Result of documentations of EFH 2010 process
No Interval
Gained score Percentage of the
score Categories
1 1 – 7
Very bad 2
8 – 14 3
42,86 Bad
3 15 –21
4 57,14
Good 4
22 – 28 Very good
Table 4 showed that the the score for the documentation of EFH 2010 preparation were 4 or 57,14 . Thus, it can be categorized as Good.
c. Result of EFH 2010
The data collected from the documentation of the EFH result covered the participants’ certificate, the increase of the participants’ oral competency after participating the EFH 2010, the increase of
participants writing competency after participating the EFH 2010, the increase of the motivation to learn English of the participants after participating in EFH 2010 and the increase of EFH participants
confidence to use English. The data were collected and analyzed and the result were as follows: The result of documentations of Result of EFH 2010
No Interval
Gained Score Percentage of the
score Categories
1 1 – 7
Very bad
2 8 – 14
1 20
Bad 3
15 –21 4
80 Good
4 22 – 28
Very good
Table 3 showed that the score for the documentation of EFH 2010 result were 4 or 80 . Thus, it can be categorized as Good.
2. Observation Data
