Evaluation of the training program for Greek Olympic education

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop an instrument to evaluate the educational program's training. The program used for this purpose was the Olympic Education Program, which has been implemented in Greek primary and secondary schools since 2000. First, the face validity of items was evaluated, second, the pool of the items selected was factor analyzed. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a three-factor solution with high internal consistency. The instrument, Professional Development Evaluation Form of the Olympic Education Program, consisted of three factors containing 21 items. The three factors obtained were``training'',``study groups'', and``total impression''. The results provide adequate psychometric support for the instrument. The questionnaire seems a promising tool for the evaluation of professional development procedures. Although the results were encouraging, further research would be very helpful in order to improve the instrument.

Applying dynamic evaluation approach in education

“…The three factors obtained were training, study groups, and total impression. Results indicated that the instrument had adequate psychometric properties (Grammatikopoulos, Papacharisis, et al, 2004).…”

“…First, the Professional Development Evaluation Form (PDEF) instrument was developed to evaluate the training program itself (Gramrnatikopoulos, Papacharisis, Koustelios, Tsigilis, & Theodorakis, 2004). The PDEF instrument consisted of three factors containing 2 l items.…”

“…Educators in the OEP believed that the training would have great impact on their OEP responsibilities (Grammatikopoulos, Papacharisis, et al, 2004). Thus, the evaluation process was considered effective and meaningful.…”

A avaliação de programas de capacitação: um estudo de caso na administração pública

“…Para o desenvolvimento da avaliação de programas de treinamento são utilizadas inú-meras ferramentas (Campbell, 1998;Kuprenas, Madjidi e Alexander, 1999;McMillan, Bunning e Pring, 2000;Tennant, Boonkrong e Roberts, 2002;Wong e Wong, 2003;Featherstone et al, 2004;Grammatikopoulos et al, 2004;Litarowsky, Murphy e Canham, 2004;Lingham, Richley e Rezania, 2006;Westbrook et al, 2008). No entanto, essas ferramentas, em sua grande maioria, apresentam limitações e lacunas que podem comprometer o processo de avaliação (Tasca, Ensslin e Ensslin, 2009).…”

IRRODL Volume 10, Number 4; Regional Focus Issue: Open and Distance Learning in Africa

“…Still, the model is seen as offering flexibility to users as it permits them to align outcomes of training with other organizational tools (e.g., company reports and greater commitment of employees) (Abernathy, 1999). Though the model has been used for 3 decades in the evaIuation of commercial training programs, some scholars have suggested its use for research studies of academic programs and have used it for the purpose (Tarouco & Hack, 2000;Boyle & Crosby, 1997), while others have suggested a combination of the model with other professional development tools (Grammatikopoulos, Papacharisis, Koustelios, Tsigilis, & Theodorakis, 2004). In particular, level four of Kirkpatrick"s model is highly relevant to distance learning as it seeks tangible evidence that learning has occurred, as does level two (Galloway, 2005).…”