An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology

被引:25
作者
Irene Lucas, Rochelle [1 ]
Angelo Promentilla, Michael [2 ]
Ubando, Aristotle [2 ]
Girard Tan, Raymond [2 ]
Aviso, Kathleen [2 ]
Danielle Yu, Krista [3 ]
机构
[1] De La Salle Univ, Br Andrew Gonzalez FSC Coll Educ, 2401 Taft Ave, Manila 1004, Philippines
[2] De La Salle Univ, Gokongwei Coll Engn, 2401 Taft Ave, Manila 1004, Philippines
[3] De La Salle Univ, Sch Econ, 2401 Taft Ave, Manila 1004, Philippines
关键词
Workshop evaluation; Analytic hierarchy process; Information and communication technology; Professional development; FUZZY-AHP; PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT; IMPACT; UNIVERSITY; RESOURCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.04.002
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
The emergence of information and communication technology (ICT) has created opportunities for enhancing the learning process at different educational levels. However, its potential benefits can only be fully realized if teachers are properly trained to utilize such tools. The rapid evolution of ICT also necessitates rigorous assessment of training programs by participants. Thus, this study proposes an evaluation framework based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to systematically evaluate such workshops designed for teachers. The evaluation model is decomposed hierarchically into four main criteria namely: (1) workshop design, (2) quality of content of the workshop, (3) quality of delivery of the content of the workshop, and the (4) relevance of the workshop. These criteria are further disaggregated into 24 sub-indicators to measure the effectiveness of the workshop as perceived by the participants based on their own expectations. This framework is applied to a case study of ICT workshops done in the Philippines. In this case, relevance of the workshop is found to be the most important main criterion identified by the participants, particularly on the new ICT knowledge that promotes teachers' professional growth and development. The workshop evaluation index (WEI) is also proposed as a metric to support decision-making by providing a mechanism for benchmarking performance, tracking improvement over time, and developing strategies for the design and improvement of training programs or workshops on ICT for teachers.
引用
收藏
页码:93 / 100
页数:8
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [31] Organisational and training factors affecting academic teacher training outcomes
    Renta-Davids, Ana-Ines
    Jimenez-Gonzalez, Jose-Miguel
    Fandos-Garrido, Manel
    Gonzalez-Soto, Angel-Pio
    [J]. TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2016, 21 (02) : 219 - 231
  • [32] [Resta P. UNESCO. UNESCO.], 2002, INFORM COMMUNICATION
  • [33] A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP
    Rosenbloom, ES
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1997, 96 (02) : 371 - 378
  • [34] Saaty T.L., 1980, ANAL HIERARCHY PROCE
  • [35] SCALING METHOD FOR PRIORITIES IN HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES
    SAATY, TL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1977, 15 (03) : 234 - 281
  • [36] UNCERTAINTY AND RANK ORDER IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
    SAATY, TL
    VARGAS, LG
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1987, 32 (01) : 107 - 117
  • [37] Shek Daniel T L, 2012, Int J Adolesc Med Health, V24, P267, DOI 10.1515/ijamh.2012.038
  • [38] A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view
    Somsuk, Nisakorn
    Laosirihongthong, Tritos
    [J]. TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2014, 85 : 198 - 210
  • [39] The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research
    Stes, Ann
    Min-Leliveld, Mariska
    Gijbels, David
    Van Petegem, Peter
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2010, 5 (01) : 25 - 49
  • [40] What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study
    Tamim, Rana M.
    Bernard, Robert M.
    Borokhovski, Eugene
    Abrami, Philip C.
    Schmid, Richard F.
    [J]. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2011, 81 (01) : 4 - 28