Section 3: Evaluation

This lesson covers Section 3 of the PEP — the Evaluation phase. This is the final section and is where you pull everything together. You must carry out post-PEP fitness testing (using the same tests as the pre-PEP phase), compare pre-PEP and post-PEP data in graphs, analyse whether your SMART targets were achieved, evaluate the overall effectiveness of the programme, and suggest improvements for the future. A strong evaluation is analytical, evidence-based and honest — it does not simply say "my programme was good." It uses data to prove or disprove claims and offers specific, realistic suggestions for improvement.

---

Step 1: Post-PEP Fitness Testing

After completing your training programme, you must repeat the same fitness tests you used at the beginning (the pre-PEP tests). This is essential for a valid comparison.

Rules for valid post-PEP testing:

• Use exactly the same tests as the pre-PEP phase.
• Use the same equipment and protocol (same venue if possible).
• Test under similar conditions — same time of day, same warm-up, similar diet and hydration.
• Record results with the same level of detail as the pre-PEP tests.

Test	Pre-PEP Result	Post-PEP Result	Change	Target Met?
Multi-stage fitness test	Level 7.2	Level 8.6	+1.4 levels	Yes (target was 8.5)
Resting heart rate	72 bpm	64 bpm	−8 bpm	N/A (not a target)
30 m sprint	5.1 s	4.9 s	−0.2 s	N/A (not a target)

Exam Tip: Even if your target was not met, this does not mean your PEP will score poorly. What matters is the quality of your analysis. An honest, insightful evaluation that explains why the target was not met — and suggests specific improvements — can still reach Level 5.

---

Step 2: Presenting Pre/Post Data in Graphs

You must present your pre-PEP and post-PEP data visually. The most effective formats are:

Bar Chart (Comparing Pre and Post for Each Test)

A grouped bar chart with two bars per test (one for pre-PEP, one for post-PEP) makes the comparison immediately visible. Use different colours for pre and post, and include a key.

Radar / Spider Diagram (Overall Fitness Profile)

A radar diagram shows all components of fitness at once, with the pre-PEP profile in one colour and the post-PEP profile in another. This is particularly effective for showing how your overall fitness profile has changed.

Line Graph (Showing Trend Across the Programme)

If you did mid-programme testing, a line graph with three data points (pre, mid, post) shows the trend of improvement over time.

Graph requirements:

• Title — clearly describing what the graph shows.
• Axis labels with units — e.g. "Beep Test Level" on the y-axis, "Time Point" on the x-axis.
• Key/legend — distinguishing pre-PEP from post-PEP data.
• Accuracy — data points must match the numbers in your table.

---

Step 3: Analysing Whether SMART Targets Were Achieved

This is the most important part of the evaluation. You must go through each SMART target and assess whether it was achieved, using data as evidence.

graph TD
    T["SMART Target:<br>Beep test from 7.2<br>to 8.5 in 6 weeks"] --> D["Post-PEP Data:<br>Beep test = 8.6"]
    D --> Q{"Target<br>achieved?"}
    Q -->|Yes| Y["Analyse WHY:<br>• Fartlek training effective<br>• Progressive overload applied<br>• Consistent 3 sessions/week<br>• Heart rate data shows adaptation"]
    Q -->|No| N["Analyse WHY NOT:<br>• Missed sessions?<br>• Intensity too low?<br>• Method not effective?<br>• Target unrealistic?"]
    Y --> I["Suggest improvements<br>for future programmes"]
    N --> I

    style T fill:#3498db,color:#fff
    style D fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
    style Q fill:#f1c40f,color:#000
    style Y fill:#2ecc71,color:#fff
    style N fill:#e74c3c,color:#fff
    style I fill:#9b59b6,color:#fff

If the Target WAS Achieved

Do not just write "I achieved my target." Analyse WHY:

"My SMART target was to improve my multi-stage fitness test score from Level 7.2 to Level 8.5 within 6 weeks. My post-PEP result was Level 8.6, exceeding my target by 0.1 levels. This improvement of 1.4 levels demonstrates that fartlek training was an effective method for improving cardiovascular endurance. I attribute the success to three main factors: (1) I applied progressive overload consistently, increasing both the duration and intensity of my sessions across the 6 weeks — my average session intensity rose from 67% MHR in Week 1 to 78% MHR in Week 6; (2) I maintained the minimum frequency of 3 sessions per week, completing all 18 planned sessions without missing any; and (3) the sport-specific nature of fartlek training — varying pace and intensity — closely matched the demands of football and kept me motivated throughout."

If the Target Was NOT Achieved

This is not a disaster. Analyse WHY:

"My SMART target was to improve my multi-stage fitness test score from Level 7.2 to Level 8.5 within 6 weeks. My post-PEP result was Level 8.0, an improvement of 0.8 levels but 0.5 levels short of my target. There are several reasons for this: (1) I missed 3 sessions due to illness in Week 4, reducing my total from 18 planned sessions to 15 — this break in training may have caused some reversibility; (2) with hindsight, my target may have been too ambitious — an improvement of 1.3 levels in 6 weeks is at the upper end of what is achievable, and a target of 8.0 would have been more realistic; (3) I did not increase the intensity of my high-intensity bursts as much as planned — my peak heart rate in Weeks 5–6 averaged 82% MHR rather than the planned 85% MHR, suggesting the overload was insufficient."

---

Step 4: Evaluating Overall Effectiveness

Beyond the specific SMART targets, evaluate the programme as a whole. Consider:

Question	What to Write About
Was the training method appropriate?	Did it effectively target the component of fitness? Would a different method have been better?
Was the frequency sufficient?	Was 3 sessions per week enough? Would 4 have produced better results?
Was the intensity appropriate?	Did you work in the correct training zone? Could you have worked harder (or did you overtrain)?
Were the principles of training applied effectively?	Was progressive overload visible? Was the programme specific to your sport? Did you allow enough rest?
Was data collection effective?	Did you record enough data? Was it consistent? Were there gaps?
What did you learn?	What did you learn about your own fitness, training and motivation?

"Overall, I believe my programme was effective. The fartlek training method was well-suited to improving cardiovascular endurance and closely matched the demands of my sport (football). I successfully applied progressive overload by gradually increasing both the duration and intensity of my sessions, and my heart rate data confirms that my cardiovascular system adapted over the 6 weeks — my resting heart rate decreased from 72 bpm to 64 bpm. However, I recognise that my data collection could have been more consistent — I did not record my distance in every session, which made it harder to compare sessions directly. In future, I would use a GPS watch to automatically track distance and pace."

---

Step 5: Suggesting Improvements

The final part of the evaluation is to suggest specific, realistic improvements for future programmes. Vague suggestions (e.g. "train harder") are Level 1–2. Specific, justified suggestions are Level 4–5.

Weak Suggestions (Level 1–2)

• "I would train harder."
• "I would do more sessions."
• "I would eat healthier."

Strong Suggestions (Level 4–5)

Improvement	Justification
"I would increase the frequency from 3 to 4 sessions per week."	"This would provide an additional 6 sessions over 6 weeks, increasing the total training volume and providing more opportunity for cardiovascular adaptation. I would schedule the extra session on Saturdays to avoid interfering with school commitments."
"I would combine fartlek training with HIIT."	"Adding one HIIT session per week would target the anaerobic energy system more intensely, which would improve my ability to recover between sprints in football. The fartlek sessions would continue to develop my aerobic base."
"I would use a GPS watch to track distance and pace more accurately."	"In this programme, I relied on estimated distances. A GPS watch would provide exact data, allowing me to compare sessions more precisely and set more specific distance-based overload targets."
"I would set a more realistic SMART target of Level 8.0 rather than 8.5."	"My actual improvement was 0.8 levels, suggesting that a target of 1.3 levels in 6 weeks was slightly too ambitious. A target of 8.0 would still have been challenging but more achievable, which would have kept me motivated throughout."
"I would plan contingency sessions to account for missed training due to illness."	"Missing 3 sessions in Week 4 significantly affected my progress. In future, I would plan buffer sessions (e.g. 20 sessions instead of 18) so that I could miss 2 sessions without falling below the minimum."