national project activities, evaluation 13.-15.11.2007, ankara euroface consulting, czech republic

NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES,

EVALUATION13.-15.11.2007, Ankara

EUROFACE CONSULTING, CZECH REPUBLIC

PROJECT BACKGROUND

General objectives of the project MODULAR TE were implemented in Czech Republic.

A cooperation network of universities, faculties of education, technology teachers and representatives of educational governmental organizations was established within the project.

Euroface Consulting has participated on almost all project stages – work packages - and contributes to the project aims with own

experience:

NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES

WP3 Background analysis:- Research of current status of general

technology education in Czech Republic → base for the COUNTRY REPORT of TE in Czech Republic

- Questionnaire research among technology teachers, academicians and representatives of public institutions → FEEDBACK TO PROPOSED MODULAR SYSTEM


WP4 Methodology:

- Euroface Consulting participated on proposal of system of main modules, modules and sub modules including their interconnections with respect to Czech technology educational environment


WP5 Training modules

– The company Euroface Consulting is coming from industrial background and then the responsibility for Module 2.4 Machine and Product Engineering was appointed to it.


WP6 Training materials and tools

- After the definition of each module structure the detailed training material was prepared. In Czech Republic there was established a training material for the Module Machine and Product Engineering.


WP6 Training materials and tools

– Very special responsibility was appointed to the Euroface Consulting in the frame of WP6. A training tool for simulation of a network and its components was developed to support the traditional training material by innovative way.


WP7 Feedback and Evaluation- Continuous evaluation of project activities

was provided during the whole project → EVALUATION REPORTS

- The feedback provided by target groups was summarized in two main stages → QUESTIONNAIRES RESEARCH IN WP3 and FACE TO FACE FEEDBACK TO PROJECT OUTPUT.


WP8 Valorization- Valorisation activities were conducted

continuously during the whole project realization.

- Several tools were applied: direct contact with technology education experts, dissemination materials, articles in newspapers, dissemination brochure, web page.

CLOSURES FROM NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Modular TE project brings the new aspects to technology education in Czech Republic. The innovation is coming from international background, comparison of different partners experience and wide cooperation of technology experts.

EVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATION WAS THE CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF WHOLE PROJECT AND

ASSURED THE DEVELOPMENT OF USEFUL METHODOLOGY AND

MATERIALS READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN CZECH REPUBLIC.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESEARCH

The acquirement of feedback to proposed modular system of TE allowed definition of requirements for acceptance the system in Czech Republic.

The broad spectrum of experts was invited to the discussion and the results obtained were positive and indicate the compliance for international cooperation and exploitation of foreign experience.

EXAMPLES OF RESPONDS TO DIFFERENT TOPICS

Practice

In this topic was discussed the issues concerning the role of TE. The opinions diversified especially in the question of “how should be the TE primarily conducted, if the classroom or workshop environment is primary”.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TE should be primary

conducted in classroom

environment

TE should be given only in

primary education

TE and computer training

should be given in

complement unit

INTERNAL EVALUATION OF PROJECT OUTPUT

September – October 2007

Evaluation of new curriculum

METHODOLOGY FOR FEEDBACK ACQUIREMENT

The project output was introduced to technology education professionals during the evaluation conference held at October 2007.

The issues for evaluation: proposed modular system, content of main modules and modules, division of credits, learning objectives, bibliography, training materials and training tools.

STRUCTURE OF EXPERTS PROVIDED THE FEEDBACK

Academicians: 26% Technology teachers in general schools: 34% Students in universities, Faculties of

Education, Technology Departments: 40%

FEEDBACK FROM TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS

Technology Teachers

Questionsstrongly agree agree disagree Strongly

disagreeI don’t know

1. the methodological concept is clear 75% 25%

2.the course is well structured100%

3.the modules are consistently arranged 33% 67%

4.the level of difficulty is appropriate100%

5.all subject fields are adequately covered67% 33%

6.the standards of quality and reliability are respected

100%

7. information is presented in an innovative way

83% 17%

FEEDBACK FROM TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS

Technology Teachers



8. the content is relevant for the target group

100%

9. the training materials are of immediate usability

100%

10. the training tools are attractive 17% 83%

11. the learning objectives are clear 83% 17%

12. the contents are up-to-date

75% 25%

13. the materials are of general applicability in my country

100%

14. I would recommend/adopt this course 50% 50%

15. the course meets the EU

accreditation/validation standards 83% 17%

FEEDBACK FROM ACADEMICIANS

Specialist/academicians




2.the course is well structured44% 44% 12%

3.the modules are consistently arranged 33% 56% 11%

4.the level of difficulty is appropriate100%



22% 78%


22% 78%

FEEDBACK FROM ACADEMICIANS

Specialist/academicians




67%33%


22% 78%

10. the training tools are attractive 11% 67% 22%

11. the learning objectives are clear 11% 89%


11% 78% 11%


11% 67% 22%

14. I would recommend/adopt this course 11% 33% 56%


accreditation/validation standards 11% 67% 22%

FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTSStudents




2.the course is well structured64% 36%

3.the modules are consistently arranged 36% 64%

4.the level of difficulty is appropriate14% 86%



100%


29% 71%

FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTSStudents




100%


14% 64% 22%

10. the training tools are attractive 7% 93%

11. the learning objectives are clear 100%


86% 14%


86% 7% 7%

14. I would recommend/adopt this course 50% 7% 43%


accreditation/validation standards 79% 21%

FEEDBACK IN COMMENTS AND OPINIONS

There is missing the technology practice to enable the students to get basic practical skills (technology teacher in general school)

The physics is too detailed, it is not common in technology education in Czech Republic (academician)

The whole system is various, quality of different parts is imbalanced (academician)

FEEDBACK IN COMMENTS AND OPINIONS

The lists of bibliographies from different countries are useless (academician)

111 and 112 Technical Drawing is learned by different way in Czech Republic, perhaps better (academician)

113 CAD-Computer Aided Design - shouldn't be based only on Solid Works (academician)

116 Material Science - the wood is missing (academician)

THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION

national project activities, evaluation 13.-15.11.2007, ankara euroface consulting, czech republic

Documents