REPORT ON COURSE MONITORING - European …...4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 average score PATRES Course management evolution 18% 24% 32% 12% 2% 1% 11% 1%

REPORT ON COURSE MONITORING

The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the

European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

2

1. PATRES Course Monitoring – general data

The PATRES Training course took place in all participant countries between February 2011 and July 2011. In order to keep track of the evolution of the course, a monitoring scheme was implemented by all participant countries and it followed the four modules of the course:

Module 1. RES technologies – Building and districts integration

Module 2. Regulation and Policies for RES deployment

Module 3. Management. Governance, Awareness raising, Participatory process

Module 4. Project Works/Pilot action

The main focus of the monitoring was put on the Evaluation Forms for Trainees, thus the evaluation being carried out as thorough and as useful as possible (assessment of the course impact on the target groups-> trainees).

In order to evaluate all aspects of the course, there were put together evaluation forms for each module as well as for the entire course. The questions (10 in average) aimed to evaluate two important aspects:

1. Contents quality

2. Management quality

Each form contained a set of questions, as follows:

Module Evaluation Form

1. The module as a whole was

2. Module contents were

3. The trainer’s contribution to lesson…….. Was

4. The training methods of the trainer of lesson…… were

5. The training materials were

6. The trainers active participation was

7. Evaluation methods where

8. The practical/ experimental part (including case studies) of the course was:

9. Correlation between the technical and legislative aspects was

10. Trainers support to trainees was

11. Module Organization was

Course Evaluation Form

3

1. The course as a whole was

2. Course contents were

3. The training materials were

4. Use of allocated time was

5. Utility of the course for the objective of my organization/institution was

6. Evaluation methods where

7. Correlation between the technical and legislative aspects was

8. Correlation between the modules of the course was

9. Trainers support to trainees was

10. Overall Course organization was

The participants answered these questions with one of the following options:

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

The forms were completed by the participants to the course in each country after the end of each module (the module evaluation forms) and at the end of the course (the course evaluation forms). The average number of participants who completed the forms per country is:

Nr.Crt Country Avg. No. of evaluation forms

1 Austria 13

2 Croatia 14

3 Czech Republic 6

4 Estonia 12

5 Italy 23

6 Romania 15

7 Spain 17

2. Interpretation of the results

4

The answers to the questions were centralized and analyzed. In order to draw the conclusions as accurate as possible, the questions were divided into the following categories:

1. Contents quality (questions regarding the training materials, trainers contributions, the practical/experimental parts of the course, trainers support to trainees etc.)

2. Management quality (questions related to the organization of the module/course, the course utility, etc.)

2.1 Individual analysis of each partner country

First, the data from each country is analyzed.

The analysis is made trough the two perspectives (contents and management quality). Each module is analyzed, as well as the whole course as well as its evolution, for all participant countries. The methods of training and most important suggestions for improvement are discussed as well

AUSTRIA

A) Module evaluation

Module 1

Contents quality Management quality Module 2 (Best management & Contents)

Contents quality Management quality

21%

43%

33%

3% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

28%

54%

18%

0% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

39%

30%

31%

0% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

46%

39%

15%

0% 0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

5

Module 3


Module 4 (Best contents == M2)


B) Whole course evaluation

Austria Course Evaluation


C) Course management evolution

35%

37%

27%

1% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

31%

56%

13%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

39%

30%

31%

0% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

46%

39%

15%

0% 0%

0% excellent

verygoodgood

fair

poor

14%

49%

35%

2%

0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

12%

57%

31%

0% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

6

D) General data and most relevant suggestion for improvement made by the participants

Total number of participants: 13

Training Methods: 60% course; 40% case studies

Most relevant suggestions:

• Make presentations available on usb-sticks

• Case studies: Take more time for the lunch

• To go more into detail concerning the single communities

• More information about funding

• Use more worksheets

• More active discussions

CROATIA


Module 1


4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4

aver

age

scor

e PATRES Course management evolution

32%

52%

13% 3% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

29%

62%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

7

Module 2 (Best Management & contents)


Module 3


Module 4


39%

43%

15%

3% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

42%

47%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

11%

41% 34%

14%

0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

14%

53%

33%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

35%

48%

16%

1% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

41%

59%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

8


Croatia Course Evaluation




A total of 18 participants attended the course, representatives of local and regional level of authority and representatives of public utilities.

Methods used for PATRES training included 50% course, 20% debates, 20% case studies , 10% video lecture.

5 of the most relevant suggestions of improvement received from the trainees include:

1. Setting up energy monitoring administration.

2. Swift removal of higher then usual energy consumption causes.

3. Documents of planning and programming end user energy consumption for all cities, in connection with SEAP document.

4. Importance of solar energy over gas in water heating particularly in coastal, well insulated areas.

5. Importance of biomass over oil in the dense forest regions.

28%

54%

14%

4% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

39%

57%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4


aver

age

scor

e

PATRES Course management evolution

9

3 of the most relevant suggestions of improvement received from the trainers

1. Less intensive administration for obtaining the status of privledged energy producer from RES.

2. More intensive subsidies from local and regionalb level.

3. Tax benefits for RES equipment.

CZECH REPUBLIC


Module 1


Module 2


4%

38%

41%

16%

1% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

0%

44%

52%

4%

0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

13%

38% 34%

15%

0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

28%

48%

24%

0% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

10

Module 3 (Best management & Contents)



Czech Republic Course Evaluation




Every module included a one day field excursion (7 days in class total, 3 days excursions)

33%

56%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

53% 47%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

20%

68%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

20%

68%

12% 0% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

0123456

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3

aver

age

scor

e


11

5 of the most relevant suggestions of improvement received from the trainees (from questionnaires - not in order of importance):

• More guidance in what type of RES to choose in what situation

• More information about the excursions before they take place (so that a more focused discussion could take place)

• (Module 1) More practical examples

• (Module 3) Perhaps too much focus on financing projects out of grant money, while it’s not clear if this remains in place.

• After some presentations to much room for discussion, so that to little time left for discussion in presentations later during the day

ESTONIA


Module 1

Contents quality Management quality Module 2


47%

49%

4%

excellent

very good

good

41%

57%

2%

excellent

very good

good

47%

48%

5%

excellent

very good

good

47% 53%

0%

excellent

very good

good

12

Module 3 (Best contents)


Module 4 (Best management)



Estonia Course Evaluation


51% 46%

3%

excellent

very good

good64%

31%

5%

excellent

very good

good

2%

68%

30% excellent

very good

good

15%

61%

24% excellent

very good

good

22%

67%

11% excellent

very good

good

28%

59%

13% excellent

very good

good

13


ITALY


Module 1 (Best management)

Contents quality Management quality Module 2 (Best Contents)


4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

5,8


aver

age

scor

e


18%

32% 24%

12%

2% 1% 11%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

29%

36%

28%

6% 1% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

19%

42% 26%

9% 4%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

18%

50%

29%

3%

0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

14

Module 3


Module 4



Italy Course Evaluation


16%

42%

31%

4% 2% 5% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

12%

59%

29%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

12%

42% 22%

17%

2% 1% 4% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

10%

54%

35%

1% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

8%

51%

35%

4%

2% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

8%

51%

35%

4% 2%

0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

15



Total number of participants in the Courses: 27 equivalent persons

Methods used for training for the whole course: 55% traditional lectures; 30% group work and laboratory; 15% debate and exchange of knowledge

5 of the most relevant suggestions for improvement received from the trainees:

1) more group work;

2) more analysis of existing building and city planning regulations (in Italy Municipalities have a fair degree of legislative competence in these fields);

3) visits to best practices during and not after the course;

4) presentation and analysis of cases of good and bad practices to understand what works and what does not and the reasons behind such outcomes;

5) organizing constant sessions for update, given the ongoing fast evolution of the sector;

Most relevant suggestions for improvement received from the trainers:

1) showing participants real-life realizations;

ROMANIA


Module 1

4,64,74,84,9

55,15,25,3


aver

age

scor

e


16




32%

59%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

29%

69%


verygoodgood

fair

38%

53%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

55% 38%

7% 0% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

Module 3

Contents quality Management quality Module 4


27%

28%

37%

8% 0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

37%

43%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

31%

40%

19%

10% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

42%

33%


very good

good

fair

poor

17

Romania Course Evaluation




Total number of participants in the Courses: 15

Methods used for training for the whole course: 55% traditional lectures; 30% experimental visits; 15% debate and exchange of knowledge.

Most relevant suggestions for improvement received from the trainees:

• More group work; • More materials available –on CD-s • More case-studies;

SPAIN

35%

36%

28%

1%

0%

0% excellentverygoodgood

fair

poor

43%

45%

12%

0% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

4,754,8

4,854,9

4,955

5,055,1

5,155,2


aver

age

scor

e


18


Module 1



35%

41%

21%

3% 0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

39%

53%

8% 0% 0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

39%

47%

13% 1%

0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

33%

59%

8%

excellentverygoodgood

fair

poor

Module 3


Module 4

18%

37% 32%

10% 2%

1%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

14%

39% 39%

8%

0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

19


Spain Course Evaluation




21%

36%

38%

5%

0% 0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

19%

46%

31%

4%

0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

5,2

5,3


aver

age

scor

e



14%

37% 37%

9% 2% 1% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

8%

37% 51%

4% 0% 0% excellent

verygoodgood

20

Total number of participants at the courses: Initially were 28 but finally they were 20 that are the people that will travel to the conference.

Methods used for training for the whole course

• Course: 55 %

• Case studies: 15 %

• Debates: 30 %

Improvement suggestions:

• More time to practice how to develop a SEAP

• More time to explain the ESCOs services and the contracting aspects.

2.2. PATRES course general evaluation

Data from all partners was gathered and, combining all answers, the PATRES Course general assessment was made. As well as for each country, every module is analyzed, as well as the whole course.

PATRES Module 1 General Evaluation



30%

45%

18%

4% 1% 0%

2% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

32%

53%

13%

2%

0% 0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

21






OVERALL PATRES COURSE Evaluation

33%

46%

17%


very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

36%

51%

13%

0% 0% 0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

25%

38%

29%

6% 1% 0%

1% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

26%

48%

24%

2% 0%

0% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

21%

43%

26%

8% 1%

0%

1% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

25%

46%

27%

2%

0%

0% excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

no reply

22

Contents quality

Management quality

Overall PATRES Course Management evolution

26%

54%

19%

1%

0%

0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

26%

54%

19%

1%

0%

0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

23

The perception of the participants on the course was…

3. Conclusions

By a close analysis of the results obtained from the evaluation of the evaluation forms, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• The greatest interest was shown by the participants to Module 2. Regulation and Policies for RES deployment. It can be said that it is an expected result and can be considered as a success for the training course as well as for the PATRES Project, aiding to its main purpose of RES regulations improvement.

4,95

5

5,05

5,1

5,15

5,2


aver

age

scor

e PATRES Course management evolution

23%

51%

24%

2% 0%

excellent

very good

good

fair

poor

very poor

24

• Following closely, Module 2. Project Works/ Pilot actions, placed second in the appreciation of the trainees, shows us that the theoretical issues are in some matter clear and the practical participant are interested in finding out the possibilities for tackling the practical aspects.

• In the top of the improvement suggestions received from the participants is the introduction of more practical examples as well as workgroup methodology. The countries in which this the training methods aimed this approach have the best ratings both for course contents and management.

• The overall rating of the course was above 5.089 of max 6.0 (regarding both the contents quality as well as management quality), which situates the perception of the course by the participants between Very good and Excellent. This result increases our hopes for good, quality pilot actions implementation with remarkable achievements.