Transfer of Innovation Project Meeting

Held at Kauno Statybininku Rengimo Centras, Kaunas, Lithuania

Tuesday 13 & Wednesday 14 May 2014

Attendees:

Denmark (P0): Lone Olsen (Chair); Jørgen Seeberg; Bjarke Skygge Gregoriussen; Lars-Henrik Viby Nielsen.

Germany (P1): Markus Muller.

Netherlands (P2): Ted kompier; Bert Schuilingh; Martie Nederhoff.

Lithuania (P3): Jurgita Urbe; Aida Gruzinskiene; Romualdas Kerinas; Romualdas Gurksnys;

Martynas Skulskis; Vygantas Zinevicius; Arvydas Sirtautas.

Finland (P4): Antti Jarvenpaa; Harri Hakkola; Janna Rasanen.

Spain (P5): Alfredo Garmendia; Alberto Laza.

UK (6): Jon Harding, Claire Tooze (taking minutes); Damien Kendall.

Apologies were received from Jukka Kosunen (Finland).

Tuesday 13 May 2014

Day 1 started at 9.00 am.

1. Welcome and Introductions

1

We were welcomed to the meeting by the Head of Practical Training, Mr. Juozas Kelmelis who noted he was pleased that technology and the European Union has made it possible to participate in projects such as this. Lone then welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Evaluation of the Quarterly ReportLone welcomed Jon as the Quality Manager of the project. Jon noted that people really do need to get work in to deadlines as lateness caused him to not be able to evaluate the data as much as he had liked. Jon asked if there were problems with timescales due to key action 2. Bert reported that he had been away and

noted that they failed to communicate regarding this. Jon noted that he would like everyone to get into cross-international groups in order to discuss this further and will put milestones in diaries in order to remind people of deadlines. It was agreed that there would be time for this allocated on Day 2.

Jon noted the matrix which a lot of people mentioned was difficult to understand. Regarding management Jon asked for people to not only rate this but to give more information regarding this in order for him to have more feedback. Jon said that he had issues on dropbox when accessing via the ipad. Jon added that he will change this and queried how the work progress is going as well as the management, asking for feedback to be clear. Jon noted it has been difficult for dissemination across the College and employers in the UK but they were trying to get this into newspapers etc.

Lone noted that if we add to this document regularly it will help us all when we write the final report and we can use this as an aid to prove that we have disseminated properly. Jon noted he would be very happy to update this. Jon discussed a recent visit to Bridgwater College by Stephen Vickers from VTCT who was very impressed with what we are doing.

Jon then went onto explain that they looked at external impact including the impact on the learners and employers and how the modules are working. Overall comments included that it has been a learning curve and we will have prompts on what we would like to be answered about the project to make it easier to direct.

Jon confirmed that there was a lot of development regarding working on the EQF to NQF and matching the qualifications. Everyone confirmed that they had sent the EQF into Lone. The milestones in drop box were also discussed. Jon noted that there was a delay and this could have been because everyone was working quite hard on Erasmus+. Jon asked everyone to look at this and asked if everyone was happy with this. Everyone agreed. Jon added that everyone had been positive but noted if there are problems to let him know.

2

Mr. Juozas Kelmelis

Lone said she felt this was a brilliant and helpful document and it is good to see what people have done. Jon added that the dissemination was good for him to get ideas.

Jon noted from the meeting in Denmark last week they had taken a picture of everyone and he felt that this would also be useful for Claire taking the minutes. Lone thanked Jon for this agenda item.

3. Financial Status of the Project

Jørgen noted he needs information from everyone regarding the calculation of salary. Bert and Jon have been gathering this information together within their institutions. Jon asked for clarification of salary.

Jørgen confirmed we need the salary in Euro per day. They require a payslip signed by the legal representative and then also need timesheets with what they have been doing and signed by yourself and your immediate manager. Jørgen added that it is important to notify Lajla and asked for any questions. Bert noted that they have their own calculation but was wondering as wages are higher then they get paid from the project so they are co-financing already and they wondered how they would prove this. He added that in the application they used lower wages than Jørgen was presenting today. Jørgen noted the salary in the application was based on actual costs.

Bert noted he used 262 euros which was in the application. Jørgen confirmed Bert needs to use his actual costs. Jon noted that it is 334 euros for the UK which is maximum for the teacher so we pay their normal wages. Jørgen confirmed it cannot go above this rate but can go below. Markus confirmed that you charge for your full amount the salary they pay you can be considered for co-financing. Markus added that it does not matter where the costs come from, you have to show that you have invested any shortfall as there is a limited budget no matter of its personal cost/travelling. Lone noted that you need to put in everything and at the end if you exceed it then you will prove that you are self-financing. This will prove that you have put in the extra funding. This needs to be sent to Lajla by Monday, if no one is available to sign it the figures can be sent in at this time and then the actual document sent after as soon as possible.

Actions:

1. Clarification of daily salary2. Complete time sheets and have them signed by employer’s legal representative, sign

payslips from each participant to document daily salary3. All expenses must be documented by receipts – no document no pay! Jon noted that for

example of you have a food bill you need to annotate how many people this was for – keep your receipts.

4. Submission deadlines – a scanned version/email or filled in dropbox and the original expenditure documents by Thursday ideally, deadline Monday.

3

5. Send all of this information to Lajla by email and then put into dropbox.

Action: All to send in to Lajla by Monday 19 May at the latest which can be scanned/emailed.

Damien left to visit the Automotive workshop at 9.45am.

4. Website http://www.automovet.eu/ The attendees then viewed the AutoMOVET website. Jørgen noted that he had worked a bit on the website and have developed this now and asked for feedback as it was currently work in progress. Lone asked if everyone could post news, for example, student travel, and stated that it did not have to be to announce a big event when posting items. Jon noted that in the UK we have a student from Spain with us at present so it would be good to put things like this in. Jørgen noted that this would be excellent dissemination. Jon asked for more pictures to be put on the website to make it more visual.

Action: Alfredo to lead on looking into a Twitter account for the project group

Action: The website needs to work for all devises which it currently does not. Jørgen to look into this.

Jon asked if quarterly reports should be on the website. Lone agreed this should as it is not a secret. Lone added that she thought it was a good idea so then everyone can see what we do.

Action: Jon to send to Jørgen an update.

Lone noted if you cannot look into what has been going on it is a boring website it is a good way to show the world what has been going on in the project and also keeps us on our toes.

Lone noted when we are ready with the matrix we need a calendar for when we are ready to pilot the modules.

Jørgen noted on the project page the project partners are not clear so maybe we should put partner names underneath. Jon requested contact pictures to be put on the contact page which would also help Claire with the minutes. Janna asked Jørgen to save documents as PDFs as it is easier to open these. Lone noted that the website will continue to be under construction, just like the project, but any ideas on how to improve this please send to her. When we are ready we will definitely need a calendar.

5. Milestones for the Last PeriodLone asked for comments and milestones of the project.

4

Bert asked for dropbox account access and said he uses the link.

Project Updates Milestones:

All Colleges presented as follows:

Netherlands

The Dutch partners noted that they had put the milestones in but not in the drop box. Lone noted that this would be their keywords for many reports.

Action: Dutch group to update this

Spain

Alfredo noted he is creating accounts for this and he presented a dissemination record document that he had prepared and was working on. This outlined the level of activity (operational/tactical/strategic, target groups, contents of dissemination, methods, activities, timing). Alfredo would like everyone to use and continue to update this document which will be put into dropbox and Jørgen noted also be good to include pictures of dissemination activities.

Denmark

Lone noted that they need to have an official meeting with the national branch as they want the website to be working but so far apart from this they are on track.

Finland

Janna noted that they are up to date although they will discuss this further within their presentation the following day.

United Kingdom

Jon noted that we they are working on new modules for the project and have another idea for an opportunity for the project that he will discuss later. The financial part is all being completed and therefore they are up to date.

Lithuania

The Lithuanian partner has updated the transaction of national standards and worked quite a lot on the modules. They hold weekly meetings which are important for revision and the quarterly report. They are still working on the competence matrix and preparation of the financial reports but have almost completed this.

Germany

Markus noted the dissemination he had previously mentioned in teacher education and meetings which he will update after this meeting.

Lone congratulated everyone on being up-to-date.

5

6. Status of the Work with the Matrix level 1 and level 2 ‘CMCM’

Markus noted the competence matrix car mechanics (draft 3). He noted that the competence area was changed to beginner, intermediate and advanced. The table notes the competence areas:

Maintenance, inspection and service Diagnoses and fault finding Repair Retrofit

There could be an additional one of communication but this is currently included within the others. Markus added that this was the first overview. The content area is included in this version 1. In general to read this competence matrix you need to think ‘the student is able to….’ and then rate them as beginner, intermediate or advanced depending on their level. Markus asked if it was felt easy to understand and noted it may be appropriate to add to this. Lone asked if we were going to include a definition as she could not remember.

Ted and Martie noted that they will present theirs and discuss more in the afternoon.

Markus asked if we should keep in this competence matrix or leave this to our own national documents. Jon showed everyone that for his he has taken this but linked it to the national module. There is a module description on the final page.

Markus presented what was agreed by all at the first meeting. He noted that we now have the competence matrix and the description of learning outcomes with a link to the module and taxonomy table as instruments to describe the whole module.

Markus noted the colours of the modules and said it would be useful to use colour to indicate the module content; for example, all the green ones are engine related, etc. Colours could be associated to the content area. It was felt this was a good idea. Markus asked if this was complete. A discussion was held regarding international variations within modules. Jon noted ‘Vehicle Auxiliary Electrical’ systems is what they call this module in the UK, although everyone seemed to have a different title for this but there was a common understanding.

Damien returned from his automotive tour at 11.00am

There was then a 15 minute Coffee Break.

Markus continued that in the break he had carried out some small modifications (draft 4), as we had agreed to skip off the content descriptions and to replace this by colour dots which we dedicate to the contact area. Draft 5 will be available next week for everyone to go through.

Lone asked if everyone could make an introductory comment of what we mean regarding beginner etc. Different words from different countries will help us all to understand what is meant by a beginner and this would be valuable to have alongside the matrix. This will be a

6

description of what we would expect a beginner, intermediate and advanced student to be able to do. The Lithuanian model was different to this and appeared not to fit this model. Lone noted that if you have a subject area that fits into more than one content you would have to complete both content lines.

Jon noted that he would like to have not too many colours as this will then make this more confusing to understand. Everyone thought that it would be interesting to have less colours and it was decided that this could be the way forward, but this was then debated. Martie felt that we needed to look at this through the eyes of a student. Markus noted he would like to dedicate a module to the red and yellow colours so that it is clear. Lone felt we should keep it simple. Bjarke felt that it was simple how it was. Everyone felt we could keep this as it was unless we come back to it tomorrow.

Action: Everyone to go through the content and check draft 5 on drop box and confirm if they agree next week

7. Presentation of Modules

Every partner presented their first ideas for the pilot of the modules:

United Kingdom

Jon outlined on behalf of the UK partner. Jon noted that Grant at Bridgwater College is heavily involved in the project, and they are going to add the impact of an airbag going off and the procedure for the removal of this. Jon noted that as a College they will be starting a new course in September for motorcycles and will be developing a new module within this to put out to learners if anyone wanted their students to do this. Lone noted that there could be a transfer to make the motorcycle module fit into the programme. Jon asked if this module fitted into the project. Everyone felt that it had the potential to be. Lone noted that maybe it is worthwhile thinking about clarifying the sections of automotive. Hans felt that this would be a good opportunity to send students to England for a couple of weeks to do this in order to learn extra skills to take back with them.

Jon showed everyone pictures of the bodyshop and said that cars come in smashed up and the students spend some time in the body repair shop before they go into the light vehicle workshop to repair the radiator and engine etc. From September onwards we are trying to do a couple of weeks experience in a different workshop to gain more experience. Light vehicle students will also get the opportunity to spray a panel, and Body and Paint students will have experience of light vehicle activities.

Jon noted that an added option is to look at air conditioning courses, and they could offer an air conditioning course at a small cost and then the students would come back with a certificate. It is open to level 2 and level 3 students as they need some knowledge in able to complete the course. Jon noted that they have a commercial automotive centre for people in industry who need to do kite mark courses, which they are in the process of incorporating this in to make this free for learners. Jon also noted welding systems. Martie was concerned that this would all be too much input for the students but Jon noted that this was only basic input rather than in depth. The outcomes will show up in the module description. Jon confirmed that this was a one

7

day course and is the basics of being able to understand the welding principals, steering and geometry, cooling systems, air condition systems etc.

Markus noted this is the concrete point of why we needed detailed learning outcomes so that we can be specific about the programme. Jon noted another option is the motorsport module which has been going for a long time. Hans noted that it is more interesting to add items like this that are not available in other countries.

Finland

Antti presented his module. Antti outlined the module descriptions of the project. He noted for servicing a car, first they have to find servicing description. He noted that if there is not service information they always service the breaks for example as it has to be routine for their students to do that work. If they find something is wrong with the car they have to be capable to fix this. Jon asked if the auto data was on-line, Antti agreed this was. Lone asked if we transfer this module to the matrix how much would be circled. Jon noted quite a few things would be on there, such as breaking, engine, filter change etc. Jon felt we needed to add one for customer service. Jon noted in most countries there is a customer service module, assignment and test. Lone noted that one of the Danish modules was very much about customer service. And perhaps a health and safety module. Lone noted it would be interesting to see how many colour areas. Jon noted we have to do all of this as part of our education and it would be nice for students to see how this is done in other countries.

Spain

Alberto gave an update on the Spanish modules and showed a photograph of the workshop area. This included information regarding the focus on practical operations associated with a full operational system. Alberto also ran through the assessment process which is based on 4 learning goals: theoretical, practical, work placement and social skills/group work.

Lithuania

Romualdas Kerinas and Jurgita presented the Lithuanian model. They noted that they needed to change the modules slightly. This module is prepared for four weeks and they also have topics for every single day at their school, the first day is work safely, then other days include wheel alignments, fault finding, undercarriage etc as they do not include diagnostics. The level is intermediate. Then they find faults which Jurgita was confused with as diagnostics could be the same as finding faults. Lone noted this was depending on the complexity of the fault finding. Hans noted that the word diagnostic is acceptable to use and everyone agreed this was the same. Lone noted this was good and very detailed.

Denmark

Bjarke presented the Danish module. He noted the learning outcomes and a short description of these and some module elements which included the tasks in the workshop and classroom. They use both diagnostics and fault finding. He noted that is will depend on the main design of the module on how this will end up. Bjarke also discussed the evaluation process. Jon noted that it is good to also give students praise when they have done well. Bjarke noted it would be

8

good to also give them a certificate. This would be a European Standard, Jon noted that this could be used for UK learners back in the UK so would be good.

Netherlands

Ted presented the Dutch module which runs over four weeks. He noted the learning goals and module elements for theoretical and practical lessons. The majority lessons will be practical in the workshop but they will also receive theory lessons before they go to the workshop. Lone noted that Markus’ work needs to be linked to the layout descriptions. Jon noted that in the UK they want to send the learners a pre-question sheet to understand their knowledge before their visit to check they understand certain components, diagnostic procedures etc. Lone thought that another way around it was Markus’ idea. Markus explained the Matrix can have 3 functions: a quick overview; instructional profile, for example, you can look on the matrix for your education on car mechanics and say which level you have reached and what you expect your students to reach; individual profile to check up the student’s knowledge and experience at the beginning and what the learner lacks in experience. Lone noted that it would be good to use the matrix in so many different ways. Jon discussed Pen Portraits which is information about each individual learner which is used in the UK. It was felt that this would be a good idea. Markus felt that this would be a lot of work for schools that do not already have it. Jon noted that for two or three learners that each partner would be changing it would not be a lot of work.

8. Dutch Partner Presents a Suggestion for a Format for Module Descriptions

Ted asked everyone to send him the modules and he will see if some elements of the models can be made into one template and then he will send a template out to everyone for all to complete. This will include knowledge, skills and competence. Holland will build this into the template. Markus noted that we need to agree on a common language and listed in knowledge, skills and competence and we need to decide on a

format. Lone noted that we should look at the words that she used at the ‘kick off’ meeting. Markus noted there are existing lists, a document from the national agency which the MOVET project was supporting. Jon noted that this is about terminology and understanding what ‘knowledge’ means in each country. Lone noted that we need to look at the tools for this. Markus felt that he could do this in a group with Jon and Ted. Markus noted maybe the next aim of the TOI project was to get to the next level or quality. We need to have an expert group to look at the tool box for an overview of the correct words that we will all use.

Action: This expert toolbox group will spend some time in the meeting tomorrow whilst the others look through the quality report. Draft/first/guidelines for learning outcome version will be completed by the end of June. Feedback will need to be completed and sent to Jon by the 1 September 2014.

The meeting ended on day 1 at 4.00pm

9

Wednesday 14 May 2014

Day 2 started at 9.00 am

The first hour of the meeting was spent in small international groups reflecting on the quality report that Jon had delivered on Day 1. Also at this time Jon’s group (Jon, Markus and Ted) discussed the common terminology and the understanding of the matrix table. During this time Claire prepared an electronic survey to send at the end of the meeting in order to evaluate the event. After this hour Jon noted that there was an issue with people understanding competence and terminology had come out of his meeting. Jon asked if there is anything within the project that anyone has difficulty understanding please contact him in the first instance.

Action: All to give feedback on the matrix profile to Jon Harding.

9. Input and Work Plan for the Process for Development of the Process GuideJaana introduced the Mobility Process Guide. Harri presented this, where they tried to collect existing materials and pick up ideas and the guide is written in both Finnish and English. Harri asked what type of guide was required, whether it would be like a process or more detailed information. Lone noted the process guide is more of a story about this network, where we started, how we all met, where we started, some of the first things we agreed on: trying to come up with terminology. Lone added that it needs to tell a story and also state some good examples. It could also be used as personal advice to others. Lone added maybe we can add a story from a student from each country. Lone added that we do not know how big this document will become, but the format would be a pdf on the website. Once this has been completed it will be sent to Jon and his UK colleagues to proof read. Action: Everyone has to contribute to the process guide

10. Final meeting/ConferenceLone discussed the final conference. Denmark are sending all of their department and teachers and asked if everyone could think about bringing a lot of staff from their College and, for example it would be good to bring someone to talk about Hybrid cars and someone from the Heavy vehicle section. Lone asked what would be a good subject for the final conference in Munich. Denmark will be bringing approximately 50 staff. Markus noted he does not have catering within his College and Lone suggested a mobile catering company. This will be on the 7th and 8th October 2015, and Lone noted that the first day could be a presentation day, it was discussed whether this should be a one or two day event. Markus noted that BMW hold guided tours which takes 1.5 hours, and could take up to an afternoon. He added that there is also a technical museum and other places to visit. It was decided that the first day (now the 6 th) would be a project meeting day and the second day (7TH) would be the conference and then the an optional day on the 8th with a possible visit to the factory.

It was decided that approximately the following staff would be attending (and it may be a good idea to take a student or two who has completed a mobility):

SDE: 50 (Denmark) ID: 15 (Netherlands) BC: 15 (United Kingdom)

10

SRC: 10 (Lithuania) SAVO: 10 (Finland) SV: 9 (Spain) TUM: 5 (Germany) MUC: 10 (schools, companies) Additional guests: Estonia, Holland Graafschap

Project meeting: 6 October 2015 (Tuesday)

Conference day: 7 October 2015 (Wednesday)

Optional Programme: 8 October 2015 (Thursday)

11. Tour of the College: Automotive and ConstructionThe project group then toured the Automotive centre at the College and then took a short bus

journey to the Construction centre. Some photos of the tour are below:

The tour was followed by lunch.

12. Evaluation of Meeting

Time was allocated after lunch to complete the on-line survey (Survey Monkey) that Claire had produced regarding the evaluation of this Project Meeting in Lithuania.

11

13. Conclusions – Next Steps in the Projects

Lone asked if there were any questions. Alfredo asked about the Dutch format. Everyone is required to send Ted the modules so that he can produce the template, and everyone needs to send their milestones to Claire and complete the survey which they should have done within the meeting. This all needs to be completed by the end of next week.

Action: Everyone to give Markus feedback on the 5th draft and then Markus will update the matrix and send it out to everyone

The next meeting will be in Finland. Harry said that everyone is welcome to Kopia for the next meeting on Tuesday 11 and Wednesday 12 November 2014. He hoped everyone could come in good time on Monday as there will be a programme on the Monday evening. Jaana has made a reservation in the hotel that we have stayed in before. You will need to send Jaana your reservation to say that you are coming and then Jaana will reserve this with the hotel. The meeting will be in the hotel. Markus felt it may be cheaper to hire a large car for up to 9 people from Helsinki rather than getting a flight after to Kupio, this was discussed. It would be preferred if everyone could get to Kupio by 4pm or 5pm at the latest. Everyone to keep in contact with Markus regarding a hire car once travel arrangements have been made.

Lone officially ended the meeting and thanked the Lithuanian partners for their hospitality. Aida asked for any photos to be shared on drop box. Lone closed the meeting and thanked everyone for coming and asked everyone to keep in touch.

The meeting ended at 2.30 pm and the group departed to Vilnius by KSRC bus for an overnight stay or flights home.

14. Next Meetings:Project Meeting: Tuesday 11 and Wednesday 12 November 2014 (10 and 13 travel days) in FinlandFinal Meeting: Tuesday 6, Wednesday 7 and Thursday 8 October 2015 (5 and 9 October travel days in Munich) (Conference Day – 7 October).

12