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
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 Report
Lone 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. 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 salary
2. Complete time sheets and have them signed by employer’s legal representative, sign payslips from each participant to document daily salary
3. 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.
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 Period
Lone asked for comments and milestones of the project.
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.
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 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.