AEROVET: Minutes of the first meeting in Bonn, 12/13.3.2009

Present were:

Annie Bouder (Cereq)

Alan Brown (UoW)

Natalia Cuddy (QCA)

Laure Jimenez (URiV)

Philipp Grollmann (BIBB)

Christiane Eberlein (BIBB)

Daniela Ulicna (GHK)

Monika Holik (EACEA)

Stefano Di Giusto (EACEA)

Rainer Bremer (ITB)

Andreas Saniter (ITB)

Stefano Di Giusto presented the main aims, dates and specifications of ECVET as well as of this as a key activity (see attachment ECVET_EACEA.ppt). The presentation was very unambiguous so there was no need for further discussion.

Daniela Ulicna described the role that GHK is going to play in the next years. She pointed out that the main activity is to facilitate communication between the chosen 10 projects and the agency. Therefore GHK provides the projects with bulletins every 4 month, establishes a homepage and organises 3 meetings of all projects per year. Unfortunately she had no presentation so I attached a sketch (GHK.doc) that was sent to the ITB as the coordinating partner.

Andreas Saniter presented a first sketch (cf. sketch.ppt) of the idea of AEROVET: The relevance of the different aspects of recognition for aircraft industry. A short discussion about the interests and form of organisation of the EASA aroused – but this agency is run by the ministries of transport so the possibility for the stakeholders of this project to influence the activities of the EASA from an educational perspective are rather less than zero.

Andreas Saniter presented some of the relevant administrative and financial aspects of the key activity (cf. org.ppt). Monika Holik added that it is not necessary to send the receipts with the interim report to the Agency but to be prepared for a possible audit.

The members of the former project AERONET presented some of their main results. The systemic as well as the practical differences in apprenticeship in aeronautics in the 4 countries are this large (cf. preliminary_VET.ppt) that the partners see no possibility to derive ECVET-Units from the curricula.

But, at least in the production of aircrafts, a common profile of TPT exists (cf. preliminary_Core.ppt). These TPT are foreseen to be the basis of further activities. Daniela Ulicna confirms that this approach is not uncommon.

Alan Brown directed the discussion to another result of AERONET: The different approaches of apprentices from different countries to the same problem. Rainer Bremer showed a visualisation of the solutions of the apprentices.

Interesting discussions about this result emerged and lead to the question, if it is an artefact due to participants or could it be verified in a broader study. Unfortunately this question will not be answered during AEROVET because the new project is dedicated to experimentation and establishment of ECVET and not to research.

Rainer Bremer & Andreas Saniter presented the work packages of AEROVET (cf. wp.ppt). The outline and the focus on maintenance in the first packages was accepted by all partners but some details remained unclear, especially the breakdown of the TPT into units (according to the technical specifications) and sub-units and what exactly each partner has to do in the first 3 work packages. This second aspect was moved to the last agenda item “miscellaneous”, concerning the former one the iterative and recursive approach was stressed again: The holistic description of each TPT stays the point of reference, only small modifications are expected from the first workshops. The descriptions in terms of ECVET-vocabulary are an addition and not a substitute. These additions will be validated and legitimated by the partners and the sub-contractors again.

The different papers and the role allocation of our ECER-proposal (cf. ECER.doc) were subject of the discussion on Friday morning. The first presentation (by the ITB) is dedicated to the results of the former project AERONET to get the audience updated. The second presentation (by the Cereq) will raise the rather methodological question of the relation between “tasks” (in the sense of our projects) and “units” (in the sense of the EU). The vocational system of the UK consists already of “modules”. The third paper (by the UoW) looks for similarities and difference between those modules and the ECVET-Units. The last presentation (by the URiV) has a rather systemic approach: What are the possible advantages or disadvantages of ECVET-Units in a sector with unregulated vocational education?

Christiane Eberlein sketched Credchem (cf. credchem.ppt). She pointed out that this project has the advantage that they can base on a German project (in the program DECVET) in this sector. But this project derives the units from the German curricula and they expect that this is not suitable for the other partners. She will send us a short note about their first meeting.

WP1: Validation of the TPT

Decision: The validation process will be without the turbine TPT – they are part of different qualifications. So please consider that the updated list (cf. TPT_NEW.doc) and graphic (cf. Core_new.ppt) of TPT have new numbers.

The workshop with relevant actors (maintenance training providers) was clarified. Andreas Saniter reported that they performed a two-step approach in Germany: Beside the mentioned workshops a questioning by mail of other training providers.

Decision: The partners in the other countries will additionally use this questionnaire to the proposed validation by workshops, too. The ITB will provide the material. Please consider that the second page of TPT_NEW.doc is already prepared for validation.

WP2: Description of the potentially modified TPT in terms of knowledge, skills and competence

Alan Brown pointed out that the NVQ-Modules, which are partly similar to the TPT, denominate these aspects already.

Decision: The curricula of the 4 countries (in Spain only for maintenance) should be taken into account when denominating the knowledge, skills and competence. Each partner provides the ITB with a version of the relevant national papers.

WP3: Second round of validation / respect to national regulations

It was clarified that not the absolute sum of credit points but the relative weight of each part of national qualifications is the crucial aspect for the project.

Meetings: With our proposal was accepted, that one representative of the Cereq and one of the ITB will attend each of the meetings with GHK. But this arrangement must not be taken to bullish – especially the later (thematic) meetings might be interesting (and are open) for representatives from the other partners.

It was seen as a good idea to have the second partner meeting parallel to the ECER conference during WP3. So first results of WP3 can be discussed and possible problems can be clarified.