2nd Aerovet Meeting Vienna        Results & Minutes

Participants:
Annie Bouder (F, Cereq)
Alan Brown (UK, UWAR)
Natalia Cuddy (UK, QCA)
Laureano Jimenez (ES, URiV)
Philipp Grollman (GE, BIBB)
Harald Schenk (GE, BIBB)
Rainer Bremer (GE, ITB)
Andreas Saniter (GE, ITB)

Organisational / Administrative Decisions:
Homepage: Alan Brown and his colleagues add a section “AEROVET” to the former page www.pilot-aero.net/ where they upload any new material 

The completed GHK-Questionnaire is attached

Karsten Krüger (URiV) and Andreas Saniter (ITB) will join the next Meeting of all projects with GHK (Berlin, 19./20.10.2009)

The technical Launching of ECVET in Brussels (17./18.11.2009) will be visited by the ITB. In case that the commission/GHK expect other participants Karsten & Andreas will add this to the short minutes of the Berlin meeting.

Next Partner meeting is planned for the 12.4.2010 in Taragona (Airport Reus/Barcelona South) – exact date depends on the progress of the project.
The report from the first content-related meeting of all projects with GHK (see slides 3-6 of the attached *.ppt) was noticed / discussed shortly.
All partners agreed that the pyramid presented be Annie during ECER (see slide 8) sketches the possible levels of describing competencies in aircraft production (due to highly regulated processes) but in maintenance only the level of TPT and of work steps are relevant – the next work packages should focus on these two levels.

Reports from the validation activities:
• Not a big difference between Broughton and Germany in terms of regulatory materials.
• Laure (for Spain) and Annie (for France) pointed out that their partners / sub-contractors agreed to the TPT in terms of formulation and relevance but are unsure about the school based training – it can not always cover the full TPT.
• Respecting that ECVET-(sub)-units should be “independent of the place where s/he has learned” this must regarded when formulating the (sub)-units.
• "Two step approach" - cannot learn the full TPT in the lab, but some of the “work steps“ – these are foreseen to serve as sub-units.

General discussion:
The project should tackle:
• The use of ECVET in further and continuing training.
• TPT have to be selected in a way that they fulfil all needs of maintenance (not only assembly tasks). This must be clarified in additional validation rounds.
• How will the association of credit points with the logic of TPTs be handled?
• Higher Education examples might help.

Presentation of the Assessment Grid (see slide 10) by Andreas
Discussion was in line with the results of the Hamburg Feasibility Study:
o The scaling comes from a draft related to competence development – in terms of ECVET (outcome) it is not necessary.
o What, when the final learning outcome (independently) cannot be achieved according to the practice experts?
o Scaling in the instrument; a decision has to be made: rather formative assessment instrument (pedagogical focus) or just an instrument for ECVET purpose (learning outcome)

The ITB will revise the grid and send it to all partners.
The grid will be specified for the selected TPT 5, 14 ( see slides 13 & 14)
o 1. will be sent to curriculum and training regulation experts for validation
o 2. will be validated with practitioners

Validation procedure will be described and send around to partners; partners will carry out.

A short article related to the explanation of pyramid is attached.