The second training piloting on the Curriculum ‘Basic Composite structure repair (EQF- 3)’ has been carried out from 6 to 12 October 2016.
Technical Education Copenhagen TEC Team designed the training and involved 12 of its students during 5 days for a total of 30 hours.
The course covered 3 learning units. In Unit 1 the students approached the human and environmental Safety factors of composite repair and using guided documentation, in Unit 2 they were introduced to basic composite structures inspection and in Unit 3 they learned the Basic composite structures Repair process.
The piloting aim at testing the effectiveness of the curriculum before to distribute it widely. For this reason, it provides a full evaluation process to assess teaching methods, content, theoretical lectures, hand-on hours, materials, issues of timing and flow, as well as the general effectiveness of the training.
Such process includes a final individual assessment for each unit, a Trainee’s Evaluation of the training, a Trainer Evaluation of Curriculum Materials and a Curriculum Evaluation Feedback from the organization.
The Trainee’s Evaluation comprises an Online Daily Evaluations (ODE) and an Online Final Evaluation (OFE). The ODE is completed by trainees at the end of each day of the workshop with the aim of capturing trainee’ reactions to training sessions and activities while the information is still fresh in their minds. The OFE, on the contrary, is completed at the end of the final day of the workshop.
The analysis of the first Online Daily Evaluations highlights that even if the students haven’t almost any pre-knowledge about the training topics, they feel they have learnt new concept and practical skills. General opinions are positive even if they also experienced some difficulties.
In addition, the final evaluation shows that almost all the students involved in the piloting have a positive perception of the training course content. They think almost unanimously that the learning objectives of the training were clearly defined, the content well planned and the workload appropriate. Also the textbook matched the teaching contents.
Likewise, they consider the Teaching Process in a positive way stating that presentations were clear and organized, students’ interest stimulated during class periods and time used effectively. The opinion about the quality of Hands on tasks also got good ratings thanks to the facilities available, the level of skills acquired and the online resources used.
Finally, the answers to questions as ‘What were the program/training’s strengths?’, ‘What were the program/training’s weaknesses?’ or ‘What part of the training program content was the most useful for your work?’ provide a very useful overview on strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum course as well as a clearer idea on how to improve it.
