1. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES, EVALUATION 13.-15.11.2007, Ankara EUROFACE CONSULTING, CZECH REPUBLIC

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND General objectives of the project MODULAR TE were implemented in Czech Republic. A cooperation network of universities, faculties of education, technology teachers and representatives of educational governmental organizations was established within the project.

3. Euroface Consulting has participated on almost all project stages – work packages - and contributes to the project aims with own experience:

4. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP3 Background analysis: - Research of current status of general technology education in Czech Republic → base for the COUNTRY REPORT of TE in Czech Republic - Questionnaire research among technology teachers, academicians and representatives of public institutions → FEEDBACK TO PROPOSED MODULAR SYSTEM

5. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP4 Methodology: - Euroface Consulting participated on proposal of system of main modules, modules and sub modules including their interconnections with respect to Czech technology educational environment

6. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP5 Training modules – The company Euroface Consulting is coming from industrial background and then the responsibility for Module 2.4 Machine and Product Engineering was appointed to it.

7. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP6 Training materials and tools - After the definition of each module structure the detailed training material was prepared. In Czech Republic there was established a training material for the Module Machine and Product Engineering.

8. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP6 Training materials and tools – Very special responsibility was appointed to the Euroface Consulting in the frame of WP6. A training tool for simulation of a network and its components was developed to support the traditional training material by innovative way.

9. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP7 Feedback and Evaluation - Continuous evaluation of project activities was provided during the whole project → EVALUATION REPORTS - The feedback provided by target groups was summarized in two main stages → QUESTIONNAIRES RESEARCH IN WP3 and FACE TO FACE FEEDBACK TO PROJECT OUTPUT.

10. NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITES WP8 Valorization - Valorisation activities were conducted continuously during the whole project realization. - Several tools were applied: direct contact with technology education experts, dissemination materials, articles in newspapers, dissemination brochure, web page.

11. CLOSURES FROM NATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES Modular TE project brings the new aspects to technology education in Czech Republic. The innovation is coming from international background, comparison of different partners experience and wide cooperation of technology experts.

12. EVALUATION PROCESS EVALUATION WAS THE CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF WHOLE PROJECT AND ASSURED THE DEVELOPMENT OF USEFUL METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN CZECH REPUBLIC.

13. QUESTIONNAIRE RESEARCH The acquirement of feedback to proposed modular system of TE allowed definition of requirements for acceptance the system in Czech Republic. The broad spectrum of experts was invited to the discussion and the results obtained were positive and indicate the compliance for international cooperation and exploitation of foreign experience.

14. EXAMPLES OF RESPONDS TO DIFFERENT TOPICS Practice In this topic was discussed the issues concerning the role of TE. The opinions diversified especially in the question of “how should be the TE primarily conducted, if the classroom or workshop environment is primary”.

15. INTERNAL EVALUATION OF PROJECT OUTPUT September – October 2007 Evaluation of new curriculum

16. METHODOLOGY FOR FEEDBACK ACQUIREMENT The project output was introduced to technology education professionals during the evaluation conference held at October 2007. The issues for evaluation:  proposed modular system,  content of main modules and modules,  division of credits,  learning objectives,  bibliography,  training materials and training tools.

17. STRUCTURE OF EXPERTS PROVIDED THE FEEDBACK Academicians: 26% Technology teachers in general schools: 34% Students in universities, Faculties of Education, Technology Departments: 40%

18. FEEDBACK FROM TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS Technology Teachers Questions strongly agree agreedisagreeStrongly disagree I don’t know 1. the methodological concept is clear75%25% 2.the course is well structured 100% 3.the modules are consistently arranged 33%67% 4.the level of difficulty is appropriate 100% 5.all subject fields are adequately covered 67%33% 6.the standards of quality and reliability are respected 100% 7. information is presented in an innovative way 83%17%

19. FEEDBACK FROM TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS Technology Teachers Questions strongly agree agreedisagreeStrongly disagree I don’t know 8. the content is relevant for the target group 100% 9. the training materials are of immediate usability 100% 10. the training tools are attractive 17%83% 11. the learning objectives are clear 83%17% 12. the contents are up-to-date 75%25% 13. the materials are of general applicability in my country 100% 14. I would recommend/adopt this course 50% 15. the course meets the EU accreditation/validation standards 83%17%

20. FEEDBACK FROM ACADEMICIANS Specialist/academicians Questions strongly agree agreedisagreeStrongly disagree I don’t know 1. the methodological concept is clear33%67% 2.the course is well structured 44% 12% 3.the modules are consistently arranged 33%56%11% 4.the level of difficulty is appropriate 100% 5.all subject fields are adequately covered 67%33% 6.the standards of quality and reliability are respected 22%78% 7. information is presented in an innovative way 22%78%

21. FEEDBACK FROM ACADEMICIANS Specialist/academicians Questions strongly agree agreedisagreeStrongly disagree I don’t know 8. the content is relevant for the target group 67% 33% 9. the training materials are of immediate usability 22%78% 10. the training tools are attractive 11%67%22% 11. the learning objectives are clear 11%89% 12. the contents are up-to-date 11%78%11% 13. the materials are of general applicability in my country 11%67%22% 14. I would recommend/adopt this course 11%33%56% 15. the course meets the EU accreditation/validation standards 11%67%22%

22. FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS Students Questions strongly agree agreedisagreeStrongly disagree I don’t know 1. the methodological concept is clear79%21% 2.the course is well structured 64%36% 3.the modules are consistently arranged 36%64% 4.the level of difficulty is appropriate 14%86% 5.all subject fields are adequately covered 86%14% 6.the standards of quality and reliability are respected 100% 7. information is presented in an innovative way 29%71%

23. FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS Students Questions strongly agree agreedisagreeStrongly disagree I don’t know 8. the content is relevant for the target group 100% 9. the training materials are of immediate usability 14%64%22% 10. the training tools are attractive 7%93% 11. the learning objectives are clear 100% 12. the contents are up-to-date 86%14% 13. the materials are of general applicability in my country 86%7% 14. I would recommend/adopt this course 50%7%43% 15. the course meets the EU accreditation/validation standards 79%21%

24. FEEDBACK IN COMMENTS AND OPINIONS There is missing the technology practice to enable the students to get basic practical skills (technology teacher in general school) The physics is too detailed, it is not common in technology education in Czech Republic (academician) The whole system is various, quality of different parts is imbalanced (academician)

25. FEEDBACK IN COMMENTS AND OPINIONS The lists of bibliographies from different countries are useless (academician) 111 and 112 Technical Drawing is learned by different way in Czech Republic, perhaps better (academician) 113 CAD-Computer Aided Design - shouldn't be based only on Solid Works (academician) 116 Material Science - the wood is missing (academician)

26. THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION