NQF Inclusivepilot run – Chance B

11.11.2010

3rd meeting

Copenhagen

2

To dos:

•Defining learning outcomes•[Catalogue of questions: = learning material + guideline for assessors]•including trainees’ ideas and wishes:

getting to know the assessors before assessment deciding about time of interview choosing written test or oral interview

•Defining assessment design•Defining additional supporting measures:

Practical tasks known 2 weeks before Using own learning documents (tables, recipes etc.) Location Support by trainers according to level

•Certification draft

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

3

Assessment design Chance B:

•4 participants, 3 assessed at level 2, 1 at level 1 level 1 = “working under direct supervision in a structured context” working together with trainer

level 2 = “work or study under supervision with some autonomy” trainer present and can be asked for support if needed

•assessors: 1 professional expert, who is also connected with chamber of economy, many years of experience as assessor at final apprenticeship exam; 1 expert from vocational training for people with intellectual disabilities in the fields of confectioning

•Location: Chance B’s bakery (= familiar surrounding)

•duration: planned: 2,5h for practical, 0,5h for theoretical part; in real shorter as trainees worked very fast

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

4

Assessment contents:

•practical work: 3 different baking goods: plaited yeast dough, fruit-topped sheet cake, piped cookies, all with finishing; (as apprentices also know weeks before the exam what they will have to produce our trainees also had 2 weeks time to train these products)

•theoretical interview: 3 trainees had wished to be interviewed parallel to practical work, 1 afterwards assessors didn’t stick to this and asked all 4 during working, at the following discussion it figured out, that assessor where not sure in some aspects all trainees were interviewed additionally for max. 10 minutes

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

5

Validation:

•a structured observation form was developed, assessors used it mostly not during the assessment, but afterwards when discussing

•4 categories: LOS comply with the appropriate level

▪ Essentially ▪ on average ▪ enough (▪ not)

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

6

Evaluation - Feedback:

•Assessors:

• All trainees seemed to be well prepared, very good performance;

• differences between level 1 and 2 could be seen very clearly;

• Validation form was too long / complex;

• Assessment design fits well – less stress for students;

• Difference to apprenticeship = amount of work, complexity of tasks

• Social competences can’t be validated within 2,5 hours;

• Short interview afterwards was important to get a clear picture;

• Certificate: problem that nobody knows NQF & levelsbetter words for the categories

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

7

Evaluation - Feedback:

•Trainers:

• More time for preparation on theoretical contents would have been fine (problem: how to integrate it into running business)

• assessment design fits well;

• trainees are used to visitors, thus it was no stress to have all these people (2 assessors, 2 ext. evaluators, Marion) around

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

8

Evaluation – Interview Trainees:

•Why did you participate at this assessment?

•How much stress was this assessment? Could you sleep the night before?

•Did you have enough time to prepare yourself during the weeks before?

•You had 2,5 hours to prepare 3 different baking goods – enough time?

•What did you do in another way as usually? Where there some differences between baking during the assessment and baking all the other days?

•Did you understand the assessors? What would you do if not?

•Why do you want to get a certificate?

NQF Inclusive – Pilot

...any questions?