Evaluation of O2 - Training needs of Teachers preparing students for Agriculture 4.0

Evaluation of O2 - Training needs of Teachers preparing students for Agriculture 4.0

O1 is about collecting information from the 'demand' side; O2 will provide information about the supply side, i.e. how vocational education must meet the needs of demands for existing and future Agriculture 4.0 skills.
O2 needs to establish details about current practices and to answer specific questions:
 
(I) how aware are agricultural VET teachers of trends in Farming 4/Agriculture 4.0.;
(ii) how prepared are these teachers to develop their students for joining 'connected agriculture';
(iii) do they have a sufficiently strong ICT background in precision farming and ICT based systems?
 
In detailed, preliminary consultations with the partners (who represent industrial and educational parties), the starting project assumption (the H0 hypothesis) is that there is a significant requirement for the provision of ICT training in these fields, but that this hypothesis has to be confirmed through surveys of the target groups in the target countries.
 
Used method for data collection
In Hungary, agricultural VET schools are maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry has established a Network of Agricultural Training Schools. The directors of the schools in the network regularly consult each other and organize meetings, so that the access and involvement of teachers in the survey did not cause any difficulties. In Hungary a total of 114 agricultural VET teachers completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions which could be complemented by additional questions on a voluntary basis.
In Macedonia, for the situation analysis the same questionnaire was used as in Hungary and the survey was undertaken through an online survey, with 44 teachers from 6 different high-schools in the Republic of Macedonia that are having agricultural or veterinarian programmes.
 
Related Activities
O2-A1 Design, elaborate, and translate the questionnaire - GJMSZI
O2-A2 Carry out survey (online) in Hungary and Macedonia , with the involvement of VET teachers – GAK, FACE
O2-A3 Analysis and Conclusions, FACE
 
Methodology
Comparative analysis of the survey results, drawing consequences in collaborative work of the partnership.
 
Indicators
  • Questionnaire (EN, HU, MK) – 3 x 10-12 p.
  • Results of the national surveys (EN): 2x20 p. with charts.
  • Summary of the results (EN): 10 p.
  • Target group: teachers and advisors
  • Macedonia: 40 samples
  • Hungary: 80 -100 samples

The results of the survey will provide directly usable information for the educational system itself, but its conclusions will form a very important input for follow-on working phases, including the development of the training.

strongly agreeagreedon't knowdisagreestrongly disagree
At the meeting in Gödöllő, the Coordinator and the Leader of O2 stage clearly outlined the aims, the objectives and the plan to be undertaken to achieve the goals of this phase of the project. *
As a partner, we understood the objectives of O2 and the planned activities to achieve them. *
The discussions about the Training needs of Teachers preparing students for Agriculture 4.0 survey was clear outline to follow. *
The tasks related to O2 were agreed and allocated fairly among partners. *
Please give your opinion on the general items!
strongly agreeagreedon't knowdisagreestrongly disagree
The Leader of O2 clearly outlined the aims, the objectives and the plan to be undertaken to achieve the goals of this phase of the project *
The goal of the survey was clearly defined. *
The structure of the survey was clearly defined. *
Please give your opinion on the design phase!
strongly agreeagreedon't knowdisagreestrongly disagree
The development phase of O2 was efficient and ran smoothly. *
Partners submitted their documents on time. *
Both the content and the format of the final documents met the requirements defined in the proposal. *
The online survey was submitted to a sufficient number of participants in both countries (HU, MK). *
The results and conclusions of the online surveys and statistical analysis of this phase will help the Consortium to direct the consequential activities. *
The Consortium managed to complete O2 related outcomes on time. *
The project collaboration platform was a clear and effective tool for all partners *
Please give your opinion on the development and the quality of the final results!
strongly agreeagreedon't knowdisagreestrongly disagree
The collaboration among the partners was intensive and progressive. *
The collaboration among the partners was effective and constructive. *
The document templates served as well designed tools for standardisation of the final outcomes.  *
The online platform supported the collaboration and communication among the partners. *
The leader of O2 fully achieved all objectives. *
The Coordinator kept the partners informed on progress and made them aware of their next tasks during this phase.  *
There was a high level of forum activity during this work phase. *
In this part we ask you about the effectiveness of the working methods among the partners.
strongly agreeagreedon't knowdisagreestrongly disagree
As partners, we have kept on track and finalised our tasks on time. *
Communication among us was very frequent and beneficial. *
Cooperation from our side was effective and positive. *
We helped the collaboration and coordination with suggestions and advice. *
In this part we ask you about self assessment of the partners.
very pooracceptablesatisfactorygoodexcellent
In the O2 phase, the dissemination activity of my institute was ... *
In the O2 phase, the dissemination activity of the Consortium was ... *
In the O2 phase, the balance of the dissemination activities among the partners were ... *
The quality of the dissemination materials (EN/MK/HU) in our language was ... *
The Agriteach 4.portal as dissemination tool is ... *
The Consortium has to follow intensive dissemination activities all over the project period. What about the second Intellectual Output?
What issues do you consider should be improved in the planning of the next transnational meeting?
Please comment on all those aspects not considered in the questionnaire and/or those aspects you think should be taken into further account.