Chapter 2 - 5
Figure 5. Mapping Training to Standards
19.
Having the course material, course design and a copy of the Candidate Pack
16
for each of the
qualifications meant that they could relatively easily identify which Units and elements of units
should be included in the course and which would be better suited to being assessed using
Witness Testimony as evidence.
20.
It was always the intention that gaining a vocational qualification should be achievable in the
least complex way possible, within the governance and assurance requirements of the awarding
organisation and the BECTU grading system. The hazardous nature of working with explosives
and pyrotechnics on a film or television stage or a theatre stage or outdoor re-enactment arena,
it was considered that evidence should come from two main sources: the theory and practical
parts of the course they were designing and from witness testimony in the form of signed-off
entries in candidates’ logbooks. The latter requirement led to offering briefings to potential
‘witnesses’, i.e. SFX Supervisors and Senior Technicians, on the value of their comments and the
VARCS
17
qualities it should embody.
21.
At the beginning of the process, the starting materials were:
21.1.
The Course Programme, which had evolved organically over the years that it had
been delivered, without any systematic approach or audit trail of initial design,
requirements for change and consequent changes made.
21.2.
The course presentations, which usually did not have speaking notes and none of
which were related to a lesson plan.
16
Available to HSQ-approved Qualifications Centres
17
Valid; Authentic; Reliable; Current; Sufficient
Chapter 2 - 6
22.
The actual process of mapping the existing course design and materials to the NOS was
conducted with the simple aim of ensuring that as much as could reasonably be achieved within
a time-limited training and assessment course, with the remainder being clearly identified so
that the candidate and their supervisor would know what would be required to be observed and
signed-off in the workplace. Mapping then became an iterative process of considering the
course materials available for each of the assessment criteria in the qualification, what was
already covered in the theory exam and on the practical day, what could be included in a
redesigned course and assessment and what could not.
23.
This exercise showed where they had the requirements for the qualification well covered and
where the Unit/Element became the Training/Learning Objective for new lesson plans and
training material.
THE MAXAM DEUTSCHLAND EXPERIENCE
24.
Our idea here was to map the requirements of the certificates of competence required by
people involved in the manufacture of mini-boosters. Because the certificates of competence
are absolutely dependent on the individual having passed an approved course and maintaining
their currency by attending annual updates within the company and 5-yearly refresher courses,
it was clear that mapping the content of the approved courses would achieve our aim.
25.
The critical understanding in this process was that a well-designed course will take as its basis
the knowledge and skills that the student is expected to be able to demonstrate at the end of
the course, i.e. the outcomes. These are often listed or articulated in some detail as ‘Training
Objectives’ or ‘Learning Objectives’. Now, each of the occupational standards is written as a set
of performance and knowledge criteria which are the outcomes of training and experience that
an individual is expected to be able to demonstrate to be deemed competent against that
Standard. The content of NOS 4.13 – Separate recoverable materials and waste produced by the
explosive process - is shown here by way of example:
Chapter 2 - 7
26.
In order to map the course content against the Standards, we simply took each of the Standards
as a detailed learning objective and considered:
26.1.
Does the course include the subject of the Standard?
26.2.
Do the relevant lessons include all of the performance and knowledge criteria
relevant to the Standard?
26.3.
Is the individual required to demonstrate their ability in each of the elements?
27.
The next stage of mapping was to ask these questions of the Standards against each of the
courses required by people involved in the production of mini-boosters. It was important not to
Chapter 2 - 8
consider this in terms of the role profiles, considering only the course content. This distinction
ensured that we did not stray into trying to ‘make things fit’. It was important that we had a
clear idea of:
27.1.
The Role Profile, i.e. what we believed the individual is required to be able to do
27.2.
The Statutory Courses required, i.e. what the State requires individuals to be taught
28.
We could then compare the two lists of Standards to identify any gaps. The curricula of the SGH
and SGL courses are outlined here:
28.1.
Curriculum SGH (5 day course):
1.
Legal foundations
•
German law of explosives (regulation relating to explosive material)
•
Regulation about Occupational Safety and Health
•
Regulation about Immission and Environmental Protection:
•
Regulation for the transportation of dangers goods (ADR)
•
Administrative offense and criminal law
2.
General definitions in the explosive area
•
History of the explosives
•
Definition in the explosives area
•
Impact of explosives material
•
Test methods for explosives
3.
Chemical and physical properties of explosives material
4.
Structure, characteristics, Function and disposal of
•
Igniter and detonator
•
Explosives material, detonating cord
•
Propellant charge
5.
Composition/composing of objects with explosives
•
Cartridge ammunition
•
Rockets with solid propellants
•
Parts and components of explosives
6.
Analysis and evaluation of accidents and incidents
7.
Practical demonstration of the function of different explosives
8.
Examination
28.2.
Curriculum SGL (4 day course):
1.
Introduction to the subject
Dostları ilə paylaş: |