TEC Meeting on 12/04/2002

Participants: André Arn, Isabel Bejar-Alonso, Gerrit Jan Bossen, Enrico Chiaveri, Sue Foffano, Andrée Fontbonne, Linda Orr-Easo, Paula Ribeiro, Alberto Scaramelli, Josi Schinzel, Tony Shave, Peter Sievers, Mick Storr, Mauro Taborelli, Davide Vite, Sylvain Weisz

Invited: Anne Kerhoas, Tessa Osborne, Roselyn Walker

Excused: Margrit Burry, Sudeshna Datta-Cockerill, Friedmann Eder, Francois Fluckiger, Michelle Mazerand, Erwin Mosselmans, Marc Tavlet, Myriam Veyrat

1.        AOB and matters arising:

           Sue Foffano inquired, on behalf of Brigitte Lorenz, about the Language Training Working Group. Andrée Fontbonne confirmed that the working group did not meet for a long time and she proposes to stop it. The group was not a good forum for exchange of information and Andrée could not get any feedback from the divisions. She now prefers to meet directly with the DTOs, in small group, to discuss new features and evolutions of the Language Training programme.

           Mick Storr was questioned about the situation of Web based training and the availability of Management and language course in this format. He expects that the access portal will be available after Easter. The access to the full catalogue, which includes M&C courses, should also be available. A restricted and free access to a demo version of the courses, valid for a 2 days period, is also foreseen. The authorisation (supervisor and DTO) and access procedure is still to be worked out. Concerning invoicing, Mick plans to charge a flat rate for each course.

            Revalidation exercise: Mick thanked the DTOs for their answers, and reminded that, by default, he considers pending demands for training as valid. There were indeed very few requests to withdraw any demand for training.

2.        Evaluation Process in English Language Programme:

Tessa Osborne and Roselyn Walker, from Paroles, made this presentation.  They recalled that general English courses are organised with 8 levels that correspond to the UCLES European levels. The new student is placed in a level according to a placement test (Interview, comprehension, e-mail writing). Once in a class, a need analysis is performed: “participation in meetings” comes first on the list, and most demands are work related. The supervisor must validate this personal need analysis (supervisors sign in 90% of the cases).

There is a mid-term test and a final test at the end of the academic year. The tests assess general and CERN specific vocabulary through speaking, oral comprehension and written exams. The students are evaluated according to the need analysis agreed upon at the beginning of the year. At the end of the academic year, the end-year and mid-year test results are put in perspective with the initial mark and with the level of the class: this is used to make recommendation about the level to be followed the year after, if any. Marks and recommendations are summarised in a form that can first be commented by the student, and that is then sent to its supervisor. In 2001, there was 157 such forms sent to supervisors, 128 were returned signed out of which 71 had “useful” comments. The DTOs asked to get a copy of these end-year forms even if the supervisors have not signed them.

Andrée Fontbonne mentioned that the tests for French courses are carried on a similar basis. However, there is a broader audience and the content of professional material is at the 30% level. It started this year with a pilot session for level 2 and 3. The students were quite motivated, 48 came out of 56 invited: 8 had less than 50 points (unsatisfactory), 40 more than 50 points (satisfactory) out of which 6 have more than 80 points (excellent). Besides, 3 students who do not work at CERN asked to pass the exam to get an evaluation of their progress.

3.        New Safety Course for TSO:

            Anne Kerhoas recalled that the Safety Training Working Group is presently reviewing the list of Safety Courses to be carried at CERN. Those will be organised in 3 categories: courses for newcomers, courses for safety officers and courses on risk related to the workplace.

            The new version of the courses for newcomers is now available, with 3 levels:

-         Level 1: for those working in an office;

-         Level 2: introduction to specific risks;

-         Level 3: underground area and confined spaces.

Some special sessions were organised (Ex Bank, PTT and Wagon-lit in the main building) and it is possible to respond to specific requests and to give these courses in other languages than French and English.

           The course for TSO falls in the second category. It has been revised and a pilot session was organised in February. The program spans over 3 days and contains 3 parts: generalities about safety at CERN, role and responsibilities of the TSOs, and specific risks. Practical case studies are performed in small groups, aiming at a dynamic approach to the tasks a TSO has to carry. The specific risks include ergonomics, electricity, chemistry and gas, radiation, laser, underground area, cryogenics and handling.

          There are ~200 TSO and, with 1 session every 2 months, it will take about 2 years to train all of them. Priority will be given to those in charge of buildings with high risks and to newly appointed TSOs. A refresher course is also foreseen after a year. The idea is to build a network of TSOs and to create synergy between them. The October session will be in English.

4.        Individual Training Plan in the PS Division:

           The 2001 MOAS training requests of the PS division have been manually entered in the database of the Individual Training plan editor designed by Josi Schinzel. The division also approved the ITP proposal for the MAPS 2002 exercise: 122 training plans (~40% of the division) have now been updated. The feedback obtained so far indicates that:

-         It is a bad timing with the crisis and the foreseen restructuring;

-         ITP is a good idea, it helps with MAPS;

-         One year ITP is Ok, 3 years is not realistic!

-         Can you display ITP with each EDH training request for signature?

-         It is not easy differentiating “activities” and “objectives”;

-         ITP should be an integral part of a computerised MAPS form;

-         Course feedback and evaluation would be useful.

It is clear that we have to persist with the introduction of Individual Training Plans, and see how we can automate/synchronise its input with the MAPS exercise.

5.        Next meeting:

The next TEC meeting will take place on May 24^th.

                                                                                                                Sylvain Weisz