Method used. For this report important information was taken from the previous deliverables D8 ‘Gap Analysis’ and D9 ‘Specific proposals/initiatives developed report’. As outlined in Deliverable D8, an external questionnaire was distributed to a number of educational and industrial organisations in order to find out their training requirements. As outlined in Deliverable D9, specific proposals/initiatives were obtained from the partners collected using a partner ‘on-line questionnaire’, and shared with all partners. The questionnaire was designed by ENVIRONMENT PARK with a strong contribution from Foundation for Hydrogen in Xxxxxx, as project coordinator. All partners were asked to contribute and describe some specific proposals/initiatives and then the collected material was processed and merged and detailed in this document D9. The outcomes from this document (D9) are discussed in greater detail in this deliverable report D10, specifically those which are considered to be feasible and steps required in order to implement them. Proposals and initiatives highlighted and reviewed in D9 originated from the following partner countries: • International Centre for Hydrogen (UNIDO ICHET) – Turkey • Centre for Process Innovation (CPI) – UK • Environment Park (EnvPark) – Italy • Foundation for Hydrogen in Aragon (FHa) – Spain • EU Commission Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC) – Belgium • Weiterbildungszentrum Brennstoffzelle (WBZU) – Germany • Association Phyrenees (PHyR) - France Information obtained from the project deliverables D8 ‘Gap Analysis’ and D9 ‘Specific proposals/initiatives developed’ form the basis of this report on the review and implementation of specific proposals and initiatives for the vocational training of technicians in Hydrogen and Fuel Cells within the EU. From the report D6 data was collected from 129 (57 academia and 72 from industry) stakeholders from 13 countries within Industry, Academia (Education) and Institutes (Foundations, Associations) via questionnaires (including telephone questionnaires). Of notable interest are the responses to many of these questions and they reflect the direction in which the training should focus on and in conjunction with the proposed proposals and initiatives within hydrogen and fuel cells.
Method used. The Ellinogermaniki Agogi team, in collaboration with the research team of the Physics Department at the University of Athens, has developed a questionnaire to receive feedback on the use of HYPATIA during the students laboratory work. The questionnaire included seven open questions, offering students the opportunity to freely present their views. The first three questions were general ones, asking students to assess the experience of using HYPATIA, to validate the importance of such tools in the data acquisition process of large- scale scientific experiments and finally estimate the importance of offering access to real data. The next three questions focused on the presentation of the physical process that HYPATIA simulates (and presents). The aim of these questions is to identify if students really understand the natural processes that take place and how scientists are trying to map their effects. The final question discusses the profile of the scientist’s, by asking students to name four pros and four cons to become scientist. The team aims to identify the students’ views on future scientific careers. The demonstration of “how science works” through tools like HYPATIA could help students gain a deeper understanding of what the work of a scientist entails, as well as get a firsthand experience of the challenges but also of the joys of being a scientist.
Method used. To further understand the user’s perception of social tagging, we surveyed 86 participants (47 female, 36 male and 3 unspecified). Each participant had an account on the NTSEC online system and used the science fair repository. The job distribution of the 86 participants were: teachers (27 persons), students (23 persons), information techniques (3 persons), finance related (3 persons), manufacture related (5 persons), communication related (1 person), transportation related (1 person), others (16 persons), unemployed (4 persons), unspecified (3 persons). Accordingly the composition of participants, the community of the repository consisted of teachers and students. The questionnaire was constituted of 22 items, which questioned the user’s perceptions of social tagging, social tagging related functionalities, user interface, and other functionalities of the repository. All participants had to respond to questions by expressing their agreement or disagreement on a five point Likert scale (five is complete agreement and one is complete disagreement.) The Cronbach alpha for this questionnaire was 0.845, which means high reliability.
Method used
