Valoración del ciclo de vida [Life-cycle analysis o Life-cycle assessment (LCA)]

With regard to program design, one of the questions that was presented was “To what extent do the TT programs reflect the TVET curriculum?” The collective response indicated that the TVET teacher training programs do not have standard curricula that fully reflect the current TVET curriculum; rather the TVET curriculum is an adjustment of engineering courses, that is, courses are selected from the engineering department and adjusted by teachers to fit the TVET curriculum. On the same issue, one interviewee noted that:

TVET provides training in specialized areas but the teacher training programs provide general training. For example, in the automotive technology TVET curriculum, there are five specializations such as engine technology and auto-electricity. Students assigned to our department were from these specializations. Our training, however, is on automotive technology, not on engine technology or auto-electricity. Students take selected courses from all specializations and complete as generalists. The graduates are expected to teach in all specializations, but they are not well trained in every specialization. It is not a systematically designed TVET teacher education.

Regarding the administrative structure of the TT programs in ASTU, one interviewee (a senior teacher who has worked at ASTU for more than 20 years at various levels – teacher, coordinator and department head) added that:

In practice there are conflicting situations at ASTU. As a university education program, the teacher training program is not fully practical; it also includes theoretical parts, some may not be happy with that. Because the teacher training teachers are from engineering departments, they tend to pool the programs to be more scientific and theoretical which focuses on design, reducing the practical aspects. The engineering teachers consider the teacher training program as a burden because the program is not housed in the engineering departments and also they want the program to be pure engineering.

The other question presented to the respondents was “Given that the TVET curriculum is competence-based, to what extent is the TT program competence-based?” The respondents indicated that:

The existing TT programs are course-based, not competence-based as in the TVET curriculum, although the idea of competence is known in the college. Many of the teachers that teach in the TVET TT programs are products of course-based education so it is difficult to say that they deliver courses using competence-based approaches.

However, one of the senior teachers (also department head) reflected on the design of the courses in his department as follows:

Even though the program design and delivery in the department is course-based (not competence-based in design), an attempt was made to include critical competencies in the courses. As the courses offered are related, I believe that a competency that is missed in one course will be obtained in another course.

The other question presented to the respondents was “Given that the TVET curriculum follows the modular approach, are the TT programs modular?” They responded that “What is now offered is a course-based, not a modular-based program, although an attempt was made to make use of the modular format”. On the same question, one of the interviewees (most senior teacher) reflected that:

The modular approach is not clear for teachers; what is done in practice is binding already existing courses together in a book form and calling it a module instead of sequencing courses in a manner so that competences are developed one after the other. Every teacher is required to finish the course bundle. Students are required to register for 15–18 credit hours per week and delivery is parallel, not as it is in a modular system.

The other question presented to the respondents was “Given that the TVET curriculum is competence-based, is the student assessment competence-focused?” The collective response was:

In principle the college assessment strategy is continuous assessment. In practice, however, this is inconsistently applied, i.e. its application varies across departments and teachers. Some teachers give two or three tests and assignments, but the well-established ones are mid-term tests and final examinations. Students are also engaged in projects, especially final year students. However, the projects were given as group work, not individually.

One of the teachers interviewed reflected that:

I make my students report on what they have done in the workshop every day; students get the opportunity to see various aspects of the course to prepare the report. Because of large class sizes, honestly speaking, I don’t read the report every week; I use the report only as an attendance tool.

On the same issue, another teacher interviewed stated that:

I give projects for students individually and in groups. The individual projects are difficult to evaluate because of large class sizes. Because of many groups, it is difficult to evaluate the practical group projects, at least I make them present it mathematically on paper. There were situations in which we were forced to make students pass based on theory-based final year projects because we were not able to provide project facilities/materials for practical project work.

The other question presented to the interviewees was “Is there a practice of assessing TT training graduates at the institution or department level to verify whether the students have developed the core competencies to the required level?” In general, the participants said that:

there is no such practice in the college and no assessment practice based on a pre- predetermined achievement standard. Rather, assessment of TT students is done by teachers and assessment is norm-referenced where the results are reported in letter grades. What is required is that every student has to have a cumulative grade point average of two out of four for graduation on teacher-based assessments.

The other question presented to them was “To what extent do trainees have the opportunity to use the training facilities such as machines to develop their individual competence in practice?” The collective response was as follows:

Although ASTU is much better than other engineering colleges, there is a shortage of laboratory (workshop) materials for practical activities. Besides, many TVET teacher training students are assigned to the departments and share the facilities with engineering students and practice only within the period allocated to them. So, they will not get enough time to practice. As a result, it is very difficult for teachers to provide individual practical assignment.

The other question presented to the interviewees was “To what extent are the students capable of understanding the lessons?” The collective response indicated that the ability of many students to understand the engineering related sciences (theory part) and mathematics is weak compared to the engineering students, although the students are relatively good in the practical aspects because they have practical exposure while in TVET training. The major problem observed by the participants was the students’ English language proficiency. The last question presented to interviewees from ASTU was “Is there a follow-up for teacher training graduates to ascertain how they perform in TVET colleges as a feedback for improvement?” They responded that there was no formally conducted tracer study implemented at the department level; they were doubtful whether such a study was conducted at the institution level.

From what has been presented, it could be inferred that teacher training teachers and students did not consider their TVET teacher education programs to be competence-based. The delivery modalities mostly applied by teacher training teachers fall within the transmissive (teacher-centered) modalities in which individual students’ active engagement in the learning process and workplace practices are given less attention. As a result, it is difficult to say that TT students have adequately developed the teaching competencies and practices to effectively discharge their challenging roles and responsibilities in competence-based TVET. Seen in the light of the CBE principles, it could not be said that the TVET teacher education programs are fully aligned with the requirement of competence-based TVET.