1 / 45

A-TEAM: Advanced Training for Emergency Assessment and Management IST - 1999 - 10176

A-TEAM: Advanced Training for Emergency Assessment and Management IST - 1999 - 10176 Second project review February 19, 2002. Meeting Agenda: 09:00 - 09:15 PO/Reviewers meeting, Opening and Introduction 09:15 - 09:45 Coordinators Progress report: ESS

iren
Télécharger la présentation

A-TEAM: Advanced Training for Emergency Assessment and Management IST - 1999 - 10176

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A-TEAM: Advanced Training for Emergency Assessment and Management IST - 1999 - 10176 Second project review February 19, 2002

  2. Meeting Agenda: 09:00 - 09:15 PO/Reviewers meeting, Opening and Introduction 09:15 - 09:45 Coordinators Progress report: ESS overview, response to last review, administration, resources, problems 09:45 - 10:15WP 01 Pedagogical Framework Report (update) D01.4 From Theory to Practice CSALT 10:15 - 13:00 WP presentations: WP 02 Simulation exercises AUT WP 03 AI tools, CBR UPC WP 04 Hypermedia elements Chiron WP 05 System Framework ESS WP 06 Integration, Implementation ESS WP 12: Evaluation CSALT

  3. Meeting Agenda: 10:15 - 13:00 WP 07 Test Case UK DNV WP 08 Test Case Italy Syreco WP 09 Test Case Austria DCAG/ESS WP 10 Test Case Portugal Chiron WP 11 Test Case Switzerland ASIT 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch break 14:00 – 15:00 Reviewers retreat 15:00 -- 16:00 Reviewers comments, clarification

  4. The project consortium: - ESS GmbH, Austria • DCAG, Austria • Chiron, Portugal • DNV, UK • UPC, Spain • AUT, Greece • SYRECO, Italy • ASIT, Switzerland • CSALT, UK

  5. Project description: available in detail on-line: http://www.ess.co.at/A-TEAM including public part of the technical Annex, Reports (links and on-line versions, Deliverables, admnistrative pages with detailed work plan, technical discussions, Deliverable list (download). Visitors and comments most welcome.

  6. Project objectives: to improve thelearning process in complex, technical domains (emergency management related to hazardous installations and transport of hazardous materials).

  7. Project strategy: Improved learning is achieved by integrating information technology (dynamic simulation, visualisation, GIS, expert systems and case-based reasoning) within an innovative didactic framework (embedded, real-time multi-level rule-based evaluation and adaptive feedback)that fully exploits the potential of multi-media information systems.

  8. Project strategy: • Requirements analysis, pedagogical framework • Tool development: • Hypermedia management, student administration; • Complex 3D (CFD) Simulation cases • Case-based reasoning • Real-time expert systems framework • Test Cases: UK, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland • Evaluation NOT as a linear sequence of tasks but in a series of overlapping prototyping cycles.

  9. Progress Report: WP 00 Project Administration • primarily through web server: http://www.ess.co.at/A-TEAM with about 50,000 visits to date • mailing list: training@ess.co.at with more than 1,800 messages • regular reports (listing on-line) • project team meetings

  10. Meetings, Clustering • Second technical coordination meeting, Gumpoldskirchen, 15-17 March 2001; • architecture, • integration, • course structures (storyboards), • first evaluation workshop. • Concertation Meeting: • January, September 2001, (Luxembourg) A-TEAM represented with a presentation; • Cluster activities: report by CSALT

  11. Milestones: M1Design phaseWP 19 M2Development phaseWP 2,3,418 M3Implementation phaseWP 5,624 M4Test phaseWP 7,8,9,10,1130 M5Evaluation phaseWP 1236 M6Dissemination phaseWP 1342

  12. Project Schedule 2000/2003 task 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4 WP 5 WP 6 WP 7-11 WP 12 WP 13

  13. Resource use: at the Nov.2001 MR: 52 % of project duration 60 % of resources reflecting slightly higher efforts of the start-up phase of some partners with development tasks.

  14. PROBLEMS: Project amendment submitted January 2001, signed last night; difficulties for new partner DCAG to join actively. Cost statements 2 and 3 (from February 2001 and July 2001) still not paid – partners are running out of funding.

  15. PROBLEMS: • Review preparations: • Responsibility ? • Electronic distribution of reports • Web access

  16. Response to Review Results • New versions of Deliverables • D01.1 User Requirements Analysis (revised) • D01.2 Functional Specifications (revised) • Additional Deliverable • D01.4 Pedagogical framework: From Theory to practice • Deliverables due-date: placed a footnote on the on-line list of Deliverables; initial and final due dates; Deliverables are meant as working documents within the consortium.

  17. Response to Review Results • Quality Assurance Plan: • peer review: project internal, informal; primary objective is internal usefulness as a working document; they are not meant as scientific publications. • QA in prototyping: internal QA procedures of each partner (describe in detail ? but same as overall approach: design, documentation, RCS); ....does not describe the experienceof the team nor the reviewers with this kind of process .... ??? ... end user involvement: DCAG IS an end user and will be involved in a revision of the QA plan, once the have a signed contract; direct end-user involvement in all case studies.

  18. Response to Review Results • User requirements Report: • has been completely restructured (CSALT); • includes learner/job profiles etc. • baseline/comparison: • use test before and after A-TEAM training; • compare overall results with current methods (also based on MC tests at regional fire fighter training school in AT/LA); • case studies unified in term of learning objectives, groups/profiles of learners, ...

  19. Response to Review Results • Functional Specifications: • metadata standards: references included, application as far as feasible; ... Assessment should focus on post-training performance: difficult in the case of emergency response training as this needs a real emergency: METHODOLOGY ? ... Assessment method discussion is too limited and the two methods presented are too crude and antiquated to be of value; the corresponding sections of the Deliverables D1.2 have been re-written, to better explain the concepts:embedded, real-time multi-level rule-based evaluation and adaptive feedback, scenario-based assessment, under time pressure/stress, consideration of risk (D5.1).

  20. Response to Review Results • Functional Specifications: • ...The consortium should consider, for example, scenario based assessment of actual learner performance ... this is supported by the embedded rule-based assessment in RTXPS, see above. • ... Some of the stated technical functional requirements contradict prevalent pedagogical thinking... • TOO GENERAL: • what IS prevalent pedagogical thinking ? • which requirements contradict, and how ?

  21. Response to Review Results • Pedagogical Framework: ... direct application of these theories for A-TEAM is missing: has resulted in the production of the new (additional) Deliverable D01.4: Pedagogical Framework: from Theory to Practice (CSALT)

  22. Response to Review Results Exploitation plan: ... consortium have experienced difficulties in getting companies to actively participate in the project ... NEW PARTNER replacing ET&P is a medium-sized chemical producer: Donau Chemie AG, operates 4 major production sites (all are Seveso II class) in Austria, test case: plant Pischelsdorf with 250 employees, ETOL, Wilton, UK (Emergency Services for 30 company chemical complex, several thousand employees (4,500 incident controllers).

  23. Meeting Agenda: 09:00 - 09:15 Opening and Introduction 09:15 - 09:45 Coordinators Progress report: ESS overview, response to last review, administration, resources, problems 09:45 - 10:15WP 01 Pedagogical Framework Report (update) D01.4 From Theory to Practice CSALT 10:15 - 13:00 WP presentations: WP 02 Simulation exercises AUT WP 03 AI tools, CBR UPC WP 04 Hypermedia elements Chiron WP 05 System Framework ESS WP 06 Integration, Implementation ESS WP 12: Evaluation CSALT

  24. Outlook: • Integration and implementation workshop (testing of protocols), possibly in combination with the • Content development workshop, (scheduled for the next few weeks 2002) • Evaluation workshop II • Setting up the individual test cases

  25. WP 05: Training system framework Interactive multi-media with embedded GIS, simulation models and expert system/CBR and rule-based on-line evaluation and ex-post analysis of logs (scenarios) by a tutor (D1.4, D12.1). Based on: • D01.1, D01.2, D01.3, D1.4, D12.1: • interaction, feedback, adaptive course structure • Cognitive flexibility theory • Cognitive apprenticeship

  26. WP 05: Training system framework Modes of operation: • single user, self-paced • single user, event driven (real or simulated time) • multi user (multiple actors, mutiple views), event driven through networked/Intranet clients, FORMS, cgi based asynchronous update of the dynamic knowledge base

  27. WP 05: Training system framework Main conceptual framework: forward chaining real-time expert system that generates a rule-based sequence of ACTIONS which include: • simulated or user generated events represented by HTML, imagery, • simulation models, CBR • on-line evaluation (user decisions, feedback)

  28. WP 05: Training system framework • High degree of interactivity • Context and history sensitive navigation, event driven or self-paced • User control over content • Scenario analysis (WHAT IF), simulation and forecasting, visualisation • Embedded immediate multi-level evaluation and feedback, rule-based, structure • Combines user feedback and navigation

  29. System architecture: evolving specifications and discussion on-line, finalised at second coordination meeting.

  30. WP 06: Integration and implementation System architecture : client-server based on TCP/IP and http Main components: • RTXPS real-time expert system • DocCentre MM content management • embedded and external simulation models (incl. UDM, CFD) • CBR agent

  31. WP 09: Austrian Case Study 3 courses, building upon each other: • Hazardous substances (introduction) • fire fighters (volunteers), plant employees; • Hazardous substances (advanced) • fire fighters (command level), plant fire fighters; • Plant specific scenario management • plant fire fighters, management.

  32. WP 09: Austrian Case Study Learning objectives: ranging from basic familiarization to strategic incident management; generic and location specific skills and domain knowledge. Implementation: plant training center with tutor; client-server connection to ESS using a VPN connection. LFWS: remote access for individual learning in support of traditional approach.

More Related