LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME ERASMUS Academic Network

SOCRATES THEMATIC NETWORK AQUACULTURE, FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2008-11 LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME ERASMUS Academic Network Minutes of the WP 1 Core Group Meeting (year 2) May 31 st June 1 st 2010 Held at Novotel Danube Hotel, Budapest (Hungary) Project Acronym: Aqua-tnet Project title: Aquaculture, Fisheries & Aquatic Resource Management TN Contract number: 2008 3209 / 001 001 Project number: 142245 LLP -1 2008 1- BE ERASMUS - ENW 1

Agenda 1. Review of progress and deliverables WP1 2. Master thesis, diploma thesis, project work (Note Everyone has to do a presentation, see below) 3. Home page WP1, presentation and discussion 4. Database, programs and courses/modules 5. Annual event Hungary program proposals 6. Eventually List of Attendees: Odd-Ivar Lekang Gilbert Van Stappen Caroline Van Geeteruyen Jean-Claude Guary Sofia Galinou-Mitsoudi Antanas Kontautas Hasan Atar Norwegian University for Life Sciences Ghent University Ghent University CNAM / Intechmer Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki Klaipeda University Ankara University 2

Minutes for Monday May 31 st Odd-Ivar, as work package leader, welcomed everybody to the meeting. Some attention went to the fact that the meeting was originally planned for May 6 th -7 th in Chalkidiki and the effort Sofia put into organizing it and being the host of the meeting. The original meeting was cancelled due to the political and economical situation in Greece. The decision had to be made to postpone the meeting to a later date as certain flights of participants were cancelled and arriving on time for the meeting might have become difficult. The easiest and best option was to postpone the meeting to just before the annual event in June. 1. Review of progress and deliverables WP1 Next an overview of the agenda was presented to sketch what was planned for both days. This was followed by an overview of the objectives of work package 1: To build upon the European Masters Database (1st phase work) and i.e. extend the database and functionality, To propose standard descriptions for programmes, modules and courses to tackle MSc related terminology confusion, Carry out a survey of current Network Master's thesis requirements in order to identify similarities and dissimilarities in procedures. Make recommendations to increase transparency thus leading to reduction in the disparity of awards, Engage with Research Institutes/Industrial partners to establish protocols for thesis/work experience placements to enable more objective assessment of achievements of placement, Create a Stakeholder Forum for dialogue with stakeholders to help in identifying new needs (courses/course content for instance: genomics, sustainability, consumer issues, etc.), Use of ICT tools to facilitate the offering at a broader European level of more generic courses (e.g. class by industry staff offered by streaming and VC for students at different partner institutions). And an overview of what the work package has produced so far: Made a report: terminiology confusing, Made a report: state of the art, Given input to the MSc database, Given input and documents to homepage. 2. Master thesis, diploma thesis, project work (Note Everyone has to do a presentation, see below) Every participant shall prepare a power point presentation about how the master thesis, diploma or project work (that ends the master program), is organized where the questions below should be answered. A major deliverable from WP1 is a report describing how this is organized/done and if there are any bottlenecks inhibiting international cooperation and student mobility. Therefore the questions about funding of master and international cooperation are especially important. 1. General question 3

Size in ECTS, are they using ECTS, is there possibilities for different size, Can several students take the same thesis, can two or three students work on the same thesis, How long is the working period, recommended to use on master thesis for a given ECTS, Shall it be written as a monograph or can it be several articles, How do students sign up for a master thesis, and when are they doing it, What sheets/paperwork do the students have to fill out during the master thesis work, Are there requirements for progress plans, and how is this controlled and what is done when not followed, If master students are doing experiments, who owns the data and who can publish them, are there requirements for saving of raw data? 2. The written part Are there requirements for the set up/design of the thesis? If so what they, What are the language requirements, Is there a possibility for having the master thesis confidential and is there a limitation in time to keep it confidential? 3. Industrial cooperation Is it possible to take the master thesis in the industry and how is this performed, Who ensures the quality, and where is the supervisor? 4. Evaluation Shall there be an oral presentation of thesis part, and if so when and how is this performed, How is exam and evaluation performed, Duration from delivery to mark setting, are there requirements, Is there external sensor? 5. Funding of the master How does the university get paid for master thesis s, is it paid a certain amount per delivered master thesis or? Do the students get any money for performing experiments or study trips in the master thesis from university, How many hours are normal for tutorial? 6. International cooperation Is there a possibility to take the master thesis part at other institutions or in other countries, What about supervision from the home university then, who ensure the quality, who is the owner of the master thesis, and how the home is University getting paid? Odd-Ivar had received the presentation of Maria Messina who at the least moment was not able to attend the meeting. Also Guy Fontenelle and Kim Jauncey have already put forward a presentation and information. The presentations will be put on the home site, on the members log-in, of the WP1 portal. A general report will be written on all the presentations received and that will be published in the open section of the web portal for WP1. 4

Will the survey be open to all partners or are we going to keep it for WP1 only? Other options are that partners could contact all the institutes in their own country, or we could make a survey per country. So the main question was on how big we should make this survey. It was decided that we will keep it in the WP1 as this will represent a nice overview. We are looking at the counties that are partner in the work package and a fair representation from all over Europe could be given: Iceland, United Kingdom, Norway, Lithuania, Belgium and France, through to Italy, Greece and Turkey. There is a general opinion that a fair sample will be given with this survey. We will make a general report so that a general view is presented, with similarities and differences. All participants in WP1 have to make the presentation and missing presentations will be asked for to the WP1 members who are not present. A review of master thesis will be compiled this way. Sleeping partners in the consortium of our WP will be contacted to increase member participation. Practical side for the report: The secretariat will send an e-mail to collect the presentations; the draft e- mail will be sent first to Odd-Ivar as a control, Deadline: end June-early July, A reason why we will also send this e-mail to all WP1 partners and urge them to make this presentation is to get sleeping partners involved so that the negative comment of the EU can be turned around, A reminder e-mail will be sent to partners who have not responded when the deadline is reached, The report of will be written after all the information is collected. And it will be verified, by Odd-Ivar. The following items are part of the objectives of work package 1, they are future deliverables but we would like to pay attention to them on how we can proceed with the objectives. 1. Establish protocols for thesis/ work experience (deliverable 1.8). We could go back to what was done and discussed in Aqua-tnet1. There was an idea in the previous Aqua-tnet project to establish protocols so that the student, the sending institute/university and the receiving research institute or industry have an official document. A new portal could be made with all the necessary information. The problem here is that the website is not optimally used. Although the webpage could be made for proposing items on how research institutes propose places where students can go. The protocol would be used by the sending institute and the student themselves and the research institutes. A similar protocol exists in Lithuania: the protocol there describes what a student can expect and what the industry can expect. It is good for the needs of the institutes. The protocol they have is similar to what work package 1 is looking for and discussing. We are looking at getting a translation of the Lithuanian protocol from Antanas so that this can be used as a basis. And can be further developed to something that can be used in Aqua-tnet. The protocol should encompass everything from being an official document used by all parties to a document used to allow a student to go to the research institutes or industry. More information will need to be gathered within our own work package, because it has become clear that there are a lot of differences in all the participant s countries. It is something that will have to be 5

discussed continuously. In France it is all clearly regulated by the government. Without a protocol/agreement nothing can happen. On the other hand in Turkey this sort of protocol for master students does not really exist. This protocol and the idea of the protocol will be presented to the stakeholder groups. An example will be presented by Antanas. The brainstorming will be done by Odd-Ivar and the secretariat before it is sent out to the rest of the group. However the question was also raised by Odd-Ivar why there should be a need for this protocol. In Norway, the work a student does at the institutes is the same as the work they would do at the own lab, so why is a protocol needed. A protocol for the thesis is presented anyway. In Belgium there are no work placements in industry but to research institutes. And we are not informed whether there are also these kind of protocols in place. This will be checked. We are awaiting the translation of the Lithuanian protocol. A revised version will be made for the use within Aqua-tnet and it will be sent out to the rest of the group. The stakeholder groups will be consulted so that they can express their views, ideas and advice for the making of this protocol. A portal could be added to the website where all information can be found. 2. Stakeholder Forum (deliverable 1.11) How are we going to demonstrate this? The deliverable is a report. The stakeholders will be consulted on Wednesday June 2 nd at the Annual Event. A report will be started then and keeping contact with the stakeholders for the coming months so that it can progress to a full report. During the annual event the stakeholders will be consulted on this during the timeslot dedicated on Wednesday afternoon. This will be a start for the report and it will be further developed during the next couple of months. 3. Facilitate the offering at a broader European level of more generic courses. This is not a true deliverable, but it is important to have a small discussion on this anyway. The plan was to have more collaboration. Greece: the industry comes to teach and the students return the visit. May of the students prepare their thesis in the industry? They support is financial and facilities. The industry has access in the results. Turkey: the importance of the PhD is bigger than the master students, so the industry is more interested in the PhD and not really the master. 3. Home page WP1, presentation and discussion The website was presented and thoroughly discussed. 6

We looked at the WP1 page, one big remark was the links to the outputs and results is complicated and leads you to another different page and instead of immediately presenting the deliverable. Another remark was that members of the partners should be mentioned. The group makes the deliverables and should somehow get credit. The participants noticed that the institution page is outdated and needs to be updated. Are members allowed to do this? Does something else need to be added to the portal? No immediate ideas were given. The question was also asked why we needed the page to start with. Because it is a deliverable to the EACEA but also that the website can portray what the project is about and the information given is vital to new possible members or to people interested in the project. Marieke Reuver will be contacted with all the remarks that were made by the attending participants. As she is in contact with the programmer we hope that the changes can be made: o Easier access to the deliverables of the work package, o Credit should be given to the partners in the work package and therefore they should be mentioned. o An updated institutions list is in order. It was tested that new members have no access to the closed of areas. The information of the institutions that is given is incomplete, non-existent or outdated. 4. Database, programs and courses/modules The new portal was presented for the first time. A first problem that occurred is that the list of the people to the institute has to be update. Not all partners have updated log-ins either. Who will fill in the database? Do all partners or only WP1 members need to fill in the database? Or more importantly will it be opened to all aquaculture programmes in Europe. This opened a discussion. You would need to be a member of the project before you can upload the information. Partners could collect information on other MSc programmes in their country even though they are not a partner. We assume we are not allowed to submit info from other courses. When filling in the programmes we need to change the save button as it mentions save course and ideally it should be save programme. Looking at the courses we noticed that the name has changed to courses in modules. We would need to change that as it was agreed that modules were going to be used as it were our own recommendations. There has also been a copy/paste mistake made by the secretariat so that in the help line were programme is still mentioned instead of module. 7

Due to this the discussion was started again that maybe we need to change it to courses instead of modules. We looked at the others and they mention PhD courses and Mobility Courses. So we imposed the changes from what was originally planned and change the module to course. It is also important that a swap happens in the placing. Programmes are more important than the courses so this secondary under the programmes. A discussion was held about the subject area for the courses. The subject area given will be used as a test and time will show where the problems will arise. And maybe in the future further recommendations can be made. Languages needs to be changed like it was originally stated in the brief. It was advised to have an option for all European Languages. So the list should be extended to all languages. (Special attention paid to add Icelandic, Norwegian and Turkish.) All the changes and recommendations will be passed to Marieke Reuver who is in contact with the programmer of the website and the portal. When the portal is operational and the portal is changed with the recommendations, we will advise our own WP1 members to fill in the portal. Then the question will be asked to all other partners in the consortium. Also the moderation was clarified again. The moderating of the portal will be in the hands of the secretariat. Should problems or queries arise the secretariat will contact the work package leader in order to obtain advice. Even work package 1 in its entirety can be contacted too. Once the portal is operational and working it will be tested by UMB and UGent, if no problems are found we can open it up for everybody. Then the WP1 members will be asked to fill in the portal. The deadline for this will be one month from the moment the portal is operational. When all WP1 members have filled it in, a general e-mail will be sent to the consortium with an invitation for the filling in of the portal. The mail will also include the question to inform the secretariat if partners have not got any MSc programmes. At least a list can be compiled so that reminders are not sent needlessly. Marieke Reuver will be contacted to represent certain problems, recommendations to the programmer: o A general remark is that the list of institutions needs to be updated, o A specific problem that was noted is that new partners cannot log in to the portal, so a log-in should be created for everybody, o All European languages should be mentioned as was originally published in the brief, o Although the naming of the Master module has been changed without consulting of the work package we agree with the change but want the consistency in the help remark that is given and want to see the word course all the way through. o The portal will be tested by UMB and UGent before it is made publically. Actions will be taken so that the portal can be completed: o Once tested and all problems, should there be any, are solved the portal will be put online. o UMB and UGent will have filled in the portal. 8

o In a second phase the portal will be loaded with content from all the work package 1 members. Members will have 1 month to do so, after the portal is declared operational. o In a third and final stage the consortium will be asked to complete to portal. o Requests for completion will be done via e-mail through the secretariat. Reminders will be sent. 9

Minutes for Tuesday 1 st June The day started with the delayed presentation for Jean-Claude Guary who arrived on Monday in the afternoon. This was followed by Odd-Ivar presenting the presentation for Maria Messina as she had to pull out of attending the meeting at the last minute due to unforeseen problems at her faculty. 5. Annual event Hungary program proposals The presentation was made by Odd-Ivar and all present participants had the opportunity to make changes and to add or clarify things. Some vital points were discussed again like the protocol for the master thesis. Our challenges for the future were discussed. The challenge for the entire network will be to achieve information on for the database on fisheries. 6. Eventually The next meeting was planned. The period could not be discussed as the date is dependent on that of the Annual Event 2011. We asked around if anyone would be interested to host the meeting. Sofia, Hasan and Antanas are candidates to hold the meeting. Sofia and Hasan are also candidates to host the annual event too. This discussion will be continued at a later date. 10