Early access · 32 of 40 spots · Free

CPD built for workshop trainers, not school teachers.

Become the trainer your students remember.

Every module ends with a session plan you apply Monday morning — with a verifiable credential to prove it. 5 modules · ~90 min each · self-paced

Get free early access

No credit card. No commitment. Your progress carries over when we launch.

Open Badge 3.0
EQF Levels 4–5
EU servers · GDPR
See how a module works
Every module follows this 6-phase flow. Sample content drawn from across sectors — click a tab to explore.
mesteracademy.com/courses/assessment/module-1
Auto
Challenge
Content
Test
Scenario
Plan
Reflection

Halfway through a 3-hour practical. Three of eight learners have been doing it wrong for 45 minutes — and you missed it. What now?

After Kapur (2008) · productive failure

A session plan ready for your next group. Not a PDF to file away.

Pick your trade. Every module produces a session plan written for your sector and your learners.

Cycling sectors · click yours

Pick your trade above. Each session plan is sector-specific — real standards, real rubrics, real materials your learners would actually use.

Session Plan
Circuit Protection & RCD Testing
Electrical Installation · Module 3 of 5
Duration
55 min
Learning Objectives
  • Distinguish MCB from RCD trip conditions using IET Wiring Regulations (18th Ed.)
  • Apply a structured fault-finding sequence to a domestic RCD nuisance-trip scenario
  • Communicate findings to a non-technical client using plain language
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval quiz — earth fault vs. overloadPairs, no notes, 5 questions.
10–35 minScenario: RCD trips when washing machine runsGroups of 3: electrician / client / observer.
35–50 minPeer correction using rubricObserver feeds back using criteria below.
50–55 minReflection promptWhat if the client was anxious about cost?
Assessment rubric
Fault identification
Developing
Symptom only
Proficient
Traces fault to circuit
Distinction
Eliminates alt. causes systematically
Client communication
Developing
Technical jargon
Proficient
Plain language, confirms understanding
Distinction
Adapts to client anxiety level
Session Plan
OBD-II Diagnostics & DTC Interpretation
Automotive Technology · Module 2 of 5
Duration
55 min
Learning Objectives
  • Read and interpret DTC codes using an OBD-II scanner (ISO 15031 / SAE J1979 protocol)
  • Apply a manufacturer diagnostic flowchart to an engine management fault (P0301 misfire)
  • Document findings in a jobsheet compliant with workshop quality standards
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval quiz — emission system componentsIndividual. Lambda sensor, EGR, catalytic converter.
10–35 minScenario: 2019 VW Golf TSI — intermittent EML, P0301 storedPairs: technician + service advisor. Use diagnostic flowchart.
35–50 minJobsheet peer reviewCheck: root cause identified, next steps costed, customer explanation clear.
50–55 minReflection promptWhat if the code clears before testing resumes?
Assessment rubric
Diagnostic process
Developing
Reads code only
Proficient
Follows flowchart to root cause
Distinction
Rules out intermittent causes, checks live data
Jobsheet documentation
Developing
Symptom only recorded
Proficient
Root cause + recommended action documented
Distinction
Cost estimate + customer sign-off language included
Session Plan
PLC Fault Diagnosis & Safety Circuit Reset
Industrial Automation · Module 4 of 5
Duration
55 min
Learning Objectives
  • Identify common PLC I/O faults using ladder logic monitoring (Siemens TIA Portal / Allen-Bradley)
  • Apply LOTO (lockout-tagout) procedure correctly before fault investigation — per ISO 14118
  • Interpret safety relay diagnostics on a two-hand control circuit (Category 3, PLd)
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval quiz — safety categories PL/SILIndividual. ISO 13849 / IEC 62061 distinctions.
10–35 minScenario: automated press stops mid-cycle, E-stop triggeredGroups of 3: technician / safety officer / production supervisor.
35–50 minLOTO checklist peer reviewObserver checks sequence against ISO 14118 steps.
50–55 minReflection promptHow does this change for a Category 4 safety function?
Assessment rubric
Fault isolation
Developing
Resets without diagnosis
Proficient
Reads ladder logic, isolates I/O fault
Distinction
Cross-checks safety relay log, documents root cause
LOTO compliance
Developing
Steps omitted or reordered
Proficient
Full sequence, correctly documented
Distinction
Adapts procedure to multi-energy source scenario
Session Plan
Network Segmentation & VLAN Design
Digital Skills / IT · Module 2 of 5
Duration
55 min
Learning Objectives
  • Design a VLAN segmentation plan for a small office network applying principle of least privilege to inter-VLAN routing (IEEE 802.1Q)
  • Identify misconfigurations in a provided network diagram using OSI Layer 2/3 reasoning
  • Explain network design decisions to a non-technical stakeholder (CFO vs. IT manager framing)
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval quiz — OSI Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 decisionsPairs. Switch vs. router logic, broadcast domains.
10–35 minScenario: SME hit by ransomware — design segmentation to prevent lateral movementGroups of 3: network engineer / IT manager / CFO. Each has different constraints.
35–50 minNetwork diagram peer reviewCheck: VLAN IDs logical, inter-VLAN ACLs defined, DMZ present.
50–55 minReflection promptWhat would you explain differently to the CFO vs. the IT manager?
Assessment rubric
Network design logic
Developing
VLANs created, no ACL rationale
Proficient
Segments by trust zone, ACLs documented
Distinction
Zero-trust rationale, accounts for IoT and BYOD
Stakeholder communication
Developing
Same explanation for all roles
Proficient
Adapts language to CFO vs. IT audience
Distinction
Uses business risk framing for non-technical stakeholder
Session Plan
Refrigerant Handling & F-Gas Compliance
HVAC & Refrigeration · Module 3 of 5
Duration
60 min
Learning Objectives
  • Apply EU F-Gas Regulation (517/2014) procedures for refrigerant recovery and leak-check documentation on R-410A and R-32 systems
  • Calculate refrigerant charge using EN 378 superheat/subcooling method on a split-system AC unit
  • Complete a Category I F-Gas certificate logbook entry meeting Regulation (EU) 2015/2066 audit requirements
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval: GWP values & phasedown timeline under 517/2014Quick-fire pairs. R-410A vs R-32 vs R-290 comparison.
10–35 minPractical simulation: refrigerant recovery + superheat calculation on split-AC unitUses manifold gauges + digital thermometer. Target: ±2K superheat tolerance.
35–50 minF-Gas logbook completion & peer auditPairs swap logbooks. Checklist: date, quantity, reason, cert number, system ID.
50–60 minCase debrief: inspection scenario — what fails?Incomplete logbook from real inspection. Group identifies compliance gaps.
Assessment rubric
Superheat calculation
Developing
Procedure followed with >5K error
Proficient
±2K tolerance achieved, EN 378 method applied
Distinction
Correct + identifies cause if outside tolerance
F-Gas logbook
Developing
Major fields missing
Proficient
All mandatory fields complete and auditable
Distinction
Complete + correctly identifies peer audit gap
Session Plan
KNX Bus Commissioning & Group Addressing
Smart Building / BMS · Module 2 of 5
Duration
60 min
Learning Objectives
  • Configure a KNX TP installation using ETS6 software: assign individual addresses, create group addresses, and link actuators to sensors via KNX Association Table
  • Diagnose a non-responsive DALI-2 ballast by interpreting bus telegrams in the KNX IP monitor
  • Document a commissioning handover report to EN 50090 / ISO 16484-3 traceability standard
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minETS6 topology recap — individual vs. group addressing logicAnnotated ETS6 screenshot. Pairs: identify addressing errors.
10–35 minHands-on: commission a 6-device KNX TP scenario (2 push-buttons, 2 switch actuators, 1 blind actuator, 1 DALI gateway) in ETS6 simulationProvided: wiring diagram + partial project file. Learners complete group links.
35–50 minFault scenario: DALI-2 ballast not responding — use IP monitor to read bus telegramsProvided: telegram log with fault. Learners identify missing ACK + misconfigured DALI short address.
50–60 minCommissioning handover document — peer checkEN 50090 checklist. Pairs audit each other's report for traceability gaps.
Assessment rubric
KNX group addressing
Developing
Individual addresses set, group links incomplete
Proficient
All devices linked, functions verified in simulation
Distinction
Correct + optimised (minimal group objects, logical naming)
DALI fault diagnosis
Developing
Identifies fault exists but not root cause
Proficient
Locates missing ACK and short address mismatch in telegram log
Distinction
Correct + proposes preventive commissioning check procedure
Session Plan
Designing Criterion-Referenced Assessment
Workshop Training · Module 3 of 5
Duration
55 min
Learning Objectives
  • Write assessment criteria at EQF Levels 3–5 using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001) — distinguishing knowledge, comprehension and application descriptors
  • Align a rubric to occupational standards using the ECVET credit-point framework and unit of learning outcome structure
  • Apply the SOLO taxonomy to identify surface vs. deep learning in learner-produced evidence
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minSort activity: place 12 verbs on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy levels 1–6Pairs. Common misconceptions: "understand" vs. "apply"; "evaluate" vs. "create".
10–30 minWorkshop: rewrite 3 weak assessment criteria using ECVET unit structure + Bloom's Level 3–4 descriptorsProvided: 3 real-world (anonymised) weak criteria from NQF submissions. Groups rewrite and justify.
30–45 minSOLO taxonomy application: grade 4 learner evidence samples (multistructural vs. relational)Individual, then compare. Discuss: where is the pass/merit line and why?
45–55 minBuild one criterion for your own course: write Developing / Proficient / Distinction descriptorsExit ticket: submit draft criterion. Trainer feedback within 48h.
Assessment rubric
Criterion writing (Bloom's)
Developing
Vague verbs; no observable behaviour
Proficient
Observable verb + performance context at correct Bloom's level
Distinction
Correct + aligned to ECVET unit and standard reference
SOLO taxonomy grading
Developing
Grades by volume of content, not structure
Proficient
Correctly distinguishes multistructural from relational level in all 4 samples
Distinction
Correct + articulates why extended abstract is rarely achievable at Level 3
Session Plan
Cost Accounting & Contribution Margin Analysis
Business & Finance · Module 3 of 5
Duration
60 min
Learning Objectives
  • Calculate contribution margin per unit and break-even point for a manufacturing SME using the Austrian Deckungsbeitragsrechnung model (ÖNORM / Kammer der Wirtschaftstreuhänder framework)
  • Classify fixed vs. variable costs from a provided cost centre statement (Kostenstellenrechnung) and explain the effect on make-or-buy decisions
  • Interpret a simplified P&L in UGB/HGB format and identify three levers a business owner can use to improve EBIT without increasing revenue
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval: classify 10 cost items as fixed or variable for a bakery (Bäckerei) scenarioPairs. Common misconception: depreciation (fixed) vs. energy (semi-variable).
10–30 minWorked case: calculate Deckungsbeitrag I & II and break-even for a 3-product line — which product to drop?Groups of 3. Provided: Kostenstellenrechnung extract + price list. Decision must be justified with numbers.
30–50 minP&L analysis: identify EBIT levers from a UGB-format income statementIndividual. Three interventions: cost reduction, mix shift, price adjustment. Rank by impact.
50–60 minGallery walk: compare group decisions — where do teams disagree on the drop/keep decision?Debrief: sunk costs, qualitative factors (customer relationships), capacity constraints.
Assessment rubric
Deckungsbeitrag calculation
Developing
Formula applied but fixed/variable classification errors
Proficient
DB I & II correct; break-even calculated accurately
Distinction
Correct + sensitivity analysis (what if variable cost rises 10%?)
Drop/keep decision quality
Developing
Decision based on revenue only, ignores margin
Proficient
Decision justified with DB II figures and capacity argument
Distinction
Correct + addresses qualitative factors (sunk cost, customer dependency)
Session Plan
Setting Out & Tolerances for Masonry Structures
Construction & Built Environment · Module 2 of 5
Duration
60 min
Learning Objectives
  • Apply BS 8000-3:2001 workmanship tolerances to set out a cavity wall return, checking plumb and gauge at each lift using a spirit level and gauge rod
  • Identify and correct three common setting-out errors (diagonal check, course gauge drift, perpend misalignment) using the 3-4-5 rule and string lines
  • Complete a CITB Site Safety Plus site diary entry documenting a non-conformance and corrective action under BS EN 1996-2 (Eurocode 6)
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval: identify BS 8000-3 tolerance limits from a marked-up site photoPairs. Common errors: confusing ±5mm plumb with ±10mm alignment over 5m.
10–35 minPractical simulation: set out a cavity wall return on a 1:5 scale model — plumb, gauge, diagonal checkGroups of 3. Provided: gauge rod, string lines, spirit level, scale drawing. Introduce deliberate perpend error to diagnose.
35–50 minNon-conformance scenario: course gauge drift at lift 4 — document and correctIndividual. CITB site diary format. Identify root cause (bed joint variation) and propose corrective action.
50–60 minPeer review: swap site diaries — does the corrective action meet BS EN 1996-2?Pairs. Checklist: root cause identified, tolerance cited, action proportionate, signed.
Assessment rubric
Setting-out accuracy
Developing
Plumb checked; gauge and diagonal omitted
Proficient
All three checks applied within BS 8000-3 tolerance
Distinction
Correct + identifies which check is critical at each lift and why
Non-conformance record
Developing
Error noted but no root cause or corrective action
Proficient
Root cause identified + action proportionate to BS EN 1996-2
Distinction
Correct + preventive measure proposed to avoid recurrence
Session Plan
MIG Weld Quality Assessment & Defect Classification
Welding & Metal Fabrication · Module 3 of 5
Duration
60 min
Learning Objectives
  • Classify MIG weld discontinuities (porosity, undercut, lack of fusion, spatter) against BS EN ISO 5817:2023 quality levels B, C and D using visual inspection and a weld gauge
  • Apply the EWF-standardised welding procedure specification (WPS) to adjust wire feed speed and voltage parameters for a 3 mm S235 butt joint, predicting the effect on bead profile
  • Complete a non-conformance report (NCR) in the format required by BS EN ISO 3834-3 for a Level C quality management application
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval: match 6 defect photos to ISO 5817 reference imperfection names and severity levelPairs. Common confusion: porosity Level B vs. C limits; undercut vs. incomplete fusion.
10–35 minWPS parameter exercise: given a 3 mm S235 butt joint at 120A, predict bead profile change for ±10% wire feed and ±2V voltage adjustmentsGroups of 3. EWF WPS template provided. Each group defends one parameter set — class comparison reveals trade-offs.
35–50 minNCR writing: apply ISO 3834-3 format to a provided weld sample with two Level B exceedancesIndividual. Must include: defect ID, location, measurement, standard reference, disposition (accept/repair/reject).
50–60 minPeer NCR audit: does the report meet ISO 3834-3 minimum fields? Would it survive a third-party audit?Pairs. 8-point checklist. Key question: is disposition justified with reference to the standard?
Assessment rubric
Defect classification
Developing
Identifies defect type but misapplies ISO 5817 quality level
Proficient
Correct defect name + correct B/C/D level with standard reference
Distinction
Correct + identifies likely root cause from WPS parameters
NCR completeness
Developing
Defect described but disposition missing or unjustified
Proficient
All ISO 3834-3 fields complete; disposition referenced to standard
Distinction
Complete + audit-ready language; preventive action proposed
Session Plan
PV System Sizing & IEC 62446-1 Commissioning Documentation
Renewable Energy / Solar PV · Module 2 of 4
Duration
60 min
Learning Objectives
  • Size a grid-connected PV system (string voltage, module count, inverter match) against site irradiance data and EU RED II (2018/2001) performance targets using SMA Sunny Design
  • Complete an IEC 62446-1:2016 initial verification report including I-V curve test interpretation and insulation resistance values for a 10 kWp residential installation
  • Identify the three most common commissioning failures (open-circuit faults, string reverse polarity, ground-fault current) and document corrective action in the handover pack
Activity Sequence
TimeActivityNotes
0–10 minRetrieval: match 6 I-V curve shapes to fault conditions (shading, bypass diode failure, string mismatch)Individual, then pairs. Common confusion: partial shading vs. bypass diode activation pattern.
10–35 minSizing exercise: use SMA Sunny Design to configure a 10 kWp rooftop system — select modules, verify Voc vs. inverter max, confirm string layout meets IEC 62446-1 Annex A limitsGroups of 3. Each group receives a different roof orientation (S, SE, SW). Compare yield predictions and discuss RED II performance ratio target (≥0.75).
35–50 minCommissioning report: complete the IEC 62446-1 initial verification template for a provided system (pre-filled with 2 deliberate errors — find and correct them)Individual. Errors: insulation resistance value below IEC minimum; missing continuity test for protective conductor.
50–60 minFault scenario: given a ground-fault current reading of 50 mA on commissioning, write the corrective action entry for the handover packExit ticket. Must reference IEC 62446-1 clause, measurement method, and pass/fail threshold.
Assessment rubric
System sizing
Developing
Module count correct but Voc vs. inverter limit not verified
Proficient
Correct layout + Voc within inverter spec + RED II PR target met
Distinction
Correct + shade analysis and alternative string configuration proposed
IEC 62446-1 report
Developing
Errors identified but clause reference missing
Proficient
Both errors found and corrected with IEC 62446-1 clause reference
Distinction
Correct + identifies likely root cause (installation step where error typically occurs)
🔁
Retrieval practice

Forces recall before reinforcement — the mechanism with the largest effect size in learning science.

Roediger & Karpicke (2006)
Deliberate application

Scenarios set in your own workshop, not generic examples. Practice becomes meaningful when it mirrors real decisions.

Ericsson (1993) · Kapur (2008)
Reflective transfer

Before/after evidence of changed thinking — the step that converts training into classroom behaviour.

Schön (1983)

If you teach in a workshop, this is built for you.

Not for lecturers. Not for school teachers. For the person who spent years doing the trade before they were put in front of a training group.

A welding instructor with 15 years on the tools and no formal teacher training — who wants to give feedback that actually sticks.
An FE lecturer in automotive who knows the cars inside out but struggles with Ofsted observations and assessment documentation.
A mechatronics trainer at a Bildungsträger who needs a CPD certificate that means something outside their own institution.
A smart building instructor delivering BMS training who builds every session from scratch because nothing off the shelf fits.
Welding Automotive & Vehicle Technology Mechatronics Electrical Installations Solar & Renewable Energy Smart Building & BMS

Three phases. One thing you can use Monday.

Not slides-and-a-quiz. A structured cycle that ends with something you use in your next session.

1. Learn

Before any instruction, you write how you'd handle a real training challenge. Your answer is saved. It becomes evidence.

Challenge + Content

2. Practice

Short videos, annotated examples, and scenario simulations — all set in your trade. AI gives you specific feedback on your decisions.

Quiz + Scenario

3. Deliver

A session plan. A student worksheet. An assessment rubric. All calibrated to your actual learners, your sector, and your EQF level.

Session Plan + Reflection
Get early access — it's free

Full course access · No credit card · Early access

Digital credentials
EQF-Aligned
Mapped to EU qualification levels
6 hours
Structured learning per course
Open Badge
Signed · Verifiable · Portable
PDF Cert
Formal certificate per sector
YOUR CERTIFICATE

An EQF-aligned certificate. Verifiable in seconds.

Every completed course earns you a digitally signed and verifiable Open Badge 3.0 — the same credential standard used by Google, IBM, and the British Council. It proves what you can do, not just that you showed up.

Shareable on LinkedIn
Permanently verifiable online
Open Badge format — can be added to your Europass profile
Documentation provided for CPD reimbursement claims
No expiry

Not a PGCE. Not a PDG. Not an AEVO. Not a national teaching licence. A verifiable, EQF-aligned, sector-specific record of current competence — the kind that holds up in CPD portfolios, inspection evidence files, and employer appraisals.

UK FE context: evidence maps to Ofsted Education Inspection Framework quality-of-education criteria (formative assessment, assessment documentation).

Current course built on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, ECVET descriptors, and ETF frameworks. Sector courses (BS 7671, ISO 9606-1, IEC 61131-3, and more) launch September 2026.

See what a session plan looks like in your sector.

Enter a topic you teach. We'll email you a sample exercise, 2 quiz questions, and a rubric criterion in under a minute. No account needed.

Arrives within 60 seconds. Nothing is published without your explicit consent.

Early access is open · 32 of 40 places remaining
Early access · 40 places

Claim one of 40 places
before public launch.

For working workshop trainers. Free full-course access. Your feedback shapes what we build next. We close at 40 or on 15 September — whichever comes first.

8 / 40 claimed 32 remaining

No credit card. No commitment. Places are limited — we're working with a small group intentionally.

Training a group? Email hello@mesteracademy.com — we set up team access.

Common questions

Yes. Early access covers the full first course — all five modules, all assessments, all outputs, and your EQF-aligned badge. No payment details are requested at any point during early access.
Your completed modules, produced materials, and earned badges carry over to the full platform. You will be notified before any change to pricing or access — with enough notice to decide. You will not lose work you have done.
The course content and instructional materials are in English. The platform interface is available in 8 languages including German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, and Polish. If you are comfortable reading professional materials in English, you will have no difficulty with the course.
No. The certificate is not equivalent to a PGCE, AEVO, CAP Formation, or any national teaching qualification. It is an EQF-aligned professional development record — verifiable online, suitable for CPD portfolios and employer appraisals. Acceptance depends on your institution's policy. If your institution requires a specific national accreditation, we are not that product.
Course content is AI-generated from published occupational standards (Bloom's Taxonomy, ECVET, and sector-specific standards) and structured around a six-phase learning design informed by VET trainer competency frameworks. The platform uses AI to generate personalised feedback on your work. There are no live instructors — it is entirely self-paced. We are not a university department and we don't pretend to be.
Early access is free. If you complete Module 1 and it hasn't given you one thing you can use in your next session, email us at hello@mesteracademy.com. We want to know why.
Each course has 5 modules of approximately 50 minutes each — about 5–6 hours total. Self-paced, no deadlines. Individual purchases include lifetime access — revisit any module whenever you need it.
You earn an Open Badge 3.0 credential — an internationally recognised digital credential standard. It is self-mapped to EQF levels 4-5 (non-formal learning) and the badge is digitally verifiable online permanently. Many VET institutions across Europe accept Open Badge credentials as evidence of CPD.
Yes. Mester is hosted on EU servers and fully GDPR compliant. You can export or delete your data at any time from your profile settings. We never share your data with third parties.
WORKSHOP TRAINERS ACROSS EUROPE

You spent years becoming good at your trade.
Now learn how to teach it properly.

Get free early access →
Verifiable Open Badge 3.0 · EQF-aligned
EU servers · GDPR compliant