Online Testing

[sarflyer]

I just read the white paper by Curt LaFond on the proposed online testing system.

http://www.cap.gov/documents/Online_Testing.pdf

I am impressed in what National is thinking about and can only say, "Great Idea!"

[Eclipse]

This was beat up pretty hard when it was released.

Suffice to say not everyone, including myself, believes this to be a good idea.

[sarflyer]

What don't you like about it if you don't mind me askin'?

[mikeylikey]

For starters.......open book.

Second, do we really know who actually took the test on line?  Integrity is already an issue in the organization as a whole. 

If you want, I can repost my 5 negative responses to online testing from a previous thread, but the above two areas are MY major concerns.   

[isuhawkeye]

the coast guard aux has implimented a very interesting on line testing system. 

mabye river can chime in on this one

[RiverAux]

While the CG Aux does have a few open-book online tests for certain activities, online tests for our "premier" program (The 6-course AUXOP program) have to be proctored in person by someone that has completed the program previously.  There is also written test options.  I think the proctor requirement should be loosened to allow Flotilla Commanders, Vice Commanders, and Member Training staff officers to also proctor the exams in order to make scheduling more available. 

[NavLT]

I think we need to steal a page from the AF TCO world

Tests are given online at the unit DL site the TCO has to unlock the test for the member to sit and take it at the computer.

That eliminates the who took the test. 

Yes it means testing still needs to happen at the unit, but is not participation and attendance at the unit a program requirement?

V/R
Lt J.

[brasda91]

I think we need to steal a page from the AF TCO world

Tests are given online at the unit DL site the TCO has to unlock the test for the member to sit and take it at the computer.

That eliminates the who took the test. 

Yes it means testing still needs to happen at the unit, but is not participation and attendance at the unit a program requirement?

V/R
Lt J.

Then you get into the problem of the units that meet where they don't have internet access (I've never had internet in my building) or in an armory where they can't get internet access (like I'm facing in the very near future).

[DC]

Half of the point in the idea of online testing, as brought up in the White Paper, was to make testing more convienient, so that cadets were not bound to the once night a month testing. Say a cadet had a school assignment and had to miss testing...

[mikeylikey]

Say a cadet had a school assignment and had to miss testing...

An awesome Unit would allow that Cadet to make up the missed test at the earliest convenience of all parties involved.  I was in a unit that met on Tuesday nights and had one Saturday afternoon per month to allow Cadet and Seniors who had a legitimate excuse for missing something to come in and make it up.  The program worked very well.

As far as on line testing, I don't care for it one bit.  I can see two Cadets getting together and taking the test together.  We are supposed to believe we instill a sense of integrity in our Cadets, but the temptation to cheat is too great!

[Ned]

Say a cadet had a school assignment and had to miss testing...

As far as on line testing, I don't care for it one bit.  I can see two Cadets getting together and taking the test together.  We are supposed to believe we instill a sense of integrity in our Cadets, but the temptation to cheat is too great!

Which is why the proposal includes requiring the milestone comprehensive tests to remain paper-based and given under controlled conditions at the squadron.  Any cadet that Googled or group-tested their way through a phase would come to a screeching halt at that point.

Checks and balances.

This is great news for squadrons.  With this simple technological upgrade, we can give them 12-15% more contact time with their cadets for enrichment classes, mentoring and tutoring, or other value-added procedures.

Cadets get more options, convenience, and more training.  Units get relief from paperwork and record-keeping, as well as at least one or more hours of additional class time a month.

What's not to like?

[addo1]

  Life has cheaters.  That is all their is it, sadly.  I believe the odds would be against a cadet cheating on it.  This way would be so much simpler.  Things might happen, but from what I can tell, the results would be much more benificial in the long run.

[DC]

I believe the questions are going to be written in such a way as to require comprehension of the subject, rather than memorization, or a quick skim of the book, like if a cadet were to be cheating. If you make a time limit then they cannot spend too much time searching for the answer in their book, so it makes cheating much more difficult...

[Tubacap]

^Standardized tests used to have timing components to them.  A lot of them now do not because comprehension is measured more accurately when students do not have a time limit.

[lordmonar]

An awesome Unit would allow that Cadet to make up the missed test at the earliest convenience of all parties involved.

And they would would all have 200 cadets with a full staff of SM to run such a program.

Problem is....even good squadrons do not have the manpower/time to allow this.

As far as on line testing, I don't care for it one bit.  I can see two Cadets getting together and taking the test together.  We are supposed to believe we instill a sense of integrity in our Cadets, but the temptation to cheat is too great!

Then we need to de-emphasise the importance of testing.......

[DC]

An awesome Unit would allow that Cadet to make up the missed test at the earliest convenience of all parties involved.

And they would would all have 200 cadets with a full staff of SM to run such a program.

Problem is....even good squadrons do not have the manpower/time to allow this.

As far as on line testing, I don't care for it one bit.  I can see two Cadets getting together and taking the test together.  We are supposed to believe we instill a sense of integrity in our Cadets, but the temptation to cheat is too great!

Then we need to de-emphasise the importance of testing.......

So we need to de-emphasise the importance of promoting, because unless we totally rework the cadet program then I do not see how you can de-emphasise achievement testing.

[lordmonar]

Sure.....I would agree with that as well.  Promotions are not nearly as important than learning leadership.

But that was not the point I was trying to make.

I was pointing out that a lot of people already have a major problem with our cadet promotion system based on the "all they have to do is pass a couple of tests" and that they want to stress practical leadership skills vice text book learning.

I for one agree....to a point.

I got not problem with an on line open book test.   We make it hard....we make it so the cadets actually have to read the text to find the information.

Then we make sure the the cadet is ready for promotion by observing them lead in a squadron environment.

If we are really worried about cadets working together or developing crib sheets......then we just make sure the test pool has enough questions to make this impractical and we make it so that the testing only comprises say 10% of the "total cadet" picture when we decide if they are ready for promotion.

[NavLT]

The AF Test method has the electronic test in the hands of the TCO and only loaded for the tester at the time of the test.  This prevents group testing (unless the TCO is in on it).

I think the practical leadership testing discussed is the hard part because of the subjective nature and the sometimes lacking in the senior and cadet staff.  The only organizational solution I could see would require attendance at a 2nd wing encampment on staff for promotion beyond phase III (Earhart or Eaker).  Not a great solution but it would remove the C/LTC at a 3 cadet unit promoted by thier uncle the squadron commander scenario.

V/R

LT J.