Revised learn to lead test bank

Started by davidsinn, May 16, 2011, 03:30:36 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

davidsinn

I got this in my RSS this morning. I think it's a good thing because I've seen several smart cadets who have studied, bomb these things.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/index.cfm/learn_to_lead_online_tests?show=entry&blogID=348
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

a2capt

Late last week I read something that said they were in the process of wrapping up on it, and that 4-8 would be next, I wonder if this means it's been updated now. The post is sort of vague.

Because of the growing pains, (browser voodoo, lockouts, etc.,) one evening I offered two cadets the Leadership 2000 Chapter 1 test, fully disclosing that it was from the prior texts and all that, and as such, they could take it using the old rules of no time limit (other than the time slot allowed for it, half the meeting period), and closed book, with the 70% passing score.

My general experience with LL1 has been they usually blow it badly, or ace it, with the blowing it badly happening way more. Well, these two missed 2-3 questions each. Albeit the typical drill question and the stripes.

So, the next week I tried that again with another two cadets and I got a similar result. In the past few months I have offered LL1 and LL2 under the same deal to the cadets that have internet challenges and  I have yet to have one fail a Leadership test where as the prior 4 years of stats shows that pass rate is about 60%. The total sampling here is about 20 tests now.

I had the first use of the L2L Wright Brothers test a couple weeks ago, and the result was two missed questions.

Now with regards to the online testing pass/fail rate in general. The feedback I get from cadets  once they work out the browser/access issue and we're past the getting locked out for too many starts and not finished attempts, most are passing them within the first two attempts. I'm not having to deal with resetting access.  In other words, the results seem to be on par, but a bit better than the Leadership 2000 testing statistics. Of course, we have 10 years of history on scores for the previous and realistically 4-5 months here.

OTOH, the printed tests don't appear to have changed as of this moment, leading to more ambiguity.