GTM Task Testing

[arajca]

While reviewing the requirements for GTM3, I came up with an idea for a task testing activity. I classed the various tasks as "Identify and Describe", "Simple Performance", and "Complex Performance". I fleshed out my idea in the attached doc.

A couple points:
1. This is NOT being proposed as a mandatory way of evaluating tasks.
2. It could be done over one weekend or over a couple weekends.
3. I am not a GTM yet, so my times - excluding those specified in the task evaluations - are speculative.

I am looking for comments on this idea. Preferable constructive comments.

[RiverAux]

If your squadron is holding classes for ES tasks and then automatically signing off on them for those who attended you are doing it wrong in the first place.  Everybody has to actually do all the tasks not just sit through a lecture on them.  This isn't a problem with the national program, it is a problem with how your unit has implemented it.     

Now, you can certainly hold classes and give written quizes afterward and those who got all the answers right on the quiz can be given credit for that task.  Nothing wrong with that at all. 

[Dragoon]

I really like your setup.  It matches the original intent of the program - seperating training from testing.

We've done similar things in the past, and it's worked out very well.

[Pace]

I like it.  It's very similar to how I've organized UDF/GTM training in the past.  It's also very effective if you ensure everyone participates in all parts of the evaluation (i.e., no one goes home after day 1 and fails to return for day 2 or vice versa).

While you're at it, get a non-reimbursed mission number (or reimbursed if your wing is feeling generous) and give sortie credit while completing the complex performance tasks so that everyone that completes all tasks has at least 1 sortie credit.  If you want, stage one final (non-task evaluating) sortie that is a realistic scenario for the team(s) to simulate a real mission.  This will also give them their second sortie.

Just my 2 cents...

[LittleIronPilot]

Excellent work! BTW...as noted the "sit in class, get signed off" methodology is not how it is *supposed* to work, but I know it is done almost everywhere.

That is the biggest thing about training....people only seem to want to do it during the meetings and not spend extra time on the weekends doing it. I see it as a CAP problem, nationwide.

[isuhawkeye]

the iowa wing modeled its ES academy written exam off of the GSAR exam.  I think written testing is a very valid approach to the cridentialing process

[Bluelakes 13]

Now, you can certainly hold classes and give written quizes afterward and those who got all the answers right on the quiz can be given credit for that task.  Nothing wrong with that at all. 

True but only for tasks under the "identify or describe" category.  Too often I have seen people describe a refit and get signed off for it...   Argggh...

While you're at it, get a non-reimbursed mission number (or reimbursed if your wing is feeling generous) and give sortie credit while completing the complex performance tasks so that everyone that completes all tasks has at least 1 sortie credit.  If you want, stage one final (non-task evaluating) sortie that is a realistic scenario for the team(s) to simulate a real mission.  This will also give them their second sortie.

Are you suggesting people get sortie credit for completing the advanced tasks in a classroom?

I hope not...

[Walkman]

Thanks for this reasource. I'm working on getting our ES training ramped up in our squadron and this will help a lot.!

[sarmed1]

When I ran Texas Winter GSARSS one year we did a simlar written test.  Basically all of the "describe" tasks were in test format, and the students filled in the information (I had a hand out with color pictures for the natural hazards)  grade it and keep handing it back until they get the anwers correct.  It worked well as a time filler while we conducted practical tests outside

mk

[Pace]

Are you suggesting people get sortie credit for completing the advanced tasks in a classroom?

I hope not...

Did you even read his proposal?

If not, let me point you to this excerpt from the proposal:

On Day 2, divide into teams and complete the complex tasks as teams of five or six, with the evaluator or a qualified GTL serving as the team leader.

Under those circumstances, I proposed that a mission number be assigned so that sortie credit could be rendered for participation in ground search and rescue training operations requiring performance of the complex tasks in the field, not in a classroom environment.

[RiverAux]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of arranging for mission credit for what amounts to running people through task tests.  I don't really consider that a "mission" even though you can get AFAM status for it.  It is my opinion that the 2 missions that they have to do to get qualified should either be actual missions or SAREXs set up to simulate actual mission conditions.  I'm not screamingly opposed to doing it the way you propose, but I don't think it is in the spirit with which those requirements are intended. 

[stillamarine]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of arranging for mission credit for what amounts to running people through task tests.  I don't really consider that a "mission" even though you can get AFAM status for it.  It is my opinion that the 2 missions that they have to do to get qualified should either be actual missions or SAREXs set up to simulate actual mission conditions.  I'm not screamingly opposed to doing it the way you propose, but I don't think it is in the spirit with which those requirements are intended. 

The problem with that is places that don't get to see an actual SAREX because their wing holds theirs 8 hours away. Or if they are lucky their group holds 1 a year. Actually missions can be months in between. Here we are lucky aircrew flies AFAMs everyday, but a ground team may not see a mission for 4 or 5 months.

[RiverAux]

Its not that hard to set up a simulated SAR ground team exercise that you can get an unfunded mission number for. 

[arajca]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of arranging for mission credit for what amounts to running people through task tests.  I don't really consider that a "mission" even though you can get AFAM status for it.  It is my opinion that the 2 missions that they have to do to get qualified should either be actual missions or SAREXs set up to simulate actual mission conditions.  I'm not screamingly opposed to doing it the way you propose, but I don't think it is in the spirit with which those requirements are intended. 

I realize that others may have alluded to granting one mission sign-off for the advanced task day, but allow me to quote from the proposal:

Running a Fri – Sun activity will allow members to complete all the tasks and sign-offs for GTM3, MRO, or MSA. The only requirements left would be mission participation.

I did not suggest granting mission credit because I believe being evaluated should not count as a mission. That being said, I could see a GTL leading a team of trainees on the advanced day receiving mission credit because they would be leading the team, not evaluating them or training them, or a CUL developing and running the Comm section during the activity, but no mission credit for trainees.

[davedove]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of arranging for mission credit for what amounts to running people through task tests.  I don't really consider that a "mission" even though you can get AFAM status for it.  It is my opinion that the 2 missions that they have to do to get qualified should either be actual missions or SAREXs set up to simulate actual mission conditions.  I'm not screamingly opposed to doing it the way you propose, but I don't think it is in the spirit with which those requirements are intended. 

The way to do it is to develop a training scenario, much like a SAREX (just on a smaller scale).  The way the trainers did it when I was being trained for GTM-3 and UDF was to set up a scenario of a missing plane and pilot.  We first had to track down the practice ELT to find the "plane", then had to find and follow clues to locate the "pilot".  It was a good way to practice the tasks.

[Pace]

I did not suggest granting mission credit because I believe being evaluated should not count as a mission. That being said, I could see a GTL leading a team of trainees on the advanced day receiving mission credit because they would be leading the team, not evaluating them or training them, or a CUL developing and running the Comm section during the activity, but no mission credit for trainees.

To each his own.  Good luck!

[floridacyclist]

Each task has a specific set of criteria immediately following it in the task guide. Some criteria involve asking questions, others involve performing a task under the supervision of an evaluator. There are a few that specify that the member perform the task as part of a sortie. The key is to apply a little common sense and at least make sure that the person is evaluated to the standard specified in the task guide if not the letter. For example, if I have a cadet serve as my navigator on a 4-hr road trip and he doesn't get me lost (or at least gets me unlost after we have gotten lost....ie if he demonstrates his ability to read and use a road map) I will sign off on that task even though the book calls for a 10-mile course with distinctive markings at key intersections.

On the other hand, I have seen many members signed off for "keep a log" because they wrote some indecipherable scribblings on a piece of paper during a mission, regardless of the fact that the evaluation process calls for a scenario to be given to the testee and the testee identifies list of events to be logged from it.

[RiverAux]

arajaca, I was referring to dcpacemaker's approach to the situation rather than your origianal proposal. 

[Michael]

Nice plan.  Good luck with it.  Anything's fine if the skills are attained and signed off properly.