TLC and UCC for AFIADL-13

[Pylon]

About a year or so ago, there was quite a buzz from higher-up sources regarding some PD substitutions that were supposedly coming down the pipeline rapidly. Our Wing PDO even announced it at the Wing conference.

From what I understood, Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC) seminar and Unit Commanders Course (UCC) were both going to become acceptable alternatives to taking (ECI) AFIADL-13 for Level II completion purposes.

Then... I heard nothing more.  I haven't heard about this for a while.  Now I've got several members who have taken TLC and want to know if they can use that towards their Level II.  Did anything in fact come out about that?  I don't see an updated CAPR 50-17, nor any ICLs.  Did this come before the NB or NEC for a vote and fail?  Were this just unsubstantiated rumors?

[Eclipse]

No, that buzz you heard was just background noise here.  Some members floated the idea and were pretty much shot down because the two are completely different curriculum.

No change was made to the level II SLS requirement.

[Pylon]

No change was made to the level II SLS requirement.

The rumor was it was not to replace SLS, but an alternative to taking AFIADL-13.  SLS would still be required for Level II completion.

*shrug*  I know I heard it elsewhere than CAPTalk, but maybe CAPTalk generated the rumor.   

[Eclipse]

Sorry, you're correct - it was ECI 13, but no change was made, or even discussed officially.

[mikeylikey]

Not to hijack....but how could UCC and TLC be interchangeable with AFIADL 13. 

I am all for more choices, but 13 is somewhat different from the other courses, right?

[DNall]

Not to hijack....but how could UCC and TLC be interchangeable with AFIADL 13. 

I am all for more choices, but 13 is somewhat different from the other courses, right?

And I would say very necessary in its own right. It really should be part of lvl I.

[Maj Ballard]

General Courter confirmed at FLWG conference that an online course is currently in the works that will replace AFIADL 13. As of right now, the AFIADL requirement still exists.

[DNall]

I'd heard it's an AFIADL course that replaces course 13. SOS is online modules & paper tests. I hope they're not pulling it back & dumbing it down like everything else in our professional development. We already have the stuff from ROTC/ASBC being taught at RSC. What do I have to be a 20 star general before I'm required to have field grade skills? You can't operate an org when you don't give your people the skills to succeed.

[Maj Ballard]

From what I understand, the AFIADL 13 replacement will have nothing to do with SOS (which I've completed - loved it). It will also not be through AFIADL, but administered/controlled internally (within CAP).

I'm hoping I can be part of the development process, as an eLearning/instructional design professional. Above all, it needs to be relevant and rigorous.

[dwb]

AFIADL 13 is long overdue for an update.  There's also no reason for it to be an AFIADL course.  I'm glad to hear they're working on a replacement.

[DNall]

From what I understand, the AFIADL 13 replacement will have nothing to do with SOS (which I've completed - loved it). It will also not be through AFIADL, but administered/controlled internally (within CAP).

I'm hoping I can be part of the development process, as an eLearning/instructional design professional. Above all, it needs to be relevant and rigorous.

I've been working thru SOS as well & also extremely impressed with it. That's not what I meant though, just that it'd be delivered in the same way. I like it being tru AFIADL because that makes it a gateway course that teaches people the system so they will be more comfortable with it when the opportunity to take SOS/ACSC/AWC comes up.

I agree it's in need of an update, and I absolutely adamentaly agree that it needs to be relevant & rigorous.

As I said, the PD courses at Lvl I-IV are basically AFROTC & ASBC (officer basic course) broken up into little pieces. That means we're trying to give people the necessary training to be an entry level leader/mgr when they're majors 10 years into the program. That's crazy. Almost all work in the org is done by people that haven't been in that long, and they desperately need the ldrshp/mgmt/communications/ethics (core values) skills to be an actual officer in that environment. SLS, CLC, & AFIADL 13 all seem to be improving, but those are all essential level I skills.

I know I can't force the org to push that mandatory trng down to an intensive entry level course. So, I at least want AFIADL13 (or whatver comes up in its place) to ensure they have mastery of that stuff by that point. You shouldn't be making Capt till you have that.

[Eclipse]

AFIADL 13 is long overdue for an update.  There's also no reason for it to be an AFIADL course.  I'm glad to hear they're working on a replacement.

I disagree - it is the only objective hurdle seniors still have to progress, and needs to be handled with TCO security.

Recent history has shown that even that isn't enough in some cases.

If you put it online you might as well just drop it, because it becomes just another Yeager - 10 minutes with the search key.

[Maj Ballard]

The COURSE being online doesn't mean that exams would lack security. There are easy ways to handle that issue:

- Require a TCO to certify (with a password or other measure) that exams were properly administered.
- Make exams paper/pencil.

... Several others.

The corporation has decided that the Yeager is basically open-book. It's not that the Yeager isn't secure to a fault. It's that the corporation did it that way on purpose. Secure online courses aren't difficult to achieve.

[Eclipse]

An online open-book test is not a test, it is a gimme.

The idea of an "open book" test is that, in theory, the questions can be more difficult because you are providing the student with the textbook to reference.  Generally they include questions which cannot be answered by simply "riding the index".  In most cases, the texts allowed are limited to those included in the reading lists, and may or may not allow for personal notes.

The concept has legitimacy with physical textbooks in a proctored environment.

However online, unproctored, it is a waste of time.  Google essentially provides access to the sum total of human knowledge.  You cannot devise a multiple choice test that cannot be passed using Google, especially one which contains questions of general / historical knowledge that are the part of shared culture.

[dwb]

I disagree - it is the only objective hurdle seniors still have to progress, and needs to be handled with TCO security.

I don't remember suggesting otherwise.  I just said it shouldn't be an AFIADL course.

BTW, just because a test is open book (or online), doesn't mean it's easy.

The current crop of online exams (116, annual Form 5 written, etc.) are doable with a quick search of a PDF, but I suspect those tests are designed to force you to at least look at the answers, rather than attempting to achieve deep comprehension.

All of the online tests that exist today (except the Yeager) have an in-person component to them that tests your true comprehension of the material.  Sure you can get GES, but that gets you almost nothing except a ticket to the game.  The Form 5 written isn't difficult, but you still have to fly the aircraft under the supervision of a check pilot.

Heck, even the Level I and CPP materials are supposed to be reviewed in person after the online portion is completed.

So the level of difficulty of those tests isn't the same as what may be required in a CAP Officer Course exam.

[DNall]

^ all examples of dumbing down the standards (kind of dangerous in some of those cases) to make it easy on members so they keep paying us, versus serious standards so people learn the skills they desperately need to keep the place operating. You can never compromise quality, not even in desperate times. You have to be willing to take the hit, even if it means some hardship or even starting over. That's root of core values right there.

Part of the point also was that you had to pass this AF run course to progress. It's the only point at which that's true. It's kind of the same thing as encampment for cadets (the AF mandated trng part of it in particular).

And, as I said, gateway course that exposes them to AFIADL so they feel comfortable taking advantage of it at least for the follow on PME, if not for the other courses that can potentially be found there.

[jimmydeanno]

You know, colleges have online courses with online open book tests.  The key to making them worthwhile is not what you test the person on, but how it is tested.

A good friend of mine and I were talking about this the other day (about a different topic though).  I'm not a professional educator, so I may botch some of this...

There are 6 levels of understanding according to Blooms Taxonomy; Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.

The knowledge level is basic recollection of information.  This includes things like recalling dates, names, basic facts and procedures.  This is the level that CAPs tests are written at currently.  So we get a question like, "this man was the first person to break the sound barrier."  All it requires you to do is recall a name.

To make the course 13 a viable option for an open book, online course that level would need to be raised.  Just as online college courses do.  Raising the understanding level would require the student to actually read, process and interpret the information.

So if it were brought to, say, the comprehension level, it would require the student to do the above.  Which would give you a questions that included, whys and hows.

I do agree that the course, as currently presented, is not designed at the proper level to create the educational experience or challenge that it is intended to.  I do believe that it could be adapted to be an effective online course.

Of course this really has nothing to do with the original question but thought it may be interesting.

[Maj Ballard]

All I'm saying is... There are two issues: online COURSE, and online TEST.

The replacement COURSE will be online. That has been established.

The accompanying EXAM may or may not be online. If it is, it would be easy to make proctored, non-open-book, and secure. Same if it is "offline."

It won't be a "gimme." I've designed hundreds of online courses, both for corporate and academic environments. They all included exams, and none of them were "gimmes." Just have to be designed and implemented correctly.

[Eclipse]

OK - certainly the course being online isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Online tests are fine, as you say,  proctored and closed book.

As has been mentioned above and before, however, NHQ's movement in the recent past has not been to raise the bar and expectation on testing, it has been to dilute the environment to encourage membership and progression.

Anyone who has read the proposed changes to the cadet testing environment can see that.

Until then, we just have to wait and see what is done.

[DNall]

Online delivery: If you've seen how SOS is delivered, I think that's the technology you're looking for in online delivery. It's mostly online video modules, some pdfs, etc. Not something you can search through for answers. Then it has quizes at the end of each section to test your understanding before moving on. You could run a timed test in that way & defeat most of the issues. SOS takes it one step further to a series of paper tests that bring all the quizes from each section together.

I think that's the best way to do it for a number of reasons. You can't ever be perfect in a balance between low-cost wide distribution (online) & upholding centralized standards. We can't run an in-res course, so we have to do the best we can. That's what AFIADL is all about, and I think they have a lot more credibility & capabilty at it than NHQ can match. It'd also be cheaper in the long run.

Regarding Bloom... I don't know if you're understanding that correctly. It requires understanding at each of those stages to equal learning. Same thing as crawl, walk, run. (CRAWL) You are delivered knoweldge at the first stage; gain academic/theoretical understanding of that knowledge; (WALK) forced to utilize that understanding in practical application excercises; analyze performance & make the right self-adjustments to succeed; bring those experiences together to a skill set; (RUN) be evaluated on comprehension & application of the skill set against set standards. That eval is then broken down into levels (grades) based on performance standards. If this test is required to move on to Capt, then that requires mastery of company grade officer skills - not orientation, not familiarity, not comprehension, not competence, MASTERY!

That is not right now the case, and if the course is going to be changed, that's what it needs to be changed to.

[dwb]

As has been mentioned above and before, however, NHQ's movement in the recent past has not been to raise the bar and expectation on testing, it has been to dilute the environment to encourage membership and progression.

Anyone who has read the proposed changes to the cadet testing environment can see that.

Funny, I read the proposed changes to the cadet testing environment and didn't reach that conclusion at all.

In fact, I talked with Curt LaFond in depth about it when he was up for my TLC last June.  I was impressed with how well they had thought through all the pitfalls of online tests.  And that was six months before they released the white paper.

[Maj Ballard]

I'm not so sure that AFIADL has more "credibility and capability" than NHQ could have. The AFIADL online environment is nowhere near state-of-the-art; it's not even industry-standard, frankly.

All national needs to do is use an LMS (Learning Management System) that interfaces with eServices for passwords, etc. Get a couple of trained professionals in the industry (I know I'm not the only one in the organization) to take expert-authored content and translate it into the online environment. eLearning content could easily be supplemented with essays, group discussion, video, PDF readings, etc. We could include self-check quizzing, etc. and then have the actual exams occur in a timed, proctored, secure environment.

There's already an independent, member-led eLearning project out there that looks great. The possibilities are promising and exciting.

[Eclipse]

In fact, I talked with Curt LaFond in depth about it when he was up for my TLC last June.  I was impressed with how well they had thought through all the pitfalls of online tests.  And that was six months before they released the white paper.

You honestly believe that moving to an open-book, online, unproctored testing environment for cadets is going to result in anything but cadets using Google to take the tests the night before they are due?

[Maj Ballard]

I haven't seen the cadet online testing whitepaper. Anyone have a copy of it?

[dwb]

You honestly believe that moving to an open-book, online, unproctored testing environment for cadets is going to result in anything but cadets using Google to take the tests the night before they are due?

Yes.

I haven't seen the cadet online testing whitepaper. Anyone have a copy of it?

http://cap.gov/provinggrounds

[jimmydeanno]

Regarding Bloom... I don't know if you're understanding that correctly. It requires understanding at each of those stages to equal learning. Same thing as crawl, walk, run. (CRAWL) You are delivered knoweldge at the first stage; gain academic/theoretical understanding of that knowledge; (WALK) forced to utilize that understanding in practical application excercises; analyze performance & make the right self-adjustments to succeed; bring those experiences together to a skill set; (RUN) be evaluated on comprehension & application of the skill set against set standards. That eval is then broken down into levels (grades) based on performance standards. If this test is required to move on to Capt, then that requires mastery of company grade officer skills - not orientation, not familiarity, not comprehension, not competence, MASTERY!

Like I said, I'm not a professional educator - so my interpretation is probably really limited in scope.  I am by no means a master at it.

However, the current CAP exam system isn't set up so that the exams are the final step or the gateway to promotions.  They are just another step in a non-sequencial promotion process.  So if you take course 13 before completing any of the other requirements, how can you test the mastery of the subject matter when it isn't being put to use?

So, in using (my interpretation which may or may not be right)bloom's here, the courses themselves are delivering the knowledge, the current exams are testing only whether or not the person has memorized the facts.  So the exam should test the comprehension and the rest of the requirements for promotion should 'test' the other components to complete the other missing levels.

[notaNCO forever]

You honestly believe that moving to an open-book, online, unproctored testing environment for cadets is going to result in anything but cadets using Google to take the tests the night before they are due?

Yes.

I don't think it will work I can allmost bet you cadets WILL cheat.

[mikeylikey]

^ Yeah I do not support on line achievement testing.  The main reasoning was some SQD's only allow testing once per month.  SOLUTION.....make all SQD's open testing up each week for all cadets.

[dwb]

Not to derail this thread, but...

1. Cadets cheat now.  Most get caught and punished.
2. The main reasoning is not that some squadrons only test once per month.

I don't really have time to debate this right now (too busy with my paying job), but hopefully someone else can jump in and offer some insight.  In the mean time, I highly suggest you read the white paper I linked above.

[DNall]

Regarding Bloom... I don't know if you're understanding that correctly. It requires understanding at each of those stages to equal learning. Same thing as crawl, walk, run. (CRAWL) You are delivered knoweldge at the first stage; gain academic/theoretical understanding of that knowledge; (WALK) forced to utilize that understanding in practical application excercises; analyze performance & make the right self-adjustments to succeed; bring those experiences together to a skill set; (RUN) be evaluated on comprehension & application of the skill set against set standards. That eval is then broken down into levels (grades) based on performance standards. If this test is required to move on to Capt, then that requires mastery of company grade officer skills - not orientation, not familiarity, not comprehension, not competence, MASTERY!

Like I said, I'm not a professional educator - so my interpretation is probably really limited in scope.  I am by no means a master at it.

However, the current CAP exam system isn't set up so that the exams are the final step or the gateway to promotions.  They are just another step in a non-sequencial promotion process.  So if you take course 13 before completing any of the other requirements, how can you test the mastery of the subject matter when it isn't being put to use?

So, in using (my interpretation which may or may not be right)bloom's here, the courses themselves are delivering the knowledge, the current exams are testing only whether or not the person has memorized the facts.  So the exam should test the comprehension and the rest of the requirements for promotion should 'test' the other components to complete the other missing levels.

I appreciate what you're saying, and I'm glad you brought up bloom's matrix.

My point is... there is no evaluation of mastery or any other skill level. You just checklist some courses & TIG, then promote. That's highly problematic. You really want one thing at each grade level that requires people to show mastery of the entry level skills for the next grade level. There should be stuff that some people simply cannot pass. It's not about weeding people out (of promotion, not CAP) that can't make the cut at the next level, though that's not a bad thing. It's about making sure people have the skills they need to do the job.

Right now that's not the case & it makes grade completely worthless as a measure of anything. And in doing so, it cuts the legs out from under our org's ability to function & excel. I know we all want to see the org reach its great potential. One of the biggest steps in that is really ensuring that we give our people the tools to succeed. Otherwise PD is just a big waste of time & we're throwing them in the fire set up to fail anyway. That's bad leadership & core values on our part if we allow that to happen.

[SAR-EMT1]

We have gone off topic /

But as to what is currently being discussed..
I am NOT a supporter of online learning in any shape or form.
Primarily thats personal: my computer connection isnt fast enough nor does my video card support streams. And the connection issue is an area issue, I'd need to drive 30 minutes to find something faster.

From what Ive heard of/ seen of the Online SOS I wont be able to do it. But then again I cannot access myspace or any number of other sites either.

I AM however a supporter of paper based coorespondance courses.
1- portability; can be studied anywhere (aka away from a computer terminal)
2- availibility; do not need an high speed connection to access the information.

It disappoints me that the internet is seen by everyone as the "ultimate solution" for distance-learning.

... Im writing this on a Celeron processor with a 64 K video card and a 12Mbps
Internet connection.

[Eclipse]

Not to derail this thread, but...

1. Cadets cheat now.  Most get caught and punished.
2. The main reasoning is not that some squadrons only test once per month.

1 - Yes they do, so this will mean you won't need to "cheat" because "cheating" will be the method of the test - test open in one browser window, Google in another.  This is, in fact, how 90% of cadets will take the test, if you believe otherwise, you are being naive, or you don't understand how kids today operate.

Many of them operate in a mental space in which ethics are "fluid", and will justify their behavior because its an open book test.  Have a discussion with anyone under 21 who shares music online if you want an eye-opening experience regarding ethics.

But it doesn't matter because "cheating" in the usual sense (have someone take it for you, download the answers, etc.)is obsolete when the sum total of human knowledge is indexed for easy searching with one click, and you're encouraged to use it.

2 - the main reasoning was presented as a reaction to:
      The difficulty and bureaucracy of obtaining and tracking the tests.
      The fact that many squadrons limit testing opportunities.
      The real-world fact that anything distributed via the USPS is yesterday's news.

This is once again a program-wide fix for a unit-specific problem, as mikey says, one answers is easy and simple, while all three are fixable via other solutions than a cadet sitting by himself and logging into eServices to take the test, with the overtly authorized ability to simply text-search the answers.

[dwb]

This is, in fact, how 90% of cadets will take the test, if you believe otherwise, you are being naive, or you don't understand how kids today operate.

I love random statistics.  You're saying 90% of cadets lack integrity.  I really find that statistic hard to believe.

There are cadets today that attempt to brute force the achievement tests.  Some cram two hours before the meeting and retain just enough to get through the test, then drop the knowledge on the floor on their way out of the room.

Many of them operate in a mental space in which ethics are "fluid", and will justify their behavior because its an open book test.

Well, time for some training in core values then, don't you think?

BTW, the provision for in-person milestone tests is a nice check.  Sure you can google the online tests, but you'll never make it past C/SrA and you'll send up some red flags at your unit if you pass the online tests with flying colors then get a 40% on the Wright Brothers.

Allow me to preempt here: "Yes, but then they can just cram for the milestone awards!"  That's nice, but that's right where we are today, so what's the difference?

This is once again a program-wide fix for a unit-specific problem,

I think it calls attention to a very common unit problem, but not the same problem you're thinking of.

The cadet achievement tests are meant to be self-study, always have been, and likewise should always be supplemented with training and hands-on experiences in the unit.

The achievement tests are merely the minimum amount of knowledge the cadets should be receiving, but the rest of what the unit offers is where the money ought to be.

Now, you and I know a lot of units don't operate this way.  In addition to a lack of coherent training, some units just promote cadets as soon as they pass tests, without paying attention to the other requirements for promotion (active participation, being prepared for the increase in responsibility commensurate with the new rank, etc.)

If you look at the white paper, it states more than once that cadets should be receiving mentoring for questions they missed, that they will be locked out of testing if they fail twice, etc.

There are a lot of checks in their proposed system, a lot more than what exist in the other online tests we have today.

I was skeptical when I first heard the idea, but once you hear the whole idea, I think it does make a lot of sense.  I think the whole "it's too hard to maintain paper tests" thing is mostly a farce, though I do have first-hand experience with squadrons that didn't keep their tests up-to-date, and didn't even realize it.

It's not as simple as saying "90% of cadets will google the tests", and you're not giving cadets the credit they're due by saying that.