TLC and UCC for AFIADL-13

[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.