Reviewing SDAs

[Pylon]

I'm looking to develop some sort of standard to evaluate, grade, and review cadet officer SDAs (or Staff Duty Analysis).

As it stands now, it's extremely vague what constitutes an acceptable SDA.  Does a cadet just check the boxes of the requirements listed, and even if the forms are filled out sloppily or the essay is riddled with grammar, does it still count?    Should there be a score assigned or grading done, and if so, by what critera and what grade constitutes passing?

Should a review sheet, similar to a CAPF 50 or an inspection checklist, but dealing instead with the different sections of an SDA, be developed instead to evaluate them?  Will one generic evaluation do for each achievement, or will each achievement need it's own SDA evaluation sheet and criteria?

It seems as it stands now, the brevity of the guidance given S'members by CAPP 14 (not to mention the lack of good guidance for the cadets writing them) makes it near impossible to do much other than file the SDA away and check the requirement off. 

My Group is looking to develop such a standard, and at least use it within our Group (as well as make it available to any other unit that wishes to use it).  Any thoughts or opinions or experiences related to SDAs would be welcome... 

[MIKE]

I'd wait and see what is gonna happen with CAPR 52-16, and SDAs in particular before I'd start anything too involved.

[abysmal]

What the ambiguity DOES offer us right now is the ability to tailor our expectations based upon the cadet that is submitting it.

If we have a "High-Acheiver" then we can allow the SDA to be a vehicle for this Cadet to display his abilities.
Conversely, if we have a "Under-Acheiver" that is still trying his best, this will not become an insurmountable obsticle for him to over come.

[Pylon]

What the ambiguity DOES offer us right now is the ability to tailor our expectations based upon the cadet that is submitting it.

If we have a "High-Acheiver" then we can allow the SDA to be a vehicle for this Cadet to display his abilities.
Conversely, if we have a "Under-Acheiver" that is still trying his best, this will not become an insurmountable obsticle for him to over come.

True, but I'm not necessarily thinking of a binding system or a regulatory "it meets this specific criteria, and is graded 65/100 to count."  I was thinking more on the guidance end of things.  Specific traits and important things that the SM evaluators should be looking for:  grammar, spelling, and proper usage of the English language as a communication tool.  Perhaps they could also have things to consider as detractors from the SDA, such as ambiguous text, uninterpretable passages, run-on sentences, incoherent rambling, messy handwriting (if written), etc.

The idea behind the SDA (at least, I think) is to improve the ability of the cadets to communicate effectively in the written word.  Therefore, a constructive approach to the SDA could be that the evaluator examines the SDA as far as completeness goes, but also how the cadet went about completing it and how effective the final product is.  If the cadet needs improvement, the evaluator can sit down with the cadet and explain what areas need improvements, why, and then give them a suggested time frame for reviewing the SDA.  It doesn't mean they failed because of some shortcomings, but they're not getting an automatic green light either.  It ensures that learning is taking place.

If an instructor gave an automatic passing grade to every student who ever completed an assignment, just because they completed it, those assignments would lose all their worth as learning tools.  SDAs have lost their worth as learning tools, as they are currently implemented; I want to fix that - Not avoid the problem by just pretending that we don't need written communication.

[abysmal]

SDAs have lost their worth as learning tools, as they are currently implemented; I want to fix that - Not avoid the problem by just pretending that we don't need written communication.

Could that be why they are looking at changing them in the new 52-16 ??

Mod Edit: Fixed a broken formatting tag.  --MK

[Pylon]

SDAs have lost their worth as learning tools, as they are currently implemented; I want to fix that - Not avoid the problem by just pretending that we don't need written communication.

Could that be why they are looking at changing them in the new 52-16 ??

They aren't looking at changing them in the proposed CAPR 52-16 changes.  NHQ is suggesting that, because the program is currently ambiguous, we should just abandon SDAs all together, and forget that written communication is important at all.   

[abysmal]

That consitutes a pretty major change in my book.