The California Wing has apparently had an online testing system, linked in with the national online testing center, for at least 3 years now. Included are tests for Scanner, Observer, UDF Team member, AOBD, Comm Unit Leader, Liasion, and Safety Officer. For most of those jobs they also have online training materials.
You don't have to be a CA Wing member to take the tests.
I wonder why these haven't officially gone national? Using online testing to knock out some of the book-learning tasks makes a whole lot of sense to me. We need to focus our valuable training time on hands-on skills rather than givng powerpoint lectures to folks about this sort of stuff.
linky?
https://tests.cap.af.mil/ops/tests/default.cfm?grp=pcr
Not every wing believes in written tests for ES quals. This applies to some groups. I had a group ESO tell me ALL GTM3 tasks had to be done in the field. There are several that are simple 'identify a picture of _____ and describe how to handle it.' Why would this need to be done in the field? Another one is the Basic Comm for ES task. It's a paperwork task, not a skill demonstration like using a signal mirror.
I've taken the CAWG CUL test. Nothing good or bad to say about it.
I am very impressed with the quality of the CA Wing on-line ES training and point our people to it to download the appropriate course PDF files and complete them. For Mission Scanner and Mission Observer, the CA courses are superior to what is provided in ECI 2130A and 2130B. You also don't have to mess around with ordering the courses and then ordering the tests and then waiting for the results. Most of the other CA courses have no ECI equivalents. However, the on-line test is irrelevant.
The actual test for ES achievements is to successfully pass the evaluation questions for each operational task as published in the appropriate Task Training Guide. The CA courses provide the best study material I have seen to help prepare a person to pass the task, but it is not a replacement for one-on-one training and evaluation.
Quotebut it is not a replacement for one-on-one training and evaluation.
As far as for actual tasks, I'm with you, but knowledge-based tasks do not should not need to be done in person. The sort of tasks that go: "Name 3 thing...." can be done just as easily online.
Sorry, since we're talking about ES, which theoretically involves the safety of life and property, I want to know the person testing is the person I think it is, in-person.
I have no issue with members referencing their task guides during qualification tasking, however I am strongly against online, open-book test situations where all you need is Google.
Multiple-guess testing is not the way to know if our people are ready to protect themselves or others.
Eclipse,
What you said just makes no sense.
If I am allowed to use my task guide to complete my tasks.....what does it matter if I Use google or not.
The in person thing....well....what about IS 100, 200, 700, 800....how do you "know" that the person who is presenting you with that certificate is the guy who actually took the test?
At some point we have to take our people at their word.
So....I have not take any of the CAWG tests....the only question I have is....are the tests constructed in a way that they actually cover and evaluate all the knowledge tasks in the task guides.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 01:31:51 AM
If I am allowed to use my task guide to complete my tasks.....what does it matter if I Use google or not.
Because if you can find it in the task guide, you have likely read it at least once, especially considering the way some of the guides are laid out. In person I'll also know if you have a clue about what you're speaking about but have to look up a random fact or nuance, versus simply copy/pasting the verbatim question into Google and being taken to the exact answer.
A failure in an ICS situation won't likely get you or someone else dead, its about command, control, and planning, and in most cases there are other people around as safety nets.
Not knowing how to use a compass, what natural hazards are, or similar is a different story.
We do enough distance learning as it is on academic stuff, we don't need more.
Everyone I evaluate for MO and MS using the SQTR tasks and the task guide always score 100%. Why - because the evaluation is not Pass/Fail or a minimum score. If they nail the evaluation questions, we press on. If not, I spend time working with them them to make sure they understand the task and sucessfully perform it. Then we press on to the next task. The SQTR tasks are suppose to be demonstrated to an evaluator before they can be signed off. It is not "pass seven of ten of the following tasks". Any on-line test would have to require 100% to pass and then would still fail to provide the state or local area information and procedures the trainees need. It is all about training people, not trying to set a speed record in getting everything signed off.
There is nothing in any of the ICS courses that I would consider critical for aircrew or ground team members. It is just good "context" infomation so they understand how they fit in the grand scheme of things. That changes as you move through the higher ops achievements.
^What he said...
Quotethe only question I have is....are the tests constructed in a way that they actually cover and evaluate all the knowledge tasks in the task guides.
That I haven't investigated. Of course, even the AFIADL courses don't go over everything that is required in the current SQTRs.
QuoteWhy - because the evaluation is not Pass/Fail or a minimum score.
Actually, it is pass-fail for each part of each task. I've got absolutely no problem with online tests requiring a 100% to pass if they are to substitute for in-person quizes. I do disagree with never failing anybody on a task -- if they don't know it, they need to go back home and study and come back to you later to prove it. Telling them the right answer when they got it wrong is not how it is supposed to be done.
It is not a matter of telling them the right answer - it is a matter of teaching them the correct information. My mission is not to fail people, it is to train them on the information they need and then see that they demonstrate it properly. Some people get evaluated and passed in 30 minutes - others take multiple sessions. They don't get signed off until they know it.
Shortfield you need to go back and review the SET training. You should not be mixing training and evaluation
AFTER training the person, you should perform the evaluation. If they fail the evaluation, go back and train them some more. Then re-evaluate in a seperate session.
Many states preclude the trainer from being the evaluator. Though practical reality gets in the way of this most o the time, I agree with the sentiment.
When you are acting as an SET, you are not training. Either they know it or they don't, and if they don't, they do not pass.
ES tasking should not be a "correct to 100%" situation. If, after they fail a given task, you want to show them the right way to do it, fine, however they don't get a second try with you that day, and they should really go to someone else on their next eval.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2008, 05:56:18 PM
Many states preclude the trainer from being the evaluator. Though practical reality gets in the way of this most o the time, I agree with the sentiment.
When you are acting as an SET, you are not training. Either they know it or they don't, and if they don't, they do not pass.
ES tasking should not be a "correct to 100%" situation. If, after they fail a given task, you want to show them the right way to do it, fine, however they don't get a second try with you that day, and they should really go to someone else on their next eval.
Except for the fact that just about all ES tasks allow you to use the Training Guide during the evaluation process....ergo the "you failed go back and study" option is not really valid.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 06:21:59 PM
Except for the fact that just about all ES tasks allow you to use the Training Guide during the evaluation process....ergo the "you failed go back and study" option is not really valid.
The tasking always has to be to the satisfaction of the examiner, that's certainly subjective.
Referencing a guide during tasking is not the same as using Google online to game a test, in fact it epitomizes
the idea of the "open book test", which Google makes a mockery of.
Here are the bullets from the SET trainers course:
Don't teach students while evaluating tasks
–If you assist one student, you must assist them all
–Don't often have the time
•Teaching is accomplished during assigned teaching periods
The intent of this ^^^ is good but the goal is still to provide trained and qualified people. I don't worry much about the first bullet since I do assist all of them, and we take however much time it requires. Using the CA Wing training materials, I find there are very few who don't know the material but there are some points they need refeshing or clarification on. If I had 15 cadets I was evaluating at once, it would be different. But I don't do group evaluations.
QuoteExcept for the fact that just about all ES tasks allow you to use the Training Guide during the evaluation process
Where is that allowed? Citation or example, please.
I don't recall seeing anything about these being open book tests.
Well it looks like I got caught in a "that's how they do it here/at NESA/in the USAF" situation.
It seems that it does not say one way or the other if the trainee can or cannot refer to his task guide.
Having said that.....
Here are my thoughts.
1) The task guide is required equipment (at least for GT's)
2) There is almost nothing that we encounter that would require "immediate actions" that would make us have to memorise all the information.
3) From an USAF maintence back ground...we are "T.O./checklist Driven" that is we never do anything without the reference text/checklist/technal order out and on the appropriate page (we do not always do this...but when we get evaluated we always have out T.O.'s out).
We should train/evaluate like we fight....if we want our GTs to have and use their task guides we should allow them to use them during evlaution.
But....there is nothing that says the evaluation is open book.....YMMV.
As for "teaching during the evalution".....
Read the last sentance in each of the tasks......it says...
QuoteIf the individual fails any
measure, show what was done wrong and how to do it correctly.
There is nothing that says you cannot then immediately reevaluate them on the task......nor does it say that you have to immediatly reevaluate them....so again it will all depend on the evaluatior, the student, time and the training situation.
Again.....non of this really precludes us from using online or paper tests to do the "book learing" portion of the evaluation.
If you have concerns about someone gaming the test...okay....but I think you are making it harder then it needs to be based on the lack of integrity of what I think is a minorty of our members.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EXACTLY
With NO real guidance established anywhere in the "regs" or the CAP ES curriculum, then it is ALL up to individual interpretation
You folks really got to lighten up. However the training gets done barring, pencilwhipping, can be done on an individual basis or groups of 12 or less For you CAP types ... that's squd sized training often known as hip pocket training.
And you know those little ol taskbooks?? Why do suppose they are BDU pocket sized??
Dare ya , just tell me.... then I"LL tell you why they are that size. Bring your taskbooks EVERYWHERE and study it when you got a moment.
Leave these worry worts in the dust study when can. Test when you can and don't let somebody tell you to come back next month...... Delaying people is just POOR TIME MANAGEMENT!!!!
Quote from: heliodoc on October 23, 2008, 08:01:09 PM
Delaying people is just POOR TIME MANAGEMENT!!!!
And the fastest way to demotivate energetic newbies who joined because they want to contribute on SAR mission.
The task guides are small sized so that you can have them while training in the field and to have as a reference afterwards. However, that does not mean that you are not expected to be able to complete the task without assistance or that you do not have to have knowledge-based task information memorized in order to become qualified.
^ A valid opinion, but not shared by everyone.
You know, I have had some degree of confidence in our ES training system. Sure, I knew that there was some occassional pencil-whipping going on, but to find out that there are people out there who believe that ES tasks are tested on an open-book basis just blows my mind.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 23, 2008, 11:19:09 PM
You know, I have had some degree of confidence in our ES training system. Sure, I knew that there was some occassional pencil-whipping going on, but to find out that there are people out there who believe that ES tasks are tested on an open-book basis just blows my mind.
As I said...they let us use the task guides at NESA...and it NESA let's you do it....you got to assume that it is kosher.
From the notes to the SET training:
"By the time students come to this stage, they should not need to be taught. If they need additional instruction, then that should be accomplished at a later time."
Having to use a task guide clearly indicates that the student is not prepared to carry out a task or doesn't know what they need to know.
Just because something is done at a national activity doesn't necessarily mean it is being done correctly. Now I understand how people are getting all those quals done in a week -- they don't really know everything.
River, you're purposely misinterpreting what we are saying to you to make your argument.
It really comes down to what your goal is. My goal is to train a pool of qualified and motivated people I can trust to perform to a standard when I run a SAR mission.
It is personnal because I want enough qualified and motivated people showing up so that the next time I report to fly as a MP on a SAREX, I don't get told I can't fly because I have to be the AOBD/PSC/OSC because only the CUL and GBD have a clue and the IC can't run the IMU.
So how training do you "pros" really get done??
Committing everything to memory? What do you think we run here ... a paramilitary school where memorize or get kicked out??
Sure by the time "students\" come to the evaluator, you think these folks aren't nervous??
I know plenty of senior officers that do not do ES every day and are pretty rusty and when we go out in the field every body gets a chance to show their stuff and either succedd or fail. We pick up the "fails" if you can tell em that train again.
You guys and memorization, you claim you are some super SAR guys
The SET, unless they are a degreed teacher or a true instructor, aSET is only a person who took ann online quiz and somehow now is the resident expert or SME (subject matter expert)
I carry the SET like any one here, BUT I know I am not perfect like some of you so called CAP Super SAR experts.
Plenty of egos going around and really the taskbooks when they state all this memorization who is ready and not ready, it is all subjective.
Someday their maybe true oversight on "CAP Training." Until then it 's really up to the units and how they run things. Not everybody in CAP trains accordingly. What true CAP training standard is out there other than a bunch of volunteers interpreting on the fly
I still say carry that task book with you, study, prepare, even in the Army there was "some degree" of coaching, so don't try to tell me that you guys are so hard core that folks are up all night like a first year college chem class and 4 pots of coffee going over this stuff. Be realistic and do not waste people time and tell them to come back "later"
Nip it in the bud and triain with the TASKBOOK and use it like it was meant to be used, whether its used for memorization or memory jogger during a CAP evaluation"
SET Training?? Is there any other than online?? If its not a 40 hr M 410 type or a DHS 40 hr up to two week training offsite or some school...... I wouldn't call o"online training for SET a true professional education or real certification type of class. I do not consider CAP online SET training as an end all cure all for evaluating anyone.
SHHHEEEESH
Given that I have seen members (both flavors) miss every point on several task evaluations even with the taskbook in hand and having been 'trained', I beleive a certain amount of memroization should be expected, especially with the time limited tasks (Use a Signal Mirror - 15 secs) and safety issues. If you can't do something that simple without using the taskbook, you really aren't ready to be on a ground team.
I do believe that the evaluators MUST use the task book when evaluating since that is the standard the member is being tested against. I have seen too many evaluators ignore the book and evaluate based on their "superior knowledge and skills". This usually is based on unique, unwritten unit specific requirements that no one who hasn't trained with that unit knows about.