February 22, 2020, 04:12:42 pm

Professional Development Changing Again

Started by culpeper, January 31, 2020, 02:53:40 pm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

abdsp51

Quote from: culpeper on February 04, 2020, 02:10:20 pmMajor, you know people are rarely expelled for the most obvious reason.  And all those internal controls are there for exactly that.  And I'm not referring to a productive member. 

You need to throttle back some Francis.  Your post said nothing about a productive member in any aspect.  You need to listen and observe more and then speak. 

Phil Hirons, Jr.


MSG Mac

When can we realistically expect the new 50-17 to hit the street?
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

kcebnaes

Quote from: MSG Mac on February 04, 2020, 09:10:25 pmWhen can we realistically expect the new 50-17 to hit the street?
I don't know about the reg itself, but 4 August 2020 is when the whole new program is supposed to drop. I'd guess that it all ties together though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sean Beck, Maj, CAP
Ohio Wing, Group 6 Commander
Various Other Things™

jjmalott

We're running our last online SLS/CLC in April, and UCC in May.  All to be completed by 1 June


Jeff Malott, Lt Col, CAP
National eLearning Coordinator

KASSRCrashResearch

Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Bingo. 

I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of what ever is going on.

Fester

Quote from: KASSRCrashResearch on February 10, 2020, 12:19:43 am
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Bingo. 



My work schedule prevents pretty much ANY weekend activity.  Because of this, I've now taken SLS, CLC and am now taking UCC online.  I have met plenty of peers through these online courses.  From all over the country.
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

culpeper

I'm discovering that PD is important to prevent mediocrity being thrust upon us at the risk of partly quoting Joseph Heller slightly out-of-context.

  Professional Development is obviously not for everyone.  But I hope the upcoming changes will make it more available to those that have been wanting it but couldn't due to time constraints. 





Spam

If we were paraphrasing Heller here, it should be more like:

Some members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them.


Professional development is no panacea for mediocrity; it is entirely possible to end up with a well educated, credentialed idiot who, having gained the complacency of advanced training, has grown a correspondingly large blind spot as to the diverse needs of the volunteer team.

Ideally, we would structure a PD revamp upon a goals based, top down training focused critical task analysis (CTA) resulting in KSAs for R20-1 position descriptions. Then a secondary set of short studies to map out delivery methodologies, skills decay and recurrency training requirements, et al. There's an ample body of guidance to help structure a Training Needs Analysis, and there are probably a couple of dozen professionals in our membership who do training program development every day for pay, but likely CAP won't do that and won't ask for experienced volunteers. I've almost never seen CAP have any kind of deliberative study to come up with a plan before pushing someone's pet project idea.

V/r
Spam

KASSRCrashResearch

Quote from: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 amSome members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them

There it is ladies and gentlemen, the reality of CAP summed up in one snarky sentence.

*slow clap*



I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of what ever is going on.

catrulz

February 11, 2020, 01:06:01 pm #50 Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 01:32:07 pm by catrulz
Quote from: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 amIf we were paraphrasing Heller here, it should be more like:

Some members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them.


Professional development is no panacea for mediocrity; it is entirely possible to end up with a well educated, credentialed idiot who, having gained the complacency of advanced training, has grown a correspondingly large blind spot as to the diverse needs of the volunteer team.

Ideally, we would structure a PD revamp upon a goals based, top down training focused critical task analysis (CTA) resulting in KSAs for R20-1 position descriptions. Then a secondary set of short studies to map out delivery methodologies, skills decay and recurrency training requirements, et al. There's an ample body of guidance to help structure a Training Needs Analysis, and there are probably a couple of dozen professionals in our membership who do training program development every day for pay, but likely CAP won't do that and won't ask for experienced volunteers. I've almost never seen CAP have any kind of deliberative study to come up with a plan before pushing someone's pet project idea.

V/r
Spam

I have directed many SLS and CLC (and taught in many more).  The box checker instructors compound the experience of the box checker students.  Meanwhile, those that are really excited about the information, are hurt by both non-box checker and box checker seminar instructors who don't bother to prepare for their seminar.  I said years ago, they should remove instructor requirements from advancement criteria.  It hurts the membership.

And perhaps that will be a positive of distance learning.  It doesn't make sense to overhaul the PD requirements without simultaneously overhauling the Promotion Reg. 35-5 & 50-17 should almost always have concurrent changes.

This is not going to stop box checking.  But it would prevent box checkers from hurting the development of those that are interested and want to learn. 

Edited: Spelling

Spam

Catrulz,


In general, I fully agree with your suggestion to remove the "must instruct" elements of the program. While doubtless initiated to help grow the business, so to speak, with respect to a pool of instructors, it seems to have had a very negative impact in some areas due to the resulting lack of quality control in PD instruction.

In specific, I would want to keep a "must instruct" course of progressive understudy trainer/mentoring/primary trainer flow as part of a new "PD Train the Trainer" course.  I'd rather see a professional PD track instructor, who is jazzed about training and is a specialist with some hands on mentoring, giving the same course material time after time, with an understudy or two, than to see a continuous flow of clock-watching, chart-flipping guys who just need to get Level III finished. Being a bit limited by the availability of that small PD trainer community would be an acceptable trade off, I feel.

However, even the best motivated presenter/facilitator (of either a resident or distributed/online method of delivery) still is hindered when the training material is the result of a spasm, rather than actual deliberative instructional system design.  That, really, is the revamp that I'm (probably in vain) hoping for this year.


Going all online either as a panacea for poor instructorship, or doing so without a training needs analysis, is a mistake.


PS
I also would be remiss if I didn't mention the need to integrate CP PD training (the TLCs) into the system. I've had literally dozens of students complaining over the past five years about lack of TLC credit because we still rely on manual credit entry at NHQ (only). Slow, inaccurate, and lost .PDF Form 11s. No online F11 option exists there, which is sadly easy to fix.


R/s
Spam

catrulz

Spam,

I had a concept that SLS should be changed to SSS (Squadron Staff School).  SSS would be 4 hours CAP programs and background, and then every student would do a 12 hour directed look at their Tech Specialty.  This would be an in depth dive into the S-Track Guide (Pamphlet), and an look at the regulations for that rating. Throw in some best practices and Wing Supplements, and perhaps area M&Ps.

Instructors, would be primarily mentors for this part of the class.  But have a workbook that must be approved at the end of the class.  And have some exercises in the workbooks to ensure immersion.  There will still be pencil whipping and box checking, not sure of any system that will totally eliminate this.

Keep CLC, and make it completely CAP focused.  But focus Level II completely on attaining a Tech rating.  And even if the individual shows up for the course with their tech rating complete, going back through the steps (re-immersion) might help make for training oversights at the unit level.

KASSRCrashResearch

Quote from: catrulz on February 11, 2020, 01:06:01 pmI said years ago, they should remove instructor requirements from advancement criteria.  It hurts the membership.

Once more, for the people in the back of NHQ.

Either you want to be an instructor or you don't.  Forcing people to teach who do not want to or who lack either the pedagogical skills or a firm grasp on the topic to teach no only waste time it drives people away. 

I remember when I first joined and they assigned me a former mission pilot (a guy in his late 70s) to "teach me" how to read a VFR chart. Even after pointing out that I have about 800-900 hours of flight time (mostly in ultralights but also tons of dual), he spent three HOURS going over it.  Actually, he spent about 30 minutes going over it.  He kept either zoning out or falling asleep.  It became readily apparent why he was no longer a pilot (obviously medically unfit) but the squadron still kept him on the books out of courtesy because he had been with them so long. Super nice guy....just not doing great medically (I seem to recall that he passed away a year or so later).

I can only imagine the sort of impression that would have left with someone who wasn't aware of why this guy was still part of CAP. 
I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of what ever is going on.

Eclipse

February 12, 2020, 08:05:18 pm #54 Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 09:00:05 pm by Eclipse
No one is "forced to teach" - further if the various directors allow poor instructors
to waste members' time, that is a failure of local leadership and the director, not NHQ per se.
For the last 8+ years, the progression requirement has been "Serve as director or staff member of a CAP
course or educational activity or national, region, or wing conference..."

When I have a say in activities and PD, I only choose instructors who are knowledgeable on
the topic they are assigned, and filter those who are either wives tale factories, or slide readers
to non-instructor roles, or simply disinvite them. The person taking roll and going for the pizzas is
just as much a "staff member" as the instructors, and when you actually read Att 3, the list of activities that
qualify insures is pretty much everything a member would ever do, with the majority literally being unrelated to PD.

Further to this from the member side, while we all have to occasionally endure an unforeseen
waste-of-time briefing, no one is nailing shoes to the floor.  In the example cited about chart reading,
why would an adult endure a 3-hour root canal about something they already know, and presumably could demonstrate?

Just leave.  It's really simple, and feels pretty good when you do it.

CAP is no different then any other situation an adult finds themselves in, if you let people
waste your time, that's on you, not them, and frankly nothing will change until someone says "enough".

So much of CAP would be fixed overnight it, instead of trying to change the regulations, people just actually read them.



Spam

Quote from: catrulz on February 12, 2020, 01:03:26 pmSpam,

I had a concept that SLS should be changed to SSS (Squadron Staff School).  SSS would be 4 hours CAP programs and background, and then every student would do a 12 hour directed look at their Tech Specialty.  This would be an in depth dive into the S-Track Guide (Pamphlet), and an look at the regulations for that rating. Throw in some best practices and Wing Supplements, and perhaps area M&Ps.

With respect Catrulz, your proposal seems logical in general terms but is an example of what I'm trying to point out; we need NHQ people to follow good Instructional Systems Design (ISD) principles and not just do off the cuff course design.

First, (and I agree with you on the need to redesign SLS and like your objectives), your first proposal already segments off hours (4, 12, etc.) as if the hours are the first order of business. The right way to do ISD isn't to set off saying "we need a 4 hour block here" or "we need 3 online courses there". Could be 2... might be 16... depends depends.

What I'm pointing out is that using a correct top down approach, we would start with defining the strategic PD framework (what KSAs are required at various volunteer career points, for approximately how many students to meet notional Wing needs). Then make some realistic assumptions about the methods of delivery needed (in resident RSCs, etc. vs. local in person vs. online cooperative vs. self study online, etc.). Then, in context, we get to the PD segment which would focus on what is currently addressed by SLS.

For SLS (or your SSS), we could start by documenting learning objectives to meet a desired outcome (for students including A - N specialties with a minimum ___ proficiency, by the end of the course of training they will have mastered the following material:  <list, perhaps broken down by specialty track>). Based on those objectives, we could do a quick records based analysis of the potential specialty track members in each Wing who'd be potential SME instructor pool members (it makes no sense to select in-person led local training if half our Wings have no Masters levels in one track or another). From that, it may become apparent that we need a combo of delivery methods (e.g. online cooperative mentored/led with chat rooms with Masters level people from other Wings, for example) plus an in-residence element. The current IG specialty track schools would be a good model (my mentor for online IG school was from Montana or somewhere and he was sharp)! Lastly, THEN we talk about size and duration... not first! Let's not get blocked into thinking that all training has to be in two, four, and eight hour blocks!  Training should be to the skill levels and KSAs desired, NOT merely to fill up a two day weekend!

In principle I like your approach to focus on A school, Squadron focused tech level training at what is now SLS. Notionally following up with a B school, Group and Senior rating focus school and a C level Masters school would be an interesting approach (I know I'm extrapolating a bit from what you've suggested here). I would suppose that we'd probably end up with a mix of training delivery methods, as I've mentioned. Also, I'd strongly recommend thinking carefully about linking/de linking schools from promotion requirements. Also, I'd strongly recommend against a blanket approach to class admission prerequisites based on college degrees, as opposed to meeting CAP specialty track KSAs/experience/ratings. These are all training and PD strategic goal issues that I'd hope (but don't expect) to be looked at now, as part of a systematic review for the nascent regulation now in formation.

Am I making any sense, I hope? I am not an ISD professional, but I've worked with them in producing training packages for aerospace and defense engineering, and I know we have them in CAP (under used and un consulted of course much like many of our organic professionals).

But, I am less than sanguine regarding the potential that we'll get the approach right, based on past results and the "not invented here" trend at NHQ.  Sigh... with all the pros out there to help on a process action team, NHQ continues to waste our talent pool. They put ads out for volunteer staffers to do stuff and in some cases never even send a follow up email... so we'll get what we get and continue to look amateurish as we make the best of what we've pasted together amateurishly. I expect that much like our AD big brothers we'll hack it, and continue to be-yeatch continually, here.

#decadesofCAPfatalism
#lackofprocessadherence
#stillnouniformmanual
... grin.

V/r
Spam

catrulz

Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2020, 08:05:18 pmNo one is "forced to teach" - further if the various directors allow poor instructors
to waste members' time, that is a failure of local leadership and the director, not NHQ per se.
For the last 8+ years, the progression requirement has been "Serve as director or staff member of a CAP
course or educational activity or national, region, or wing conference..."

Well maybe, I attempt to offer opportunity to new and established members.  I generally only have a single staff person to do all the admin work.  This is usually filled bu someone who refuses to instruct.  One has to wonder, if the idea behind the Level III requirements, was possibly for mid level members to show new members that they know what they are doing?  Maybe not!  Myself, not being as omnipresent as one that can hide celestial bodies, don't have knowledge of all applicants.  By the way I taught at Scott and they didn't know my knowledge level.

One of the 13 principles of leadership:  Be technically and tactically proficient.

I think technical proficiency is more important in CAP.  Tactical if your a ground team member (tactical proficiency speaks to physical fitness the ability to perform your mission without being a hinderance to the team).

Not sure why I always take the bait, and just don't let it go!

Spam:

I agree with you completely.  My time example was pulled from my third point of contact.  My overall point being, SLS should concentrate primarily on making knowledgeable technicians.  I think we're on the same page.

Spam

I agree, Cat! Its worth the time to game this out well before dropping the new regs and classes as we will be living with this until approx AD2035.

Vday hugs and love to all y'all.
Spam

culpeper

Day 1 Block 1 required prerequisite reading for UCC states that I'm wrong.  Not that there is anything wrong with that in itself.  I was going to get myself killed in the process or die trying.