CA Wing online ES testing -- why hasn't it gone national?

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Tubacap]

linky?

[IceNine]

https://tests.cap.af.mil/ops/tests/default.cfm?grp=pcr

[arajca]

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.

[Short Field]

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. 

[RiverAux]

but 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. 

[Eclipse]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Short Field]

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.

[Eclipse]

^What he said...

[RiverAux]

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.

That I haven't investigated.  Of course, even the AFIADL courses don't go over everything that is required in the current SQTRs. 

Why - 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. 

[Short Field]

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. 

[cnitas]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Short Field]

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.

[RiverAux]

Except 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.

[lordmonar]

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...

If 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.