Klystron wrote:

A standard technique in college-level courses is to assign some
readings that will not be discussed in class.

With all due respect, this is far from a college-level course. I have
limited expectations that the attendees will spend vast amounts of time
studying outside of class, and frankly I rather hope that that time will
be spent taking practice exams. I think it's unrealistic to expect that
if I "assign readings" anyone will actually read them.

Then, you give a test that
covers the outside readings as well as the lecture content. You could
use the question pool as outside reading material and then lecture about
actual practice. Difficult questions from the pool could be covered at
the end of class as an "extra help" session.

This would be a fine strategy if my primary goal were to teach concepts,
but my primary goal is to get these students a passing grade on the
test. Sorry, but that's just the way that it is. I don't think it's
appropriate for me to teach actual practice to people when they first
need to pass their written exam.

What I would *like* to do is teach a followup class on what people need
to know to get on the air -- how to select equipment, what actual
antennas are like, operating procedures, and so on. But I simply cannot
do that *and* teach them enough to pass the written test in the amount
of time available. I consider my first priority getting them past the
written test, then we can work from there.

I have to add, and I don't want to sound condescending, but I know that
some of the people who will attend this class are barely literate, much
less capable of reading and understanding the question pool . . . even
though it's written at a junior-high level. This may be another
challenge that I have -- how can I keep the intelligent people in the
class interested when the dumber-than-a-rock crowd doesn't even
understand the concept of what a frequency is?


Keep in mind that the Element 2 written test used to be the written
part of the Novice test.

Uh, no.

Arguably, it is easier to get a no-code
Technician license than it was to get a Novice license.

Different. Maybe easier, maybe not. Depends on how you learn and your
educational background.

The written test for Novice was trivial. I had no problem with it when
I was 13 years old. I also had no particular problem learning code when
I was 13 years old, but the theory test for General class was quite
intimidating. The Tech written is at least somewhat similar to the
General back then.

Please
understand: I am not complaining. I think that is a good situation,
especially if the intent is to draw newcomers into real-world
communications, like disaster relief and not the self-limited exchange
of beeps that the old Novice class was offered.

Sorry, but the the Novice class offered a lot more than "the
self-limited exchange of beeps". It was a true entry-level license with
incentive to upgrade. (You can't get much better incentive than the
license going away in a year.) You got a real taste for ham radio and a
real understanding of what the additional privileges you would earn
really meant.

The Tech license is not an ideal entry-level license. It requires quite
a bit of intimidating work to learn material that is pretty foreign to
people who have no experience in radio. Once you've got the license you
need someone to demonstrate the wonders of HF, else there is no
incentive to upgrade.

What I'm looking for is a real entry-level license, similar to the
Novice ticket, with an incentive to upgrade. I want to be able to
actually teach concepts and the real skills that people need to get
involved in ham radio, without feeling that I cannot do so because my
limited time must be spent getting them the knowledge to correctly pick
answers to pool questions.

But that's not likely to happen, so I'll do the best I can with what I have.

73, Steve KB9X