"Steve Bonine" wrote ...
The basic issue I'm wrestling with is walking the tightrope between
teaching the actual questions from the pool and teaching concepts. It's
not fair to the students to ignore the existence of the pool; after all,
one of the goals of the class is to prepare them to take the written exam.
But another goal is to get them ready to actually be an active member of
the ham radio community, and memorizing pool questions doesn't contribute
to that objective. So I'll try to do both -- cover concepts and review
the actual questions.

Why not teach the concept, and then *include* the pool questions
*among other examples* of practical application of the concept.
That would accomplish both while better tying them together.

On Oct 22, 8:15?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
Also keep in mind the new privileges that Technicians have regarding HF
since the changes in Dec. 2006 and February 2007. Possibly print out the
NEW band charts from the ARRL site and hand them out. You could give an HF
operating demo for example.

I actually have a bit of a problem explaining to potential Technician
Class licensees that they have CW privileges on HF bands. It just seems
either ironic or silly.

An HF demo is an excellent idea, but probably not possible as part of
the actual class. Setting up an HF station at the classroom location
would be an interesting challenge. (Might be fun, though.) Perhaps I
will invite the class to visit me at home so I can do some HF work, or
even schedule an extra session that's billed as a review session plus demo.

I prefer to explain things from the point of view that Technician is the
entry-level license, then demonstrate HF and explain that it's available
by passing additional written exams that are similar to what they're
studying for now. My experience is that "CW" is a four-letter word. YMMV.

I do plan to do some demos as you suggested in your other article,
including using a repeater, and maybe something related to EchoLink.
This will depend a little on the background of the students, something I
won't know until the first class.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Steve, I would say that a DEMO of anything that appeals to the senses
is excellent, be it a whole station or just a handheld VHF-UHF, with,
of course, a prearranged contact with a friend who knows that its a
class demonstration.

Audio-visual presentations have worked for six decades in getting
interest started and as a break in the formality of pure classroom
environments. It is a basic principle of effective marketing. It
gets the hook in the students to keep at it.

Yes, it is a lot more trouble to do, but even a short-and-snappy
contact with a "shack on the belt" handheld will have an emotional
appeal and break to the students. Quite probably most have already
heard this elsewhere but, with prearrangement with another ham, it
will be a solid contact. Even better, if the on-air conversation is
done with the contact's knowledge, the back-and-forth will be more
solid evidence of what can be done by Them later.

Everything should be aimed at the STUDENT. So far, I sense you have a
feeling for them, a very good thing in my opinion.

The students are all looking at you in the class. You are their
primary focus. The instructor has to be LOOKING and APPEARING relaxed
and at-ease with the subject. You will have to appeal to their
emotional senses to hold their interest. That's very subliminal but
it is also an almost essential thing. It isn't acting. It is just a
matter of remaining in contact with students, keeping their attention.

A lot of actual testing involves memorization of regulations, of the
law itself. Memorization of such things is indespensible at any level
of license class testing. It might be effective to have short periods
of the class involving spotlighting just one part of that, get the
class involved by having them do minor competition between themselves
in front of the class on what you've just explained to them. That's a
very old trick of many instructors, from public school on up to highly
theoretical subjects. It can be good if presented in a friendly
manner. It cannot be done effectively if it downplays the
intelligence or emotional being of the different students.

Just a few words of friendly advice on your good volunteerism. I hope
your classes do well and it is a success.

73, Len AF6AY

wrote:
Klystron wrote:

A standard technique in college-level courses is to assign some
readings that will not be discussed in class. 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 is an excellent idea *if* the info is readily available. Handouts
are a good idea too, as are links to specific web pages.
[...]


When I was studying for the Technician test, I made a printout of the
question pool and had it spiral bound at Kinko's (about $4).


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


I don't think that's true. Not anymore.
[...]


I was thinking back a bit farther than that. Do you have the element
breakdown for the 1970's and 1980's?


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.


I disagree!
[...]
IMHO, the ideal 2007 entry-level license would offer a variety of
bands and modes.


Which brings us back to the present-day Technician license. The 10
meter segment is quite substantial and the Novice CW segments are still
there, in the event that someone actually wants them.
Is there any data about how many no-code licensees ever use Morse?
I've seen a lot of wishful thinking among the old guard, but I don't
think that it is based in fact.

--
Klystron

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:15:10 -0400, Steve Bonine wrote:
studying for now. My experience is that "CW" is a four-letter word. YMMV.

Y'know, what I've found around here is that most new licensees (who didn't
*have* to learn Morse) are interested in learning Morse.

(whether they'll actually take the time to do it is another question)

As long as one emphasizes it is not *required*, I think it would do more
good than harm to at least mention CW as an option.

You don't have to worry about me mentioning CW . . . other than in
disaster scenarios, almost all of my operating is on CW. I am a CW
bigot, and it would be impossible for me to teach a class without
letting my love of CW show.

But that view is very much not held by the members of the local radio
club. None of them can understand how anyone could actually enjoy CW.
I have tried to explain it, and I don't think I'm a bad ambassador for
CW, but it just doesn't click with them. Mostly I just let the CW digs
pass me by, but I have every intention of introducing CW (and other
non-voice modes) in the class.

I am thrilled to hear that there is a desire to learn CW by people who
were not forced to do so. I was hoping that would happen. I don't
think *I* would have, so I tend to extrapolate my tendencies to today's
new hams. It will be interesting to look back in a few years and try to
determine how many new CW ops have come on board.

73, Steve KB9X

Richard Crowley wrote:

Why not teach the concept, and then *include* the pool questions
*among other examples* of practical application of the concept.
That would accomplish both while better tying them together.

To some extent that's exactly what I plan to do. However, there are a
number of concepts that aren't represented in the question pool with
specific questions. That's one reason I need to draw the distinction
between this being an introductory electronics class and it being a
license class for the Technician class exam.

73, Steve KB9X

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:

Also keep in mind the new privileges that Technicians have regarding HF
since the changes in Dec. 2006 and February 2007. Possibly print out the
NEW band charts from the ARRL site and hand them out. You could give an
HF operating demo for example.

I actually have a bit of a problem explaining to potential Technician
Class licensees that they have CW privileges on HF bands. It just seems
either ironic or silly.

An HF demo is an excellent idea, but probably not possible as part of the
actual class. Setting up an HF station at the classroom location would be
an interesting challenge. (Might be fun, though.) Perhaps I will invite
the class to visit me at home so I can do some HF work, or even schedule
an extra session that's billed as a review session plus demo.


If some hams in your area have mobile setups (like I do in my car), invite
one of them to come over and demo it in the vehicle.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:
On Oct 23, 12:03?am, Steve Bonine wrote:

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.

Who *are* these folks? I mean, the current written exams
have been passed by elementary school children years
away from middle school.

I probably shouldn't sell the students short until I see who actually
shows up. But the impetus for the class was a request from a couple of
people who have already attended two previous entry-level classes taught
by the radio club in the next town over. I saw their material; it's
good; anyone who managed to attend their class and not pass is either
unmotivated or unteachable.

I suggest that if you have low expectations, the class will
live down to them, and if you have high expectations, they
will live up to them.

You have an excellent point, and I will try to act on it. On the other
hand, I do have to be realistic. I have to adapt the material to the
level of the people in the class, to the best of my ability and striving
not to pitch it so low that part of the class gives up in disgust.

With all due respect, if someone cannot grasp the concept of what
a frequency is, they should not be a licensed radio amateur, IMHO.
Such a lack of basic radio knowledge means the person just isn't
qualified yet, and endangers both the person and those around them.

I think you've gone too far because I went too far in my example.

Let me try to say this in different words.

The students in this class live in rural Minnesota. Electronics is
foreign to most of them. They can run a GPS-controlled tractor and
cover their fields without double-spraying a single row, but don't
expect them to understand the concepts of how GPS works. Or want to.

It's a real challenge to teach electronics to this demographic. For one
thing, their motivation to learn the material is 100% related to passing
the exam; they really couldn't care less that 1 amp will flow through a
resistance of 1 ohm if 1 volt is applied. Some of it I can make "real"
-- bring in a long extension cord, measure the resistance, discuss what
that means when you put a welder at the end.

Most of these folks will never be electronics gurus. They don't need to
be. They need to understand enough concepts to understand how to
operate the equipment that they buy. Do they need to understand the
relationship between wavelength and frequency to do that? No.

The whole point of license testing is to insure that licensees know
the basics.

I'm not sure that's actually true. Why do we care that a Technician
licensee knows Ohm's law?

It seems to me that the point of license testing is to erect a barrier
to entry. If that were not the case, the license pool would look a lot
different. It would consist of regulations and practical knowledge that
was actually used on a day-to-day basis. It would consist of material
that, to use your phrase above, is essential to insuring that the
licensee is not a danger to the person and those around him.

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.

Then you need more time. It's that simple. The time can be
class time, or it can be time the students spend reading and
learning on their own. But it takes time to learn this stuff.

But I don't have more time. It's going to be hard enough convincing
people to come to six sessions spread over three weeks. If I asked for
more time, I would get no students. The goal is to figure out how to
best use the time I have.

If I'm really successful, I will be able to lure people back to a
followup class. That's the only way I'll ever get access to more of
their time.

"If it were easy, everybody would do it."

And we're back to the concept of the exam as a barrier to entry. If you
have zero barrier, you have CB. If you have infinite barrier, you have
no one entering.

Like everything else in life, this class is a series of tradeoffs. I
picked six two-hour sessions as a compromise between having enough time
to cover everything I want to cover and being able to attract enough
people to conduct a class. I'll trade off time covering concepts to
time covering specific pool questions since I owe it to the students to
cover both. And I'm sure I'll be challenged to keep it simple enough
for some students while trying to challenge the rest.

73, Steve KB9X

Dee Flint wrote:

If some hams in your area have mobile setups (like I do in my car), invite
one of them to come over and demo it in the vehicle.

I wish we were in a slightly different spot in the sunspot cycle grin
When the band's not open, HF looks a lot like VHF/UHF. Or worse.
"This is called white noise."

Your suggestion is an excellent one. Please take my comment as the
humor it is intended to be.

73, Steve KB9X

Steve Bonine wrote:
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:15:10 -0400, Steve Bonine wrote:
studying for now. My experience is that "CW" is a four-letter word.
YMMV.

Y'know, what I've found around here is that most new licensees (who
didn't
*have* to learn Morse) are interested in learning Morse.

(whether they'll actually take the time to do it is another question)

As long as one emphasizes it is not *required*, I think it would do more
good than harm to at least mention CW as an option.

You don't have to worry about me mentioning CW . . . other than in
disaster scenarios, almost all of my operating is on CW. I am a CW
bigot, and it would be impossible for me to teach a class without
letting my love of CW show.

But that view is very much not held by the members of the local radio
club. None of them can understand how anyone could actually enjoy CW.
I have tried to explain it, and I don't think I'm a bad ambassador for
CW, but it just doesn't click with them. Mostly I just let the CW digs
pass me by, but I have every intention of introducing CW (and other
non-voice modes) in the class.

I am thrilled to hear that there is a desire to learn CW by people who
were not forced to do so. I was hoping that would happen. I don't
think *I* would have, so I tend to extrapolate my tendencies to today's
new hams. It will be interesting to look back in a few years and try to
determine how many new CW ops have come on board.

73, Steve KB9X

This is an interesting discussion, and I'd like to add my thoughts. CW vs
fone is not unlike driving a vehicle w/ a standard vs automatic
transmission. Or, in my case, bracket (drag) racing a standard vs automatic
transmission. Yeah, it's easier to win when using an automatic transmission
but it's not impossible with a stickshift -- and doing so gives me more
satisfaction. Like you with the anti-CW digs, I let the digs against racing
a stickshift roll off me (for, they know not the joy of it).
Bryan WA7PRC

On Oct 23, 7:56?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:

Who *are* these folks? I mean, the current written exams
have been passed by elementary school children years
away from middle school.

I probably shouldn't sell the students short until I see who actually
shows up.

That's a big part of what I am saying.

But the impetus for the class was a request from a couple of
people who have already attended two previous entry-level
classes taught
by the radio club in the next town over. I saw their material; it's
good; anyone who managed to attend their class and not pass is either unmotivated or unteachable.

I'm not convinced. Did you sit in on the classes and see what was
actually presented? Were the students able to attend all the classes
or only some? Good material, by itself, isn't going to guarantee
success.

I suggest that if you have low expectations, the class will
live down to them, and if you have high expectations, they
will live up to them.

You have an excellent point, and I will try to act on it.

Thanks

On the other
hand, I do have to be realistic. I have to adapt the material to the
level of the people in the class, to the best of my ability and striving
not to pitch it so low that part of the class gives up in disgust.

That's true of any class, isn't it? Particularly one where attendance
is 100% voluntary.

With all due respect, if someone cannot grasp the
concept of what
a frequency is, they should not be a licensed radio amateur,
IMHO.
Such a lack of basic radio knowledge means the
person just isn't
qualified yet, and endangers both the person
and those around them.

I think you've gone too far because I went too far in my example.

I stand by my statement. There must be certain minimum
qualifications to be a licensed ham. That doesn't mean a
high level, but it does mean all hams should know the
basics of how radio works. Otherwise the whole purpose
of the ARS is undermined.

The students in this class live in rural Minnesota. Electronics is
foreign to most of them. They can run a GPS-controlled tractor
and
cover their fields without double-spraying a single row, but don't
expect them to understand the concepts of how GPS works.
Or want to.

I'm not saying they should understand GPS to a high level. But
being from rural Minnesota doesn't mean they are incapable of
understanding basic radio if presented properly.

It's a real challenge to teach electronics to this demographic.
For one
thing, their motivation to learn the material is 100% related
to passing
the exam; they really couldn't care less that 1 amp will
flow through a
resistance of 1 ohm if 1 volt is applied.

They don't have to *like* it, they just have to know it.

Some of it I can make "real"
-- bring in a long extension cord, measure the resistance,
discuss what
that means when you put a welder at the end.

BINGO! That's exactly it - tie the seemingly-abstract theory
to a real-world practical example. Another would be a demo
of why short thick jumper cables are better than long thin ones.

I can tell you from personal experience that most of a teacher's
job in such situations is finding an explanation that can connect
what the student already knows to what is being taught.

Most of these folks will never be electronics gurus. They
don't need to
be. They need to understand enough concepts to
understand how to
operate the equipment that they buy.

Agreed. The license tests are the starting point, too, meaning
the person who passes them has met the *minimum* qualifications,
not that the person is an expert.

Do they need to understand the
relationship between wavelength and frequency to do that?

Yes! (IMHO)

No.

Sorry, that's one of the most basic things about radio there
is. All it really requires is an understanding that low frequency
= long waves and high frequency = short waves.

The whole point of license testing is to insure that
licensees know the basics.

I'm not sure that's actually true. Why do we care
that a Technician
licensee knows Ohm's law?

Because it's basic to the operation of radio.

Real world example: There's a lot of electronics out there
that requires a certain minimum voltage to work properly.
Typically 11.5 volts or so for "12 volt" equipment.
Some things, like camcorders, have automatic minimum
voltage shutdown. Most ham gear doesn't have such
protection.

At least some amateur transceivers will emit spurious signals
if you try to transmit with them using too-low supply voltage.
Synthesizer unlock and similar stuff.
Spurs that can cause interference to other radio services.
On top of that, most rigs draw a lot more current on transmit
than receive.

So if our new Technician doesn't understand Ohm's Law in
at least a very basic way, s/he could hook up their rig using
wire that has too much R, and then transmit all kinds of spurs
because the rig is getting too low a voltage on transmit. Yet it
will receive perfectly because there's enough voltage when
not transmitting. Indeed, the ham could even start a fire by
overheating the power supply wires.

It seems to me that the point of license testing is to erect a barrier
to entry. If that were not the case, the license pool would look a lot
different. It would consist of regulations and practical knowledge that
was actually used on a day-to-day basis. It would consist of
material
that, to use your phrase above, is essential to insuring that the
licensee is not a danger to the person and those around him.

Ohm's Law isn't just theory. An understanding of it is a practical
necessity for radio amateurs. Otherwise they're not qualified to
do what the license allows.

Then you need more time. It's that simple. The time can be
class time, or it can be time the students spend reading and
learning on their own. But it takes time to learn this stuff.

But I don't have more time.

Doesn't have to be *your* time.

It's going to be hard enough convincing
people to come to six sessions spread over three weeks.
If I asked for
more time, I would get no students.

How do you know?

The goal is to figure out how to
best use the time I have.
If I'm really successful, I will be able to lure people back to a
followup class. That's the only way I'll ever get access to more of
their time.

At a certain point, they have to be interested enough to invest
the necessary time and effort.

"If it were easy, everybody would do it."

And we're back to the concept of the exam as a barrier to entry.

No.

It's not about "barriers". It's about a ham knowing the basics.

If you have zero barrier, you have CB.

I would phrase it as "zero requirements". But yes, you have cb.
And look how that turned out. Should amateur radio become
nothing more than high power multiband cb? I say no.

If you have infinite barrier, you have
no one entering.

Of course, but the license requirements are far from infinite. They're
just the basics.

73 de Jim, N2EY