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

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.

I disagree!

The readings can be handouts of a few pages. Introductory stuff
with links to more advanced things.

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.

Then you're essentially "teaching the test". And with all due respect,
that's a mistake IMHO. Here's why:

I think that we hams have sometimes placed too much emphasis
on getting lots of people licensed rather than educated and licensed.
The result is folks who are licensed amateurs but don't really know
how to get on the air. They're then left without the structure of a
class, to learn what's needed to actually use the license.

A recent statistic from ARRL said that 22% of new hams had *never*
gotten on the air with their new license. To me, that's a direct
indication of putting the license ahead of the knowledge needed to
use it.

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.

Perhaps the handouts could cover the practical stuff.

If time is that limited, then IMHO its purpose is to guide rather
than to be comprehensive.

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 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.

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?

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.

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


The Tech license is not an ideal entry-level license.

Agreed. But it's what we've got.

It requires quite
a bit of intimidating work to learn material that is pretty foreign to
people who have no experience in radio.

I disagree. It all depends on how the material is presented. To
use the frequency example, while most people might not know a
kilocycle from a bicycle, they will probably know that a piano
produces different tones. A simple electronic keyboard can demo
that principle easily. Then it's a short step to different radio
frequencies.

Of course it must also be learned that there's a difference between
sound as vibrating air and radio as a vibrating electromagnetic field,
but that's part of the game.

Once you've got the license you
need someone to demonstrate the wonders of HF, else there is no
incentive to upgrade.

Why not as part of the frequency demo? How about a long roll of paper
with various frequencies on it - 60 Hz for power, the AM BC band, the
49 MHz baby-monitor band, VHF and UHF TV, FM BC band, cell phones,
microwaves, and oh yes, the ham bands. Color code it for the various
services.

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.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

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

Reading all the back and forth discussion of Steve's upcoming classes and
his concerns... I'm getting really confused. When I was a teenager playing
with CB, I didn't know nuthin' from nuthin' about radio, antennas, you name
it. Once I became determined to become a ham, I eagerly learned all about it
in order to pass my Novice, and then the General, and.... and at points when
I saw the need (such as "gee, what is this 'swr' business?"), I learned
more. So Steve, if you're so concerned about how these "students" are going
to respond to your technical talks and related licensing materials, why are
they even invited? Are they really interested in becoming hams? Or (at an
extreme), are you recruiting potential hams like "Psssst! Hey kid - come
'eah - you wanna get a ham license?"

If they're going to whine about "Why do I have to learn this stuff??" then
*I* don't think they deserve the privilege of a license.

Howard N7SO

On Oct 25, 6:57?pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:

Once I became determined to become a ham, I eagerly
learned all about it
in order to pass my Novice, and then the General, and....
and at points when
I saw the need (such as "gee, what is this 'swr' business?"),
I learned more.

I was and still am like that. A lot of radio stuff I learned simply
because it looked interesting or might be useful "someday".

But not everyone is like that. Doesn't mean they can't be
good hams.

So Steve, if you're so concerned about how these "students"
are going
to respond to your technical talks and related licensing
materials, why are
they even invited?

Anyone with interest is invited. And any good teacher tries to
match the presentation to the students.

Are they really interested in becoming hams?

*That's* the key question.

Or (at an
extreme), are you recruiting potential hams like "Psssst! Hey kid - come 'eah - you wanna get a ham license?"

Well, it's not quite like that!

The way I see it, people with interest should be welcomed and
helped. But the person has to take a certain amount of
responsibility to learn what's needed and to get set up. There's
a point where "help" turns into "doing it for" in such a way that
it actually works against the goal.

It's the old "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" thing, aka
"learned helplessness".

If they're going to whine about "Why do I have to learn this
stuff??" then
*I* don't think they deserve the privilege of a license.

It's not "whining" to ask why the requirements exist. All
license test requirements have to justify their existence.

The Basis and Purpose of amateur radio includes the
idea that hams will know at least the basics of radio. Ohm's
Law and the relation of frequency and wavelength are
pretty basic radio stuff, therefore, they belong on the test.

Simple as that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Howard Lester wrote:
Reading all the back and forth discussion of Steve's upcoming classes and
his concerns... I'm getting really confused. When I was a teenager playing
with CB, I didn't know nuthin' from nuthin' about radio, antennas, you name
it. Once I became determined to become a ham, I eagerly learned all about it
in order to pass my Novice, and then the General, and.... and at points when
I saw the need (such as "gee, what is this 'swr' business?"), I learned
more. So Steve, if you're so concerned about how these "students" are going
to respond to your technical talks and related licensing materials, why are
they even invited? Are they really interested in becoming hams? Or (at an
extreme), are you recruiting potential hams like "Psssst! Hey kid - come
'eah - you wanna get a ham license?"

If they're going to whine about "Why do I have to learn this stuff??" then
*I* don't think they deserve the privilege of a license.

Let me try to address your questions and comments from Jim. I
understand what you are both saying, and agree with much of it. But we
have some basic disagreements.

Let's remind ourselves of the five purposes of the amateur radio service
from Part 97:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to
the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur’s proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules
which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and
technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur’s unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.

Items b, c, and d require technical knowledge of radio. Items a and e
do not.

There are two reasons why I do not expect the students in my entry-level
class to develop a detailed understanding of electronics.

First, this knowledge is not necessary in today's hobby. Sure, it's
desirable, and it's necessary if you want to actually get involved in
certain aspects of the hobby, like building your own equipment. But it
is perfectly possible to participate in emergency communications, or to
enhance international goodwill, and not know an ohm from an amp.

Second, most people today simply do not have any desire to learn radio
theory. Does that mean that these individuals should be excluded from
the ham radio hobby? I do not think so. It's certainly your prerogative
to believe differently. Related to this, I know that most of these
folks are "learning" this material simply so that they can pass the test
and that within a couple of weeks they'll retain none of it. If that
bothered me, I wouldn't teach the class.

In short, my goal is to get some new hams licensed. At worst, they can
fulfill two of the five stated goals of the service. At best, they will
discover the wonders of the hobby and get involved, and in that process
they'll learn a lot more because they want to. I hope that I can help
them get involved, but they'll never get involved if they don't pass
that first exam.

I have about 18 hours of one-on-many time with these folks. I have to
figure out how to "best" use this time. "Best" is really what we're
talking about in this subthread. I'd love to give them a good
electronics background, but that's simply not possible in 18 hours. My
primary goal is to get them through the exam, and that factors into my
definition of "best use of time".

I don't think that my standards are too low. I would rather give these
folks an opportunity to be productive members of the ham radio
fraternity than to insist on a burning desire from the beginning to
learn about radio fundamentals.

Steve Bonine wrote:


If I may interject here, I think we may be treating people as a group
more so than individuals.

Some of those people in your class may just want to fire up the repeater
and chat.

Some of them may just want to do emergency comms.

Some may want to build stuff.


Very importantly though, they may not know until they are exposed to it.

When I first became a Ham, my interests were in applying the hobby to my
other hobby, amateur astronomy.

After that, I joined a club, and went to FD. I operated Field day with a
control OP. I thought WOW! this is a lot of fun. So I went for my
General Test. After Struggling with Morse Code - it is not easy for some
of us, I got my General Ticket.

Then I discovered Digital modes, and a whole new part of the hobby
opened up for me.

I kept on discovering things, the latest being how enjoyable HF Mobile
is. I built my own bugcatcher, and have been surprised how well it
works, given the low efficiency of mobile antenna setups.

My point here is that I discovered a lot of things about Ham Radio that
I didn't expect, and they became the focus of my hobby.

Oddly enough, I never integrated Amateur radio as I had originally
planned to, in Astronomy.

Don't sell the students short. Some of them may indeed just want to
"pass the test". But by exposing them to a little of the different
aspects of the hobby might just awake something in them that they didn't
know existed.

Some thoughts for demos:

Obvious ones like the repeater operations.

An FT-817 with a miracle whip might be just the ticket for demonstrating
SSB, CW and Digital. With all the "hot" setups out there, a less than
mediocre setup such as this will still be able to make QSOs with.

I'd suggest going from FM to SSB to PSK-31, to CW, just to keep things
lively. Could be done by bandwidth, with an explanation of how the
smaller bandwidth signal tends to get across better. It's always good to
have a sked setup with another Ham in case propagation is bad.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Oct 25, 5:51?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:

In short, my goal is to get some new hams licensed. At worst, they can
fulfill two of the five stated goals of the service. At best, they will
discover the wonders of the hobby and get involved, and in that process
they'll learn a lot more because they want to. I hope that I can help
them get involved, but they'll never get involved if they don't pass
that first exam.

I have about 18 hours of one-on-many time with these folks. I have to
figure out how to "best" use this time. "Best" is really what we're
talking about in this subthread. I'd love to give them a good
electronics background, but that's simply not possible in 18 hours. My
primary goal is to get them through the exam, and that factors into my
definition of "best use of time".

I don't think that my standards are too low. I would rather give these
folks an opportunity to be productive members of the ham radio
fraternity than to insist on a burning desire from the beginning to
learn about radio fundamentals.

Steve, from all the talk of the others and your very patient replies,
I think you are doing the right thing with your preparations. It is
very basic stuff you are doing and that is a good step, perhaps the
best step for your Class of collected tabula rasas. I applaud your
efforts.

Since I've been involved in radio and electronics (one way or another)
for 6 decades, making the "Compleat Ham" (as Phil put it) just can't
be done in 18 hours. It would take at least a thousand hours, perhaps
two. Had it been that long a 'class' the drop-out rate would be
large. As you say, some aren't interested in theory, some are only
interested in certain aspects of radio. Those who only want VHF and
up operation probably could care less about the ionosphere and all
that long-distance propagation. But...the thing others haven't
mentioned or others just gloss over is that you HAVE some that are
interested enough to come for 18 hours.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

So far, the 'discussion' has been a lot of argument by others all
about stepping, which way to go, etc., etc., ad something or other. I
doubt that anything of that applies. They have taken the first nibble
of the bait and aren't yet hooked, but I sense you can play them in.

PRESENTATIONS of anything are always better with a sense of theater
about them. That involves the personality of the presenter, the prime
focus of all in this classroom. Their interest must be held and
focussed on the material and that comes from their sensing the
presenter' mood and personality. Projection of the presenter to this
'audience' requies confidence and a friendliness with them.

Preparation and presentation go hand-in-hand. It is nice if you can
do some audio-visual things but simple, easy-to-read-at-distance
graphics will do. It breaks the flow a bit, but that's good. It lets
the class focus on the material; they don't always have to watch the
presenter. Being at ease in front of an audience is sometimes a
toughie. It was for me the first few times, but I adapted to it. The
ease of the presenter is absorbed by this 'audience.' Lack of ease
will reflect in the audience drifting away from the presentation and
they may feel uncomfortable.

Since I'm a bit far from you, I can't watch a rehersal of your
presentation and suggest some improvement, but maybe there's one or
more there who would be willing to stand in for the 'audience?' I
don't know how much experience you've had before such an audience but
I think you will get the feel of it right quick. You know the
material. The only thing left is letting your enthusiasm rub off on
the folks in class.

You've made the first step for them. Now it is time to extend your
hand to have them follow. I hope they ALL follow you...and eagerly.

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:

Since I've been involved in radio and electronics (one way or another)
for 6 decades, making the "Compleat Ham" (as Phil put it) just can't
be done in 18 hours. It would take at least a thousand hours, perhaps
two. Had it been that long a 'class' the drop-out rate would be
large.

"Compleat Hams" are not made in class. They are "made" by participating
in the hobby. Traditional classes should be a part of that
participation (I have little patience with the people who say, "I don't
have time to attend your class on emergency communication or participate
in your exercise, but I'll be around when there's a real emergency") but
experience is the real teacher. And you can't begin that experience
until you pass that first written test.

As you say, some aren't interested in theory, some are only
interested in certain aspects of radio. Those who only want VHF and
up operation probably could care less about the ionosphere and all
that long-distance propagation. But...the thing others haven't
mentioned or others just gloss over is that you HAVE some that are
interested enough to come for 18 hours.

One of the things that continues to amaze me about the hobby is that
it's not one hobby, but many. That's one of the things I hope to be
able to communicate to the students in the class . . . not by preaching
to them, but by describing the various aspects of the hobby (or by
having someone who is passionate about "their" aspect come to class and
expound on it). I do think that those who only want VHF should at least
be exposed to propagation and how it works; how can they know if they
might be interested in HF if they never even know it exists.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

The journey into the ham radio hobby begins with passing a written exam.

I suppose that's not really true. The journey begins with deciding to
take the journey. For these students, the "single step" is attending
this class. That fact sure puts the pressure on the instructor . . .

So far, the 'discussion' has been a lot of argument by others all
about stepping, which way to go, etc., etc., ad something or other. I
doubt that anything of that applies. They have taken the first nibble
of the bait and aren't yet hooked, but I sense you can play them in.

I hope so. Time will tell.

As a related comment . . . when I started this thread, one of the issues
I was trying to explore was walking the tightrope between "teaching the
pool" and teaching a general electronics class. As I continue to
prepare the details of the class, I'm realizing that teaching a concepts
class based on the pool questions isn't really that bad. If the
students come out of the class understanding the concepts upon which the
pool questions are based, they will have a pretty good start at an
electronics background.

There are some huge gaps, of course. For example, somehow the concept
of inductance doesn't appear at all. But after living with the pool for
a while, I feel better about using it as the basis for an 18-hour
introductory class.

I'm sure that some of the students will spend their study time
memorizing the specific questions from the pool. I hope that I have
some students who will embrace the concepts. All I can do is present
the material in the clearest and most engaging way that I can, let my
passion show through, and provide the mentoring and encouraging
environment to get them into the hobby.

Since I'm a bit far from you, I can't watch a rehersal of your
presentation and suggest some improvement, but maybe there's one or
more there who would be willing to stand in for the 'audience?' I
don't know how much experience you've had before such an audience but
I think you will get the feel of it right quick. You know the
material. The only thing left is letting your enthusiasm rub off on
the folks in class.

I don't mean this to be critical of your suggestion Len, but I'm
reminded of an article I saw last night on the network TV news. It
seems that FEMA decided to give a news conference, and when no reporters
showed up, FEMA employees pretended to be reporters and asked questions
of the FEMA presenter. I'm afraid that rehearsals of this class, which
would likely be held with members of the local radio club taking the
place of the students, would be a lot like that. It would certainly be
useful to do it, and I'm sure my presentation would benefit, but the
"audience" that I get for the real class is likely to be much different
from the "audience" that I would have in a trial run.

I think that the single biggest challenge I'm going to have is finding
the right "pitch point" for this class. I'm expecting to have a few
folks whose eyes glaze over as soon as I try to cover anything even
remotely difficult and a few who will think that my level of coverage is
much too general. Trying to keep the interest of the one group and not
bore the other is going to be a challenge. I hope I'm up to it.

73, Steve KB9X