Entry-level class
 

In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local
radio club is offering. I would love any words of wisdom from
experienced instructors of this material. I suspect that it has been at
least a couple of decades since I last taught such a class, and things
have changed a bit in that time grin.

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.

Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of
the weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there
are advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that
learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic
world, getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic.
We've decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a
fatal error; time will tell.

I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be
able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective
hams some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in
class. For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the
students have actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different
understanding of what you're saying.

73, Steve KB9X

Entry-level class
 

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.
[...]


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.


I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be
able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective
hams some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in
class. For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the
students have actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different
understanding of what you're saying.


Keep in mind that the Element 2 written test used to be the written
part of the Novice test. Arguably, it is easier to get a no-code
Technician license than it was to get a Novice license. 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.

--
Klystron

Entry-level class
 

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local radio
club is offering. I would love any words of wisdom from experienced
instructors of this material. I suspect that it has been at least a
couple of decades since I last taught such a class, and things have
changed a bit in that time grin.

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.

Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of the
weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there are
advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that
learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic world,
getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic. We've
decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a fatal
error; time will tell.

I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be
able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective hams
some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in class.
For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the students have
actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different understanding of
what you're saying.

73, Steve KB9X


The ARRL license manuals do a pretty good job of explaining the material
that goes into the questions. Also try to squeeze in some demos such as
using the repeater. A few, but not too many, anecdotal experiences of your
own can be productive too. Perhaps the first time you "let the smoke out"
of a radio or tuner or whatever.

Dee, N8UZE

Entry-level class
 

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local radio
club is offering. I would love any words of wisdom from experienced
instructors of this material. I suspect that it has been at least a
couple of decades since I last taught such a class, and things have
changed a bit in that time grin.

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.

Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of the
weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there are
advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that
learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic world,
getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic. We've
decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a fatal
error; time will tell.

I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be
able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective hams
some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in class.
For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the students have
actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different understanding of
what you're saying.

73, Steve KB9X


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.

Dee, N8UZE

Entry-level class
 

On Oct 22, 7:58?pm, Klystron wrote:
Steve Bonine 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.

This is an excellent idea *if* the info is readily available. Handouts
are a good idea too, as are links to specific web pages.

Another thing I suggest is demos. Talking about repeaters is one
thing, working somebody many miles away using a handheld is
another.

But don't limit the demos to VHF or FM - just showing things
like PSK31, CW, etc., are a good idea.

For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the
students have actually *used* a repeater,
they have a whole different
understanding of what you're saying.

Hence the demos.

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.

Before the 2000 restructuring, the written exams were these:

Element 2 - Novice
Element 3A - Technician
Element 3B - General
Element 4A - Advanced
Element 4B - Extra

Each element required its own element plus all lower elements.

As part of the 2000 restructuring, the elements were combined:

Old Elements 2 and 3A were combined and renamed new Element 2, used
for Technician

Old Element 3B was renamed new Element 3 and used for General

Old Elements 4A and 4B were combined and renamed new Element 4.

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

Agreed - which sealed the fate of the Novice, by making Technician the
de-facto entry license.

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!

The old Novice offered a lot more than "the self-limited exchange of
beeps".

The old Novice wasn't meant as a permanent license class, but rather
as a training ground towards the higher class licenses.

Yes, the privileges were limited, as was the license term. But what
that did was to focus newcomers on a few bands and radio basics.
It also reduced the cost of getting started.

Many Novices built their first stations, or part of them. This was
practical because the limited priviliges meant that even a simple, low
cost station was competitive with what other hams in the Novice
subbands were using.

But those days were ended by the Tech becoming the entry point. Not
many new hams can build an HT as a first project!

IMHO, the ideal 2007 entry-level license would offer a variety of
bands and modes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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.

73, Steve KB9X

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

On Oct 23, 12:15?am, Steve Bonine wrote:

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.

I think it's neither.

The way I would present it is that the limited HF privileges of the
Technician are there if people want to use them. Amateur radio
is not all voice, particularly on HF, and the students need to know
that fact.

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.

Or put together a video of HF stations in action. That way you
can cover a lot of ground in a short time, and present a wide
variety of modes and equipment types. Ask around - there
are probably hams in your area who would demo everything
from CW to AM to satellites to PSK31 for a video.

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.

But that's not entirely accurate - and you shouldn't present
inaccuracies.

The HF privileges of Techs today are far more than what I got as a
Novice, yet I was more than willing to pass the tests just to get
those old Novice bands.

My experience is that "CW" is a four-letter word. YMMV.

It's all about attitude. CW is a big part of amateur radio, and
should be presented. There's no test for it, but it's something
Techs are allowed to do.

The key (pun intended) is to present it as something positive
that can be learned if the person is interested.

If you act like it's hard, they'll think it's hard. If you act like
it's fun, they'll get that message too.

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.

I suggest that you present a wide variety and let them pick
and choose. Do not assume too much.

For example, I see many hams assuming that young people
will be interested in modes that use computers (like WinLink)
but not in modes like CW and AM using older technologies.

Yet in my experience the reverse is often true. The uniqueness
of those older modes and methods is often what they find most
interesting. They're surrounded by computers, networks, etc. -
those things are everyday, "Radio" is special to them.

You have to give them the big picture and let them pick the pieces
they like.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Entry-level class
 

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.

Entry-level class
 

"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.

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

"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

Entry-level class
 

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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.

Entry-level class
 

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 -

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

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

Entry-level class
 

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:51:57 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:

"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"

Yes, there's always one more place in what we call the Resource Pool
Net where untrained and un credentialed hams can sit around and wait
to be called - if ever. The days of a random appearance, HT in hand,
are over in this era of Emergency Comm Centers and Incident Command
Systems. They can't even get in the door of the comm centers today,
and there are no resources available to train them to assist properly
during a "real emergency". Knowing how to rag chew or work a contest
doesn't quite cut it.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Entry-level class
 

Phil Kane wrote:

and there are no resources available to train them to assist properly
during a "real emergency".

Allow me to rephrase in case someone misinterprets:

There are no resources available during a real emergency to train them.

Entry-level class
 

Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:51:57 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:

"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"

Yes, there's always one more place in what we call the Resource Pool
Net where untrained and un credentialed hams can sit around and wait
to be called - if ever. The days of a random appearance, HT in hand,
are over in this era of Emergency Comm Centers and Incident Command
Systems. They can't even get in the door of the comm centers today,
and there are no resources available to train them to assist properly
during a "real emergency". Knowing how to rag chew or work a contest
doesn't quite cut it.

I think that amateur radio is changing in a way that those rag chewers
and contesters won't be wanted at all.

What I have been seeing recently is that people who are already working
in emergency operations have been getting Technician licenses, and
intend to commandeer repeaters as needed during emergencies.

Even in our area, whole groups of folk have been getting licensed in
this reverse manner. We have ambulance drivers, paramedics, comm center
staff. I suspect in the near far term, we won't be getting in the door
period, unless we become some kind of semi professional unpaid volunteer.

I would surmise that regular hams probably won't need to concern
themselves much longer, as once this happens their services will not be
needed. I think a new class of Ham is inadvertently coming about - that
of the quasi-professional ham - one who is employed in a field that
occasionally calls on them to use their amateur radio license in pursuit
of their work. Note that the FCC has upheld this as legal IIRC.

In some respects, it will be much better for the agencies involved. They
will be able to require things that Hams have balked at, such as
investigation of our lifestyles and financial info. All of this can take
place in the work environment, where it is a condition of employment.
Mandatory training sessions are another item in the same line.

The major downside of all this is that as Emergency ops move toward this
mode, the question arises of why they would be using amateur radio to
perform the function at all - they might as well have their own system
on their own frequencies, that they alone use.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Entry-level class
 

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

The major downside of all this is that as Emergency ops move toward this
mode, the question arises of why they would be using amateur radio to
perform the function at all - they might as well have their own system
on their own frequencies, that they alone use.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

One of the REAL Reasons that Amateur Radio can play a part in Emergency
Comms, is really very simple, and usually not thought of, in many Govt.
EMS/Enforcment Groups.

What happenes when the Repeaters, and or Remote Bases, are lost due to
Power Loss, FIRE, or EarthQuake, at the High Point Remote Locations that
the EMS/Enforcment System uses, or secondly, what happens when the Telco
Links from the EMS/Enforcment Comms Center fail, due to these same
situations and the CommCenter can work the Repeaters and Remote Bases
via RF Links but can't communicate with the next higher Govt entity?

Cases on Point here. World Trade Center Collapse.

All local South Mannhatten VHF and UHF Remote Base and Repeaters for
New York, as well as most of the other Govt. Frequencies were installed
on Top of the WTC. When it collapsed, they lost 95% of their Repeated,
and Remote Base Comms, and couldn't talk to each other except on one
or two simplex Emergency Backup Freqs, that weren't common to ALL the
EMS People from ALL the Mutual Aid Responders.

LA Fire a couple of years ago.

Again, 90% of the local Camms were taken out when one of the MAIN
Remote Base and Repeater Location up on the Rim of the World Highway
was caught in a Flashover during a major fire. None of the equipment,
that was inside the building was damaged, but ALL the Coax, and most
of the Antennas were destroyed by the heat of the fire, causing these
systems to be OFFLine from that point, untill MONTHS later when the
tower was rebuilt.

Our EMS People depend on their Comms to work, and work reliably, in
oreder to be effective in thier jobs. when these systems fail, they
can still work their individual jobs, but their effectivness as a
EMS System is greatly reduced. A good Emergency Plan, with TRAINED
Volenteers, and Backup Equipment, and Frequencies, can help keep
these EMS folks effective.

How many EMS Systems have a Backup, Mobile, EMS RemoteBase and Repeater
Comm Infostructure, ready to deploy, should the fixed Infostructure
Fail?

Is there an Backup EMS/Enforcment Comms Policy, inplace, that sets the
rules for use of the minimal Simplex Frequencies that will be common
to ALL Mutual Aid Responders, for a given Massive Comms Failure, and who
is in charge of that traffic, and getting the traffic to the right
places.

The Feds have been trying to deal with these senerios since 9/11, and
are just NOW, starting to get a handle on SOME of the problems, and
solutions, that will be involved.

We see the RED Cross, starting to require their volenteers to be
Credentialed. I understand that SOME of the Enforcment folks
are issuing Limited Credentials to Trained Ham Club folks that
they have used before, and incorporate into their Backup Emeregency
Comms Policies and Proceedures.

All this is just for local EMS/Enforcment Comms, but who can provide
the Long Distance Comms, to the higher Govt. Entities, when the longlines
are out. This was a MAJOR problem in the Post Katrina New Orleans
Senerio. The National Guard usually HAS the equuipment, and MAY have
the personnel, but are they ready on a moments notice, or does it take
Days to ManUp and Deploy. Wouldn't it be nice if the Hams via their own
Club System, could have a BackUp Emergency Comms Plan and Policy to
provide such Systems from Local to County, and County to State, should
their be an urgent need, should disaster, of these magnitudes, happen.

Bruce in alaska just one of many, who actually Think about
such stuff......
--
add path before @

Entry-level class
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:21:40 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

What I have been seeing recently is that people who are already working
in emergency operations have been getting Technician licenses, and
intend to commandeer repeaters as needed during emergencies.

Our district-wide ARES/RACES groups have several repeaters licensed to
members so no "commandeering" is necessary. In addition, we routinely
test simplex paths between our served agencies in case repeaters go
down for any reason.

Even in our area, whole groups of folk have been getting licensed in
this reverse manner. We have ambulance drivers, paramedics, comm center
staff. I suspect in the near far term, we won't be getting in the door period,
unless we become some kind of semi professional unpaid volunteer.

We've kicked this around too. All of our active members have been
"vetted" by the state police for RACES ID cards and most of us carry
Sheriff's Office entry passes (picture ID, not law enforcement officer
credentials) that are necessary to get into facilities where the SO
provides security.

We've also kicked around the situation where in our hospital we have
to go through the Emergency Room entry area to reach the EOC, and the
ER docs and nurses are empowered that if during an emergency/lockdown
they see anyone in the ER whom they do not recognize they are to have
security detain them for interrogation. For that reason those of us
who serve hospitals also have hospital picture IDs issued by the
security department.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

I think a new class of Ham is inadvertently coming about - that
of the quasi-professional ham - one who is employed in a field that
occasionally calls on them to use their amateur radio license in pursuit
of their work. Note that the FCC has upheld this as legal IIRC.

Most, if not all of our served agencies have ruled that in a "real"
emergency, the employee does his or her regular job, not serve as part
of the Amateur Radio teams. We have MOUs with the served agencies
that we will provide the necessary comms if their regular comms become
unavailable.

The only exception is with the HEARTNET role as the secondary backup
for the inter-hospital ER status and reporting system carried on 800
MHz with a primary backup of 155 MHz, and if both of those
"commercial" services go down, the 146 MHz simplex net is used by ER
personnel who are licensed hams. We have no problem with that because
the traffic that would be handled is very medical-specific and
decisions have to be made "on the fly" over the radio, and it's better
to have the RNs do it than to have to pass messages through
non-medical personnel.

The major downside of all this is that as Emergency ops move toward this
mode, the question arises of why they would be using amateur radio to
perform the function at all - they might as well have their own system
on their own frequencies, that they alone use.

And they do. We are the "whenever all fails, we are still there." And
the "modern" 800 MHz systems are virtually useless when things get hot
because of either system hardware failure or priority public safety
traffic making the system unavailable to "lower on the ladder" users.

A very small payback for the privilege of using the spectrum that we
get.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Entry-level class
 

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local

Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of the
weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there are
advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that
learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic world,
getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic. We've
decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a fatal
error; time will tell.

have you considered schedlues the classes past the projecting VE tests
ession allowing to focus more at fist on the exam and more later on real
operating

Entry-level class
 

Bruce in Alaska wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

The major downside of all this is that as Emergency ops move toward this
mode, the question arises of why they would be using amateur radio to
perform the function at all - they might as well have their own system
on their own frequencies, that they alone use.

What happenes when the Repeaters, and or Remote Bases, are lost due to
Power Loss, FIRE, or EarthQuake, at the High Point Remote Locations that
the EMS/Enforcment System uses, or secondly, what happens when the Telco
Links from the EMS/Enforcment Comms Center fail, due to these same
situations and the CommCenter can work the Repeaters and Remote Bases
via RF Links but can't communicate with the next higher Govt entity?


There you have it. I would say that those who are running the show are
very VHF/UHF centric. They don't know about long distance radio, except
for perhaps satellite Operations, which are still line of site. Someone
somewhere has to know what bands to use at what time and for what distance.




A bunch of good stuff snipped


The Feds have been trying to deal with these senerios since 9/11, and
are just NOW, starting to get a handle on SOME of the problems, and
solutions, that will be involved.


Your post is pretty accurate, Bruce.


One of the things that I want to add is that while Amateur radio was one
of the few things that worked very well, those who are in command are
bent on turning it into something more like what failed.

I believe that the present day post 911, and even more post Katrina
emphasis on emcomm Amateur radio is imposing a structure upon those Hams
who would volunteer their time, when in fact, what has allowed Ham radio
to work in emergencies is that very lack of structure among
knowledgeable Hams who in a random fashion come forth and offer their
services and know-how to the problem at hand.

I believe that imposing a structure on the ARS, and bringing it into the
fold, so to speak, will increase the chances that Amateur radio will be
the one to fail along with other parts of the emergency operations.

As we are called upon to have our backgrounds checked, our lifestyle and
financial dealings investigated, and resign ourselves to hauling out the
trash or unloading trucks, there will be less of us willing to spend our
vacation time or even simply lose money to offer our services.

At that time, most of what will be left is those quasi-professional
technicians who are licensed to talk, but know precious little else
about how to make sure the comms continue. Then comes failure.

It's a real problem, because those who make the decisions can only see
solutions as application of structure, and if there is a problem, the
answer must be more structure. Its like the old saying "If your tool is
a hammer, all problems look like nails."

This is a very controversial position for sure, as witnessed by local
Emergency people's reaction when I bring it up. My only suggestion is
for people to look at what causes failure, and correct it. Some times
what seems like a good idea is what causes failure. If that is the case,
no application of more of that "good idea" will create success.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Entry-level class
 

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:49:38 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

There you have it. I would say that those who are running the show are
very VHF/UHF centric. They don't know about long distance radio, except
for perhaps satellite Operations, which are still line of site. Someone
somewhere has to know what bands to use at what time and for what distance.

Most, if not all, of our served agencies have or are getting HF
transceivers for "long distance" communication. If the repeater
and/or packet relays go down, that's what we have to use to connect to
state and regional EOCs, usually by NVIS facilities. Most of our
leadership have those in their home stations as well. Some of us are
looking into automatic interchange between VHF to HF for digital
traffic. We aren't content with a "shack on the belt" approach.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Entry-level class
 

Phil Kane wrote in
:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:49:38 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

There you have it. I would say that those who are running the
show are
very VHF/UHF centric. They don't know about long distance radio,
except for perhaps satellite Operations, which are still line of site.
Someone somewhere has to know what bands to use at what time and for
what distance.

Most, if not all, of our served agencies have or are getting HF
transceivers for "long distance" communication. If the repeater
and/or packet relays go down, that's what we have to use to connect to
state and regional EOCs, usually by NVIS facilities. Most of our
leadership have those in their home stations as well. Some of us are
looking into automatic interchange between VHF to HF for digital
traffic. We aren't content with a "shack on the belt" approach.

Perhaps your local setup is doing well, Phil, I can only see what is
happening locally, and what I get from the news.

I suspect they have some good people running the show there?\

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Entry-level class
 

On Oct 30, 4:49?am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bruce in Alaska wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

It's a real problem, because those who make the decisions can only see
solutions as application of structure, and if there is a problem, the
answer must be more structure. Its like the old saying "If your tool is
a hammer, all problems look like nails."

If all you have is a nail-puller, your structure won't hold
together...

AF6AY

Entry-level class
 

Last December, some hams in my town put on a "Ham Cram" one-day study and
license test for Technician Class. One week ahead of time, the students
received a print-out of the question pool. On Ham Cram day, from 7:30 AM to
1:00 PM they were drilled on the questions, with the correct answer being
stressed. After a lunch break, at 2:00 PM my VE License exam team arrived to
test them. 13 of 14 passed. BUT, I have had contact with several of these
students since the Ham Cram, and they had almost no practical knowledge of
amateur radio. They required A LOT of Elmering. IMHO, lessons spread out one
night a week for a couple of months, with practical demonstrations and
discussions of ham culture would have made much better hams.

73 de Dick, AC7EL

Entry-level class
 

"Dick Grady AC7EL" wrote in message
...
Last December, some hams in my town put on a "Ham Cram" one-day study and
license test for Technician Class. One week ahead of time, the students
received a print-out of the question pool. On Ham Cram day, from 7:30 AM
to
1:00 PM they were drilled on the questions, with the correct answer being
stressed. After a lunch break, at 2:00 PM my VE License exam team arrived
to
test them. 13 of 14 passed. BUT, I have had contact with several of
these
students since the Ham Cram, and they had almost no practical knowledge of
amateur radio. They required A LOT of Elmering. IMHO, lessons spread out
one
night a week for a couple of months, with practical demonstrations and
discussions of ham culture would have made much better hams.

73 de Dick, AC7EL

There is very little math on the Tech test. If you can't remember to divide
the number "300", you probably won't remember the rest of the answers.
However, experience makes a good ham, not knowledge of the answers. I am an
extra class ham, but I realized that without experience or a fundamental
knowledge of electronics, I really couldn't do much more than push a button
and chat.
-Mindraker

Entry-level class
 

Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:
Last December, some hams in my town put on a "Ham Cram" one-day study and
license test for Technician Class. One week ahead of time, the students
received a print-out of the question pool. On Ham Cram day, from 7:30 AM to
1:00 PM they were drilled on the questions, with the correct answer being
stressed. After a lunch break, at 2:00 PM my VE License exam team arrived to
test them. 13 of 14 passed. BUT, I have had contact with several of these
students since the Ham Cram, and they had almost no practical knowledge of
amateur radio. They required A LOT of Elmering. IMHO, lessons spread out one
night a week for a couple of months, with practical demonstrations and
discussions of ham culture would have made much better hams.

I think that the optimum recipe for baking a new ham is first a class
that teaches basic concepts based on the pool questions, then the exam,
followed by a combination of classes and one-on-one Elmering to get the
new hams on the air and integrated into the ham-radio community.

If you present a prospective ham with the prospect of a class that
continues for months they're likely to be intimidated to the point of
deciding that they can't make that level of time commitment. The trick
is finding a scheduling scheme that gives you enough time to do more
than just go over the pool questions but doesn't scare away all the
prospective students.

A one-day cram might be a good starting point *if* there is plenty of
followup support and the new/prospective hams are encouraged to do more
than attend the one-day class, pass their written test, and then never
get involved with the hobby. Personally, I don't care for cram
sessions, but some people do, and they have the advantage of providing
an opportunity to get people "hooked" and thereby get them into
appropriate followup activities. They also have the potential for being
such a negative experience that they turn off prospective hams.
Everything is a trade off.

The key to getting new people involved in the hobby is to pique their
interest enough that they follow through. Back in the "good 'ole days"
the allure of radio technology was enough to attract folks, many of them
teenagers, into the hobby. In today's world, radio is pretty "low tech"
and this natural attraction is diluted by newer bells and whistles. We
need to do the same kinds of public relations and marketing that is done
by other activities that are competing for peoples' spare time. We need
people to read or see something that makes them think, "Gee, that could
be a rewarding activity." You can offer all the entry-level classes you
want, but if no one is interested enough in the potential of ham radio
to attend the class, nothing is gained.

That's not to say that I have any magic answers on how to do this. I do
see a trend of more "middle aged" recruits coming on board these days --
people who have had the idea in the back of their heads for years of
getting into ham radio, and finally have time to act on it. My
experience is that many of these folks see an article about ham radio
being used for some aspect of public service, and that's what re-kindles
the latent idea, but I have no real scientific basis for that belief. I
think it would be a good use of ARRL funds to do some market research in
this area, figure out what it is that's motivating people to enter the
hobby, then use that knowledge to improve our PR.

As an aside, for those who might be interested in the class that was the
impetus to start this thread, I've got ten students and I think that
things are going well. Most of the students are interacting in the
class and seem to be enthusiastic about what they're learning. (Well,
perhaps "enthusiastic" is a bit of an overstatement since much of what
we discuss is dry regulations, but at least I haven't heard any snores
yet.) Of course it is much too early to tell how successful we will be
since I will judge that based on how many of these folks I hear on the
air and see at local ham-related activities six months from now.

73, Steve KB9X

Entry-level class
 

Steve Bonine wrote:
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 trade offs. 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


I never got a class for my novice license thirty years ago. I listened
to a lot of code on a shortwave radio in the parlor of a church's
community building and practically memorized an ARRL publication
entitled "How to Become a Radio Amateur" if I'm remembering correctly.
And even though I'm an electrician by craft let me assure you that there
is not a lot of theory to electrical service work. The only time I've
needed ohms law is for long outdoor feeders but I was ahead of the other
apprentices when I learned about feeders because of amateur radio. I
let my novice license lapse because I moved to an apartment and could
not have antennas there.

So back in January my Fire Chief calls me aside and says since you've
been training the Community Emergency Response Team volunteers and
studied up on disaster preparedness I want you to represent the
department on the cities Disaster Preparedness Committee. My work on
the committee showed me that the local government could not afford a lot
by way of communications for disaster response work. The only likely
source of help we could identify was amateur radio.

I new there had been a lot of changes in the thirty years gone by so I
took the technician class given over two weekends in February of this
year. One of the things that the instructors showed us was some home
brew antennas. After passing my exam I tackled a collinear J-Pole as my
first home brew antenna because I could afford the tubing a lot easier
than I could afford any of the ready made antennas that claimed a
similar gain. I bought a used SWR meter, a club member checked it
against an antenna analyzer into a club antenna, and using only that SWR
meter and some patience I adjusted the J-pole to an acceptable SWR. A
used Yaesu FT470, Mirage BD35, and that J-pole, and I'm working a fair
number of repeaters, participating in the local EMCOM training net and
working every public service gig I can. I can't build a radio yet, but
I have been praised for my work on the events by people who have no
reason to butter me up. I got to try out HF at the Get On The Air table
of the clubs field day in June and the list goes on. I think I'm
getting an awful lot of mileage out of that two weekends.

I know I'm rambling but don't sell your students short. If you put the
effort into preparing a lot of show and tell, using real world examples
they may surprise you with how much they learn. Some of what they learn
you may never be aware of but the stuff I learned out of ARRL books is
still helping me feed my family. The material they put in the effort to
present during those two weekends back in February is helping me to
learn to help my community if the stuff ever does hit the fan.
--
Tom Horne, W3TDH

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison