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

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

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

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

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

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

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