"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
questions and not mastering the material.

I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.


Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
concepts.

It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question
and exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become
familiar enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that
they simply recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se
of the actual question or answer. Much like the same way you become
familiar with, say, streets along your daily commute, even though you
probably do not have a map memorized in your head.


I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in
97.1


so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated
based on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:

T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz


Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?


Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes
it appear as a "graduation exam".

From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become
familiar enough with the question pools to pass the examination.

However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to
"know" ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to
the question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the
question?

Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for
at least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure
that applicants actually know the material they are tested on.

73
KH6HZ


From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license. Afterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

You know, if we came up with enough ideas, we could probably open up most
ham bands to business interests and they don't have to take a test at all.

On the other hand, we could identify what the critical tasks a ham operator
needs to operate, tell the prospective ham what those tasks are, give the
prospective ham the answers to those tasks (such as a question and answer
pool) and then test on those identified objectives. After the new ham gets
his license to get on the air, we could provide him with a learning
environment to enhance those basic skills and become a more experienced and
adept operator.

Me, I go for plan "B."

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob Brock wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

Here's a sample - lots more to come.

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:

Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used.
It's
more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it.

Every tried grading essay questions?

Yes - but you missed the point, Bob.

In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that
most of them were 5 choices rather than 4.

But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given
above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not
officially.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yeah, but then there were all those "unofficial" question pools. The same
thing is done with the "General Contractors" exam here. For a fee, you can
know what questions are on the various exams and hence have a study guide.
Whether it's sanctioned or not, it would still happen. I'll bet that the
truth be told, there were some underground copies of test questions
available even back then. You know, if everyone in the club came back an
just wrote down the questions that they remember, it wouldn't take long to
cover over 90 percent of the pool of questions.

Giving the study guides in essay format and then testing multiple choice
gives the test writer a lot of leeway in how the questions are worded. Some
people get off on writing questions so that the test is not so much on your
knowledge of the subject as it is about your ability to read carefully. The
reason that it worked back then was because the tests were administered by
the FCC and had a lot more oversight than todays test administrators do.
The only real soulution would be to provide an accepted pool of test
questions that would be approved to be on the tests. However, then we come
back to how those test pools would be available for a price after a while.

Now, a better question would be, if the current test procedure produce
operators capable of functioning at the minimum entry level for that
particular classification of ham, why would we feel compelled to change it?
Bear in mind, I'm not opposed to proposing a change to the testing method
provided there is a tangable benefit to it beyond simply making it harder to
get a ticket.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

Here's a sample - lots more to come.

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:

Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used.
It's more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is
taking it.

Every tried grading essay questions?

There has always been a lot of room for interpretation on essay
questions. And interpretation always leaves a lot of room for further
interpretations, ie arguments.

That is exactly my point. It leave the person grading the test a lot of
lattitude. It also gives them real big headaches.

From: Bob Brock on Sun, Jan 21 2007 6:10 am

wrote in message
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in


Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used. It's
more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it.

Every tried grading essay questions?

My wife has worked at that (Illinois, with a Masters in
Education) for several years, mostly in regards to US History.
It's a difficult task given the wide span of students'
ability to write and express themselves. Ask any teacher or
college instructor and get - more or less - the same answer.
:-)

Since 1934 and the Communications Act, the FCC has never been
chartered to be an academic institution or organization and,
as far as I've been able to find out, FCC field office
officials have never been required to hold any degrees or
certification in education as part of their jobs. Essay
ANSWERS generally require a goodly part of time in just
trying to understand what the test-taker wrote for any
answer. Much, much more time than pulling out an answer
template to lay over a multiple-choice answer sheet. [such
answer templates are in wide use in most all government
agency testing, not just in schools and colleges]

The one bit of good advice I got in 1956 for my First 'Phone
test in Chicago was: "Be clear in your writing, concise and
legible." Even for the few schematics that had to be drawn.
No sweat, even with the government-issue #3 lead pencils we
had to use. I printed my answers to be sure they had a
minimum of handwriting-interpretation tasks. :-) I passed.

The law's requirements for VEs doesn't require ANY of them
to possess academic certificates or college degrees nor
experience in test-giving and test-grading. Privatization of
ALL radio operator license testing (commercial as well as
amateur) pretty much dictates the easier-to-grade multiple-
choice question-answer format. Certainly so for the all-
volunteer amateur radio test coordinators.

Bob Brock wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob Brock wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now, a better question would be, if the current test procedure produce
operators capable of functioning at the minimum entry level for that
particular classification of ham, why would we feel compelled to change it?
Bear in mind, I'm not opposed to proposing a change to the testing method
provided there is a tangable benefit to it beyond simply making it harder to
get a ticket.

I agree a much better question don't expect an answer from jim though

and yes if I am shown a better method that will work at least as well
etc and serve th interest of the public and the ars i will be all for
it but on the scale of how hard the test should I want the number to be
1.0 enough units if that can not be assured Id rather have the test be
0,9 enough units than 2 or more enough units

From: Cecil Moore on Mon, Jan 22 2007 9:07 am

AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
as of a government"

From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
"avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"

Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...

It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".
That part cannot be argued. The "service" that is
performed is by the federal government for the
benefit of US citizens.

Welp, putting dictionaries aside, I rather prefer
the FCC's own definition of the word "service" in
regard to ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. (of which Part 97
is one of the smaller Parts):

"The word 'service' is a regulatory term, denoting
a type and kind of radio activity being regulated."

All throughout Title 47 is found the word "service"
such as Private Land Mobile Radio SERVICE, Aviation
Radio SERVICE, and (gasp!) Citizens Band Radio
SERVICE! :-)

It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not
a choice of either/or. It is both.

Ahem, that's an interpretation. I prefer what the
FCC itself uses in regards to definitions...and also
note that the FCC is chartered by Congress to only
US civil radio. Military SERVICE is governed by the
Department of Defense and military radio use is done
in cooperation with the NTIA. By law, the FCC
cannot regulate military radio service.

One problem with so many amateur licensees is their
imaginations leading them to believe (wrongly) that
their (defacto) hobby is a form of "national service"
just by being federally licensed. That imagination
makes them think they are more than just hobbyists.
They reinforce that by boastfully pointing to their
volunteer efforts in helping their communities. In
truth, ANY citizen can volunteer to help their
community (in or out of emergency situations)
without any "license" of any kind. That's called
"civic duty," sometimes "civic responsibility."

I've nothing against anyone pipe-dreaming or doing
the wish-fulfillment dreaming. However, such
fantasy role-playing should NOT be codified in law
NOR be some kind of "definition" which is really
a grossly-distorted interpretation. Politicians
are constantly reinforcing such pipe-dreaming and
fantasy role-playing by proclaiming the "goodness"
and "nobleness" of ALL KINDS of activities. But,
those proclamations are just the usual political
bull**** done to favor certain groups and get the
politicians' names into public media.

US amateur radio is basically a HOBBY, a radio
activity of NON-pecuniary compensation, forbidden
by law to be a broadcasting service. It is
regulated by charter of the Congress due to the
nature of laws of physics and the propagation of
electromagnetic waves...something that applies to
ALL radio, not just amateur radio.

From: "KH6HZ" on Mon, Jan 22 2007 6:53 am

wrote:

lolol.

Poor senile old boy.

I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.

"Judge" Miccolis has "ruled" that there is no statute of
limitartions in newsgroups. Take it to his court...

For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.

Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
"legally" defrauding the US government?

Ship radio license WCD6729 was granted 1 Feb 94, no FRN given,
FCC required mailing address given as Grapeview, WA, 98546.

Ship radio license WCN4898 was granted 13 Oct 94, FRN given
as 0003639002, mailing address given as Chepachet, RI.

Both ship radio licenses expired in 2004.

Both ship radio licenses were granted to "Deignan, Michael P."

Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
"Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
licenses at one time...PLUS having given his "residence"
address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
license application. Was "Deignan, Michael P." EVER a
RESIDENT in the state of Hawaii? Residency is not defined
as temporarily staying there as on a vacation.

"Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
and dates all point to a single individual.

FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
called a "tell" to investigators. A common characteristic
of those seeking to hide something. Anyone with a full
brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
so coincidental.

Now, I could go into the collusion you had with Jeffrey
Herman on your KH6 vanity callsign...but that has already
been done and you've been forced to give up your "club"
calls by the FCC. Tsk, tsk. The mighty "RF Commandos"
were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.

It's rather obvious also that you refused to give an
explanation for taking out so many "club" calls or the
misleading "residence address" of Hawaii for you vanity
callsign. [a KH6 must be oh, so tres chic in New England
area, much better than a plebian KD1 like your previous
license of KD1HZ, another vanity call]


Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
Lennie?

I have neither "yellow stickys" nor acoustic modem.

Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.

Tsk, tsk, an amateur extra betraying Miccolis' boast that
all pro-coders are "polite, civil" people who never
utter personal insults? Yes, they DO exist as proven by
the quotes above.

I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
But, to drop to the vernacular of the ugly, feel free to
eat my shorts. :-)

Aloha,

LA

KH6HZ wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote:

It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
questions and not mastering the material.

I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.

Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
concepts.

It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question and
exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become familiar
enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that they simply
recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se of the actual
question or answer. Much like the same way you become familiar with, say,
streets along your daily commute, even though you probably do not have a map
memorized in your head.

Exactly - you may not even consciously know the street names, but you
know
the route.

Here's another "memorization" example:

Way back when "Trivial Pursuit" first came out, somebody gave me the
game as a present. I kept the card sets out and carried a small bundle
around with me. I'd glance
at them at odd moments - waiting for/riding the elevator, during TV
commercials, while waiting for the washer or dryer to complete a load,
etc. In a relatively short time I had gone through the first box of
cards twice.

I didn't try to consciously memorize the questions and answers on the
cards, I just read the questions, tried to guess the answers, and then
looked to see if I was right.

The end result was that I was near-unbeatable in a game *if* they
started with the first box of cards. I hadn't really "memorized" all
the Q&A, or even most of them, but having seen them before put me way
ahead of most other players.

I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1

Perhaps, but that's not the big issue.

What I see as the big issue is that such testing may actually do a
disservice to the amateurs themselves, because they wind up with a
license but not the basic knowledge
on how to set up a station and operate it.

so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated based
on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:

T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz

Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?

Because that wouldn't help the situation at all - at least not in the
above example.

First off, a regulations question is essentially a memorization
question. A Ph.D. in EE,
a pile of patents and the Nobel Prize in physics won't help a person
answer that question if they don't know the relevant rules in Part 97.

Second, if the exact questions are publicly available, figuring out the
correct answer is pretty easy. Then all the person has to do is
"memorize" the correct answer enough to recognize it. Changing the
distractors doesn't make any difference. In fact, if one intends to
"memorize" the pool, the first step is to blank out all the distractors
and only look at the right answers!

Where such an approach would have an effect would be in questions like
Ohm's Law, where the values could be randomly generated.

Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes it
appear as a "graduation exam".

From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become familiar
enough with the question pools to pass the examination.

Maybe not. I think that, in the long run, it is actually easier to
learn the material.
It's the short run that is the problem.

However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to "know"
ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to the
question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the question?

Agreed! The issue is *not* how "hard" the tests are, but how good they
are.

Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for at
least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure that
applicants actually know the material they are tested on.

Agree again!

In practice, however, not much can be done other than to enlarge the
question pools
and possibly have computer randomization of values. The FCC is clearly
not going to
take over the testing jobs that have been done by unpaid volunteers for
more than 20
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
snip
...



Len:

Sorry for snipping it all.

Great work of text, logic and facts!

So, you claim hams are nothing more than
"Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"

Well, the CB'ers have claimed that for decades! grin

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
snip
...



Len:

Sorry for snipping it all.

Do that again and I'll have Governor Arnie "pay you a visit..."

Remember that Stockton ain't far from Sacramento...:-)

Great work of text, logic and facts!

So, you claim hams are nothing more than
"Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"

Nah...only SOME of them. Peyote-munchers or stash
puffers or the sweet nothings desperately searching for
ANY kind of title-rank-status that they never had.

Well, the CB'ers have claimed that for decades! grin

Yanno (to use your own expression), I've NEVER heard
that claim. Really. But, I don't hang out with CB-ers,
just give a listen once in a while. All I hear (besides
heterodynes) are ordinary folks gabbing, communicating,
and so forth, hardly anyone using the Gog-diven, OFFICIAL
Language of Radio hamspeak. Roger that, old-timer? :-)

Warmest regards,

Thank you but I will appreciate just some warmth. I hope
the San Walk-In is suffering less from this alleged
"global warming" Arnie wants to put off. Brrrrrr.

Overranout, beep, beep,

LA