| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 5th 03, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Bob Brock
writes: On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Then what do you think that they test for? Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops Bob, If you're bothering to argue with Bruce.... In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the correct answer then? You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to memorize the correct sequence were you? The point is that the level of UNDERSTANDING required to pass the writtens today is a lot less than it would be if the actual Q&A were not made public. I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn. So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems. OK, fine. Did they KNOW, from Day 1, that the test they would be taking would consist of the exact questions and answers you gave them on Day 1? Was the passing grade 74%? Was there a penalty for wrong answers? We didn't play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives. Nobody's saying the tests should go beyond the stated objectives. That worked very well in a nuclear environment. I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety. We maintained a SALP 1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for quite a while. Were the employees tested once at the beginning of their employment at the plant, and never again? Or was continuing education an integral part of that environment? Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment, but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that. Not a question of complexity. In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or they don't pass the test. Not all hams take formal classes - in fact, most probably don't. In the bad old days, the FCC published a study guide that listed, in essay form, the type of questions and typical solutions that would be found on the tests. For example, there were questions about Ohm's Law for a DC circuit and how to solve them. Any prospective ham knew he/she would be expected to know how to solve E = I/R and P = IE problems, resistors in series, parallel and series-parallel, etc. And anybody who had a basic UNDERSTANDING of that stuff would have no problem on those test questions. But the actual Q&A were not made public. Today, with the actual Q&A in hand, less understanding is required. That's what bothers some folks. Consider this: Today, the test for Tech is 35 questions from a published pool. Most of those questions are on regulations, with some operating practices, theory and safety stuff. Yet the license granted for passing that test gives alla amateur privileges above 30 MHz, including the authorization to design, build, repair, align, modify and most of all operate transmitters of up to 1500 W power output on 'meat cooking frequencies' as WK3C puts it. There is no separate safety testing nor ongoing education - someone can get all of the RF exposure questions wrong and still pass. Do you think that the test and its methods are really adequate for the privileges granted? FCC does. In fact, back in 2000 they lowered the written requirement for the Tech license by almost half. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
