I know training varies across the corps, my points were more an academic discussion point than anything else.
It will work for some, but not for others.
One has to wonder what the point of having any method of instruction training is if weâre just going to sit cadets in front of a PC and let them poke through a powerpoint presentation?
The current problem with that self-learning approach is that many of the powerpoint slides are not designed that way.
Theyâre intended (as any good powerpoint should be) to be used as a visual aid to supplement the instruction delivered by a competent instructor.
In particular I defy anyone without prior specialist knowledge to self learn from the Jet Propulsion PPT.
It only seems like a certain review some 16 years ago, so, no more over 20, dropping to no more over 18, then back to over 18 is ok with conditions.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Iâm a schitzophrenic,
And so am I.
Youâre not suggesting that the 2020 action plam has exactly the same or similar themes to those of the past.
I have a recollection of doing a syndicate exercise at an annual COs meeting in the late 90s and being given a survey/review of the Corpsâ activities to give the Wg Cdr a feel of what we thought. IIRC many of the points were the same/similar to this AP.
We have to stop getting all doe-eyed about 18 year olds. There were similar concerns about dropping the upper age of cadets from 22 to 20.
When the LASER Review was in process and after, they rambled on about older cadets as been high-flying which was typical meaningless management BS that appears in reports etc. I asked 2 different people at 2 different COâs annual meeting to define this and it was typically woolly.
Iâve heard comments that older ACF cadets leave due to the younger start age and annecdotally the same will happen in the ATC, if/when we drop to Yr8. Frankly I would remove this conumdrum for them and drop the upper age to 18 and they become adult staff at 18. If they say no then they have to wait until 20 and come back. I donât know what itâs like in the rest of the country but locally many 18 year olds are in 6th Form looking at going to uni or working (mostly in the retail sector) and as a result their attendance and subsequently effectiveness as NCOs is reduced. If they were adult staff there wouldnât be this expectation and if they go to uni, a transfer as a CI would be less fraut than the transfers cadet SNCOs can cause to the receiving sqn. Then there is the removal of all the problems with camps etc.
[quote=âglass half empty 2â post=15888]
We have to stop getting all doe-eyed about 18 year olds. There were similar concerns about dropping the upper age of cadets from 22 to 20.
When the LASER Review was in process and after, they rambled on about older cadets as been high-flying which was typical meaningless management BS that appears in reports etc. I asked 2 different people at 2 different COâs annual meeting to define this and it was typically woolly.
Iâve heard comments that older ACF cadets leave due to the younger start age and annecdotally the same will happen in the ATC, if/when we drop to Yr8. Frankly I would remove this conumdrum for them and drop the upper age to 18 and they become adult staff at 18. If they say no then they have to wait until 20 and come back. I donât know what itâs like in the rest of the country but locally many 18 year olds are in 6th Form looking at going to uni or working (mostly in the retail sector) and as a result their attendance and subsequently effectiveness as NCOs is reduced. If they were adult staff there wouldnât be this expectation and if they go to uni, a transfer as a CI would be less fraut than the transfers cadet SNCOs can cause to the receiving sqn. Then there is the removal of all the problems with camps etc.[/quote]
I was pretty much going to say this. Personally, when I was 18, I didnât want to be a cadet any more. I was working full time with a fairly responsible position and 1) didnât have the time and 2) didnât really feel like being treated like a child. I stayed because I was asked to by the new CO and hated every minute of it. I probably wouldnât have minded so much if Iâd been a CI.
I think people do need to adapt a bit to deliver training with ultilearn and different groups. Some cadets do benefit from supervised self study and some do need a bit more of a âlessonâ structure. Iâd lean towards mostly self study with some clarifying lessons if people are struggling, but I find other staff donât like to do that because itâs ânot the way itâs doneâ.
Weâve always had to adapt to be able to instruct different learning styles and while yes self-study with tutor support is a good option, currently the materials on Ultilearn are not up to scratch on so many levels to even get anywhere near being fit for purpose for real e-learning. We should have something more than a few scappy powerpoints.
We were promised so much, materials prepared by SMEs (but not so it seems in the subjects, excl propulsion, theyâve prepared them for) and all manner of different ways of testing understanding and so little has been delivered, like all of HQACâs forays into EWoW.
Looking at the powerpoints some have had more care taken, but mostly it seems theyâve copy/paste chunks of text from the old books. An untrained chimp could do that. Iâve been mostly using my old stuff, as it does the job.
IMO the reality of what happened is that the old questions and paper setting database was we were told to all intents on itâs last legs, as a result HQAC went into headless chicken, went for a quick fix and et voila we got Ultilearn. Just like all IT systems in the Corps we have been told we have to use it, regardless of its readiness or suitability.
All theyâve seemed to to want to do is put all of the old questions on Ultilearn, and Iâve seen any number of change requests where the questions are not covered in the material and or answers provided are wrong. The other things are there for convenience sake rather than provide a meaningful resource for classifications. Iâm amazed itâs been accredited, but given modern exam standards Iâm not.
Surely the cadets, let alone staff, deserve something better.
Sometimes the level of gross misunderstanding and the frequency of people to accuse othersâ shocks me. How can you say that is what happens.
Did you attend the workshops?
Did you attend the SME meetings?
Did you attend the planning meeting?
Did you attend any of the Training Officer meetings?
Have you read the project outline?
Were you involved in the old exam system management at a corps level?
Were you involved in creating the new system?
Were you involved in the creation of the material for the new system?
What have YOU done to improve things, other than spout ill informed drivel on here? Antilocution is an abhorant trait to have as an officer.
I can answer yes to absolutely all of those questions. And wholeheartedly agree with what GHE2 has said - Ultilearn is not fit for purpose. The cadets deserve better. Pure and simple.
I think that there is a tendency to be rather cynical and gripe about things on here, which is only to be expected - much like a hire car or going on an airliner, we only really care about the bits that are wrong.
BADER isnât really THAT bad, especially now. OK, SMS is rather labour-intensive to use and could do with some short-cuts (and perhaps a little more freedom to output the information), the email inboxes are too small (and people still keep sending huge attachments) and Sharepoint is a decent bit of software that is a little spoiled by users duplicating, putting hopeless file names on and a not entirely clear structure.
But yeah, itâll do.
Ultilearn on the other hand is a completely useless pile of toss. A 6-year old with some half-eaten crayons could have created something more fit for purpose for our needs. Even as a E-Learning software - something that we donât really need, and even if a need is there it shouldnât be the focus - itâs hopeless, not at all intuitive and hideously clunky.
As a document repository itâs even worse.
Im with the above on this. Ultilearn is a pile to toss.
Does it save time for HQ Formations - undoubtedly, no printing and mass circulation of papers, marking those papers, clue cards floating around etc etc etc.
Does it save time and effort locally? No it doesnât. Pure and simple. Its a clunkly ill designed program in my opinion. Connectivity with SMS is poor at best, although better than how it was initially - none.
We have had bandwidth issues, which at least seem to be mostly resolved.
But by comparison, if our IT department here implemented a system so poorly theyâd be out on their ear.
And whilst it may save time for HQs, what about time locally? There are 6(ish) wings per region, 6 regions and one national HQ having their admin reduced, but circa 1000 units across the corps with volunteers having their time burden increased.
It could (and should) be implemeted much more successfully than it has.
Ultilearn isnât a pile of toss. Itâs actually a half decent system. How we are using it is a pile of toss.
Those two are worlds apart, and you can point the finger at the Regional Trg Offâs who have been forcing the issue at Sqns and hiding the fact that it hasnât been well received by the end user. The difficulty is, HOW do you fix it? There isnât anyone capable of writing any e-learning courses for it and HQAC donât have the staff anymore thanks to VES.
Unless itâs been very heavily modified for our use (possible, I suppose) then even the base software is a pile of toss.
See for example the fact that you register for courses under âadvanced securityâ, the fact that the only way to change a password appears to be by telling the system that youâve forgotten the old one and the fact that a number of the hyperlinks donât even work.
QuestionâŚ
âŚwhy didnât the ACO just buy moodle or ebridge, or better stillâŚuse sharepoint better??
Iâve found Ultilearn to be buggy, convoluted, bloatedâŚ
I recently undertook a brief online course using Moodle and sat the assessment on that system.
It was FAR superior to the Ultilearn interface.
Having used Noodle in a school on a number of occassions, as well as authouring my own courses on it, it is far superior to that of Ultilearn.
I donât know who designed their UXP, but they seriously need to go back to the drawing board - registering for courses through Advanced Security - whose idea was theta?
I wrote a really long angry post about ultilearn, but my internet died before I could post it. Probably a good thing!
Anyway, this isnât an ultifarce bashing thread. What about OC 2FTSâs plans for changing gliding to having a cadet attend the BGS on 3 separate occasions to do progressive GICs, then doing further gliding once theyâre 16 and only then deciding if they should go solo.
Getting 8 slots a year roughly, how long will it take 6 years just for my 45 cadets to do 1 GIC, let alone 3! Madness I tell you!
Have you used it in âreal worldâ for e-learning?
Would the RTOâs get an opportunity to say it wasnât well recieved and more importantly would they be listened to? Given that it was rolled out without being properly tested, I doubt any level of concern would have changed anything. I imagine it would be regarded as our fault that it doesnât work!! Theyâd signed the contract etc and it was a case then of making the oversized metal square peg fit the metal round hole, rather than saying doesnât work for us, try something else.
There must also be a degree of Wing and Regional Staff having been away from the coalface for so long and or not having to use the things, that they canât really represent us properly. Iâve never been asked for feedback, but have offered it as I expect Wing Staff to represent our views.
It canât just be me who knows CFAV who have worked with the Corpsâs SLT over the years and been thoroughly disillusioned by the experience.
With respect to other points on the AP the Corps has many CFAV working day in day out as teachers, trainers, IT professionals, own or manage businesses, fund-raisers, media/comms, journalism, recruitment, project management et al, who could contribute / do things a damn sight better than our SLT, but wouldnât get the opportunity as they are rank and file CFAV. But then again probably after one or two meetings, theyâd probably decide they have better things to do. I know senior CFAV who go in again and again hoping that the mindset will change, but it never does.
Itâs all well and good criticising people for being negative, but when you see so many points being repeated from previous strategies/action plans and we are no further forward, itâs hard to get a warm fuzzy feeling.
[quote=âpEpâ post=15936]Anyway, this isnât an ultifarce bashing thread. What about OC 2FTSâs plans for changing gliding to having a cadet attend the BGS on 3 separate occasions to do progressive GICs, then doing further gliding once theyâre 16 and only then deciding if they should go solo.
Getting 8 slots a year roughly, how long will it take 6 years just for my 45 cadets to do 1 GIC, let alone 3! Madness I tell you![/quote]
Erm I would say it displays a total lack of understanding of the practicalities ⌠but then should we be too surprised? Itâs a new bloke in post looking to make a name for himself, just like all senior managers they feel compelled to change things to something nonsensical, when whatâs already in place, by and large works.
Before making such a suggestion he should attend a VGS throughout the year to see what happens, such as winch fails and poor weather.
Iâve only had 1 in our last 4 gliding details not adversely affected by problems with the winch and or weather, 1 was a complete wash out, after sitting around for 3½ hours.
Is OC 2FTS as much of a, err, controversial appointment as some have suggested? Donât know himâŚ
Itâs all well and good having a review⌠but let the review have the thoughts of all stakeholders⌠not just the yes men in middle management positionsâŚ