Oh I see! So having extra time etc would be a problem. With you now! Sorry, brain fade - too damn hot!
1 Like
The level of qualification we offer does not require Understanding. A PASS level qualifications requires only Remembering. Credit level would required some Understanding and Distinction would require Applying / Analysing. Until we have a syllabus that requires more, what is wrong with then just knowing the answer.
But whatâs the point of a syllabus where they only know the answer? Just do away with it completely.
Because Ultifail failed to be able to bring in the Credit and Distinction level questions. The software isnât intelligent enough to self-mark, so every exam paper would have to be marked by an examiner - circa 120,000 exam papers each year. Which no doubt would fall to⌠the CFAVs
So you mean like it was, which worked for decades pre-ultifail. Which in less than a decade has never really worked as per the hype.
When ultifail was being pushed, our WTO at the time just went on and on about the time it took a few people to sort the question papers for squadrons, then mark the papers and how wonderful an online exam would be. At an OC conf it was suggested (not for the first time) swapping papers between local sqns, couldnât do that, they all had to go to Wing to be marked. Many of us at the time had tried using on-line learning packages at work and theyâd never really been any good. This was how ultifail was pushed, learning materials online, cadets work independently, option to do exams at home, if I was the parent of a cadet be happy about this, nope, but I know squadrons did and do push this model.
The problem comes with the practical subjects. In particular basic navigation.
We should be able to rely upon a Leading cadet having at least a basic understanding of how to use a compass, because thatâs what we supposedly teach them, and what they have apparently passed a test on, but we just canât rely on that.
Itâs because of the absolute failure of the current system that I spent years on JL having to teach it all from scratch. I used to administer the navigation test at selection, some of the things I saw cadets do (senior cadets, the best in the corps allegedly) were scary, these were cadets who had no clue how a compass worked, and no idea how to find anything on a map. Meanwhile, I finished Leading knowing how to undertake resection, because I was taught it properly.
snap!
during my BEL training i joined a DofE practise weekend to understand the role âremote supervisionâ
from a distance we watched the group reach a convenient junction, sure enough 10-15 minutes after we arrived they appeared, took a look at their maps to decide which of the two options theyâd take.
the options were basically a 90 right or 30degree left (so basically straight on from the path theyâd taken)
their route was to take the left, and the evidence couldnât have been clearer - standing on a farm track, in front of them was some woods, their route running along the LHS of the woods , on to a footpath. The alternative a 90 right, running along the RHS of the woods continuing along the farm track heading up a hill
yes they took the right, which as it happened curved around to where they needed to be, added a little more than half a mile to their route.
i was shocked they confidently strode off in the wrong direction. ok so it wasnât a life or death decision, but that half a mile could have been a 2 mile or more diversion, from what was a straightforward option of A vs B.
in my experience some Squadrons throw their cadets at a practise expedition without any real practical navigation training and it shows with examples like this one
1 Like
I think that is a symptom of the organisation becoming so target driven (it is in my wing at least).
During our AFI, it isnât about how well run the Sqn is, how much enjoyment the cadets are getting out of it, or how many charitable events we have taken part in. The majority of the focus is upon how many badges and awards are issued.
The problem is, that when the focus is on quantity of awards over quality of experience or training, it becomes largely a box ticking exercise - and there becomes little or no incentive to ensure that the job is done properly.
2 Likes
i agree - at times our [the organisation as whole] approach is too âsausage factoryâ
as mentioned above, rather than offer understanding and knowledge of a subject it is remembering an answer.
with DofE it is a case of throw them through the expedition, using the practise as the training element(!)
with the PTS the numbers on the boards makes it even more the case.
success is unfortunately measured on the easy to record items, squadron strength and badges obtained. CFAVs are guilty of it to
CFAV 1: Hi how it is going? is 123 Sqn doing well?
CFAV2: oh hi, great to see you again, yeah weâre ticking along with 35 Cadets now - all is well.
1 Like
This is an historic factor and is now embedded in culture like woodworm. When we used to get a T&A grant which was basically money handed out related to capitation, how many you had, and at each classification, rank got ÂŁx for each cadet. If we had this now the corruption of just pushing cadets through classifications would be immense and if badges were included the corruption would be ten fold.
I think given itâs all electronic now it should be quite easy to prevent cadets whistling through the classifications, it is odd that it isnât, with time limits imposed after failing a paper and then after passing the last component, which includes squadrons being able to register cadets for exams.
One thing though remove the time limits on passwords. When it comes to taking tests, I can spend an evening updating passwords on ultifail.