At a glance it looks really nice.
2 Likes
Seconded it looks good.
from a quick skim through it thought it was a bit slow, but it gives chance for those who don’t understand some thinking time.
Does seem to be quite “self taught” as it looked the the “instructor” could just click play on the video and it does the rest (hence the " " on instructor).
i find it odd that the logbook still contains these mystery “pass”, “merit” and “distinction” questions.
I seem to recall once soon after these were first seen this would mean something but years later people stopped questioning it and nothing came of it so those questions are ignored (at least in my experience) either due to time pressures, lack of knowledge of the instructor or simple ease of getting recruits through. So lost as to why with these rewrite they remain…if pass is all that is required why go further?
example - should it really be optional for Cadets to know the effects of control surfaces and yet be “awarded” a pass in flying operations?
(a distinction level question - page 15)
you’d hope that the “average” Cadet would be able to explain or at least demonstrate with their hand what would happen to an aircraft if pitch, roll or yaw input was made…
neither do i understand what makes some questions a pass, merit or distinction…for example runway markings are only a merit level question (page 9) which seems a “harder”/more “specialist” knowledge than the effects of control surfaces of the distinction level…?
1 Like
This doesn’t sound suitable to me.
1 Like
Garghhhh.
Yeah. Just a flaming bit!
Jeez… let us click through at our pace…
1 Like
it think it frustrated me cos I am (trying to) flicking through the slides during work, a “skim read” isn’t possible but suspect in a “teaching” environment it might well be a better pace, particularly as 90% of the audience won’t know or understand the content
1 Like
A change has been made to the courses just now; try using the slider at the bottom of the screen to skip content if you wish. Just click near the end of the slider to skip any waiting time. 
You might need to clear your cache if you want to use the new feature right away; it will do it by itself, but it normally takes a while for your browser to realise there’s a change.
3 Likes
The vision is / was (not sure) to have an ‘unlocked’ instructor-lef version, too.
The first class booklet isn’t good. In fact, the entire classification syllabus needs an overhaul. The main problem I find with the first class booklet is that cadets find it boring. I see it in their faces and I’ve heard them say it’s boring. Staff also hate it. What are we doing this evening? First class classification. Oh, 
I know I’m going to be attacked for saying this, but I’ll say it anyway: Classification subjects being ‘taught’ by unqualified, untrained & unmotivated staff make the subjects really confusing and boring for cadets. Where’s the achievement for cadets in copying answers into their first class booklet?
The leading and senior/master classification syllabus content is ok, but again, there is a problem in the way it’s delivered. Too much reliance on ppt presentations. I’m guilty of it myself. It’s easier to pull up an existing ppt and start talking than it is to plan an engaging lesson. I’ve now resolved to avoid ppt as much as possible and plan lessons where cadets move around and do practical things. IMHO, on-line assessments should also be scrapped. Assessment should be like they do in other cadet forces and in PPL ground exams. Formal exam conditions with paper exam sheets. Might not suit everyone, but it’s the best way to gauge understanding.
2 Likes
unqualified? well i am guessing the “qualification” best suited here is MOI (as a qualification in the history of flight would be too specialist), which as far as our Wing is open to all staff, so it is staff choice if they don’t go on it.
untrained? see unqualified - although to receive the “training” does require another day out of their weekends to commit to, which isn’t really necessary for the straightforward subjects in First Class, even more so when many of the subjects are moving across to online platforms/video
unmotivated? well i agree this is a major issue and such individuals should have the due diligence to not put themselves in front of the class.
In my time on 8 Squadrons the “First Class instructor” tends to be either a dedicated individual, often a CSgt/CFS or CFAV and in the case of 2 units, it was a CI who “specialised” in teaching it (ie it is all they did).
this is instructor error.
When i teach my classification lessons (First class radio and MAC Pilot Nav/Air Nav) I purposely do not use the ppt available, preferring to adopt either a group exercise format, or simply pen and whiteboard and discussion with some “lecturing” to introduce elements.
In HQACs they produced the ppt in response to the “boring” textbooks which were previously read through.
I am not suggesting that the ppts are exciting, but they are a step closer to how our customers (Cadets) interact with training material - ie making it digital.
this is the issue and related back to the “unmotivated” instructor.
fortunately on our Squadron we have the right mix of CFAVs where each subject has someone passionate/interested in the topic to teach it. I recognise not every Squadron is so Staff rich and as fortunate but HQAC cannot plan of every Squadron’s teaching abilities
As a relatively unmotivated lecturer I absolutely try to minimise my formal lecturing time as there are far better folk than me to do it.
However as an ‘old git’ I am comfy talking to groups with no notice, so will step in and cover as needed and that is when the PPT’s are great - not that I stick to them, but they are good to ‘rebase’ any discussion that has gone too tangentially.
i tend to agree.
although i don’t use the slides i refer back to them as a “lesson plan” - i prefer to use the old ACP31 notes on radio as they set out the structure is a better order imo
Like @bigmalcmk there aren’t many main classification area subjects that I can’t pick up and go with at a moment’s notice. Due the many years’ experience I have accrued. Firstly doing them old style as a cadet when you had to know and understand the content and ‘teaching’ cadets who had to do the same. As such you had to read it and understand it before trying to instruct it.
them (from before becoming an old style Staff Cadet) using the books we had, developing VAs initially handwritten acetates with ‘reveals’, which I transferred to a DTP in the early 90s for ease of editing and eventually the revelation that was a projector. Along with this as technology advanced aided and abetted by my old employer’s purchases of said tech, which were beyond the budgets of squadrons. I don’t have the Moriarty “negative waves” mindset that many like to espouse about classification topics. Having had 3 kids go through school aside from bizarre teaching methods in maths and English, the basics, bar substantiated findings, don’t change. In 46 years the classification subject matter hasn’t really changed, bar anything that relates to history or aircraft.
The a big problem that has developed IMO is that the process that cadets go through is too detached, let’s face it anyone can pass the exams now without even looking at the learning materials. Ergo staff (especially new staff including new ex-cadets) have no connection to the subjects and this has been the case since we got dumped with online exams and the very poor pass and resit criteria.
I’m not sure the resources are crap, it’s more a case that HQAC and all points in between got far too excited purely for financial reasons dumping printed material. I have been surprised that the school has textbooks and gives them to students for science at all levels and the teachers do out loud reading in class as part of subject literacy, which seems to be a current big thing. Our kids had textbooks but the last one left school 12 years ago.
WRT using PPTs at work the topic folders have a number of initialled versions of the same lesson PPTs. They all cover the same material but tailored to the teacher and or year and or level of the class. Trying to use centrally produced resources verbatim is never going to end well. But many staff including ex-cadets don’t do any or very little reading or prep on the subjects prior to doing lesson when they’ve never taught it before and expect to just be able to do it. I don’t really see the MOI as being of any worth without subject knowledge. Trying to make things more “doing” rather than sitting and listening needs a much higher degree of subject knowledge and understanding, which means people (CFAV) have to put more time into it, but this costs money as you need the resources or to develop the resources.
I did suggest doing some courses on the Wing for main classification syllabus subjects, as just on my sqn I could see the lack of enthusiasm, due to lack of knowledge, but was poo poohed. Back in the day I did staff PofF and Air Nav courses and they were really quite good, but always massively undersubscribed, so they went.
It doesn’t matter what we instruct or have as subjects if those tasked with ‘teaching’ ie us, don’t or aren’t prepared to put in the leg work, they can be changed in whatever way and it will still end up the same. There are no shortcuts.
2 Likes
?
Saw a similar post on Instagram, but they referred to volunteer portal as ‘staff portal’. Good to see we’re all singng from the same hymn sheet!
Indeed …
Would at least be what we actually want…
Probably coming to rip off direct from a CFAV near you.
1 Like
If it is expected to be taught by CFAVs, they will be supplied before subject is splashed all over the internet.
Oh, sorry, this is RAFAC 
1 Like
Material’s already available.
I’ve just found the “resources index”, which has lesson plans. That does look really well prepared, but still depends on the e-learning course.
1 Like
It absolutely was designed e-learning first (to fulfil the syllabus), then other resources around it.
This feels wrong to me, as an organisation that focuses on face-to-face activity.
Sorry. No disrespect to those that designed the course - the eLearning looks great, and the supporting materials are good. The brief was wrong.
3 Likes