the obvious route around is use a separate screen - ie exam on PC, google on phone
this is allowed currently, and although many of my students do take notes, how many refer to these in the exam in place of google is i guess the point you’re making - remove the opportunity to search the answer and only have notes might encourage better note taking
These are all good points and I’ll try to address some of them.
Selection - to some extent, this will be down to self selection. Push comes to shove, how many CFAVs will actually want to do this? Creating something and possibly teaching 100s of cadets isn’t for everyone. Finally how many will actually fill in a form to express their interest (I’m thinking a tick box of areas of interest). Ultimately, many areas there isn’t just one lesson so it could be divided up. Passion is obviously important but they need to be able to engage. I’ve attended many guest speakers where you end up nearly falling asleep 5 mins in. This possibility could be got around by submission of a short video.
Quality of training - Using the 10k+ volunteers I’m sure there will be someone interested and skilled in making the videos look pretty/more standardised. My technical skills are low but I’m making an assumption there is stuff you can do in editing etc. Also provide guidance to trainers re. delivering online, e.g. Look at the camera not the screen (I’m terrible at remembering to do that, on work calls I always end up looking at the person who is talking 
!)
HQ about be involved but it should be a collaborative process. Note should and I’m not passing any more comment in relation to this other than what about all the VPN resources already on Teams do they review each one? All the quizzes that people put on etc.
I agree around teaching around the syllabus, real world examples and making it more real. The syllabus needs to be reviewed and consideration made as to if it’s actually relevant still anyway. In terms of Cadets not wanting to do it without a badge, that is where marketing would come into play.
Avoiding doubling up etc. - I would suggest having a person as oversight, providing a clear list of who is doing what. I’d also suggest collaboration between trainers where possible to peer review for quality.
There is more I could add but I need to go do some real work now!
The idea of focusing heavily on learning styles have been heavily critiqued. For example https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/12/no-evidence-to-back-idea-of-learning-styles
Neither per say. You just typically don’t give those taking the exam long enough to be able to look everything up so some knowledge is still required.
Aren’t the exams part of the assessment for a BTEC so ultimately it’s out of our control how we assess?
Very true. That’s the problem with open book exams that are easily google-able. Usually (in my experience, anyway) open book exams require you to apply the knowledge you have googled. For example, an engineer may google a formula, but they then need to apply that formula. As I’ve said before, the part of the problem is instructors who don’t know the subject, poor instructional technique and a boring syllabus.
School and Universities are (very slowly) moving away from the traditional exams and to a style that replicates how things work in industry. Most courses now have a significant coursework element.
It’s an interesting area that I’m keen to do more reading on as I know it’s a challenged concept, but it is still included in L3 Education and Training.
The letter only really mentions VAK (which is quite limiting compared to other available models) and the idea of students “focusing” on their learning style when really it shouldn’t be for them for the same pigeon-holing reasons I dislike cadets carrying out personality tests like Myers-Briggs.
I think the step to make is to mentally switch from considering “learning styles” to “Learning Intervention Delivery Method” or some other title, because it should be the teacher/instructor’s role to consider this and not the student. How is the material best delivered to be relevant and engaging is already a process that happens, but considering what we might call learning styles within the design of lessons. This would allow adaptation and adoption of thorough enough models to be effective and step away from the “neuroscience” idea a little.
The crux of it though is that we’re pretty limited with online delivery of any type due to the tools available to us. However, pooling of instructor and instructional resources being curated by people who know how to design and create would have been a panacea, but I don’t think it could have happened at a fast enough pace to cover what we needed it to for it to have been put into action (within the timeframe we expected it to be needed) - and in hindsight we could say there was enough time, because it’s gone on longer than expected.
I also feel it might be dangerous if these were made as permanent, pre-recorded resources. Many CFAV are already too lazy to learn material they don’t know and create interesting lessons - if they never have to ever again and can just put someone else’s video on they will and cadets with questions will go unanswered.
Under these no F2F conditions, completely centralised delivery would make our lives easier but would it be better for our cadets, even if the material quality was higher? They joined a squadron, they know the people, they have a bond with their instructors and trust them, they want to talk with people they know. We’ve struggled to maintain cadet presence as have many others, but external virtual activities we advertise have had far lower uptake by our cadets than our own sessions.
This then comes back to the old argument of just how poor HQAC-supplied resources are.
Being cynical, when I did the L3, it was awarded by Pearson or Talent Lens or whatever they know, everyone seems to have merged or acquired and its hard to keep track. Anyway they are the test publisher or at least sell the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire so would be interested in it.
Will reply to the rest later when I’ve got time to adequately reply.
PM me if it’s mostly about the learning styles stuff.
Do you think that this should be restricted to just CFAVs? I happen to know that the North Region Music Drum Major session (nationally open) was run by a Cadet Sergeant and there were others assisting - with minimal CFAV input. There were a high number of attendees there.
Definitely not! Personally knowing the cadets that ran this, I know they’re well versed in their knowledge of drum majoring having partially helped them learn as well as having benefitted from their knowledge myself, and having seen them run lessons f2f pre covid, but unable to sit in on the teams lessons, I have no doubt it was to a high quality knowing the standards they set themselves on a day to day cadet basis.
Training, at whatever level, whether that’s squadron, or putting together training packages at national level, should be done by those who not only know the subject, but can also make it entertaining and worthwhile for their cadets. When we look at what individual cadets enjoy, you’ll find that their favourite activities may not always be something they’re good at, but where whoever’s has been teaching or leading that activity has been engaging and knows what the cadets want from it. It’s why we struggle to find cadets wanting to do things like QAIC because they’ve never been engaged with classification training. At a squadron level, I took ideas from other staff members from camps and courses I had been on when we had discussed training and implemented these when I took over classification training, specifically first class, it got a lot more cadets engaged and talking about the subject as well as asking questions. It also helped them understand more.
I think what we need, especially when we get back to f2f, should be something along the lines of ideas for activities to go with lessons. Something with a couple of different ideas that can help instructors get cadets to interact, for teaching contour lines at first class, I have lots of bits of thick cardboard cut out and I get my cadets to build hills and mountains, then transfer what they’ve made in 3D to a map drawing with contours, and if we’ve gotten so far through the syllabus, naming the types of landforms that they’ve created too. Something like this cost absolutely nothing, we had loads of cardboard in stores already, and I’m sure lots of us have been getting deliveries, and it doesn’t hurt to save up the packaging.
Unless we start making things engaging and doing what we advertise, we’re going to lose cadets and staff and after covid, that’s going to be natural, so maybe now is a good time to overhaul our training methods specifically so when we inevitably have to recruit new cadets and start running the syllabus again, we can try new and different ways, see what works and what doesn’t. And maybe on the training portal there should be a way for lesson plans for different subjects to be uploaded outlining engaging delivery methods, where these can be uploaded with access by anyone to sharepoint so we can share methods and better our training ideas. I think this would be better than a fully national approach, as it’ll be coming from the people doing it at a squadron level, to help those at a squadron level which imho is more of what this organisation needs anyways.