Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: > [...] > The basic issue I'm wrestling with is walking the tightrope between > teaching the actual questions from the pool and teaching concepts. It's > not fair to the students to ignore the existence of the pool; after all, > one of the goals of the class is to prepare them to take the written > exam. But another goal is to get them ready to actually be an active > member of the ham radio community, and memorizing pool questions doesn't > contribute to that objective. So I'll try to do both -- cover concepts > and review the actual questions. > [...] A standard technique in college-level courses is to assign some readings that will not be discussed in class. Then, you give a test that covers the outside readings as well as the lecture content. You could use the question pool as outside reading material and then lecture about actual practice. Difficult questions from the pool could be covered at the end of class as an "extra help" session. > I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be > able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective > hams some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in > class. For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the > students have actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different > understanding of what you're saying. Keep in mind that the Element 2 written test used to be the written part of the Novice test. Arguably, it is easier to get a no-code Technician license than it was to get a Novice license. Please understand: I am not complaining. I think that is a good situation, especially if the intent is to draw newcomers into real-world communications, like disaster relief and not the self-limited exchange of beeps that the old Novice class was offered. -- Klystron

"Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13hpelos43h30b5@news.supernews.com... > In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local radio > club is offering. I would love any words of wisdom from experienced > instructors of this material. I suspect that it has been at least a > couple of decades since I last taught such a class, and things have > changed a bit in that time <grin>. > > The basic issue I'm wrestling with is walking the tightrope between > teaching the actual questions from the pool and teaching concepts. It's > not fair to the students to ignore the existence of the pool; after all, > one of the goals of the class is to prepare them to take the written exam. > But another goal is to get them ready to actually be an active member of > the ham radio community, and memorizing pool questions doesn't contribute > to that objective. So I'll try to do both -- cover concepts and review > the actual questions. > > Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of the > weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there are > advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that > learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic world, > getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic. We've > decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a fatal > error; time will tell. > > I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be > able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective hams > some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in class. > For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the students have > actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different understanding of > what you're saying. > > 73, Steve KB9X > The ARRL license manuals do a pretty good job of explaining the material that goes into the questions. Also try to squeeze in some demos such as using the repeater. A few, but not too many, anecdotal experiences of your own can be productive too. Perhaps the first time you "let the smoke out" of a radio or tuner or whatever. Dee, N8UZE

"Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13hpelos43h30b5@news.supernews.com... > In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local radio > club is offering. I would love any words of wisdom from experienced > instructors of this material. I suspect that it has been at least a > couple of decades since I last taught such a class, and things have > changed a bit in that time <grin>. > > The basic issue I'm wrestling with is walking the tightrope between > teaching the actual questions from the pool and teaching concepts. It's > not fair to the students to ignore the existence of the pool; after all, > one of the goals of the class is to prepare them to take the written exam. > But another goal is to get them ready to actually be an active member of > the ham radio community, and memorizing pool questions doesn't contribute > to that objective. So I'll try to do both -- cover concepts and review > the actual questions. > > Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of the > weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there are > advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that > learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic world, > getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic. We've > decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a fatal > error; time will tell. > > I wish we still had something like the Novice license. I'd like to be > able to get past the pressure of the written exam and get prospective hams > some real experience so they understand what I'm babbling about in class. > For example, you can lecture about repeaters, but if the students have > actually *used* a repeater, they have a whole different understanding of > what you're saying. > > 73, Steve KB9X > Also keep in mind the new privileges that Technicians have regarding HF since the changes in Dec. 2006 and February 2007. Possibly print out the NEW band charts from the ARRL site and hand them out. You could give an HF operating demo for example. Dee, N8UZE

"Steve Bonine" wrote ... > The basic issue I'm wrestling with is walking the tightrope between > teaching the actual questions from the pool and teaching concepts. It's > not fair to the students to ignore the existence of the pool; after all, > one of the goals of the class is to prepare them to take the written exam. > But another goal is to get them ready to actually be an active member of > the ham radio community, and memorizing pool questions doesn't contribute > to that objective. So I'll try to do both -- cover concepts and review > the actual questions. Why not teach the concept, and then *include* the pool questions *among other examples* of practical application of the concept. That would accomplish both while better tying them together.

N2EY@AOL.COM wrote: > Klystron wrote: > > A standard technique in college-level courses is to assign some > > readings that will not be discussed in class. Then, you give a test that > > covers the outside readings as well as the lecture content. You could > > use the question pool as outside reading material and then lecture about > > actual practice. Difficult questions from the pool could be covered at > > the end of class as an "extra help" session. > This is an excellent idea *if* the info is readily available. Handouts > are a good idea too, as are links to specific web pages. > [...] When I was studying for the Technician test, I made a printout of the question pool and had it spiral bound at Kinko's (about $4). > > Keep in mind that the Element 2 written test used to > > be the written part of the Novice test. > I don't think that's true. Not anymore. > [...] I was thinking back a bit farther than that. Do you have the element breakdown for the 1970's and 1980's? > > Please > > understand: I am not complaining. I think that is a good situation, > > especially if the intent is to draw newcomers into real-world > > communications, like disaster relief and not the self-limited > > exchange of beeps that the old Novice class was offered. > I disagree! > [...] > IMHO, the ideal 2007 entry-level license would offer a variety of > bands and modes. Which brings us back to the present-day Technician license. The 10 meter segment is quite substantial and the Novice CW segments are still there, in the event that someone actually wants them. Is there any data about how many no-code licensees ever use Morse? I've seen a lot of wishful thinking among the old guard, but I don't think that it is based in fact. -- Klystron

"Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13hqt96afsqal94@news.supernews.com... > Dee Flint wrote: > >> Also keep in mind the new privileges that Technicians have regarding HF >> since the changes in Dec. 2006 and February 2007. Possibly print out the >> NEW band charts from the ARRL site and hand them out. You could give an >> HF operating demo for example. > > I actually have a bit of a problem explaining to potential Technician > Class licensees that they have CW privileges on HF bands. It just seems > either ironic or silly. > > An HF demo is an excellent idea, but probably not possible as part of the > actual class. Setting up an HF station at the classroom location would be > an interesting challenge. (Might be fun, though.) Perhaps I will invite > the class to visit me at home so I can do some HF work, or even schedule > an extra session that's billed as a review session plus demo. > If some hams in your area have mobile setups (like I do in my car), invite one of them to come over and demo it in the vehicle. Dee, N8UZE

Steve Bonine wrote: > Doug Smith W9WI wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:15:10 -0400, Steve Bonine wrote: > >> studying for now. My experience is that "CW" is a four-letter word. YMMV. > > > > Y'know, what I've found around here is that most new licensees (who didn't > > *have* to learn Morse) are interested in learning Morse. > > > > (whether they'll actually take the time to do it is another question) > > > > As long as one emphasizes it is not *required*, I think it would do more > > good than harm to at least mention CW as an option. > > You don't have to worry about me mentioning CW . . . other than in > disaster scenarios, almost all of my operating is on CW. I am a CW > bigot, and it would be impossible for me to teach a class without > letting my love of CW show. > > But that view is very much not held by the members of the local radio > club. None of them can understand how anyone could actually enjoy CW. > I have tried to explain it, and I don't think I'm a bad ambassador for > CW, but it just doesn't click with them. Mostly I just let the CW digs > pass me by, but I have every intention of introducing CW (and other > non-voice modes) in the class. > > I am thrilled to hear that there is a desire to learn CW by people who > were not forced to do so. I was hoping that would happen. I don't > think *I* would have, so I tend to extrapolate my tendencies to today's > new hams. It will be interesting to look back in a few years and try to > determine how many new CW ops have come on board. > > 73, Steve KB9X This is an interesting discussion, and I'd like to add my thoughts. CW vs fone is not unlike driving a vehicle w/ a standard vs automatic transmission. Or, in my case, bracket (drag) racing a standard vs automatic transmission. Yeah, it's easier to win when using an automatic transmission but it's not impossible with a stickshift -- and doing so gives me more satisfaction. Like you with the anti-CW digs, I let the digs against racing a stickshift roll off me (for, they know not the joy of it). Bryan WA7PRC

Reading all the back and forth discussion of Steve's upcoming classes and his concerns... I'm getting really confused. When I was a teenager playing with CB, I didn't know nuthin' from nuthin' about radio, antennas, you name it. Once I became determined to become a ham, I eagerly learned all about it in order to pass my Novice, and then the General, and.... and at points when I saw the need (such as "gee, what is this 'swr' business?"), I learned more. So Steve, if you're so concerned about how these "students" are going to respond to your technical talks and related licensing materials, why are they even invited? Are they really interested in becoming hams? Or (at an extreme), are you recruiting potential hams like "Psssst! Hey kid - come 'eah - you wanna get a ham license?" If they're going to whine about "Why do I have to learn this stuff??" then *I* don't think they deserve the privilege of a license. Howard N7SO

In article <fg54av$173a$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote: > The major downside of all this is that as Emergency ops move toward this > mode, the question arises of why they would be using amateur radio to > perform the function at all - they might as well have their own system > on their own frequencies, that they alone use. > > - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - One of the REAL Reasons that Amateur Radio can play a part in Emergency Comms, is really very simple, and usually not thought of, in many Govt. EMS/Enforcment Groups. What happenes when the Repeaters, and or Remote Bases, are lost due to Power Loss, FIRE, or EarthQuake, at the High Point Remote Locations that the EMS/Enforcment System uses, or secondly, what happens when the Telco Links from the EMS/Enforcment Comms Center fail, due to these same situations and the CommCenter can work the Repeaters and Remote Bases via RF Links but can't communicate with the next higher Govt entity? Cases on Point here. World Trade Center Collapse. All local South Mannhatten VHF and UHF Remote Base and Repeaters for New York, as well as most of the other Govt. Frequencies were installed on Top of the WTC. When it collapsed, they lost 95% of their Repeated, and Remote Base Comms, and couldn't talk to each other except on one or two simplex Emergency Backup Freqs, that weren't common to ALL the EMS People from ALL the Mutual Aid Responders. LA Fire a couple of years ago. Again, 90% of the local Camms were taken out when one of the MAIN Remote Base and Repeater Location up on the Rim of the World Highway was caught in a Flashover during a major fire. None of the equipment, that was inside the building was damaged, but ALL the Coax, and most of the Antennas were destroyed by the heat of the fire, causing these systems to be OFFLine from that point, untill MONTHS later when the tower was rebuilt. Our EMS People depend on their Comms to work, and work reliably, in oreder to be effective in thier jobs. when these systems fail, they can still work their individual jobs, but their effectivness as a EMS System is greatly reduced. A good Emergency Plan, with TRAINED Volenteers, and Backup Equipment, and Frequencies, can help keep these EMS folks effective. How many EMS Systems have a Backup, Mobile, EMS RemoteBase and Repeater Comm Infostructure, ready to deploy, should the fixed Infostructure Fail? Is there an Backup EMS/Enforcment Comms Policy, inplace, that sets the rules for use of the minimal Simplex Frequencies that will be common to ALL Mutual Aid Responders, for a given Massive Comms Failure, and who is in charge of that traffic, and getting the traffic to the right places. The Feds have been trying to deal with these senerios since 9/11, and are just NOW, starting to get a handle on SOME of the problems, and solutions, that will be involved. We see the RED Cross, starting to require their volenteers to be Credentialed. I understand that SOME of the Enforcment folks are issuing Limited Credentials to Trained Ham Club folks that they have used before, and incorporate into their Backup Emeregency Comms Policies and Proceedures. All this is just for local EMS/Enforcment Comms, but who can provide the Long Distance Comms, to the higher Govt. Entities, when the longlines are out. This was a MAJOR problem in the Post Katrina New Orleans Senerio. The National Guard usually HAS the equuipment, and MAY have the personnel, but are they ready on a moments notice, or does it take Days to ManUp and Deploy. Wouldn't it be nice if the Hams via their own Club System, could have a BackUp Emergency Comms Plan and Policy to provide such Systems from Local to County, and County to State, should their be an urgent need, should disaster, of these magnitudes, happen. Bruce in alaska just one of many, who actually Think about such stuff...... -- add <path> before @

"Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13hpelos43h30b5@news.supernews.com... > In a week I will begin teaching an entry-level class that the local > Another issue is the scheduling of the class. There are proponents of the > weekend method -- cover the material in a day or so. While there are > advantages to that, I favor multiple shorter sessions. I think that > learning is much better in that environment, but in today's hectic world, > getting people to commit to multiple sessions is problematic. We've > decided on six session spread over three weeks. Maybe that was a fatal > error; time will tell. have you considered schedlues the classes past the projecting VE tests ession allowing to focus more at fist on the exam and more later on real operating

Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in news:8b4fi3d9po2e33ghrkqvp1d5k72id5uufp@4ax.com: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:49:38 EDT, Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote: > >> There you have it. I would say that those who are running the >> show are >>very VHF/UHF centric. They don't know about long distance radio, >>except for perhaps satellite Operations, which are still line of site. >>Someone somewhere has to know what bands to use at what time and for >>what distance. >> > Most, if not all, of our served agencies have or are getting HF > transceivers for "long distance" communication. If the repeater > and/or packet relays go down, that's what we have to use to connect to > state and regional EOCs, usually by NVIS facilities. Most of our > leadership have those in their home stations as well. Some of us are > looking into automatic interchange between VHF to HF for digital > traffic. We aren't content with a "shack on the belt" approach. Perhaps your local setup is doing well, Phil, I can only see what is happening locally, and what I get from the news. I suspect they have some good people running the show there?\ - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Dick Grady AC7EL" <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote in message news:koeii3d0i1c19pumijpt6pavd8e28qtjf9@4ax.com... > Last December, some hams in my town put on a "Ham Cram" one-day study and > license test for Technician Class. One week ahead of time, the students > received a print-out of the question pool. On Ham Cram day, from 7:30 AM > to > 1:00 PM they were drilled on the questions, with the correct answer being > stressed. After a lunch break, at 2:00 PM my VE License exam team arrived > to > test them. 13 of 14 passed. BUT, I have had contact with several of > these > students since the Ham Cram, and they had almost no practical knowledge of > amateur radio. They required A LOT of Elmering. IMHO, lessons spread out > one > night a week for a couple of months, with practical demonstrations and > discussions of ham culture would have made much better hams. > > 73 de Dick, AC7EL There is very little math on the Tech test. If you can't remember to divide the number "300", you probably won't remember the rest of the answers. However, experience makes a good ham, not knowledge of the answers. I am an extra class ham, but I realized that without experience or a fundamental knowledge of electronics, I really couldn't do much more than push a button and chat. -Mindraker