FTT1/2 Exams

[hubfail]

Indeed answering 6 correct and leaving 4 blank (ticked "don't know!") would be 60%, however, Cottie said if you ANSWERED 4 wrong, which implies you didn't leave them blank .... I can't remember how the negative marking scheme worked, but 48% sounds feasible ....

6 right = 60%
4 wrong = -12% (3% per wrong answer maybe?)

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Indeed answering 6 correct and leaving 4 blank (ticked "don't know!") would be 60%, however, Cottie said if you ANSWERED 4 wrong, which implies you didn't leave them blank .... I can't remember how the negative marking scheme worked, but 48% sounds feasible ....

6 right = 60%
4 wrong = -12% (3% per wrong answer maybe?)

Agreed.

However the large failure rate has now shafted you in the backside and you now have to get 80% (or 8 questions correct)

Tactical "Don't Knows" made some people pass some modules, I don't think this was a bad thing, lets you play your strengths and weaknesses.

April will be an interesting month I think. I also think there are not currently enough people qualified at either level to promote but that is a whole other issue.

I am still offering help to anyone at the ASACS Hub!

 

[Fearless Leader]

NAIDOY, are you coming to the UTM meeting next week?

 

[norfolkred1]

NAIDOY, are you coming to the UTM meeting next week?

For some strange reason I have been selected to represent the Norfolk division.......


Gimme six.....

 

[Fearless Leader]

Can't have been a massive list of people at your lovely location to pick from?

I can't wait to hear from the Scampton wallah how rushed off their feet they all are...

 

[norfolkred1]

Can't have been a massive list of people at your lovely location to pick from?

I can't wait to hear from the Scampton wallah how rushed off their feet they all are...

one out of two aint bad. Gives me time to see how the other half live. Best I remember to bring a uniform, off to the pawnbrokers it is then

 

[LCMOTPET]

FTT2 another go!!!

FTT2 another go!!!

Had another shot at the classic scopie promotion hoop jumping contest today. Found the 8/10 more straight forward than all that neg marking faff.

Did okay i think!
Hope i nailed it the thought of doing it again in Oct YUKDT_Xtremez_34:

How did other FTT2 lads and ladies find it??

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Talking Promotion

Talking Promotion

FTT 1 results were released today to individuals. At my Unit we have been asked for our opinion of the exam, whether the move to a higher pass-mark was a good one, and general comments on the quality of questioning.

Feel free to comment on here or pm me if you would rather.

Those who know me know I don't mind being slightly outspoken to people on the issue!

 

[tourettes]

FTT 1 results were released today to individuals. At my Unit we have been asked for our opinion of the exam, whether the move to a higher pass-mark was a good one, and general comments on the quality of questioning.

Feel free to comment on here or pm me if you would rather.

Those who know me know I don't mind being slightly outspoken to people on the issue!

Having known you for quite a few years, I wouldn't expect you to be anything less than outspoken!

 

[Fearless Leader]

What amazes me is how we can promote people in to slots when our current manning strategy is based on JPA stats which are total b*ll%c*s!

On a related issue, the results for the FTT are hitting the streets...

 

[Fearless Leader]

FTT 1 results were released today to individuals. At my Unit we have been asked for our opinion of the exam, whether the move to a higher pass-mark was a good one, and general comments on the quality of questioning.

Feel free to comment on here or pm me if you would rather.

Those who know me know I don't mind being slightly outspoken to people on the issue!

The exam does not cater for people with different learning styles, the study packs need to include Case Studies to help the students understand and give them a hook to remember some of the crap they're expected to learn.

But that's my personal opinion...

 

[Fearless Leader]

http://www.open2.net/survey/learningstyles/learningstyle_embedded.html

There's a lot of research on this, but here's some off the BBC - http://www.open2.net/survey/learningstyles/learningstyle_embedded.html

My twopennyworth for the UTM meeting next month is that the exam needs to do more to reflect this. There are rumours that some people don't study, whether that's true or if it's reflection of working conditions/morale in the trade is open to debate - but the exam needs to be above reproach which I think going off the latest batch of results it's not.

DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[norfolkred1]

http://www.open2.net/survey/learningstyles/learningstyle_embedded.html

There's a lot of research on this, but here's some off the BBC - http://www.open2.net/survey/learningstyles/learningstyle_embedded.html

My twopennyworth for the UTM meeting next month is that the exam needs to do more to reflect this. There are rumours that some people don't study, whether that's true or if it's reflection of working conditions/morale in the trade is open to debate - but the exam needs to be above reproach which I think going off the latest batch of results it's not.

DT_Xtremez_35:

Cannot see many of the twirling boys at the UTM due to courses on the Island of make believe. Defo no one coming from my end of the world

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

http://www.open2.net/survey/learningstyles/learningstyle_embedded.html

There's a lot of research on this, but here's some off the BBC - http://www.open2.net/survey/learningstyles/learningstyle_embedded.html

My twopennyworth for the UTM meeting next month is that the exam needs to do more to reflect this. There are rumours that some people don't study, whether that's true or if it's reflection of working conditions/morale in the trade is open to debate - but the exam needs to be above reproach which I think going off the latest batch of results it's not.

DT_Xtremez_35:

In general (certainly the ones I am responsible for) people are doing the work, what I would question is the way the exams are being phrased. We are only at exam 3 and already we knee-jerked into removing a marking system proven to work and increased the pass mark for an exam that not enough people had passed already!

As for morale/working conditions in the trade being a factor, I feel that when the next SAC/Cpl and Cpl/Sgt boards chuck up some interesting names for promotion then some people may get the kick up the rear end that FTT was supposed to provide.

In essence we are not asking people to do any more than we used to, we just want them to do it in their own time and giving them longer to study. A study pack does cater for differing learning styles, people can choose to learn together, use their colleagues and line management, or simply sit in their rooms by themselves and study. The knowledge in the pack ups is in the main good and relevant, there will always be changes in the study cycle that cannot be incorporated but that is the way of the world. I have concerns over the exam structure, the implementation was certainly not the way I (and others) would have liked to have seen it but things change as people are moved on/promoted!

But enough of us sweaty old SNCOs moaning about things, let's get some opinions from our younger members who actually have to pass these exams!

The floor is yours ladies and gentlemen...

 

[norfolkred1]

Must admit fella, at the last UTM meeting a lot was mentioned about the study packages and it seems that a lot of the critics came from the Officer Cadre for some strange reason. Looked like the lads and lasses were none to pleased with some of the questions and phrases that they avoided the chain to the top. Needless to say the previous WO in the chair was none to pleased with it and was pretty vocal about it the Officers involved, keep your noses out merlarky. Who can you blame for that debacle.



E.Mailed Mick about top-table will et you know when I get confirmation

 

[Fearless Leader]

But NAIDOY, if you have seen the e-mail from C2 Spt they're asking UTMs to come up with scenario based questions to discuss at the next meeting. A while back I spoke to JT in the SFC and they now try and identify students who have certain learning styles. So if they do it in schools (according to Mrs Fearless) and they do it on BTT, why do the study packs only cater for one type of brain???

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

But NAIDOY, if you have seen the e-mail from C2 Spt they're asking UTMs to come up with scenario based questions to discuss at the next meeting. A while back I spoke to JT in the SFC and they now try and identify students who have certain learning styles. So if they do it in schools (according to Mrs Fearless) and they do it on BTT, why do the study packs only cater for one type of brain???

There is quite a difference between identifying different learning styles and actually tailoring lessons to suit all.

Educators in the main use Visual (V), Aural (A) and Kinesthetic (K) as the three main types of learner (if you are really interested read "The ALPS Approach" by Alistair Smith & Nicola Call), and can generally use blended learning to impart knowledge to all by one of these means.

To take that approach at the SFC would be time consuming and costly. There is a lesson baseline structure that TGDA approve, this is the old Intro, Objectives, Lesson, Objectives, Recap structure that we see now. As a learner this does not suit me, quite frankly it bores me rigid and I switch off half way through the lesson, but never has the lesson been tailored to suit my particular style of learning.

The study pack does provide V learning, I opened the floor at my place to help people and only had one person who came to me when they were having difficulty in the Battle Management module, I then did some A and K learning with them and they went on to pass the module.

Line managers have to take some responsibility here, I certainly do for my people and we have a programme of guided, modular study with some mock FT-style exams that one of my Cpls wrote after passing FT2. Now I know we are all busy with other things nowadays but I am sure I got this kind of help when I started my Prom 1, so I see no issue with doing this for my people.

The basis for the original study pack came from the OU model, now that seems fairly successful!

My real problem is why we removed negative marking, increase the passmark by 20% and then wonder why not many people passed!

 

[gortextilendex]

I think we do have to cater for different learning styles without doubt. different units apply different rules to how the troops learn. I found out recently that one unit won't allow question banks to be handed out to the troops as most other units will.

My question is however, what the hell are we doing with this exam anyway?!?! we're not a trade of accademics we're a trade of operators and we seem to be losing focus on this. The exma is poor. The question have very little or no relevece to what we do on a day to day basis. Ive served at several CRCs as well as overseas and have never used most of what i had to learn in these FT papers. We must realise what we are and quickly before we lose the trade to people who can learn from a folder and apply it to poorly worded questions in an exam that has little relevence to our trade which i shuold remind you is Aerospace systems OPERATOR. in my experience the accademics in the trade usually fall short when it comes to operating. that should put the cat amounst the pigeions

DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

I think we do have to cater for different learning styles without doubt. different units apply different rules to how the troops learn. I found out recently that one unit won't allow question banks to be handed out to the troops as most other units will.

My question is however, what the hell are we doing with this exam anyway?!?! we're not a trade of accademics we're a trade of operators and we seem to be losing focus on this. The exma is poor. The question have very little or no relevece to what we do on a day to day basis. Ive served at several CRCs as well as overseas and have never used most of what i had to learn in these FT papers. We must realise what we are and quickly before we lose the trade to people who can learn from a folder and apply it to poorly worded questions in an exam that has little relevence to our trade which i shuold remind you is Aerospace systems OPERATOR. in my experience the accademics in the trade usually fall short when it comes to operating. that should put the cat amounst the pigeions

DT_Xtremez_28:

Question banks are an individual thing as surely the idea of the exam is for the individual to get off his/her behind and do the study. Personally I cannot learn from question banks as that is not how my mind works. However I have seen question banks produced for both the previous and current FT courses as well as "Phase Tests" for the old Promex.

Don't forget that the FT exam is only a foot onto the board. SAC Knuckle who is incompetent as an operator should be commented upon as such in his SJAR. As the specialist member on the last SAC-Cpl board told me, if you give a prom rec of YES then that individual must be fit and ready for promotion.

It is down to us 1st RO types who gets promoted or not. The FT system simply makes it easier for us.

 

[gortextilendex]

i agree it is a foot onto the board. But why? the foot onto the board should be how you perform throught the reporting year. You have SCAs/CPLs who have a good year but get 70% on 1 module and theyre not looked at. You then have an average guy who is boarding a yes or no and gets a yes just, and passes an exam and comes off the board. what we're doing is making an SNCOs job easier and thats it. It proves nothing. My question is how many other trades do this? They cant all be getting it wrong. Its jobs for the boys at SFC or should i say SABM!!!