Status of the VATUSA academy?

[Marko Savatic 825464]

Wondering what has come about with the academy.

I know they took it down a few months back to re-vamp it, just wondering how that is coming along and when can we plan/expect to see it open again?

[Cornell Lloyd 952716]

Marko,

 

 

From what I was hearing before I resigned as VATUSA12 it isn't coming back. A complete 180 degree turn around from what was supposed to happen. The powers that be decided that it wasn't going to be beneficial to revamp the academy. It stinks, but what can you do.

[Marko Savatic 825464]

Cornell,

 

Thank you for your response. What was the reason that the powers to be decided to opt against the academy. During my 9 month tour there, I had a blast and felt like it was working great.

[Cornell Lloyd 952716]

Marko-

 

The feeling that I was getting was it was too much work to try to recreate something that complex. Although, it was said that it would be more beneficial for the ARTCCs to do all of the training so there wouldn't be descrepancies between the Academy and the ARTCCs. Like I said before, it was a good program and I wish it could've kept going (albeit we all had times where we were frustrated with it ). I did, though, enjoy my time as VATUSA12 and Academy Director and hope that one day VATUSA will create a new academy.

[Shawn Fitts 986110]

From what I understood, the academy was coming back. I know as a Mentor at ZMP, and a former teacher of the academy, things would be easier if the students would come in with a base knowledge of procedures. I know without the acad, I wouldn't being taking my C3 exam. I enjoyed teaching, and remember some of Marco's sweatbox sessions...*shudder*

[Scott Johnston 890281]

From what I understand, the academy wasn't working. The training was not uniform, different instructors were teaching different things, there was no "quality control". Some students graduated knowing a good bit, some knew almost nothing, and had to be re-trained by their ARTCC. (At least that was the feeling I got when I was an instructor there.)

[Kyle Gibson 937127]

That is a good idea. I think it would be cool if VATUSA3 or someone could make actual training videos. That would minimize the amount of workload for mentors/instructors and also make sure there was quality control. People could simply watch it again and again until they got it down. It might take a while to make one, but it would be worth it I think.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

Whoops sorry Kyle, I just deleted that post of mine you responded to on accident. What I was saying was that instead of Teamspeak lectures, a video of each lesson would've been much more uniform and organized than having the instructors teaching it. Sweatbox sessions could've been on TS though and the instructors could have answered questions there. Haha I'm going to miss KUSA

[Kyle Gibson 937127]

Haha no problem. I think that would easily solve the issue with consitency and instructors could be there to answer questions. Maybe there could just be quick videos then a quiz over the video. The acadamy used to really help out because it gave people an introduction to ATC and VRC/ASRC. I really liked it. Most of if not all of my mentors went through the acadamy. A great bunch of guys came out of it if you ask me!

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

From what I understand, the academy wasn't working. The training was not uniform, different instructors were teaching different things, there was no "quality control". Some students graduated knowing a good bit, some knew almost nothing, and had to be re-trained by their ARTCC. (At least that was the feeling I got when I was an instructor there.)

 

That is unavoidable, teachers focus on different aspects of the training material, and given the circomestances, it was relatively uniform training. We graduated a lot of very fine controllers. Moving it back to the ARTCC-level only diminishes the uniformity in training, and tremendously slows down the student from controlling their first position.

 

It's not to say that some students left the academy and left their ARTCC instructors puzzling as to how they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed, but the majority of graduates turned out to be pretty good.

 

I will say, one thing I absolutely hated about the academy was the tests. They were horribly worded, and in some cases, they were even incorrect in what was/wasn't the right answer to certain questions. The out-of-the-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]room portion of the academy was in dire need of a revamp.

[Shawn Fitts 986110]

From what I understand, the academy wasn't working. The training was not uniform, different instructors were teaching different things, there was no "quality control". Some students graduated knowing a good bit, some knew almost nothing, and had to be re-trained by their ARTCC. (At least that was the feeling I got when I was an instructor there.)

 

That is unavoidable, teachers focus on different aspects of the training material, and given the circomestances, it was relatively uniform training. We graduated a lot of very fine controllers. Moving it back to the ARTCC-level only diminishes the uniformity in training, and tremendously slows down the student from controlling their first position.

 

It's not to say that some students left the academy and left their ARTCC instructors puzzling as to how they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed, but the majority of graduates turned out to be pretty good.

 

I will say, one thing I absolutely hated about the academy was the tests. They were horribly worded, and in some cases, they were even incorrect in what was/wasn't the right answer to certain questions. The out-of-the-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]room portion of the academy was in dire need of a revamp.

 

Barto has a very good point. The test were very tricky and you had to read literally BETWEEN the lines to find the answer. That was a problem among many students.

 

The idea for video lessons would not work. Simply because people would start the video, and walk away. Come back in an hour and get the p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]word. The good thing about actual people teaching is that we could all of a sudden spring questions on people and make sure people were awake.

 

It would be nice to see the material posted on the training site so maybe the inbound students would have to read the material and take a test before entering the ARTCC. I know alot of ARTCC's rosters are soaring through the roof but aren't gaining any controllers, they just say they want to start controlling and don't realize the time and knowledge involved.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

A lot of that testing material was written by a professional training designer, I believe. WHat you guys call 'between the lines' is what training developers call 'testing for comprehension'. I'll caveat that test question wording is tricky for anyone.

 

I thought the academy was a wonderful idea and the guys who built it and put in the sweat equity to run it have my undying admiration and thanks. It was just very difficult to administer over a long period given the available resources, an outcome the creators were aware of from the outset. That didn't stop them from trying vs. sitting on the sidelines syaing, "yep, that won't work...". I now see another academy standing up in India; I wonder (out loud here) if they talked to the VATUSA folks who were here to get the lessons learned. I'll bet not.

 

I teach professionally to industry, adults mostly, and I teach with other professionals. One of the biggest complaints we get from clients is we are 'inconsistent' in how we teach, instructor to instructor. We spend a lot of time trying not to be too different, but our consultancy uses very experienced people and we rely on their life experiences to pull off what we do, so some inconsistency is built in, but we try to remain consistent on the big stuff. My point is, consistency is a very elusive target in training.

 

My challenge to all of you guys who are trainers is, GET OUT OF THE BOX. A talking head at the front of a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] has been how we teach people since Socrates (I'll bet he was inconsistent too) and I would suggest it is time to use all this technology at our fingertips to advance the game and the state of the art. Whatever we do has to work in an opportunistic environment (we don't have 'cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] hours') with volunteers who may or may not show up today due to life attacking them. The students want an 'on demand' model, training available when they have the time. All the lining up of students and instructors with meeting times really adds to the complextity and logistics of a simple training session.

 

Lastly, one more round of applause for Cornell and the team that built the first VATUSA academy. Living on the bleeding edge of new ideas isn't always fun.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

A lot of that testing material was written by a professional training designer, I believe. WHat you guys call 'between the lines' is what training developers call 'testing for comprehension'. I'll caveat that test question wording is tricky for anyone.

 

Yes but it came to the point where I'd be asking some of the highest in the VATUSA training division some of the questions on the test, and what their answer would be, and they would get them wrong too.

 

Because we're not providing a paycheck to these controllers once they're on the scope, there must be a limit to how far we push them to know the material. It is possible to word questions in a clearer way then they were on there, and still keep them challenging. And it wasn't that the questions were just difficult, it's that they didn't make sense when you read them, and the answers were so vague that almost all of them could be interpreted as correct. We're not administering a state bar test to our academy students, it's a controlling exam meant to get them started (not to mention the additional tests they will face at some ARTCCs).

 

I know several students in the academy who were excellent in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts], and I imagined that they'd become really good controllers, but who got turned off by all the tests and the problems [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with them.

[Luke Kolin]

I would suggest it is time to use all this technology at our fingertips to advance the game and the state of the art.

 

We've been doing so for years now with our Flight Academy and the examinations we offer pilots. There's also feedback mechanisms in place for us to examine examination p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing percentages all the way down to the percentage of correct answers for a particular question in the last X number of days. We've given out tends thousands of written examinations, thousands of practical exams and have a functioning Academy.

 

The offer has been open, and remains open - anyone in VATSIM who is interested and wants to learn more about how we do things, can. We're always happy to help out.

 

At the risk of sounding snarky, VATUSA needs to focus on the big picture before worrying about the small stuff. There seems to be a number of titles and levels of management inversely proportional to the results delivered, and turnover seems high while communication seems low. No wonder there's skepticism.

 

Luke

[Marko Savatic 825464]

Well,

 

I can understand that the academy was closed down, but this brings up another question in my mind.

 

Why was there no announcement ever made that they weren't planning on opening it again?

 

I honestly was looking forward to it, and thought it would come back, and was expecting it to, since there is a link to refence it still on the training part of the website.

[Scott Johnston 890281]

From what I understand, the academy wasn't working. The training was not uniform, different instructors were teaching different things, there was no "quality control". Some students graduated knowing a good bit, some knew almost nothing, and had to be re-trained by their ARTCC. (At least that was the feeling I got when I was an instructor there.)

 

That is unavoidable, teachers focus on different aspects of the training material, and given the circomestances, it was relatively uniform training. We graduated a lot of very fine controllers. Moving it back to the ARTCC-level only diminishes the uniformity in training, and tremendously slows down the student from controlling their first position.

 

It's not to say that some students left the academy and left their ARTCC instructors puzzling as to how they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed, but the majority of graduates turned out to be pretty good.

 

I will say, one thing I absolutely hated about the academy was the tests. They were horribly worded, and in some cases, they were even incorrect in what was/wasn't the right answer to certain questions. The out-of-the-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]room portion of the academy was in dire need of a revamp.

 

That's not what I mean. Some instructors were just straight up not teaching some things. I don't mean that some were focusing more or less on different subjects, some just didn't cover them at all.

[Kyle Gibson 937127]

I will second that the test questions on most of the tests VATUSA has made are a little too tricky and sometimes wrong. I found 2 wrong ones on an S3 test the other day. I believe the questions shouldn't be made to stump the controller. Making someone take a very difficult test is kind of pointless. If you want to make these tests useful to everyone, make them questions that are useful to what the new global policy requires them to know for that position. Make it a quick test that questions phraseology and judgment. Also, double check all the training reference to make sure it is correct. I think having to know the range for a VOR in FS is kind of a not so good question to have on a test (especially when you're not supposed to use the reference). I also posted something in the staff forum about this, but I got no response. What do you guys think of having a study site? I know that some of my past teachers used a site called quia where flash cards and memory games can be put. It's a lot easier to use flash cards than to stare at a piece of paper. Whenever I started using these flashcards, my grades improved A LOT. Here was one of their sites: http://quia.com/pages/creuropeanhistory.html. I don't know if we can duplicate this using our site or what. That's just food for thought.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Kyle, we have caught quite a few bad questions over the years, ranging from poorly worded to just plain wrong. If/when you come across these, contact Chris Waldo and/or Fred...wait...did Fred retire? I don't see him on the Staff Roster anymore.

 

In any event, they have been very willing to work with us in the past on correcting the questions. You just need to let them know.

[Kyle Gibson 937127]

I had already told Chris and Andrew, and I think they took care of it. Thanks though Bryan.

[Kyle Steever 810905]

That's not what I mean. Some instructors were just straight up not teaching some things. I don't mean that some were focusing more or less on different subjects, some just didn't cover them at all.

 

I taught ATC103A (the "tower lab" cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] if you will) as my first cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] and had it literally dropped in my lap. I was going to sit in and watch Eugene Zaporozhets (sp?) but he could not get his towersim to work and therefore wouldnt be able to administer it, alongside the fact that he had some other stuff in real life come up. He emailed me towersim and the appropriate files since I had just come onto the academy as an instructor and I ran with it. I loaded up the tower scenario and while I was figuring out towersim I began an oral exam of the 7 or 8 students that were in there, based on all of the material that they had been taught up to that point (not just tower operations). 2 of them, Matt Bartels and Will Stewart were in that cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] if I remember right. MB is a S3 and Events director now at ZAU and ST is still an S3 (I believe) @ ZBW. They can attest that when I went through the tower lab with people, there were some guys in there that didn't have a clue what they were doing. Clearances were completely inaccurate. Nobody had ever heard of CRAFT, even after I explained what it was, they didn't know the methodology behind a clearance. This should have been covered in their 101 (clearance) cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] by their instructor, but it wasnt for some reason. Some of them had issues with telling aircraft to taxi etc etc.

 

I wasn't expecting 100%. I knew all we were teaching was the basics, but these guys had absolutely no idea. At the end of that session, the 5 guys that remained and listened to each other work aircraft thanked me and told me that I was the best instructor they had at the academy because I actually took the time to explain things and when someone made an error, I would point it out, ask them what they thought it would be, and correct them from there. That gave me a great deal of frustration. Also, as far as uniformity, any time I ever ran a Lecture I went through the lecture material with people one by one and would create theoretical questions based on the material on that page and ask the students what they would do if in that situation etc etc. If the powers that be would be interested in giving a run at the training academy again, I think there should be an advisory panel of I-1's and 3's, not regular controllers that should convene on a week by week basis, look at what we had before, how we can improve it and work on it from there. While streamlining it we could select individual new controllers from our particular sector to "run through" the academy as a test group and see how they liked it, where they got snagged etc etc.

 

I'll be the first to volunteer for such a committee. I spend 10-20 hours a week training controllers at KZME right now, and love every minute of it. The thing that we must remember is that we can not rush into this. We must use extreme discretion and build it solid, working out kinks as they come up before going public. The academy seemed clunky and confusing to me, but I never had to go through it so I was already adept at not using it.

 

Slander me if you like, I'm done now

[Cornell Lloyd 952716]

That's not what I mean. Some instructors were just straight up not teaching some things. I don't mean that some were focusing more or less on different subjects, some just didn't cover them at all.

 

I taught ATC103A (the "tower lab" cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] if you will) as my first cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] and had it literally dropped in my lap. I was going to sit in and watch Eugene Zaporozhets (sp?) but he could not get his towersim to work and therefore wouldnt be able to administer it, alongside the fact that he had some other stuff in real life come up. He emailed me towersim and the appropriate files since I had just come onto the academy as an instructor and I ran with it. I loaded up the tower scenario and while I was figuring out towersim I began an oral exam of the 7 or 8 students that were in there, based on all of the material that they had been taught up to that point (not just tower operations). 2 of them, Matt Bartels and Will Stewart were in that cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] if I remember right. MB is a S3 and Events director now at ZAU and ST is still an S3 (I believe) @ ZBW. They can attest that when I went through the tower lab with people, there were some guys in there that didn't have a clue what they were doing. Clearances were completely inaccurate. Nobody had ever heard of CRAFT, even after I explained what it was, they didn't know the methodology behind a clearance. This should have been covered in their 101 (clearance) cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] by their instructor, but it wasnt for some reason. Some of them had issues with telling aircraft to taxi etc etc.

Kyle, I'm sorry if you felt like the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] was dropped in your lap, as that was not my intention. I actually remember when you came on as a teacher, you helped us out tremendously and I applaud you for that. As far as some students not knowing the material, you CANNOT put the blame on the teachers in the academy (I will say we had a few issues with teachers who did not comply with the Academy rules and they were handled appropriately). Did it ever occur that maybe some students had a hard time catching on.

 

I wasn't expecting 100%. I knew all we were teaching was the basics, but these guys had absolutely no idea. At the end of that session, the 5 guys that remained and listened to each other work aircraft thanked me and told me that I was the best instructor they had at the academy because I actually took the time to explain things and when someone made an error, I would point it out, ask them what they thought it would be, and correct them from there. That gave me a great deal of frustration. Also, as far as uniformity, any time I ever ran a Lecture I went through the lecture material with people one by one and would create theoretical questions based on the material on that page and ask the students what they would do if in that situation etc etc. If the powers that be would be interested in giving a run at the training academy again, I think there should be an advisory panel of I-1's and 3's, not regular controllers that should convene on a week by week basis, look at what we had before, how we can improve it and work on it from there. While streamlining it we could select individual new controllers from our particular sector to "run through" the academy as a test group and see how they liked it, where they got snagged etc etc.

Why should we only limit the academy faculty to I1s and I3s, the least of amount of people on the network? We have many qualified, hell, overly qualified C3s and maybe even a few C1s that would be perfect teachers.

 

I'll be the first to volunteer for such a committee. I spend 10-20 hours a week training controllers at KZME right now, and love every minute of it. The thing that we must remember is that we can not rush into this. We must use extreme discretion and build it solid, working out kinks as they come up before going public. The academy seemed clunky and confusing to me, but I never had to go through it so I was already adept at not using it.

I agree that we do need to open up a new academy and I hope that one will be opened in the future as I believe it helped ARTCCs out tremendously. Kyle, if you're planning on trying to get an academy committee started I'd love to join you.

Slander me if you like, I'm done now

 

Bottom line, I believe that the Academy's success played a major part in its closing (as the other two previous VATUSA12s also agreed with me). At the closing of the Academy we had an upwards of 650 students and we just were not handled to take that on. Not because we didn't want to, but because we just didn't have the staff. When the Academy was suspended I was under the impression (as were many others) that it would open its doors again in three to four months (about now, as we can all see that obviously wasn't true. Evidently, it wasn't as important to Dennis and Chris as it was to me.

[Kyle Steever 810905]

I wasn't complaining about the 103A cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] being dropped in my lap. I could have said i was uncomfortable and postponed, but I took it and went with it. (I love the thrill of a good challenge/hunt) As far as finger pointing, I'll do none of it because I wasn't party to their earlier training so i cant point at the lesson material, the student, or the instructor as far as who is really at fault.

 

In regards to the only I-1's comment, where do you see I said the only academy instructors should be I-1+? I said I thought we should convene an advisory panel made up of I-1+'s. I made no mention of who I thought would teach the academy. I think an initial advisory panel composed of an Instructor from each ARTCC at a minimum (This would give us an idea of approximate volume the academy would need to pump out each week/month to not build a backlog like the previous one, as well as a more level "playing field" when it came to whos doing what and how much etc). From there we would go about "hiring" individuals that would meet the qualifications set forth by, you guessed it, the advisory board.

 

I'm also not one to attempt starting a committee. If I do so I'll probably receive a nasty email from VATUSA staff members criticizing me for undermining the leadership and that they are completely capable of handling the division with their current staff. No offense to the VATUSA staff here, but since the changeover of VATUSA1 and the staff that changed out following the leadership change from JU to MT to DW, I haven't seen a lot done that was promised. It's been almost two full months now though, and I haven't walked in any of their shoes personally, so I'll keep the rest to myself as I'm not one to criticize without having "been there".

[Cornell Lloyd 952716]

I wasn't complaining about the 103A cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] being dropped in my lap. I could have said i was uncomfortable and postponed, but I took it and went with it. (I love the thrill of a good challenge/hunt) As far as finger pointing, I'll do none of it because I wasn't party to their earlier training so i cant point at the lesson material, the student, or the instructor as far as who is really at fault.

 

In regards to the only I-1's comment, where do you see I said the only academy instructors should be I-1+? I said I thought we should convene an advisory panel made up of I-1+'s. I made no mention of who I thought would teach the academy. I think an initial advisory panel composed of an Instructor from each ARTCC at a minimum (This would give us an idea of approximate volume the academy would need to pump out each week/month to not build a backlog like the previous one, as well as a more level "playing field" when it came to whos doing what and how much etc). From there we would go about "hiring" individuals that would meet the qualifications set forth by, you guessed it, the advisory board.

 

I'm also not one to attempt starting a committee. If I do so I'll probably receive a nasty email from VATUSA staff members criticizing me for undermining the leadership and that they are completely capable of handling the division with their current staff. No offense to the VATUSA staff here, but since the changeover of VATUSA1 and the staff that changed out following the leadership change from JU to MT to DW, I haven't seen a lot done that was promised. It's been almost two full months now though, and I haven't walked in any of their shoes personally, so I'll keep the rest to myself as I'm not one to criticize without having "been there".

 

Kyle,

 

I do apologize for misreading your post. I am glad you do not feel as I felt you felt regarding who should be able to teach at the/any academy. I will ask, though, what do you have against C3s on the advisory panel?

[Kyle Steever 810905]

How about the fact that their controlling skills are inadequate compared to my WTFPWN controlling skills since I'm a supervisor. I'm sure Ross will chime in here about being an administrator and being able to WTFPWN me, so i'll take the limelight while I can.

 

(Above was purely to cause a chuckle)

 

I've nothing against C-3's to be honest. Instructor's are proven members of the community that have a desire to teach others. If a C-3 feels competent in their abilities to control and thinks that they can teach someone else our craft, then they should be given a trial at mentor in their ARTCC and then if performance is satisfactory they can be reccomended as an I-1 by their TA. I-1's are the people out there that enjoy teaching people and want to give back to the ARTCC's and community that gave so much to them. There is an uncommon dedication from many I-1's and higher to help VATSIM, and I think starting out with gentlemen on that advisory board who are instructors would help keep the motivation up, and keep personal vendettas where they belong (contained to local ARTCC's, not the community as a whole).